Bird’s Eye View of the News
A crowded last day in the ‘Water Village’ space
I will focus on two of the 56 schedules offered yesterday by the WWF organizers for the study and debate of its participants.
Schedule 1 – March 22, Thursday, for the 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. meeting – For the first time, the organizers of the 8th World Water Forum expressed the desire to issue a declaration reflecting the debates and results obtained during the Forum. This declaration, called SUSTAINABILITY DECLARATION (SD), is supposed to be adopted by consensus before the end of the forum and adopted during the closing session of the Forum on Friday, March 23rd.
To ensure that the participatory process involves everybody willing to contribute, this open session is organized to present and discuss the draft declaration. A draft version of the declaration will be distributed at the beginning of the session.
1. This text gives us a close-up view of how the WWF final declaration has been cooked. For four working days, the participants have been bombarded with an enormous amount of schedules – 249, if my count is correct – about the most varied topics related to water.
A panel exposes ‘results’ obtained during the Forum as the closing ceremony starts
3. Next, the discussion time was limited, which means that the majority of the themes were not addressed extensively, with the necessary seriousness. This observation applies particularly to technical solutions, which demand careful evaluation of the pros and cons. For example, in the cases of replacing present-day urban water treatments with more ecologically-sustainable and up-to-date processes cannot be properly evaluated in a meeting with, let us say 150 participants, facing dozens of similar proposals.
4. The discussion groups into which the participants were divided – Climate, Ecosystems, Urban Management, Development, Sharing – were asked to reach partial conclusions in the late afternoon meetings of Thursday, but these conclusions were not planned to be reported in the plenary closing session on Friday. These opinions were available for the sole consideration of the directors.
5. Curiously, the draft of the WWF final declaration was already prepared and presented on Thursday morning. The participants were allowed to read it only at the beginning of their meeting.
6. In the schedule it is affirmed that the Sustainability Declaration – the name had also been chosen – should “directly reflect the debates during the Forum.” However, the conclusions of the debates were scheduled to be reported only in the late afternoon meetings of Thursday. So, it becomes crystal clear that the draft document and the discussion about it took place before the conclusions of group participants were known.
The ‘steering committee’ - did it compose the Sustainability Declaration before the Forum began?
8. It is also interesting to note that the final declaration was “supposed to be adopted by consensus in the closing session of Friday.” Consensus here most likely means by applause. If this is true, then it is apparent this document will not be offered to an honest and detailed discussion. In other words, its approval will be a mere formality for results imposed by a small group of directors.
9. All these points show us how artificial and dictatorial this final declaration will be, which would seem to follow the pattern of all these “democratic” final declarations at ecology forums.
Schedule 2 – March 22, Thursday, for the 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 meeting – The availability and quality of freshwater are of vital importance for our health and well-being and have been recognized as crucial for achieving sustainable development. However, inequalities with regard to access to water and sanitation services persist and are a common challenge worldwide, from developing to developed countries.
The multiple dimensions of this challenge range from urban-rural disparities to affordability issues and to access by vulnerable groups to compromised services. Inequalities do not only infringe the realization of the human rights to water and sanitation but also impede health, well-being and education and have serious social and economic implications undermining sustainable development.
The Special Session will reflect on the role of international mechanisms ... and the human rights special procedures in ensuring effective realization of the human rights to water and sanitation with the involvement of the public and civil society.
The audience will engage in interactive discussions on their perspectives, experiences and challenges with translating the human rights to water and sanitation into practice.
1. Here we see that WWF shares the broadly-spread revolutionary myth affirming inequalities are the source of all evils.
A first Court of Justice of Water was held with the aim to put an end to all inequalities
3. Precisely because the Revolution is inspired by the Devil, it is turned toward the destruction of this mirror image of God, which is composed of all just inequalities. So, the Green Revolution is also against inequalities and hierarchy, as is its more recent sprout, the Water Revolution.
4. Now, in this schedule, WWF adopts as a presupposition that all inequalities are bad per se and it militates to destroy them. It states: “Inequalities with regard to access to water and sanitation services persist and are a common challenge worldwide, from developing to developed countries.” Further on, it declares: “Inequalities do not only infringe the realization of the human rights to water and sanitation but also impede health, well-being and education and have serious social and economic implications undermining sustainable development.”
5. In the more than 35,000 words of WWF schedules that I have read, I found no reason to substantiate this general attack on inequalities. No fact or valid argument whatsoever is offered to prove why and how inequalities are the source of all these evils. This characterizes an aprioristic philosophical opposition, which can be translated in current language as a fanatical opposition to inequality.
Women participants speak out for equal roles in the management of water resources
Now the question arises: Having read these manifold schedules and, based on what they say, should I make a list of the goals and methods of the WWF to allow the reader to have at hand a complete overview of this Green Revolution? Should I reserve some time to analyze the final declaration that will be voted on today?
Let me consider the pros and cons of this task. If, after consulting with other TIA members, I decide to write one more article, it will appear some time soon. But not immediately, because there are still many other subjects that are waiting for these articles on the WWF to be published.
Putting water on center stage of the revolutionary plan for a One World Order