bs_bs_banner

Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Water security: Old concepts, new package, what value?

Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake

Abstract
“Water security” has come to infiltrate prominent discourse in the international water and development community, and
achieving it is often viewed as a new water sector target. Despite the elevated status that the concept has increasingly
acquired, understandings of the term are murky and quantification is rare. To promote a more tangible understanding of the
concept, this paper develops an index for evaluating water security at a country level. The index is comprised of indicators
in five components considered to be critical to the concept: (i) basic needs; (ii) agricultural production; (iii) the environment;
(iv) risk management; and (v) independence. Achieving water security in these components can be considered necessary but
insufficient criteria to measure the achievement of security in related areas such as health, livelihoods, and industry. After
populating indicators with data from Asia-Pacific countries, results are interpreted and the viability of methods is discussed.
This effort comprises an important first step for quantifying and assessing water security across countries, which should spur
more concrete understanding of the term and discussion of its added value. narf_1448 76..87

Keywords: Water security; water management; IWRM; Asia-Pacific.

1. Introduction the concept of water security remains largely unquantified.2

While there may be advantages to leaving the concept as a
Water security has assumed an increasingly prominent qualitative theoretical ideal, there are simultaneously
position in the international water and development several benefits to translating water security into numerical
community in recent years. Staff at the World Bank have terms. First, it can encourage clarity and common
explained that water security is critical for growth and understanding of a concept around which there currently
development (Grey and Sadoff, 2007; Grey and Connors, exists substantial ambiguity. Second, it can help to foster
2009). The importance of water security for the sustainable discussion and debate on scales and thresholds for
development of countries like China has been recognized evaluating the presence, absence or degree of water
nationally (Chen, 2004; Cheng et al., 2004; Liu et al., security. Third, it can help to assess the extent to which the
2007). Water security has been at the heart of high pro- concept is really being achieved on the ground in different
file negotiations on a Cooperative Framework Agreement locations.
in the Nile Basin (WaterLink, 2010). Finally, academia This paper devises an index that quantifies water security
(Briscoe, 2009, Sinha, 2009; Tarlok and Wouters, 2009; at a country level in order to encourage a more concrete
University of East Anglia, 2009; Vorosmarty et al., 2010; understanding of the term. An initial section (section 2)
Zeitoun, 2011; Cook and Bakker, 2012) and other devel- reviews definitions of water security and identifies five
opment actors (FAO, 2000; Swaminathan, 2001; Asian components that provide a conceptual framework for
Development Bank, 2007; Biswas and Seetharam, 2008; assessment: basic needs, agricultural production, the
Asia Society, 2009) have also placed prominent emphasis environment, risk management, and independence. The
on the concept.1 conceptual framework is then translated into a set of
Despite the elevated status that the term has increasingly numerical indicators (section 3), which are populated with
acquired in policy documents and development discourse, data from 46 countries in the Asia-Pacific region to generate
2
Only Maplecroft (2011), a private sector UK-based consulting firm, has
Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake are at the International Water attempted to quantify “water security risk” as a guide for private sector
Management Institute, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. E-mails: j.lautze@cgiar. investment in countries. Their methods are somewhat untransparent,
org and [email protected] however, and it is not clear that they have released formal publications on
1
We acknowledge that some of these documents feature the language of their work. Vorosmarty et al. (2010) has assessed threats to water security
water security prominently yet use the term quite loosely. rather than water security per se.

© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations

 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 77

a set of results (section 4). The Asia-Pacific was selected this component such as industry and energy. Focus was
because of its great diversity of water resources conditions confined to agriculture in the second component because
and economic development levels, and due to its degree agriculture is the largest productive use of water, and
of available data. Finally, key issues revealed through because water was considered too peripheral to the
undertaking this approach are examined (section 5), and the outcomes of other productive activities. With industry, for
viability of the approach and added value of water security example, water is but one input among many, and different
as a concept are discussed (section 6). levels of industrial output are likely most associated with
factors other than different levels of water security. As for
energy, while some countries rely on hydropower as a
2. Conceptual framework critical source of energy, other countries satisfy all their
energy requirements without making use of hydropower.3
As water security is a fairly new concept, definitions of the Gauging water security related to hydropower in a cross-
term appear to be evolving. Reviewing four key definitions country fashion, therefore, is severely constrained by the
of the term suggests that the meaning of water security non-essentiality of hydropower for energy production in
has grown somewhat more expansive since its initial use, some countries. Finally, while there may be a more direct
to include more explicit focus on agriculture and food connection in the case of water for cooling after electricity
production, adverse impacts of water, and national security. generation, there was insufficient national-level data on
The Global Water Partnership (2000) first defined water water for cooling so it was not considered.4
security simply as an overarching goal where “every person Importantly, consideration of these five components can
has access to enough safe water at affordable cost to lead a be treated as important to enabling many of the outcomes
clean, healthy and productive life, while ensuring the linked to water security, such as adequate food consumption,
environment is protected and enhanced.” Swaminathan healthy people, economic development and environmental
(2001) then stated that water security “involves the conservation. However, achieving security in these areas is a
availability of water in adequate quantity and quality in function of much more than water security. For example,
perpetuity to meet domestic, agricultural, industrial and while water security can imply that economies are buffered
ecosystem needs.” Cheng et al. (2004) subsequently defined from droughts and floods, this does not mean that economies
water security to include access to safe water at an will be resilient from other shocks such as those related
affordable cost to enable healthy living and food production, to global financial crises. Similarly, while water security
while ensuring the water environment is protected and implies sufficient agricultural production to feed a commu-
water-related disasters such as droughts and floods are nity or country, the selection of crops that satisfy nutritional
prevented. Finally, Grey and Sadoff’s (2007:545) more needs, and the distribution and provision of those crops in a
recent definition of water security is focused on “the time-appropriate manner may not fall within the parameters
availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for of water security — this is food security. As such, water
health, livelihoods, ecosystems and production, coupled security can be considered but one contributor to the security
with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, of other areas such as food and environment. Ultimate
environments and economies.” security in these areas, however, relies on factors over and
Despite some differences, these definitions have several above those specific to water security.
common strands. A first common strand is a focus on access
to potable water for basic human needs or domestic use.
A second relates to provision of water for productive 3. Methods
activities — presumably production of agriculture, food and
industrial goods, as specified in some definitions. A third is To assess water security for basic needs, agricultural
the focus on environmental conservation or protection. A production, the environment, risk management and
fourth strand, common at least to the latter two definitions, is independence, data were utilized from a combination of
prevention of water-related disasters. A final element worth recent sources (e.g., FAO AQUASTAT, 2007; WHO, 2009;
noting relates to Grey and Sadoff’s (2007) broader treatment World Resources Institute, 2009). Methods used to assess
of risk, which strongly suggests inclusion of issues related to water security in each of the five components of the
water for national security or independence.
Based on the four common strands and the final element 3
One option to consider water security for energy is to stratify countries
specific to Grey and Sadoff (2007), a conceptual framework according to the degree to which hydropower contributes to their energy
is hereby proposed that contains five components: basic production. In the subset of countries in which hydropower satisfies a
needs, agricultural production, the environment, risk major portion of energy requirements, a supplemental indicator could be
used to gauge water security for energy.
management, and independence. It should be noted that the 4
Quantities of biofuel and desalinated water production are two other
focus of the second component was confined to agricultural areas that may be considered in future analysis. At present, however, their
production, which encompasses food production yet use would appear too limited in most countries to justify incorporation into
excludes other areas that may plausibly be subsumed within an assessment framework.

© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations

78 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Table 1. Calculating water security

Overall Water Security = A + B + C + D + E

Component Definition Scoring System Source

A = Basic Percentage of Population with High percentage of population with access to improved water WHO (2009)
Household Sustainable Access to an Improved source = 5 to low percentage of population with access to
Needs Water Source improved water source = 1
B = Food The extent to which water is available Water security for agricultural production = (a + b)/2 FAO AQUASTAT
Production and harnessed for agricultural a. Water availability From low availability = (2007)
production (RWR/population) 1 to high availability = 5
b. Water use From low withdrawal =
(Withdrawal/population) 1 to high withdrawal = 5
C = Environmental Percentage of Renewable Water High percentage above EWR = 5 to low percentage above converted from
Flows Resources (RWR) available in EWR = 1 Smakhtin et al.
excess of environmental water (2004)
requirement (EWR). That is, [RWR
- (environmental water requirement
+ withdrawn water)]/RWR.
D = Risk Risk Management measures the extent Risk Management = (a + b)/2 Mitchell et al. (2002);
Management to which countries are buffered a. Inter-annual CV From low CV = 5 to high CV=1 ICOLD (2003); FAO
from the effects of rainfall b. Storage From high storage = 5 to low AQUASTAT (2007)
variability through large dam storage = 1
storage
E = Independence Independence measures the extent to From low dependence on external waters = 5 to high WRI (2009)
which countries water and food dependence = 1
supplies are safe and secure from
external changes or shocks

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

framework are discussed below and summarized in composite of two sub-indicators: (i) water availability per
Table 1. A quintile-based approach was utilized in each capita and (ii) water withdrawal per capita. Data for both
component, whereby countries were ranked according to sub-indicators were obtained from FAO AQUASTAT (2007).
their performance, divided into five quintiles that were Water availability per capita (i.e., renewable water resources/
approximately equal in size, and assigned a score depending population) provides an indication of total water available for
on the quintile into which they fell. agricultural production. It is particularly relevant to rainfed
agriculture in a country, but it also provides an indication of
3.1. Water security for basic needs the potential for irrigation. Given that greater water
availability enables more rainfed agriculture and greater
To assess the degree to which countries have achieved water potential for irrigation, greater water availability per capita
security for the basic needs of their populations, we utilized can be associated with greater water security for agricultural
data from the World Health Organization (2009) on the production. Water withdrawal per capita provides an
percentage of populations with sustainable access (within 1 indication of how much control a country possesses of its
km) to an improved water source (household connections, water resources. Given that agriculture is the primary user of
public standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, protected water in virtually every country, accounting for more than
springs and rainwater collection). Results for countries were 80% of water use in Asia (FAO AQUASTAT, 2007), greater
ranked according to the proportion of their population with control of water can be associated with greater water security
sustainable access to an improved water source and divided for agricultural production.
into five groups of roughly equal size. A score between 1 and For each of the two sub-indicators (water availability per
5 was assigned to each group: 5 indicates a greater propor- capita and water withdrawal per capita), countries were
tion of a country’s population has sustainable access to an ranked and divided into five groups. A score between 1 and
improved water source and 1 indicates a smaller proportion 5 was then assigned to each group. For the first sub-
has sustainable access to an improved water source. indicator, a score of 5 reflects greater water availability per
capita, and a score of 1 indicates less water availability per
3.2. Water security for agricultural production capita. For the second sub-indicator, a score of 5 indicates
greater water withdrawal per capita and a score of 1
The degree to which water security for agricultural indicates less water withdrawal per capita. Results in each
production is achieved in a country was treated as a of the two sub-components were then averaged. Therefore
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 79

5 represents greater water security for agricultural produc- 2002). Countries were divided into five groups according to
tion in a country, and 1 represents less water security for the degree of inter-annual rainfall variability, with lower
agricultural production in a country. rainfall variability scoring greater than higher rainfall
variability. To develop an aggregate score for risk
3.3. Water security for the environment management, each country’s scores in the two sub-
components were averaged. A scale of 1 through 5 was
The degree to which water security for the environment is utilized. Scores toward 5 indicate greater water security for
achieved in a country was considered to be the extent to risk management (i.e., more storage, less variability). Scores
which environmental water requirements are satisfied. toward 1 indicate less water security for risk management
Clearly, achieving sufficient quantities of water for (i.e., less storage, more variability).
environmental needs captures only part of the picture, as it
is also important that water for the environment be of 3.5. Water security for independence
appropriate quality. Nonetheless, since country-level data
on water quality were not widely available, focus was Recognizing that a country’s national security is tied to the
devoted solely to water quantity. degree to which it is capable of satisfying its own water needs
To assess country-level water security for environmental through internal means, water security for independence was
flows, we determined the percentage of un-withdrawn water considered to be the proportion of a country’s water
in excess of the environmental water requirement. To resources generated internally. To determine the proportion
calculate this percentage, we subtracted the amount of water of water originating inside a country, we utilized the
withdrawn and the environmental water requirement from dependency ratio (World Resources Institute, 2009), an
a country’s renewable water resources (converted from indicator of the proportion of a country’s water resources
Smakhtin et al., 2004). The remaining amount was then that are generated internally. Countries were categorized on
divided by a country’s renewable water resources (RWR).5 a scale of 1 through 5, such that a score of 5 indicates that
Countries were ranked, divided into 5 groups, and a score of a country is largely reliant on its own water resources and
1 through 5 was applied to each group: 5 indicates a greater 1 indicates a heavy reliance on external waters.6
proportion of water available in excess of the environmental
water requirements and 1 indicates a smaller proportion. 3.6. Overall water security index

3.4. Water security for risk management To generate a score for overall water security, results for
each of the five components were summed, producing a 25
Recognizing that many essential activities in countries are point scale (Table 1). Just as 5 point scales indicate the
vulnerable to fluctuations in rainfall and that storing water degree of water security achieved in individual components,
constitutes a viable method to mitigate the effects of these the broader score on a 25 point scale indicates the degree of
fluctuations, water security for risk management was overall water security in a particular country. In Figure 1,
considered to be the extent to which water storage capacities therefore, scores for each of the components are on a 5 point
are in place to offset a country’s level of inter-annual rainfall scale, and the overall maximum that can be achieved by a
variability. This indicator contains two sub-components. A country in all five components is 25 points. A higher score
first sub-component consists of the percentage of renewable indicates greater water security, and a lower score indicates
water resources stored in each country, calculated by the opposite.
dividing the storage capacity in large dam reservoirs
(International Commission on Large Dams, 2003) by the
country’s renewable water resources (FAO AQUASTAT, 4. Results
2007). Large dams are admittedly but one storage option, as
there are indeed other ways to store water such as in the Comparing the strength of overall water security scores
ground, soil, and behind small dams (IWMI, 2009; Taylor, across countries reveals substantial dispersion, with scores
2009). Nonetheless, accessible data across countries are only ranging from less than 10 to greater than 20 (Figure 1).
available for water storage behind large dams. Countries Noticeably, even in those countries that appear quite water
were stratified into five groups depending on the percent of secure, there still exist weak spots. Despite Australia’s
their renewable water resources that they store, with higher overall high level of water security, for example, the specific
storage levels scoring greater than lower storage levels. component of risk management appears only mediocre.
The second sub-indicator focused on inter-annual rainfall Similarly, Japan appears limited by its poor score in water
variability, for which we utilized the country-level data on security for the environment, and Malaysia could do with
inter-annual rainfall coefficient of variation (Mitchell et al., improvement in water security for the environment and

5 6
In other words, percentage in excess of environmental water requirement Judgement was used to allocate scores of high independence (i.e., 5) to
= [RWR - (environmental water requirement + withdrawn water)]/RWR. several island countries for which data in this component were unavailable.

© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations

80 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Australia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Bhutan
Japan
Kyrgyz Rep
Vietnam
Thailand
Philippines
Nepal
Solomon Islands*
Armenia
New Zealand*
Indonesia
Fiji
Mongolia
Lao PDR
Georgia*
Sri Lanka
Brunei*
Kazakhstan
China
Papua New Guinea
Cambodia
Bangladesh
Korea DPR*
Basic Water Needs
India
Tadjikistan Agricultural Production
Azerbaijan Environment
Pakistan
Risk Management
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan* Independence
Afghanistan

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 1. Water security in the Asia-Pacific, ordered from greatest to least water secure.
* Indicates that data are available for only four rather than all five components. Countries with data for less than four components are not displayed.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

independence. Conversely, in water insecure countries such A review of scores in individual water security
as Cambodia and Afghanistan, weak spots are apparent in at components reveals results that could be largely predicted
least four of the five components in the water security based on levels of economic development, yet which
framework. provide occasional surprises (Figure 3). Countries scoring
Some results for overall water security defy perceptions highly in water security for basic water needs (e.g.,
that water security is tied to economic development Australia, Georgia, Malaysia), are among the more
(Figure 2). For example, it was somewhat surprising to find developed in the Asia Pacific region or are former Soviet
countries such as Myanmar, Bhutan and the Kyrgyz Republics. Countries scoring low in basic water needs, for
Republic among those with the greatest level of overall example, Afghanistan, Cambodia and Fiji, are among
water security. Nonetheless, these countries are all quite the less developed in the region or are small island
water endowed, with much of their water resources states. Overall, the results of this component yield few
generated internally, and with less alteration to the surprises and could be said to be largely aligned with
environment than many other countries. Hence, their scores expectations.
in certain components may have been sufficient to buoy Results related to water security for agricultural
these countries’ overall water security scores. production were somewhat less aligned with levels of
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 81

Figure 2. Overall water security index.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

economic development (Figure 4). The Kyrgyz Republic, Many of the countries scoring highly in water security for
Lao PDR, Myanmar, Turkmenistan and Vietnam, for risk management, for example, Bhutan, New Zealand and
example, were among the countries that scored fairly high. Singapore — would likely be predicted to be effectively
The Republic of Korea and Singapore, by contrast, scored managing water-related risk (Figure 6). Other countries
fairly low. In the first group of countries, the results reflect such as Myanmar, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu might be
that mean quantities of renewable water resources per less expected to be effectively managing risk. Scores in
person, and levels of withdrawal per person, are relatively some countries may nonetheless appear deceivingly high
high. The latter group of countries has low per capita water due to the impacts of one storage infrastructure on a small
availability and low water withdrawal per person. These water resources base.7 Countries scoring low in water
findings may highlight the potential for greater agricultural security for risk management are mainly those with lower
production in the former group of countries. levels of economic development.
Results related to water security for the environment A review of the results for the final component in the
(Figure 5) indicate Southeast Asian countries to be rela- assessment framework, water security for independence,
tively strong and Central Asian countries to be somewhat yields few surprises (Figure 7). Countries that are islands
weak. Countries scoring highly — for example, Bangladesh, and located in upstream portions of basins fare better than
Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Nepal — are downstream nations. Countries such as Australia are more
concentrated in conditions of somewhat low levels of water water secure by virtue of their geographic position, for
resources development. Countries scoring lower —
for example, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan and 7
In the case of Myanmar, limited data in the component of risk
Uzbekistan — possess higher levels of water resources management may have worked to elevate the overall score of the country as
development. well.

© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations

82 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Figure 3. Water security for basic needs.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

example, while other countries such as Bangladesh are spur more concrete discussion on what the concept
fairly insecure due to their heavy reliance on inflows from truly means. One fundamental issue raised by the
upstream countries. methods employed relates to the assessment of relative
versus absolute water security. As apparent from the methods
section above, the approach utilized in this paper assessed
5. Discussion relative water security. Either approach has advantages and
limitations. Assessment of relative water security allows
The paper identified five key components of water security for the reality that there is not necessarily an ideal state
and translated them into numerical indicators that were of water security and that notions of good water security
applied across the countries of the Asia-Pacific. While the will be in constant evolution and implicitly affected by
results might spur few surprises if presented in countries known reference points (e.g., on-the-ground conditions in
due to local knowledge which may already exist on water countries). Treating notions of good water security as
sector strengths and weaknesses, a primary benefit of relative, however, fails to reflect the potential that the best
applying a water security framework such as this is to levels of water security on-the-ground may still be poor. By
understand how water secure countries are in relation to contrast, while evaluation of absolute water security enables
one another. A secondary benefit, if the framework is the assessment of countries according to more standardized
re-applied in the future, is monitoring the rate and thresholds, the identification of such thresholds would be no
direction of change in water security to enable comparison easy task and might be derived from practical country-level
over time. experiences anyway. Further, use of absolute indicators
An important goal of this paper was identifying some of could imply existence of an ideal state of water security,
the key issues inherent in assessing water security in order to which is debatable.
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 83

Figure 4. Water security for agricultural production.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Whichever the case, another issue raised by the approach way to improve the assessment framework is to include the
utilized in this paper relates to the scale at which water existence and functions of transboundary water agreements.
security is assessed. While country-level assessment If a country relies on external waters but such waters are
has advantages, in particular for international donors who assured through a treaty, for example, that country is clearly
typically transfer development funds to national govern- in a more water secure position than an analogous country
ments, evaluation of water security conditions at a country- without a treaty (Sadoff et al., 2008). To capture this
level is inconsistent with the fact that water management is nuance, the amount of water assured by a provision in an
often conducted at a basin-level. In some countries, all basins international treaty could be added to that which a country
fall within national borders, such that a country-level water generates internally. Although there are cases where treaty
security score can be considered an aggregation of water provisions are not honoured, implying that water assured
security in specific basins. However, many other countries through treaty is not as secure as that which is produ-
contain basins that cross borders, which may confound ced internally, consideration of transboundary treaties
results determined at a country level. A particular country would nonetheless help to reflect the reality that water
may have insufficient storage on its own territory to mitigate management is often undertaken at the basin-level, even in
the effects of rainfall variability, for example, but may be able the context of transboundary waters.
to rely on the storage capacities of an upstream neighbour. A third issue revealed by our approach relates to the
Similarly, while a country may generate too little water conceptualization of water security for agricultural pro-
internally to satisfy its national security needs, inflow from duction. There was a temptation related to this component to
an upstream country may be sufficiently assured through an make use of conventional indicators in agricultural water
international agreement. management, such as water productivity or yield per unit
In light of the confounding nature of transboundary of evapotranspiration. The approach utilized, however,
waters to country-level evaluation of water security, one measured water availability and use that enable agriculture
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
84 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Figure 5. Water security for the environment.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

and food production. While improving water productivity is one component of water security may adversely affect the
clearly a way to increase agricultural production, it is simply performance of other components, and vice versa. In
one means to improving agricultural production, and may particular, achieving higher levels of water security for
not be essential. In areas of economic water scarcity, for agricultural production and risk management may require
example, greater storage may be needed more urgently than higher levels of water storage and use, which may decrease
improved productivity (Molden et al., 2010). water available for the environment. Conversely, ensuring
A fourth issue raised by our approach relates to the ample water for the environment may constrain scores
inclusion of water storage behind large dams and exclusion in water security for agricultural production and risk
of other forms of storage such as groundwater and soil management.
moisture. While obviously our analysis would have been
strengthened through inclusion of all forms of storage,
national data for water stored in the ground and soil simply 6. Conclusion
do not exist at this point. This data constraint may have
biased the analysis in favour of those countries that focus on The development and application of the approach utilized in
large dam storage, and have somewhat underestimated the this paper has helped clarify the notion of water security,
water security in countries that make more effective use of and prompts at least two overarching suggestions for
groundwater and soil water to buffer themselves from the understanding the meaning and practical utility of the
effects of rainfall variability. concept. A first suggestion for reaching a more common
A final point relates to the aggregation of the five understanding of the concept is to move beyond qualitative
components into an overall water security index. While it is definitions to make a list, or finite set of criteria, on which
possible to perform well in all components of the assessment water security is determined and evaluated, as proposed in
framework, it must be acknowledged that performing well in this paper. While the criteria utilized in this paper may not
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 85

Figure 6. Water security for risk management.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

be perfect, it is believed they mark a valuable step toward In terms of the issue posed at the outset of this document
arriving at a clear meaning of the concept. A second about the added value of introducing the concept of water
suggestion is to clearly distinguish between means and security, the results are mixed. While focusing on five
ends. Analogous in some ways to the need to disentangle priority issues related to water management is important,
the common conflation of processes and outcomes in the benefits of bundling these five issues under the umbrella
the context of water governance (Lautze et al., 2011), of a new paradigm are not immediately apparent. On the
interpretations of water security could benefit from clear contrary, with so many other new concepts related to water
focus on the end of water security — not the means to water permeating discourse (e.g., IWRM, water governance,
security and not the ends beyond water security. hydropolitics), there may be confusion, scepticism and even
Interestingly, given the current ambiguity associated with fatigue associated with the introduction of another new
the concept, it seems somewhat ironic that so much term that is not concretely defined yet which is supposed to
importance is attached to it. In high profile negotiations comprise a panacea for water managers.
over a comprehensive agreement on Nile Basin waters, for There has indeed been a steady flow of new terms in the
example, water security is considered the paramount issue water management community in the last decade that have
on which negotiations have been stalled for multiple years not been matched by a steady flow of clear meanings, which
(WaterLink, 2010). Yet why should Governments agree to has engendered reactions of eye-rolling at the introduction
such a concept if a set of its key elements have not been of additional terms such as water security. Nonetheless,
clearly defined, and hold potential to undermine their while the lack of clear widely-accepted meanings would
positions if more exhaustively outlined at a subsequent appear to be to the terms’ detriment, one simultaneously
point? Or, conversely, what is the point to agreeing to a wonders whether there may be benefits to leaving the terms
concept that can ultimately be interpreted multiple ways in vague. If water security is de-shrouded to reveal that
the future? it is simply a package of five criteria that has already
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
86 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87

Figure 7. Water security for independence.

Source: Authors’ elaboration.

been utilized for decades, for example, the need for identifies the priority areas in water management, therefore,
packaging may be questioned and the topic may lose some there is added value in the concept. Nonetheless, the need to
of its allure. package the set of priority areas under a new label is not
From a more practical perspective, the need to aggregate clear, and indeed appears to be a mixed blessing. On the one
the five components in the assessment framework into hand, use of a well-chosen heading can spur — and has
an overall score is questionable, for at least two reasons. spurred — interest in an important set of key areas for water
First, presentation of overall scores for the countries management. On the other hand, use of such a heading
above typically triggers — almost immediately — interest may engender confusion and inflated expectations of the
in identifying the specific areas that explain such overall concepts subsumed beneath it.
scores. Second, related to the first, presentation of the
overall water security scores provides little direct guidance
to countries given all the information compressed into one Acknowledgements
value. Presentation of results at a component-level, by
comparison, provides indications of the factors explaining The authors would like to thank Vladimir Smakhtin for
water security performance, which in turn provide a basis providing feedback and guidance on the development of
for recommendations for improving conditions. this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank
In sum, the approach utilized in this paper constitutes an Sarath Gunasinghe for his work with Geographic
initial effort to assess the central components of water Information Systems (GIS) to develop the maps shown in
security and identify some of the major issues in this document. Finally, we would like to acknowledge that
undertaking such an exercise. There is clear value in the conceptualization of this paper was influenced by an
prioritizing critical areas in water management, and in Asian Development Bank project in which the authors
evaluating and comparing them. Insofar as water security participated.
© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations
 Jonathan Lautze and Herath Manthrithilake / Natural Resources Forum 36 (2012) 76–87 87

References Lautze, J., De Silva, S., Giordano, M., Sanford, L., 2011. Putting the cart
before the horse: IWRM and water governance. Natural Resources
Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2007. Asia Water Development outlook Forum, 35(1): 1–8.
achieving water security for Asia. Available at http://www.adb. Liu, B., Mei, X., Li, Yu, Yang, Y., 2007. The connotation and extension of
org/Documents/Books/AWDO/2007/awdo.pdf (accessed 15 July agricultural water resources security. Agricultural Sciences in China,
2011). 6(1): 11–16.
Asia Society, 2009. Leadership group on water security in Asia. Progress Maplecroft, 2011. Water security risk. Available at http://maplecroft.com/
report (June). Asia Pacific Water Forum. Available at http://www. about/news/water_security.html (accessed 3 March 2012).
apwf.org/archive/documents/5th_GC/3-17_Asia_Society_concrete_ini Mitchell, T.D., Hulme, M., New, M., 2002. Climate data for political areas.
tiative_report.pdf (accessed 15 July 2011). Area, 34(1): 109–112.
Biswas, A., Seetharam, K., 2008. Achieving water security for Asia, Molden, D., Lautze, J., Shah, T., Bin, D., Giordano, M., Sanford, L., 2010.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(1): Growing enough food without enough water — second best solutions
145–176. show the way. International Journal of Water Resources Development,
Briscoe, J., 2009. Harvard water initiative: Science technology and policy 26(2): 249–263.
for water security. Available at http://www.johnbriscoe.seas.harvard. Sadoff, C., Greiber, T., Smith, M., Bergkamp, G., 2008. Share —
edu/research/Harvard%20University%20Water%20Security%20Initia Managing water across boundaries. IUCN, Gland.
tive%2020090609.pdf (accessed 15 July 2011). Sinha, U., 2009. The why and what of water security. Strategic Analysis,
Chen, S., 2004. Differentiating and analyzing the concept of water 33(4): 470–474.
security. China Water Resources, 17: 13–15. Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C., Döll, P., 2004. A pilot global assessment of
Cheng, J., Yang, X., Wei, C., Zhao, W., 2004. Discussing water security. environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water International,
China Water Resources, 1: 21–23. 29(3): 307–317.
Cook, C., Bakker, K., 2012. Water security: Debating an emerging Swaminathan, M., 2001. Ecology and equity: Key determinants of
paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 22(1): 94–102. sustainable water security. Water Science andTechnology, 43(1): 35–44.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2000. Tarlok, A., Wouters, P., 2009. Reframing the water security dialogue.
New Dimensions in Water Security. Land and Water Development Journal of Water Law, 20(1): 53–60.
Division. FAO, Rome. Taylor, R., 2009. Rethinking water scarcity: The role of storage.
FAO AQUASTAT, 2007. AQUASTAT Database. Available at http:// Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 90(28): 237–238.
www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html (accessed 15 University of East Anglia, 2009. Water security research centre. Available
July 2011). at http://www.uea.ac.uk/watersecurity (accessed 15 July 2011).
Global Water Partnership (GWP), 2000. Towards Water Security: A Vorosmarty, C. McIntyre, P.B., Gessmer, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich,
Framework for Action. GWP, Stockholm. A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S., Sullivan, C., Liermann, C., Davies,
Grey, D., Connors, G., 2009. The water security imperative: We must and P., 2010. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity.
can do more. Stockholm World Water Week. Available at http://www. Nature, 467(7315): 555–561.
worldwaterweek.org/documents/WWW_PDF/Resources/2009_19wed/ WaterLink, 2010. Nile Basin initiative deadlock. July 6, 2010. Available
0903_Grey_Connors_The_Water_Security_Imperative_FINAL_PRE at http://www.waterlink-international.com/news/id1230-Nile_Basin_
SS.PDF (accessed 15 July 2011). Initiative_Deadlock.html (accessed 15 July 2011).
Grey, D., Sadoff, C., 2007. Sink or swim? Water security for growth and World Health Organization (WHO), 2009. World health statistics 2009.
development. Water Policy, 9(6): 545–571. Available at http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), 2003. World Register (accessed 15 July 2011).
of Large Dams. ICOLD, Paris. World Resources Institute (WRI), 2009. Earthtrends environmental
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 2009. Flexible water information searchabkle database. Available at http://earthtrends.wri.
storage options: for adaptation to climate change. Colombo, Sri Lanka: org/# (accessed 15 July 2011).
International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 5p. (IWMI Water Zeitoun, M., 2011. The global web of national water security. Global
Policy Brief 31). Policy, 11(1): 1–11.

© 2012 The Authors. Natural Resources Forum © 2012 United Nations