**1.7 Comparing different management approaches**

When viewed on a spectrum, all three water management approaches – supply management, demand management, and the soft path – represent incremental steps toward sustainability. However, far from being a simple progression some key characteristics distinguish them. The most significant difference is the view of the limits of water available for human use and of the nature of the choices that should determine how we manage water. Figure 2 is an idealized sketch of the different paths that will result from following each of the three approaches.

Water demand management seeks primarily water efficiency, and is often focused on the implementation of cost-effective ways to achieve the same service with less water. Demand management options have been known for years, but with water prices kept artificially low, little incentive existed for widespread adoption (Brandes et al, 2005).

Though demand management has always been part of how water system operate, it is typically treated as a secondary or temporary measure needed until additional supplies are secured. Changing our water management paradigm requires that demand management become the primary focus. With rampant growth and the uncertainty of climate change, reducing the demand for water is our best "source" of "new" water (Brandes et al, 2005).

The soft path approach changes the conception of "water." Instead of being viewed simply as an end product, water becomes the means to accomplish specific tasks, such as sanitation or agricultural production. Conventional demand management asks the question "How" –

4. The soft path requires water agency or company personnel to interact closely with water users and to effectively engage community groups in water management. Users need help determining how much water of various qualities they need, and to capture low-cost opportunities. In contrast, the hard path is governed by an engineering

5. The soft path recognizes that ecological health and the activities that depend on it (e.g., fishing, swimming, tourism, delivery of clean raw water to downstream users) are water-based services demanded, at least in part, by their customers, not just third parties. Water that is not abstracted, treated, and distributed is being used productively to meet these demands. Water is part of a natural infrastructure that stores and uses water in productive ways. The hard path, by ignoring this natural infrastructure, often reduces the amount and quality of water available for use. The hard path defines infrastructure as built structures, rather than separating it into built and natural

6. The soft path recognizes the complexity of water economics, including the power of economies of scope. The hard path looks at projects, revenues, and economies of scale. An economy of scope exists when a combined decision-making process would allow specific services to be delivered at lower cost than would result from separate decisionmaking processes. For example, water suppliers, flood control departments, and landuse authorities can often reduce the total cost of services to their customers by accounting for the interactions that none of the authorities can account for alone. This requires thinking about landuse patterns, flood control, and water demands in an

When viewed on a spectrum, all three water management approaches – supply management, demand management, and the soft path – represent incremental steps toward sustainability. However, far from being a simple progression some key characteristics distinguish them. The most significant difference is the view of the limits of water available for human use and of the nature of the choices that should determine how we manage water. Figure 2 is an idealized sketch of the different paths that will result from following

Water demand management seeks primarily water efficiency, and is often focused on the implementation of cost-effective ways to achieve the same service with less water. Demand management options have been known for years, but with water prices kept artificially low,

Though demand management has always been part of how water system operate, it is typically treated as a secondary or temporary measure needed until additional supplies are secured. Changing our water management paradigm requires that demand management become the primary focus. With rampant growth and the uncertainty of climate change, reducing the demand for water is our best "source" of "new" water (Brandes et al, 2005).

The soft path approach changes the conception of "water." Instead of being viewed simply as an end product, water becomes the means to accomplish specific tasks, such as sanitation or agricultural production. Conventional demand management asks the question "How" –

little incentive existed for widespread adoption (Brandes et al, 2005).

mentality that is accustomed to meeting generic needs.

components.

integrated, not isolated, way.

each of the three approaches.

**1.7 Comparing different management approaches** 

How can we get more from each drop of water? Water soft paths also ask the question "Why" – Why should we use water to do this at all? (Brandes et al, 2005).

Fig. 2. Planning for the future with a soft path approach. (Brandes et al, 2005)

### **1.8 One continuing gap in soft path analyses**

Probably the most legitimate criticism of energy soft path studies was that they neglected issues of equity. This led to many comments about the need to introduce environmental justice as an explicit element of policy, regardless of the nature of the policy. If that criticism was true of energy, it is even more so of water. The inequities in water and land distribution around the world are sizable and, as a result of misguided policies that promote centralization and privatization, they seem to be growing. As it is, poor people in urban areas commonly pay 10 times as much per litre for water of questionable quality as do richer people for water of good quality; and poor subsistence farmers sometimes (especially if they are women) get no water at all when commercial farms are adequately supplied (Webb et al , and Koppen et al in Brooks et al 2004). Though it is almost unquestionably true that water soft paths would improve the situation for poor people around the world, water soft paths by themselves are not sufficient. As emphasized by staff at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) in Sri Lanka, water policies must be explicitly "pro-poor" and "pro-women". Urban water systems in developing countries are notoriously leaky if one compares the difference between water put into the system and water that reaches registered consumers. Some of those leaks are true losses, but some (highly indeterminate) portion is "stolen" or redirected to illegal taps, which may serve hundreds of poor residents. Fixing the "leaks," another common recommendation, should be undertaken only if coupled with additional, and possibly free, taps in low-income neighborhoods. In short, greater efficiency for water needs to be tempered with concern for equity, and this concern must be introduced explicitly in soft path analyses.

Water Soft Path Analysis – Jordan Case 295

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of rainfall in Jordan (National Water Master Plan, 2004)

featured as a high priority in the National Agenda.

by Beautmont (2002) as follows:

The water challenge in Jordan stands as a major threat confronting human development and poverty alleviation. For this reason, the enhancement of water resource management is

A description of how serious the water situation is in Jordan is presented in a paper written

Of all the countries in the Middle East it is Jordan which faces the greatest water problems (Salameh & Bannayan,; Beaumont in Beautmont, 2002). To meet its predicted urban water demand of 832 million cubic meters by 2025 would require 113% of its current irrigation use (1990s). In other words even if it reallocates all the irrigation water which was being used in the 1990s there would not be sufficient water to meet the expected demand. When figures on renewable water resources are examined the position becomes even more serious. It can be seen that Jordan has an internal renewable water resource base of 680 million cubic meters and a total natural water resource base of 880 million cubic meters. Yet in the 1990s withdrawals were 984 million cubic meters, which is well in excess of the total natural water
