WANA and the Value Chain: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Human Security

Prof. Odeh Al-Jayyousi, Regional Director- IUCN E-mail: odeh.al.jayyousi@iucn.org

Setteing the scene:

Insights on water management may be gained by looking at three different levels:

local level, where operations are carried out, regional level, where policies are made,

and global level where funding and external support are generated. It is crucial to identify

the “enabling factors” such as sound water instiutions and laws and “change agents"

such as WANA forum to build the bridges between water stakeholders at global, regional

and local arenas.

This article aims to shed some light on a framework for viewing and harnessing

water-energy-food tacit and explicit knowledge in WANA region. The birth of a new

economic system is driving the changes in governance models, just as it did in the early

modern era, when market capitalism outmoded the feudal economy and forced a shift in

governing models from city-states to modern nation-states. It is argued that the market-

exchange economy and territory-bound nation state were not designed to accommodate

a communication revolution (or transformation) that can envelop the globe and connect

everyone and everything on the planet simultaneously. The result is that we are

witnessing the birth of a new economic system and new governing institutions that are

as different from market capitalism and the modern territorial state as the latter were

from the feudal economy and dynastic rule of an era ago.

Markets, in effect, are linear, discrete and discontinuous modes of operation. The

new communications technologies and partnerships, by contrast, are cybernetic, not

linear. The operational assumptions that guide networks (like WANA forum) transform

much of conventional modes of partnerships/ networks models and open up a new

window for rethinking governance of natural resources and linkages between water,

energy, food, water, and environment.

In a globalized economy where everybody is connected and ever more interdependent,

the idea of autonomous free agents maximizing their individual self-interests in simple

exchange transactions in markets seems an obslete notion. A network or a think tank

(like WANA), in a very real sense, is a regional model that is commissied to devise a

meta-narrative for a regional vision for regional cooperation. WANA forum should look

for “the hidden connections” that store the social DNA for innvovation and inspiartion for

a tranistion to sustainability by linking practice to policy and science to policy.

WANA forum can facailiate dialogue and be a convening platform for “socilaization and

combination of knowledge”. WANA forum can be harnessed as a vehicle for

mainstareming and navigation of knowlegde in hydro-informatics, regional water

governnace, environmental flow, environmental economics, human-centred

development and public participation. WANA forum key role is to promote the circulation

of ideas and initiatives for a susatainable WANA as a human civilization.

Conceptual framework: Knowledge Creation in the Water Sector

The dynamic transformations and changing nature of the water sector demands more

anticipatory responses from the water organizations, communities and professionals

who need to carry out the mandate of a faster cycle of knowledge-creation and action

learning based on the new water knowledge (Al-Jayyousi, 2001).

Taken-for-granted interpretation of knowledge works against the generation of

multiple and contradictory viewpoints that are necessary for meeting the challenge

posed by transformations in the water management in many developing countries from

public to community or to public-private participation (Al-Jayyousi, 2001).

It has been argued in the integrated water management literature that water may be

used as a means for peace and development, but “water for knowledge creation” is an

overlooked concept. The current conception of IT-enabled knowledge management

doesn't address the processing of tacit knowledge, which is deeply rooted in an

individual's action and experience, ideals, values, or emotions (Nonaka & Takeuchi

1995). Although tacit knowledge lies at the very basis of organizational knowledge

creation, its nature renders it highly personal and hard to formalize and to communicate.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have suggested that knowledge is created through

four different modes as illustrated in Figure 1:

1. Socialization which involves conversion from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge,

2. Externalization which involves conversion from tacit knowledge to explicit

knowledge,

3. Combination which involves conversion from explicit knowledge to explicit

knowledge, and

4. Internalization which involves conversion from explicit knowledge to tacit

knowledge.

  To tacit knowledge

To explicit knowledge

From tacit knowledge

Socialization Externalization

From explicit knowledge

Internalization Combination

Figure 1: Model of organizational knowledge creation

The dominant model of inquiring systems manifested in water networks and

partnetships is limited in its ability to foster shared experience necessary for relating to

others' thinking processes thus limiting its utility in socialization. It may, by virtue of its

ability to convert tacit knowledge into explicit forms such as metaphors, analogies and

models, have some utility in externalization. This utility is however restricted by its ability

to support dialogue or collective reflection.

The current model of inquiring systems, apparently, may have greater role in

combination, which involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge, and

internalization, which involves knowledge transfer through verbalizing into documents,

manuals, and stories. A more explicit recognition of tacit knowledge and related human

aspects, such as ideals, values, or emotions, is necessary for developing a richer

conceptualization of knowledge management. Subjective and interpretative nature of

knowledge creation calls for interpretation of new events and re-interpretation of

practices; such as, water deslination, water harvesting, traditional water uses practices

(Aflaj and Kanat), and water rights.

Interestingly, the constructive aspect of knowledge creation is also expected to enable

multiple interpretations that can facilitate the organization's anticipatory response to

discontinuous change. Some examples in this realm include the following:

a. The shift of paradigm from water supply-driven policies to demand-driven.

b. The introduction of the closed loop concept where sanitation and agriculture are

incorporated in the water management.

c. The view of wastewater as a resource rather than a waste.

d. The definition of water as an economic and as social good rather than a free

good.

e. The distinction of many “forms or types” of water like Blue water, Green water,

Greywater and Virtual water and water footprints.

f. The realization of the need to evolve and nurture water partnerships and to

incorporate local water knowledge in water management in WANA.

To operationalize KM in the water-energy-food nexus in WANA, it is critical to ensure a

process of team learning and the realization of a community of practice. Team learning

is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a group to create the results

that its members truly desire. It builds on the discipline of developing shared vision. It

also builds on personal mastery, for talented teams are made up of talented individuals.

When teams learn, they become a microcosm for learning throughout the organisation.

Insights gained are put into action. Skills developed can propagate to other individuals

and to other teams. The team's accomplishments can set the tone and establish the

standard for learning together for the WANA region. Such teams have in fact been called

“communities of practice”. Communities of practice (CoPs) have shared culture, identity

and history which evolved over time. One possible WANA results can be to develop a

set of COPs in water, energy, and food. Another result can be to develop scenarions for

“virtual water” and food security in WANA.

This process of knowledge and value creation requires engaging with key partners and

stakeholders in WANA. The propsoed approach for WANA forum is to invest time and

resources in a small number of partnerships like KAUST, MASDAR, etc. When

successful, WANA Forum can become more explicitly associated with a specific partner

and ensure the existence of an enabling environmnet for knowledge creation through the

identification of the following (Senge, 1995):

Knowledge navigators who represent middle managenet prefessionals in

all sectors.

Knowledge architechts who represent senior staff and policy makers.

Team learning processes through structured meetings and

communication.

In summary, the following key issues have been identified as constraints to improved

water management in WANA:

i. the need for inter-stakeholder agreement on how to assess various wastewater

reuse options;

ii. fragmented and unclear governance of the water basin;

iii. crucial environmental, health and social concerns in wastewater reuse in

agriculture;

iv. Lack of sufficient awareness on water conservation and demand management

practices and pollution prevention.

Water entities in WANA (like UN, IUCN, etc) can contribute to make the transition to a

new water paradigm in the WANA Region. These requirements are:

1) Capacity: There is a need to build a “water knowledge society”. Capacity

needs to be built from within, but nurtured from the outside;

2) Pilot Activities: There is a need to build technical networks based on the

experience of pilot sites;

3) Capital: It will be important to mobilize capital and ensure that it is invested

wisely;

4) Collaboration: There is a need to scale-up collaboration and to promote

regional dialogue and diplomatic efforts.

Table 1 outlines the modes and forms for KC in the case of the restoration of the Zarqa

River. Local knowledge for indigenous communities about early fishing practices, land

cover and agricultural practices, which is tacit, requires a process to be “externalized”

and to be fed in the current thinking. This can be carried out through having a semi-

structured forum or focus group discussions to share this knowledge through story-

telling, reflection and effective communication. Many donors adopt this approach to

synthesize local knowledge.

Within different local communities, who have a richness of “tacit” knowledge,

“socialization” takes place in the form informal dialogues and meetings. This is facilitated

through a process of “cultural communication” which encourages sharing experiences

and knowledge in an informal manner.

Combination of explicit knowledge normally takes place among policy makers,

professional people, experts, and technicians in different administrative settings and

locations through a more structured and formal meetings, publications, e-

communication, e-debates and facilitated workshops.

Internalizing an explicit knowledge to be tacit, is part of evolving a new awareness and

consciousness which takes some time for people to embody knowledge. Usually, this

form of knowledge requires action and experiential learning.

Table 1. The process of KC through networks and partnerships in WANA

Objective WANA Partners/networks Process for KC

1. Practice Document best and bad practices in freshwater management

MoW, MoE, UoJ, InWRDAM, JUST, InWent, IUCN, UNU, etc…

Combination and socialization

2. InstrumentsInstitutions & Negotiations

Supporting institutional capacity building

Establish support mechanisms for stronger decision making capacity

MoE, InWent, UoJ, JES, FoE, JACA, IUCN, UNU, etc…

Combination

Consolidate existing networks and partnerships on sustainable water management

Economics & Finance

Develop and support application of economic incentive mechanisms

UoJ, IUCN, UNU, etc..

Internalization;

Communications & New Learning

Facilitate the dissemination of accurate and relevant information on ecosystem approach to water management

JES, IUCN, InWRDAM, MoE, UoJ.

Externalization

3. Policy Promote a systemic approach for water management

Arab Leaguem AWC, MoE, MoW, IUCN

Combination; Socilaization.

References:

Al-Jayyousi, O., and Mamlouk, R., Expert Knowledge-Based System for Evaluating Water Conservation Programs in Jordan Using Fuzzy Sets. IEEE Proceedings on Computer Simulations and Modeling, Aug. 24, 2000. Philadelphia University, Amman-Jordan.

Al-Jayyousi, O. and Shatanawi, M., An Analysis of Future Water Policies in Jordan Using Decision Support Systems. International Journal of Water Resources Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995, U. K.

Al-Jayyousi. O. R., Capacity building for desalination in Jordan: necessary conditions for sustainable water management. Desalination 141 (2001) 169-179.

Al-Jayyousi, O. R., A Methodology for evaluating environmental impact of solid waste disposal sites: Case study from Jordan. The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. Vol. 26, Number 2C, Dec. 2001.

Al-Jayyousi O.R., and Mohsen. Evaluating small RO units for domestic uses in Jordan. Desalination. 139 (2001) 237-247.

Al-Jayyousi O. R. Focused environmental analysis for greywater reuse in Jordan. Env. Eng. And Policy. Dec. (2002).

Al-Jayyousi O. R. and Mrtin Jaffe. Planning models for sustainable water resources development. Env. Planning and Management. 45 (3) May 2002.

Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi, (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese

companies create the dynamics of innovation.

Rifkin J, (2004). The Eurpopean Dream. Penguin, UK.

Senge, Peter. (1995). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.