Dr. Ger Bergkamp, Executive Director, The International Water Association.   The role of the IWA Executive Director is a diverse one often requiring a ‘helicopter view’. Taking off this time, however, things were a little different. There I was sitting behind the instruments: compass, alti-meter, radio frequency, time…”Alpha, Bravo, Whiskey ready to go” – “winds 4.5 mph at 43 degrees” – “Alpha, Bravo, Whiskey you can start”. With some final taxiing, acceleration and pulling the steering wheel towards me, there we were … climbing to 1000 feet, the harbour of Rotterdam stretching out before us. While I normally favor a “two feet on the ground” approach, sometimes it helps to gain height and get a broader perspective. This is increasingly important within the water sector. A wider audience of non-water professionals is recognizing the need to take water management much more seriously, in all countries. A recent opinion poll amongst world leaders attending the World Economic Forum highlighted the ‘Water Crisis’ as one of the top 3 global risks. Together with impacts from floods and droughts and effects of climate change, whose impact are very much water related, water management is perceived to be one of the top ‘systemic risks’ of the world today. It is thought to be a risk of high impact and high likelihood effecting global supply chains, regional stability and economic performance. We have thus arrived at a situation in which many actors ‘outside’ the water sector are paying more and more attention to the risks associated with neglecting the role of water. For water professionals this provides a valuable opportunity to show what benefits good water management provides. What are we doing to mitigate water as a risk and inspire a change by turning the ‘Water Crisis’ into a fundamental opportunity for a transformation towards more sustainable societies? The way we manage water over the coming decades will have a profound impact on future societies, economies, peace and sustainability. Within the International Water Association we believe we need to move from water as a ‘risk’ and a ‘crisis’ to focus on fostering responsibility, capturing opportunities, and promoting new solutions to water challenges. This could be summarized in nothing less than mounting ‘water revolution’. At the heart of this water revolution are the 5Rs of new water management: reduce, reuse, recover, recycle and replenish. Reducing loss of water and increasing water efficiency can reduce costs and lower water stress in cities and irrigated lands alike. Re-using industrial and domestic water can increase supplies to growing demand for clean water at the right time and place. Recovering water, energy, nutrients and other materials from wastewater can turn a ‘waste’ into a valuable resource. Recycling precious nutrients from wastewater and turning them in fertilizers for agriculture production is increasingly practiced around the world. And finally, we have started to replenish the water resources base. Successful pilots and large-scale applications are underway around the world to restore watersheds, clean-up lakes and refill depleted groundwater reserves. These efforts combined form an important pillar of building a cyclical green economy. To foster the change in perceptions around water, diplomats and water professionals need to work closer together to prioritize water solutions. One of the opportunities to do so is in September this year, when the United Nations General Assembly is set to adopt the Sustainable Development Goals, including a specific goal on water security and safety. It arises again in December this year when governments aim to reach a global agreement on halting climate change, the impacts of which are felt strongly through water – mainly extreme weather events like floods and droughts, which are becoming more frequent and more severe. In October this year the International Water Association is organizing the “West Asia Water Summit” as part of the IWA Water and Development Congress 2015. The Summit will bring together leading diplomats, politicians, water professionals and opinion leaders to debate new ways to tackle the water challenges in the Middle East and North Africa and prioritize new solutions. Cooperation across borders is fundamental for water to become a driving force for growth and stability in the region. Countries must act together, act responsibly and act swiftly; there is little time to lose. I see the IWA’s water diplomacy as a key mechanism to enable inter-governmental networking, and building trust amongst those professionals that are leading the development and implementation of new water solutions. For many of the participants it will be their opportunity to gain a wider perspective and reflect on pathways beyond the current water crisis in the region and seeing water as a new opportunity. ________________________________________________ The International Water Association is the global network of water professionals working on the most pressing water issues. A unique knowledge hub for the water sector and anyone concerned about a sustainable water future, the IWA brings people together to share knowledge, experience and know-how and to innovate new solutions to water challenges. The IWA connects scientists, practitioners and communities so that pioneering research can underpin new solutions; it fosters technological innovation, supports sustainability and drives best practice through international frameworks and standards.  

By Barend ter Haar.   Science, the famous weekly of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published on July 3 a review article[1] that deserves wide attention, because the conclusions are of concern to us all. The title Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios might not directly seem very interesting, but the abstract certainly is. To put it in perspective, we should start with noting that the oceans and seas cover about two thirds of the earth’s surface, provide food for millions of people and other services such as coastal protection and play an important role in regulating global climate. The researchers, from renowned institutes in inter alia Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and the United States, have compared two contrasting CO2 scenarios. The first scenario is based on continuation of current emissions, the business-as-usual scenario. The second scenario is based on the hypothesis that the mean increase of global temperatures will be kept below 2°C, as agreed at the Copenhagen summit. The authors note first of all that the until now limited warming and acidification of surface ocean waters has already affected many marine organisms and services provided by the ocean’s ecosystem. The question they try to answer is what the impact will be on marine organisms and the ocean’s ecosystem when CO2 emissions continue to grow. On the basis of field observations and of experiments and models, the experts predict that even under the second restrictive scenario inter alia corals, clams, mussels and oysters will be “at high risk” by 2100. Under the business-as-usual many of the marine organisms evaluated will be at “very high risk” by 2050. In the below 2°C scenario the impact on most of the ocean’s ecosystem services is expected to remain moderate during this century, but the business-as-usual scenario would put ecosystem services “at high or very high risk”. These problems would moreover be aggravated by the impact of other human activities, such as overexploitation of living resources, habitat destruction and pollution. The authors state that international climate negotiations have so far paid too little attention to the impact of climate change on the oceans. They point to the high risk of impacts well before 2100, even under the second scenario and add that these impacts “will occur across all latitudes, making this a global concern beyond the north/south divide”. They argue that immediate reduction of CO2 emissions is required “to prevent the massive and mostly irreversible impacts on ocean ecosystems and their services” and warn that as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases “protection, adaptation, and repair options for the ocean become fewer and less effective”. It will be interesting to see how governments will react and whether the coming Paris Climate Conference will decide on measures that minimize the impact of climate change on the oceans. [1] Science 3 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6243. See also the editorial: The beyond-two-degree inferno

Trends in Diplomacy, the “3-C diplomat” and Innovation in Diplomatic Training   By Ron Ton, Director Clingendael Academy. As a consequence of changing dynamics at the global and regional levels, the role of diplomats is constantly evolving. Diplomats have to be able to adapt to the quickly evolving diplomatic context and be flexible towards changing patterns of diplomacy. As Director of a large and lively diplomatic training centre like the Clingendael Academy, I witness the trends in diplomacy and the changing role of diplomats on a daily basis. As the Clingendael Academy we make sure that we are constantly innovating our programmes and methods in order to stay abreast of these developments. In addition to the growing importance of for example economic diplomacy and public diplomacy, we can identify at least four more trends in diplomacy that are strongly related to one another: the internationalisation of home-based policy areas, the emergence of ‘hybrid diplomacy’, the virtualisation of diplomacy and the increasing significance of specialised diplomacy. The relationship between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and expert ministries in capitals is changing fast. Expert ministries dealing with e.g. agriculture, energy, transport, justice or economics are searching for a new balance between a country’s internal and external affairs. Now, as a result of increasing global governance and international cooperation, we witness a fast internationalisation of these sectors. This demands an further inclusion of these topics into foreign affairs and hence a closer cooperation and policy coordination between expert ministries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This internationalisation of formerly home based policy areas implies more specialised forms of diplomacy, in which permanent representations and diplomats are to develop specific expertise on such issues as climate, water, food safety, sustainable development and human rights. At the same time, this thematic approach requires the involvement of all types of actors. The international playing field has moved beyond a purely intergovernmental context, in which more actors have gained ground in international affairs, in particular non-state actors. Governments will have to effectively involve all of them to ensure efficiency and a broad political foundation in its international policies. Diplomats are therefore expected to have a large network of relevant actors that is open and flexible, that can be organised into groups of varying composition and around different themes or interests. In the 21^st century, international relations are hybrid and cannot be dealt with through classic diplomacy. We can therefore speak of ‘hybrid diplomacy’: a combination of traditional intergovernmental diplomacy and modern network diplomacy. In hybrid diplomacy, when dealing with many influential foreign actors, it is essential for diplomats to use public communications media for interaction with a wide range of non-governmental entities. Public diplomacy has thus become an integral part of diplomacy as it establishes a dialogue designed to inform and influence. The way a country communicates with foreign civil societies and ‘brands’ itself influences public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies and, as a result, influences the politics of other governments. The impact of virtual diplomacy may surely not be underestimated. MFA’s increasingly are creating a virtual space for information gathering, public communications, internet based networking and the use of social media. Websites have become the first entrance of the public to contact MFA’s. Diplomatic deliverables like consular matters quickly transform to a virtual dimension. The British Minister of Foreign Affairs Lord Palmerston upon receiving the first telegram on his desk was supposed to have said in 1840: “My God this will be the end of diplomacy!” Such a quote would be applicable on the IT and social media revolution today if not integrating new technological change. Today we have to learn how to handle virtual and non virtual diplomacy in a single diplomatic environment. Therefore, in my view the modern diplomat is a “3-C diplomat”: Connecting, Consistent, Coherent. Connecting reflects the networking and communications between people, relationships and stakeholders. Consistency is required to pursue a persistent foreign policy strategy, while coherence is needed to manage the complexity of interrelations between all internationalised policy areas. At the Clingendael Academy, we train over 500 diplomats each year from all over the world representing the Netherlands, South East and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America (which is one fifth of the total of 2,500 participants annually). We give special attention to the above mentioned trends in diplomacy, always bearing in mind the specific context of each region and country. With the role of diplomats changing in this hybrid environment, we constantly innovate our training programmes in order to ensure that they continue to be most relevant for diplomats and prepare diplomats for the future to come. Against this backdrop I would like to specifically highlight two new unique training programmes that are a result and reflection of the changing diplomatic landscape. One of these innovative training programmes focuses on ‘Blue Diplomacy’, which intends to strengthen the role of diplomats in promoting sustainable development as described in the Blue Economy. More traditional approaches towards achieving sustainability, such as related to the Green Economy, simply promote reducing the use of resources – for example by investing in environment-friendly technologies – thus implying more costs. The Blue Economy goes beyond this approach by encouraging us to respond to basic needs with what we have, to introduce innovations inspired by nature and invest less, and to generate multiple benefits – including jobs and social capital. Water plays an important role in these Blue Economy-inspired solutions, and therefore comprises one of the elements in our training programmes. Governments need oceans and their resources to run the economy, to transport global goods, and to provide a sustainable living for many. How can diplomats promote partnerships in naval and maritime sectors, while sustaining healthy oceans? The training programmes in Blue Diplomacy combine the Blue Economy with the knowledge and skills needed for diplomats who, for example, promote sustainable trade relations between their country and another. Training programmes include economic, public, and water diplomacy, corporate social responsibility, dilemmas in sustainable development policies, and public private partnerships. By participating in an interactive sessions and by conducting working visits, we provide the diplomats with the knowledge, tools and experience needed to be most effective in promoting sustainable development. Second, our Negotiation and Mediation Skills Programmes are at the core of our activities as diplomatic training centre for more than 25 years. We ensure that at the end of our training programmes, participants leave the Clingendael Academy with advanced knowledge of negotiation processes and the skills needed to successfully conduct and develop strategies for a negotiation and mediation process, whether this is in a bilateral or multilateral setting. Recently, the Clingendael Academy launched a new initiative: “Negotiation training as a conflict resolution instrument” to train, advice and coach specifically parties in conflict and their mediators. Large scale, multi-issue, multi-party and politically sensitive negotiations are a highly specialised form of bargaining. In conflict situations many of the parties in negotiations are not experienced in strategic political negotiations, in working from a mandate or in setting clear priorities for the negotiations. It is also important to train actors and individuals mediating these processes. After all, mediation is a facilitation of a negotiation process. What drives the negotiator, who are the negotiators representing, what are the mandates of the parties at the table, what are the pressures the negotiators are under, what are the group dynamics at the table and what role does the mediator play? It is paramount that those who facilitate fully have to understand negotiation processes and the behaviour of negotiators. In order to strive for a successful outcome of peace processes, training mediators in negotiation skills and processes is of crucial importance. The training sessions of the Clingendael Academy provide a toolkit to groups in conflict to make conscious choices during the negotiations and to avoid pitfalls of the inexperienced negotiator, all to enlarge the possibility of durable peace.

By Peter Knoope, Associate Fellow ICCT -The Hague.   Religion is an important identifier. It gives shelter and secures values. It offers belonging and personal cornerstones for moral guidance. It’s a home and a family and can constitute a major part of a person’s identity. Religion can be a powerhouse. Off late a renewed debate is raging as to what exactly is the role of religion is in the wave of terrorism that is increasingly gaining momentum and expanding its space. In Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Tunisia, Kenya and Cameroon. I can go on to France and Denmark or to Mali and Nigeria. It does not seem to stop; and it is constantly taking us by surprise. Popping up in new and unexpected places. Many of the attackers claim that religious texts, or interpretations of these texts, inspire them to fight and kill infidels or other opponents to their cause. So it seems simple and logic to go along with the narrative of the attackers and find the answer to the question, as to the “why”, in the religion. And a relevant number of my fellow counter terrorism experts do. The religion offers the inspiration and the collective, it offers the words of the “all mighty” and the terrorists find justification for their violent actions in their interpretation of those words. But then again the fast majority of those who identify with the same religion claim that it is all wrong. The correct interpretation of the religion is non-violent and peaceful. And based on the facts, that claim seems correct. Most religious people are pleasant non-violent individuals. So it’s not the religion that is the issue, but the weird thinking of some. And then there are those that have studied and analysed the texts, referenced by DAESH (formerly known as ISIS) and AQ, and come to the obvious conclusion that; yes, it’s all there! There is no escape the religion offers the ingredients necessary to justify the struggle and the killing. From there those analysts subsequently conclude that it is obvious: terrorism is the potential outcome of religion. But is this conclusion correct? When one takes the trouble to study the motivations of young people that feel attracted to political violence, one discovers that there is a diversity of reasons that drive people to make that choice. Lack of other, more attractive, propositions is just one off them. Grievances about injustice and societal or collective political exclusion yet another. Anger and frustration about a failing governance system is not unusual. One comes across feelings of humiliation and alienation. And not unusual also is the idea to be occupied or dominated by foreign powers. All these reasons are found. Along with pure excitement and potential of fame and a reason to live and die for. It changes with time and place. You will notice the absence of religion in this list of motivations. So again: “what does religion have got to do with it?” The answer is rather simple. Religion offers identity and a home. It is the cover that is put on top of the driving motivations by those that recruit amongst the angry restless youngsters that seek to find a way to express anger and frustration. Those that feel excluded, humiliated or oppressed, are brought under the comforting umbrella of the religion. And interpretations do the rest to justify actions, identify and dehumanize the “other”. The debate that is raging, whether religion is the issue or not, is the wrong discussion. Religion, and what it offers to people, is abused by the brokers of violence. That abuse is not inherent to (a specific) religion. Since religion is an identifier it can offer consolation and shelter to the homeless and the seeker. to the angry and the humiliated. And that is exactly what happens. Abuse and falsification. It works. So for those who seek the answer to the real question, which is; how to fix the problem?, the only path to take is to look at the motivations of the restless youth and try to address the real issues and leave religion as such out of the equation.    

A smile and a thought…. By Eelco H. Dykstra, MD. Introduction Eelco Dykstra writes a column called “A smile and a thought…” The columns put a playful spotlight on the interface between the Dutch and the International Community it hosts. Yes, his musings may appear at times to be mildly provocative at first sight but they are first and foremost playful – with a little irony thrown in here and there… You be the judge! His columns are intended to give you ‘a smile and a thought’. A smile because perhaps you hadn’t quite looked at something that way and a thought because the column may leave you wondering…   —————————————————————————————————————–   A Look Behind the Scenes… Diplomacy at work: Disaster Risk Reduction at the United Nations   Nearly 200 countries were represented in Sendai (Japan) to finalize the post 2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – previously known as the Hyogo Framework. The choice to hold this meeting from March 14-19 in Sendai was not co-incidental – the consequences of the triple disaster known as “Fukushima” from March 11, 2011, are still there to see. Despite this sense of urgency implied by location, a lot of frustration surfaced during the meeting due to political gamesmanship and manoeuvring.   Let’s take a look behind the scenes.   Worldwide, the trend is clear: disasters cause an ever-increasing number of victims and ever-growing socio-economic damages. So much so, that even the private sector nowadays considers investing in disaster risk reduction to be part of their core business. In other words, they see this no longer as a luxury but as a necessity.   Major – and not so major – corporations have aligned themselves with the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and are putting resources such as money, knowledge, or both, in a global trust fund called “R!SE”. One example is the Rockefeller Foundation who is spending around $100 million to set up a global network of Chief Resilience Officers in cities around the world.   And here we hit the first snag. Climate Change. Much of the international discussions on disaster risk reduction focuses on rising sea levels, global warming and more extreme weather patterns. While some parts of the world accept the overwhelming evidence that it is high time to prepare for hitherto unseen emergencies and disasters, other parts of the world stick to a more-of-the-same, business-as-usual approach. Negotiations such as the ones in Sendai are complicated by distrust and opposing fractions and regional power blocks. Not even diplomatic principles such as the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) tool, is then of much help. Trying to reach an agreement when there is only an agreement to disagree is notoriously difficult… As recent as six months ago, nobody had foreseen these difficulties as it was widely believed that everybody considered the Sendai meeting as a technical and neutral meeting on disaster risk reduction, a topic that everybody recognized as important.   A second problem with these kind of meetings consists of a combination of confusion, time pressure and loss-of-face. Confusion… Instead of a stand-alone meeting on a neutral and technical topic (how to arrange for public-private cooperation, funding and technology transfer for disaster risk reduction) the Sendai summit all of a sudden became a station on the route of controversial and heated international summits on climate change, i.e. Addis, New York and Paris. Time pressure… Because amid all the disagreement an agreement had to be reached on a framework for disaster risk reduction, a marathon of negotiations started over a period of 36 hours during which smaller groups of 20 countries ironed out the most controversial issues during sessions from 10 pm to 4 am (!). Loss-of-Face… The hosts, i.e. Japan, looked at the confusion on the last day of negotiations and felt that time was slipping away. To avoid loss of face, the Japanese took over the meeting but not after first besieging and berating the delegation of the USA which was seen as a major roadblock to reaching agreement.   Eventually, an agreement was reached. An agreement which was not bad at all. An agreement with which all kinds of tools for disaster risk reduction can be developed and implemented. But the conclusion after Sendai was also this: “This process is a disaster…”   In line with the name of my column “A smile and a thought…”, I’d like to make the following suggestions to diplomats and the diplomatic community involved in preparing next summits:  

1. Do not merely share the final product of these summits with the world but tell them how the agreement was reached, where the pitfalls were and how the problems were overcome.
2. Tell the world about the many hours, the many stressful moments and the advanced skill levels that are needed to reach an agreements amid disagreement.
3. Consider hiring completely independent chairs for these meetings, international people who are very experienced as crisis managers.
4. Do involve the host-nation as soon as possible in co-determining what the desired impact of the meeting will be. With these suggestions, the world will never wonder what the fuss was all about and will never consider these summits as mini-holidays for well-paid diplomats. Never.Trust.Reality rules. Respect. And the benefits for the diplomatic community?