The 2nd Annual Canadian Water Summit- Are We Heading in the Right Direction?

I had the opportunity on June 14, 2011, to attend the 2nd Annual Canadian Water Summit at the International Centre as a delegate with Waterlution.

The Summit was a great forum and networking opportunity to get the conversation going among involved and critical multi-stakeholders on issues of the future of water quality and quantity, as well as governance in Canada. It was attended by business professionals and investors, water industry representatives, building and municipal stakeholders as well as government officials, water industry regulators, NGOs, academics and community representatives. As the snippet images from the Summit's site display, questions of significant importance were placed on the agenda for discussion. 

Setting aside the magnitude and relevance of these questions, the overall direction of the conversation carried solid undertones of market-driven solutions. I suppose the popular mindset is "if you can't change the system you need to work with it". I am still not so convinced that fighting shy of putting the critical question of "what is wrong with the system that led us to where we are today?" at the heart of these discussions - simply because "we've exhausted the conversation", "it's a thing of the past", "only leftists/anti-capitalists ask this type of questions"  or because "it unleashes a whole new can of worms and becomes too complex to tackle"- can lead us to sustainable sustainability (if I may). 

With the tagline "let's work together to drive real progress in our world", IBM proposed that technology is the way to go. The technologies presented by their Smarter City/Smarter Planet program were certainly ingenious and a progressive contribution to tackling emerging water management problems (i.e advanced weather forecast systems determining amounts of rain and issuing signals to cities to prepare in advance so they avoid sewerage system floods; an iphone app that allows users to report water leaks; households subscribing to receive instant messages from utilities about their water consumption levels). Presenter Michael Sullivan explained that 45% of water is lost due to leaks in an aging water infrastructure around the world, and some of the technologies they have devised can deal with that. Great advancements indeed! However, when a participant posed the question of why IBM's current and prospective deals are concentrated in Europe and North America and whether there is potential to share this technology with  developing countries dealing with urgent water crises (as in Sub-Saharan Africa) who may not be able to afford it, the unsatisfying response was "We are a business, and we run as a business". This begs the question then: in WHOSE world are we driving "real" progress?

Other recurrent approaches seemed to be international collaboration and alliances to regulate industries and companies on a voluntary basis (i.e Water Disclosure Project- part of Carbon Disclosure Project; Blue Economy Initiative, Aqueduct, Global Water Roundtable etc.).  Again, these initiatives are a great start, but more than anything they are an indication for a need for REGULATION. Their pitfall in my opinion, is that a voluntary approach and "incentives" are insufficient to exert enough pressure on companies to acknowledge their footprint and contribution to escalating the water crisis (i.e mining companies in developing communities) and although such measures may provoke some action, it is questionable to what extent this action will be bold, organic and of magnitude, setting the bar high for regulatory progress and for preventing future recourse for loss in profit (as in the case of Metalclad among many other examples).
On the grassroots level, municipality and provincial representatives shared their endless plight to address local water management and its dynamic challenges. It was shocking to learn that despite Ontario being a leader in innovative technology in the water sector - currently working on a technology transfer program with other countries- an estimate of only 1% of this technology is actually used nationally. Minister of Research and Innovation, Glen Murray, brought this to our attention, and he ended with quite a striking and reverberating comment: "if you don't understand that the economy is a subset of the environment, then you just don't get it!" Seldom do we make this link, and often do we think that the environment is a subset of the economy. This may be a core problem in our perception; and perception, unfortunately, is reality.

A final note on the event and one that is most humanizing in my opinion, is a contrasting perspective presented by Native environmentalist of Turtle Clan Mohawk, Danny Beaton, who reminded everyone that what is of urgency is our acknowledgment as a human race that we are stewards of this earth and that water is the sacred blood of mother earth. We have for long abused our relationship with mother earth and are today paying the price for it. We need to relearn to appreciate the sun, the earth, water, life. Perhaps a return to the basics is really all it takes. Technology is a solution, but with every invention we invent its problems. Perhaps the question of "what is wrong with the system?" is not so complex afterall. It is easy. The system is not sustainable. Hypercapitalism is not sustainable. How can we speak of sustainability in an unsustainable system? Minor or major tweaks and fiscal resurgence of management solutions and regulation does not lead to sustainability. It simply delays the problem, it does not solve it. A return to the basics is simple- I'll let your imagination interpret the possibilities of this concept...