74
5 Sequity (Sustainable Equity)
are limits and conditions around everything (physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual – individual, societal, civilizational…), even though they change in space-time
continuum. Consequently, maximums are everywhere and are fundamental requirements for sustainable development and certainly for utilizing water, particularly under
water scarcity. In reality, we should become transparent about such a limit also
because it has been (will be) forced upon us: “Physical, economic, and ecological
limits constrain the development of new supplies and additional water withdrawals,
even in regions not previously thought vulnerable to water constraints. New kinds of
limits are forcing water managers and policy makers to rethink previous assumptions
about population, technology, regional planning, and forms of development” (Gleick
2010).
Maximums are dynamic in the sense that it may change in time. For example,
after five years, the water managers of a region may have enough data that can lead
them to decrease the maximum or reflect and predict with the stakeholders that the
maximum should be decreased, if water scarcity continues to increase. Doing so, the
categories of the members of a WUS may change, leading to new challenges.
Maximums should not be seen as rationing, which is needed for emergency or
transitory situations and, generally, the public does not like it. Furthermore, there are
those that advocate water pricing to achieve sustainability, but without physically
controlling water by putting maximums, it proves to be very difficult (Dinar et al.
2015). It should be noted that effective water pricing has its own merit (FIW5a),
however in many cases such a policy has impacts that are more devastating to the least
advantaged and goes against equity and fairness. Additionally, almost everything
depends on water and with price increase, the price of other things also have a
tendency to increase, which again affects the least advantaged.
Consequently, a Water Use System and its members should obey minimums
and maximums. It is one of the main duties of water managers (within a learning
approach) to set these boundaries to produce adequate and reasonable functioning.
Having done so, equity demands comparison of at least two members regarding
the indicator of interest already defined in this subsection. Let us designate these
two members as M1 and M2 to refer to the Most and Least Advantaged Members,
respectively. This type of differential focuses our attention on the extremes, which
are less sustainable, while presenting the path for a more balanced and sustainable
combination. Showing these two members along two axes in conjunction with the
thresholds just defined, a general and valuable structure emerges as drawn in Fig. 5.1.
It is important to note that the space of all the possible feasible systems is below the
M1 = M2 line because of our designation that M1 ≥ M2.
As mentioned, the four thresholds produce five categories shown in Fig. 5.1 as
five rows (along M2) and five columns (along M1) numbered 1 to 5 according to the
labels given in Table 5.1.
The M1 = M2 line in Fig. 5.1 represents numerical equality in water allocation
between the two members. As our systems operate to the right of this line, inequality
increases, but may or may not have Water Poverty because:
• Point A gives M1 = M2 = Amin
5 Sequity (Sustainable Equity)
are limits and conditions around everything (physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual – individual, societal, civilizational…), even though they change in space-time
continuum. Consequently, maximums are everywhere and are fundamental requirements for sustainable development and certainly for utilizing water, particularly under
water scarcity. In reality, we should become transparent about such a limit also
because it has been (will be) forced upon us: “Physical, economic, and ecological
limits constrain the development of new supplies and additional water withdrawals,
even in regions not previously thought vulnerable to water constraints. New kinds of
limits are forcing water managers and policy makers to rethink previous assumptions
about population, technology, regional planning, and forms of development” (Gleick
2010).
Maximums are dynamic in the sense that it may change in time. For example,
after five years, the water managers of a region may have enough data that can lead
them to decrease the maximum or reflect and predict with the stakeholders that the
maximum should be decreased, if water scarcity continues to increase. Doing so, the
categories of the members of a WUS may change, leading to new challenges.
Maximums should not be seen as rationing, which is needed for emergency or
transitory situations and, generally, the public does not like it. Furthermore, there are
those that advocate water pricing to achieve sustainability, but without physically
controlling water by putting maximums, it proves to be very difficult (Dinar et al.
2015). It should be noted that effective water pricing has its own merit (FIW5a),
however in many cases such a policy has impacts that are more devastating to the least
advantaged and goes against equity and fairness. Additionally, almost everything
depends on water and with price increase, the price of other things also have a
tendency to increase, which again affects the least advantaged.
Consequently, a Water Use System and its members should obey minimums
and maximums. It is one of the main duties of water managers (within a learning
approach) to set these boundaries to produce adequate and reasonable functioning.
Having done so, equity demands comparison of at least two members regarding
the indicator of interest already defined in this subsection. Let us designate these
two members as M1 and M2 to refer to the Most and Least Advantaged Members,
respectively. This type of differential focuses our attention on the extremes, which
are less sustainable, while presenting the path for a more balanced and sustainable
combination. Showing these two members along two axes in conjunction with the
thresholds just defined, a general and valuable structure emerges as drawn in Fig. 5.1.
It is important to note that the space of all the possible feasible systems is below the
M1 = M2 line because of our designation that M1 ≥ M2.
As mentioned, the four thresholds produce five categories shown in Fig. 5.1 as
five rows (along M2) and five columns (along M1) numbered 1 to 5 according to the
labels given in Table 5.1.
The M1 = M2 line in Fig. 5.1 represents numerical equality in water allocation
between the two members. As our systems operate to the right of this line, inequality
increases, but may or may not have Water Poverty because:
• Point A gives M1 = M2 = Amin