The Young Professionals Debate is one of my many highlights from the recently concluded World Water Week 2024, held from August 25–29, online and on-site at Waterfront Congress Centre in Stockholm. This year’s debate focused on “building bridges to a water-secure future.” It raised the question: is conflict a necessity for water security and resilience?
“Let us leave the fantasy of conflict-driven resilience in books where it belongs. If conflicts were the secret ingredient for water resilience, Iraq would be one of the most water-secure nations on earth, however, these disasters have made us more fragile,” said Dania Al Khafaji, one of the debaters, who argued against the notion that conflict is essential for water resilience.
Dania shared real-life experiences of water-occasioned conflicts – including her reality in Iraq. She stressed the difficulty of getting through extreme conflicts and this made me realize how our lived experiences significantly colour how we interpret conflict as contributing to water security and resilience-building, or otherwise.
In stark contrast to Dania’s argument, those supporting conflict as necessary for water resilience cited examples of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands, showing very clearly different definitions, context and scales of conflict. However, all presenters acknowledged that conflict comes with huge costs: social, environmental, and economic.
The debaters discussed the concept of “building back better”, especially after destructive conflicts, noting the difficulty of achieving true recovery. Post-conflict, it is possible for affected communities to build back or to be built back by leveraging external financial investments or supports, but these communities are rarely built back better; given other irrecoverable losses, better becomes relative. During and after conflict, priority shifts from infrastructure to basic survival. While conflict may indeed attract attention and bring investment to water issues, the human and environmental cost is often too great to retrieve.
Additionally, the debate highlighted how conflict-ridden communities stand the risk of compromising or losing their independence. When external entities step in to address water-related conflict, they present their interests or make demands that seem unpleasant to the recipients.
Water conflicts increase with water scarcity. Though we cannot predict every disaster, with climate change impacts becoming more prominent in different parts of the world, an unimaginable water crisis might be lurking, one that will be beyond geographical boundaries.
The debates recognized the advantage of non-destructive conflict as a useful tool to articulate heterogeneous views on how water is used and managed. The complexities of resolving water challenges, including social, political, and transboundary issues, were also debated. Also emphasized during the debate was the importance of proactive approaches to water security, such as deliberate investments, recognizing Indigenous knowledge, and addressing historically discriminatory water regulations.
Overall, this was a clear reminder that conflict is an inevitable part of human interaction in every society and can be a catalyst for investments, resilience and development. Our priority should be to resolve, or at least manage, every form of conflict, preventing such from cascading to being destructive.
I have always liked debates and hope to see more of such at international conferences to effectively bring real-life experiences closer to the audience, and to bridge the gap between abstract concepts and tangible realities.
Paraphrasing a point raised by Inna Vinnychuk, one of the debaters: “We do not have to wait until we witness the next destructive conflict before thinking about water resilience. The next disaster might be one that will be difficult to recover from. We must cooperate now.”
This reflections are from my participation at the Young Professionals Debate as part of my work with the Marketing Team of SIWI’s World Water Week 2024. First published here.