Part

Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World conference was held in Tucson, Arizona, from February 22
to 24, 2017. Experts on the implications of advances in science and technol-
ogy for domestic and international policy decisions from around the world
gathered to share their knowledge and visions for the importance of Sci-
ence Diplomacy in the twenty-first century. The goal of the conference was
to discuss how and why scientific knowledge and policy is critical to deal
effectively with the challenges and opportunities that our planet faces. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the sponsors.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
E. William Colglazier, Honorary Chairman of the Conference

Kevin Lansey, Executive Editor of the Proceedings and Co-Chairman of
the Conference
Hassan Vafai, Executive Editor of the Proceedings and Co-Chairman of
the Conference
Stephanie Zawada, Co-Editor and Senior Rapporteur of the Proceedings
Nico A. Contreras, Co-Editor and Associate Rapporteur of the Proceedings
Sierra Lindsay, Compilation, Formatting, and Copyediting of the Proceedings
Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager

SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
DIPLOMACY
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
DIPLOMACY
A focus on the Americas
with Lessons for the World,
Volume III
Sustainable Technologies
and Policies in the Americas
HASSAN A. VAFAI
KEVIN E. LANSEY
Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons
for the World, Volume III: Sustainable Technologies and Policies in the
Americas
Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—
electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for
brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior permission
of the publisher.
First published in 2018 by

Momentum Press®, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.momentumpress.net
ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-364-6 (print)

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-365-3 (e-book)
Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.

Chennai, India
First edition: 2018
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America

Abstract
Science diplomacy and policy can support collaborative national and

international science for advancing knowledge with societal impact in
fields such as climate, space, medicine, and the environment. Scientific
advances made possible by the basic and applied research carried out by
government agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations
create opportunities and challenges with growing impact on policy deci-
sions. Developing structures that produce the best science information to
policy makers is becoming more critical in an ever-changing world.
This three-volume set presented by prominent figures from the disci-
plines of science, engineering, technology, and diplomacy includes their
perspectives on potential solutions to opportunities 21st-century scien-
tists, engineers, and diplomats face in the future:
• To shed light and interface science, technology, and engineering

with the realm of policy
• To provide a vision for the future by identifying obstacles and
opportunities while focusing on several key issues.
KEYWORDS
climate change, cross-cultural communication, global affairs, global

health, science and technology diplomacy, science policy, scientific
collaboration, STEM education, sustainable development
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xvii
Conference Program xxi
PART 1 CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGES FOR THE
AMERICAS AND THE ROLE OF SCIENCE
DIPLOMACY 1
Introduction to IAI Science Diplomacy and
Capacity Building and Water Sustainability
Challenges for the Americas 3
Water Sustainability Challenges
of the Americas 5
The Challenges of Creating a Science-Policy
Interface 19
Collaborating to Tackle Climate Change
in the Americas 23
Climate Change Challenges and Opportunities
for Marine Science 31
Addressing International Water Challenges
through UNESCO, Its Affiliated Centers
and the Academic Community 51
Science Diplomacy in the Colorado River
Delta Restoration Initiative 59
x • Contents
PART 2 SERVING AMERICA THROUGH SCIENCE 67

The Iron Curtain, Science, and an Emerging
Super Power 69
Concluding Remarks 73
Speaker Biographies 79
About the Authors 89
Index 91
Preface
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on the Americas c onference
was held at the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, Arizona, from
February 22 to 24, 2017. These proceedings are a description of the activ-
ities at the meeting, including question and answer discussions. This work
collects the presentations made by prominent figures from the disciplines
of science, engineering, technology, and diplomacy. The talks cover their
perspectives on potential solutions to opportunities—such as the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals—improving diplomatic rela-
tionships through scientific engagement and enhancing economic growth
through scientific achievement.
During conference planning and development, several questions arose:
1. What is Science Diplomacy and Policy (SDP), and why host a con-
ference on SD?
2. Why organize the meeting at a university?
3. Why host the meeting at the University of Arizona?
The answers to these questions provide context for the conference and
its goals.
WHY HOST AN SDP CONFERENCE?
One concept of Science Diplomacy is that it is the use of scientific col-

laborations among nations to address common problems and to build
constructive international partnerships.1 The National Research Council
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy focused on
the definition of SD. They drew heavily on the Royal Society2 and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science’s description that
1
N. Fedoroff. 2009. “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Cell 136, no. 1, pp. 9–11.
2
The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy (London, UK:
The Royal Society).
xii • Preface
focuses on examples of SD activities rather than stating a specific defini-

tion. Three main types of activities cited were3:
“Science in diplomacy”: Informing foreign policy objectives with sci-

entific advice
“Diplomacy for science”: Facilitating international science cooperation
“Science for diplomacy”: Using scientific cooperation to improve
international relations between countries
The first activity can also be described as Science Policy, which

intends to expose policy makers to the best information available regard-
ing science, technology, and innovation to advise their decisions. The latter
topics refer to facilitating cross-border collaborations to improve science
or relationships between nations.
SD is not new; rather, it continues to evolve in emerging areas that
require international cooperation, including medicine, the environment,
nanotechnology, space, alternative energy, and science education. How-
ever, we believe that a gap existed in articulating comprehensive retro-
spective and prospective views of SD. Thus, the overriding goal of the
conference was to provide an overview of SDP successes, goals, chal-
lenges, and opportunities that twenty-first-century scientists, engineers,
and diplomats face for the future. To that end, with the support of Honor-
ary Conference Chairman Dr. E. William Colglazier, we enlisted a group
of eminent individuals involved in diplomacy with the emphasis in using
science and engineering as the basis for discussions.
These generally senior dignitaries spoke on the opening evening
and first day of the conference. The open-to-the-public evening session
(Figures 1 and 2) focused on the need for SD and its accomplishments.
The following morning discussion shifted to the roles of academies,
universities, international organizations, and governments in SD. Finally,
the afternoon was dedicated to the challenges facing and opportunities for
SD practitioners, and a concrete example of the United Nations Sustain-
able Development Goals as an application that has a significant need for
science to address long-term global concerns.
Although the speakers addressed some of these broad topics, a coher-
ent vision and history as portrayed by the esteemed thought leaders has not
been assembled. This proceedings begins to capture those ideas. Each talk
and subsequent question and answer period was transcribed, edited, and
appropriate references added by volunteer rapporteurs. The papers were
3
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National Academies U.S.
and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy: Report of a
Workshop (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press), p. 60, ISBN 978-0-309-22438-3.
Preface • xiii
Figures 1 and 2. Opening session of the SDP conference—University of

Arizona—February 2017
then thoroughly reviewed by a scientific committee and approved by the

speakers for inclusion in this proceedings. The result is a comprehensive
view of SDP from those who have significantly impacted the field.
WHY ORGANIZE THE MEETING AT A UNIVERSITY?
Generally, this type of meeting would be hosted by a professional organi-

zation or society for practitioners. We believe that a university is highly
appropriate venue and enhances the meeting’s influence. Universities
provide forums for open and uninhibited discussion of sensitive topics.
Further, the academy generates much of the new knowledge, science, and
xiv • Preface
engineering that is needed to solve vexing global problems. Holding the

meeting at a university also increases faculty and student awareness of how
their research can support and influence policy and international relations.
In addition, the SD field needs a continuous infusion of new blood
and energy. A second focus of the conference was to enhance student
knowledge of SD careers and directions. Most students do not recognize
the opportunity of connecting their science to policy as a professional
focus or have knowledge of how to pursue such a direction if they are
aware of the vocation. The university setting of our meeting highlighted
student interest that was demonstrated by the significant number of stu-
dent questions during Q&A session and the positive response to Dr. Gual
Soler’s presentation on connecting scientists and policy.
On a more local level, the self-selected student and early career rappor-
teurs’ enthusiasm and effort at the conference and in preparing papers pro-
vides optimism that the next generation of science diplomats are emerging.
Their contributions to the completion of these proceedings were significant
and the rapporteurs are acknowledged within the papers that they supported.
WHY HOST THE MEETING AT THE UNIVERSITY

OF ARIZONA?
Clearly, the hub of SD in the United States is Washington, DC; not

southern Arizona. However, the UA is well-positioned geographically
and connected intellectually with Latin America. The UA has significant
global ties on a number of fronts, in particular in the areas of water re-
sources and climate change. Thus, the focus of the second full conference
day was on the value and benefit of SD and collaborations in the Americas
for resolving water- and climate-related issues (Figure 3).
This conference serves as a foundation for SD activities at the UA.
The UA has a strong international presence and reputation as a leader in
a range of fields that have high potential for contributing to SD, includ-
ing medicine, space, engineering, and natural sciences and the environ-
ment. In addition to faculty-to-faculty collaborations, particularly in Latin
America, an SD seminar series is under way for faculty and students.
Among other initiatives, an innovative microcampus education model is
exporting UA education around the world.
Finally, SD must venture not only to understand problems but to solve
them. Problem-solving is the domain of engineering. The College of Engi-
neering values invigorating its students and faculty to add an international
dimension to their scholarly undertakings. To that end, they played a lead-
ing role in this conference. Engineers without Borders, a Grand Challenge
Preface • xv
Figure 3. Water sustainability and climate change sessions in the SDP
conference—University of Arizona, February 2017
Scholars Program, and the establishment of a Science-Engineering

Diplomacy Initiative are other ongoing engineering-based SD activities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National

Academies U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and
Science Diplomacy: Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
emies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-22438-3.
Federoff, N. 2009. “Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Cell 136, no. 1,
pp. 9–11.
The Royal Society and AAAS. 2010. New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy.
London, UK: The Royal Society.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the persons and institutions that have made the Science
Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas conference and the pub-
lication of these proceedings possible. Many University of Arizona (UA)
entities on campus provided financial and in-kind support for the con-
ference: College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, the University of Arizona Foundation, College
of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Office of Global initiatives, Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy, Institute of Environment, and Agnese
Nelms Haury Program in Environmental and Social Justice. In addition,
the Lloyd’s Register Foundation also provided support. Dr. Jeff Goldberg,
Dean of the College of Engineering, who recognizes the value of science
and engineering diplomacy, played a pivotal financial and intellectual role
in advancing the conference forward.
The Science Diplomacy and Policy with Focus on Americas confer-
ence, convened at the University of Arizona, was an exceptional event.
However, it would not have been realized without the dedication and com-
mitment of the Honorary Conference Chairman, Dr. E. William Colglazier,
and we thank him for his support. As described in the preface, the opening
session and first conference day provided a comprehensive perspective
on the contributions, as well as value and future of SDP. As a recognized
leader in the field with a comprehensive awareness of current activities
and trends and historical context, Dr. Colglazier was instrumental in
establishing the program and assembling the eminent group of speakers to
achieve that goal. He spent many hours with us in conversations on confer-
ence content and structure as well as connecting with potential speakers.
The second group that guided the intellectual direction of the confer-
ence was the UA organizing committee that consisted of UA faculty and
administrators: James Buizer, Randy Burd, Andrea Gerlak, John Hildeb-
rand, David Pietz, Juan Valdes, and Robert Varady. This team refined the
conference objectives and directions and identified and invited the diverse
mix of speakers, particularly for the second conference day.
xviii • Acknowledgments
We also convey thanks to the distinguished speakers for investing

their time to join us at the UA to describe the results of experience and
research in prepared talks and participate in the wide-ranging discussions
that followed their presentations. Particularly, we appreciate their efforts
and significant time spent to collaborate with the conference rapporteurs
and our staff to convert their talks to this proceedings. The enthusiasm and
professionalism of this group elevated the conference quality to a seminal
event.
Further, we acknowledge the work done by the team of rapporteurs,
including supporting conference activities and transcribing, researching,
editing, and, in some cases, with the speakers, condensing the talks for
clarity. This outstanding team comprised a self-identified multidisci-
plinary group of graduate and undergraduate UA students and postdocs
interested in learning and, perhaps, developing a career in science diplo-
macy and consisted of
Stephanie Zawada Ravindra Dwivedi Jacob Petersen-Perlman

Nico A. Contreras Patrick Finnerty Jennifer Salazar
Leah Kaplan Estefanie Govea Benjamin Siegel
Andisheh Ranjbari Jamin Lee Bhuwan Thapa
America Lutz Ley Alex Utzinger
Given their substantial efforts, Ms. Stephanie J. Zawada, the senior

rapporteur, and Mr. Nico A. Contreras, the associate rapporteur, are coedi-
tors of this document. Of note, Ms. Kaplan, Ranjbari, and Zawada attended
the AAAS Science Diplomacy and Leadership workshop and presented a
summary of this meeting and its influence on their thoughts and career
directions.
Leading up and following the conference, the UA hosted three s eminars
to highlight SDP. We thank each of them and their hosts from the orga-
nizing committee: Dr. George Atkinson (Institute for Science for Global
Policy), Dr. David Cash (University of Massachusetts–Amherst), and Ms.
Frances Ulmer (U.S. Arctic Research Commission). Lastly, we would like
to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Vazirizade and Mr. S oltanianfard in
assisting to check the copy edited files.
Additionally, we thank Professor Mohammad Noori and Dr. Joel
Stein from Momentum Press for their valuable advice and recommenda-
tions regarding the quality and content presentation of the proceedings.
In addition, we would like to acknowledge Ms. Kiruthigadevi
Nirmaladevi, project manager at S4Carlisle Publishing Services, for
her accuracy and patience in preparing the manuscripts for publication.
Acknowledgments • xix
Also, the extraordinary efforts of Ms. Sheri E. Dean, marketing direc-

tor at Momentum Press, in completion of the books and her prompt-
ness are appreciated.
The organizers also compliment Ms. Hillary Beggs (conference
organization) and Mr. Frank Camp (publicity) from the UA Office of
Global Initiatives on their contributions. We especially appreciate Hillary,
who was a tremendous resource and understood and navigated our team
through the complexities of hosting an international conference. In addi-
tion, thanks to Ms. Jill Goetz of the College of Engineering Marketing
and Communications Services for her keenness in developing pre- and
postconference stories.
We appreciate the support of the UA Office for Government Relations
in identifying and inviting leaders to speak at our dinners and lunch and
thank Mr. Matthew Salmon, his Honorable Mayor Jonathan Rothschild,
and his Honorable Congressman Raul Grijalva for their comments.
Finally, our gratitude goes to the staff of the UA Department of Civil
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics for fitting this out-of-the-or-
dinary task into their already at-capacity workload. Of particular note,
we thank Ms. Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager, for her efforts in
financial oversight and on-site conference support. Ms. Sierra Lindsay,
an undergraduate creative writing student, deserves our special thanks.
She joined the department several years ago and has grown tremendously
as she supported the preparation of various publications. Sierra had
primary responsibility for compiling, copyediting, and formatting these
proceedings.
Kevin Lansey
Hassan Vafai
December 2017
Conference Program
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017—AT THE

CROSSROADS OF SCIENCE AND DIPLOMACY
6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

E. William Colglazier, introduced by Andre
Comrie, UA Provost
6:45–8:00 p.m. Free and Open to the Public: Ask the Experts
about the Role of Scientists and Governments
in Science Diplomacy—Peter Agre, Norman
Neureiter, and Thomas Pickering
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017—ROLES

WITHIN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

by Jeff Goldberg, Dean of the UA College of
Engineering
8:15–9:05 a.m. Keynote address: Science Diplomacy in the
Twenty-First Century—Vaughan Turekian
9:05–10:05 a.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of International
Organizations and Governments in Science
Diplomacy
Panel: Lidia Brito, Roman Macaya, and John
Boright
Moderator: Marcella Ohira
10:05–10:30 a.m. Break
10:30–11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of Academics and
Universities in Science Diplomacy
Panel: Sergio Pastrana, Michael Clegg, and
Arturo Menchaca
xxii • Conference Program
Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

Professor of Neuroscience and Foreign Secre-
tary of the National Academy of Sciences
11:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Address: Connecting Scientists with Policy Around
the World
Marga Gual Soler, introduced by John
Hildebrand
12:00–1:15 p.m. Lunch
1:15–2:15 p.m. Panel Discussion: Challenges and Opportunities
for Science Diplomacy Panel: N
orman Neureiter,
Alan Leshner, and Glenn Schweitzer Modera-
tor: Carol Rose, Lohse Chair in Water and Nat-
ural Resources, UA James E. Rogers College
of Law
2:15–3:15 p.m. Address: The 2030 Agenda and the Sustain-
able Development Goals: New Entry Points for
Science at the UN
Richard Roehrl, introduced by John Boright
3:15–3:45 p.m. Break
3:45–5:00 p.m. Panel Discussion: The Role of Science, Technol-
ogy, and Innovation for Achieving the SDGs
Panel: E. William Colglazier, William E. Kelly,
Nebojsa Nakicenovic, and Jamie Urrutia-
Fucugauchi
Moderator: David Pietz, UNESCO Chair of
Environmental History, UA Department of
History
5:00–5:30 p.m. Summary Remarks and University Initiative on
Science Diplomacy and Policy: Jeff Goldberg,
Dean of the UA College of Engineering
5:30–6:30 p.m. Reception on hotel patio
6:30–8:00 p.m. Dinner: with speaker former U.S. Congress-
man Matt Salmon (R-AZ-05), introduced by
Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2017—CLIMATE CHANGE

AND WATER SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES
8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

Conference Co-Chair
Conference Program • xxiii
8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

A. Scott, UA Udall Center for Studies in Public
Policy
Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Research: Science Diplomacy and Capacity
Building: Marcella Ohira
Water Sustainability Challenges for the Americas:
Katherine Vammen
10:00–10:30 a.m. Break
10:30–11:30 a.m. Panel Discussion: Climate Change Challenges
for the Americas and the Role of Science
Diplomacy
Panel: Paty Romero-Lankao, Diana Liverman,
and Hem Nalini Mozaria-Luna
Moderator: James Buizer, Professor of Climate
Adaption, UA School of Natural Resources and
the Environment
11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Panel Discussion: Water Sustainability Chal-
lenges for the Americas and the Role of Science
Diplomacy
Panel: Helen Ingram, William Logan, and
Francisco Zamora Moderator: Robert Varady,
Professor of Environmental Policy, UA Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy
12:30–12:45 p.m. Concluding Remarks: E. William Colglazier;
and Conference Chairs Kevin Lansey and
Hassan Vafai, UA Department of Civil Engi-
neering and Engineering Mechanics
1:00–2:30 p.m. Lunch and Closing Presentation with Speaker
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-03),
introduced by John Paul Jones III, Dean of the
UA College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Moderator: Shannon Heuberger, Director of
UA Federal Legislative Affairs
PART 1
Climate Change
Challenges for the
Americas and the Role
of Science Diplomacy
Introduction
to IAI Science Diplomacy
and Capacity Building
and Water Sustainability
Challenges for
the Americas
Christopher Scott
Director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
It is my pleasure to welcome you to the panel and the two speakers this
morning. Let’s talk about how to construct a science diplomacy with a
focus on the Americas. I am Christopher Scott. I’m Director of the Udall
Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona and also
a professor of geography and development in the College of Social and
Behavioral Sciences. And, my own background is extensive work with—
including with several of the speakers here at the table—others of you,
here in the Americas, and also in a past life in south Asia.
It is my pleasure to welcome you and get our focus and attention today
on science diplomacy in the Americas. We have two outstanding s peakers,
both of whom are scientists, science diplomats, and diplomatic scien-
tists. Without further ado, let me welcome the first speaker this morning,
Marcella Ohira. She is the Deputy Director for Capacity Building at the
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research. She’ll explain about
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), which was
conceived and founded as a diplomatic institute for the Americas, not just
Latin America; the United States and Canada are also members, as well as
English-speaking countries in other parts of the Americas. So, it is truly a
pan-hemispheric institute.
I’d like to introduce Dr. Katherine Vammen, who is Dean of the
Faculty of Science, Technology and Environment of the University of
4 • SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIPLOMACY, VOLUME III
Central America in Nicaragua. We’ll have a bit more of her focus, par-
ticularly on water and water resources in the Central American region,
but she’s also a member of the grouping of national science academies
that represents a number of those academies from the Central American
region.
Water Sustainability
Challenges
of the Americas
Katherine Vammen
Dean, Faculty of Science, Technology and the Environment,
University of Central America, Managua, Nicaragua
ABSTRACT
In Latin America, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals are key

to promoting economic growth, improved public infrastructure, and
rational improved resource management. In spite of the fact that water
and sanitation efforts have improved across the region, resulting in a
decrease in waterborne disease cases, Katherine Vammen, Dean of the
Faculty of Science, Technology and the Environment at the University
of Central America (UCA), explored numerous gaps that exist with
respect to planning and preparing for projected water sustainability
challenges caused by environmental degradation, climate change, and
needed water management interventions which also take into account
equity issues. The treatment of water and minimization of its con-
tamination along with improved watershed management in urban and
rural areas is critical to the sustainable development of the region and
improved quality of life for its p opulation. International scientific coop-
eration is key to the analysis of water resource problems and finding
adequate solutions.
Keywords: International collaboration, Latin America, nicaragua sustain-

able development, water issues, water resource management
Rapporteurs: PattrickFinnerty, Ravindra Dwivedi, Nico A. Conterreras, and Stephenie

J. Zawada
GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR IMPROVING WATER

MANAGEMENT MUST BE MET BY SCIENCE
DIPLOMACY AND POLICY MAKING
IN THE AMERICAS
The challenges facing Latin America in the twenty-first century are inter-
national in scope and cannot be resolved through the efforts of individual
nations. All countries in Latin America have made progress toward achiev-
ing, or have achieved, some of the Millennium and Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals; however, the populations of individual nations have not
necessarily experienced equal benefits from these regional investments.
For example, enormous disparities exist between urban and rural areas as
well as between the rich and poor, resulting in access disparities to water,
sanitation, and safety, especially when considering current climate change
trends. Given that water is affected by climate change and environmental
degradation, it may rightly be regarded as a measure of equity with respect
to living conditions, social equality, and poverty.
GLOBAL DEMANDS FOR WATER RESOURCES
Global demands on water resources are growing for all uses such as agri-
culture, industry, domestic, and others. Water consumption is also greater
for developed countries where domestic consumption (500 to 800 liters
per person per day) is almost six times that of developing countries (60 to
150 liters per person per day).1 The access to renewable reserves of water in
the Americas is favorable in comparison to other continents running from
2,500 m3 per inhabitant per year upward.2 It is important to consider the
links and relationships to all resources that consume water, especially food
and energy. Globally, agriculture accounts for approximately 3,100 billion
m3 or 71 percent of water withdrawals today, and without efficiency gains
this will increase to 4,500 billion m3 by 2030.3 The demand for water in
energy production has been predicted to increase severely as regional econ-
omies grow from 2000 to 2030 (56 percent in Latin America, 63 percent
in West Asia, 65 percent in Africa, and 78 percent in Asia).4 So this brings
up the question how the sustainable use of water can be achieved when
1
I.A. Shiklomanov. 1999. State Hydrological Institute and United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Paris: UNESCO).
2
FAO. 2016. “Aguastat.” http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/indexesp.stm
3
The World Economic Forum Water Initiative. 2011. Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-
Climate Nexus (Geneva, Switzerland: The World Economic Forum Water Initiative).
4
“Ibid”
Water Sustainability Challenges of the Americas • 7
already 70 percent of the world’s water is allocated to agriculture. The

highly interlinked needs for water–energy–food requires comprehensive
solutions coordinated among different stakeholders, local, national, and
international. The common factor that threads through all is water. The roll
of science and policy making based on information is key to meeting these
water sustainability challenges.
WATER SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES

FOR THE AMERICAS
WATER ACCESS AND SANITATION IN THE AMERICAS
Access to water is one of the most pressing concerns for Latin American
development. The development of access to water and sanitation practices
for urban centers in many countries in Latin America has often occurred
in parallel with the neglect of peri-urban (urban peripheral) and rural
development, characterized by unsafe housing conditions and poor water/
septic infrastructure, among other problems.5
Latin America is globally one of the region’s most heavily urbanized,
with an average of approximately 80 percent of its population living in cit-
ies, and this number is projected to rise to 86 percent by 2050.6 Its popula-
tion has almost doubled in the past three decades, from about 300 million
to more than 600 million.7
Of the urban population, about 94 percent have access to piped water,
an improvement from 88 percent in 1990, and 88 percent have access to
reliable sanitation.8 The focus on urban populations by their respective
governments is understandable, given population concentrations. How-
ever, as these cities grow and populations in rural areas are displaced by
either economic or environmental factors, the problems plaguing those
living in peri-urban and rural areas are being compounded.
The Water Program at Inter-American Network of Academies of Sci-
ences published a book which included 20 country chapters of the Americas
5
Jorgelina Hardoy and Gustavo Pandiella. 2009. “Urban Poverty and Vulnerability to Climate
Change in Latin America.” Environment and Urbanization 21, no. 1, pp. 203–224.
6
WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). 2017. The United Nations
World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: The Untapped Resource (Paris:
UNESCO).
7
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. February 2, 2016. “Latin
America Population Will Reach 625 million Inhabitants by 2016, According to ECLAC
Estimates.” ECLAC.
8
World Health Organization. 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update
and MDG Assessment (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization).
(North America, Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South America)

specifically on urban waters and the challenges. This compendium of
information on urban waters involved the work of 120 authors, all experts
in water management with different specialties.9
Urbanization goes hand in hand with the intensification of the use
of water resources for human needs. The hydrological systems play an
important role in the development and growth of urban centers not only
for potable water but also for deposition of wastes. The problems plaguing
these areas originate in preparation and planning failures of urban devel-
opment. The structural crisis of most urban centers begins in the decade of
the 1960s (after many decades of growth) with irregular increase in sectors
without services occupying the peripheral zones of urban areas when the
capacity for public investment was strongly reduced, causing problems
associated with inadequate infrastructure, problems with the construction
of new works, and the failure to integrate water in the design of integral
urban solutions.10
Most countries of Latin America report problems with continuity
of services which inevitably lead to health problems. Added to these are
ruptures in the distribution system and lack of renovations in most cit-
ies of Latin America.11 Peri-urban areas have largely come about in the
past few decades as a result of rapid population growth and the failure
to incorporate new communities. Displaced populations—removed from
their homes due to environmental conditions, war, or economic neces-
sity—have arrived in cities, looking for opportunities no longer available
in rural areas, settling along the periphery of the city. Ordinarily, these
areas are not provided with piped water or sufficient sanitation, which can
lead to serious community health threats.12 In the absence of piped water,
residents may store water in open containers, inadvertently providing still
water for mosquitoes to inhabit, breed, and possibly spread infectious dis-
ease to the population. This has occurred in multiple countries and is a
well-documented phenomenon in, for example, Nicaragua.13 Therefore,
it is debatable whether these displaced populations’ access to water and
services in these impromptu living environments is an improvement when
compared to their formal rural homes.
9
IANAS. 2015. Urban Water: Challenges in the Americas: A Perspective from the Academies
of Sciences (México, D.F.: IANAS).
10
“Ibid”
11
“Ibid”
12
J. Hardoy, and G. Pandiella. “Urban Poverty and Vulnerability to Climate Change in Latin
America,” Sage Journals 203–224.
13
of Science, (London, Canada: IANAS).
In most countries of Latin America water-transmitted diseases are

r eported with higher register of cases in the most underdeveloped part of
the cities particularly in peripheral poor populations. Acute diarrhea dis-
ease and those caused by vectors such as mosquitos, Malaria and Dengue,
and in the last years Chikungunya and Zika.
It is important to mention that in the last decade there has been an
improvement in cities in both Latin American and Caribbean countries as
a result of better access to water and increasing installation of sanitation.
Progress in development of public health surveillance systems has also
contributed to this improvement.
The focus of many nations on urban development has resulted in sig-
nificantly less impressive service penetration in rural areas; however, as
with urban provision, progress has been made. Rural access to water ser-
vices is currently about 68 percent, up from 37 percent in 1990. Although
sanitation is provided to slightly more than half of the rural population,
open-air defecation is still widely practiced, raising obvious public health
concerns.14 These areas also face additional threats to water quality from
agricultural runoff, the results of deforestation, and the resulting eutro-
phication of surface water.15 No Latin American country has yet achieved
100 percent piped water provision for their entire populations, but Chile
has achieved 100 percent sanitation provision. As with other success
stories, this has been accomplished with targeted projects and strong par-
ticipation or guidance by governments and private investment.
In addition to inequality between urban and rural populations, enor-
mous disparities exist between nations. For instance, Chile has achieved
100 percent access to sanitation while many other Latin American nations
have achieved only roughly 80 percent access.
Bolivia, in particular, offers dangerously low sanitation provisions
with only 57 percent access.16 The differences seen between nations stem
from innumerable conditions, from available sources of freshwater to eco-
nomic conditions and even encompassing methodology of provision and
different levels in capacity for good management practices of freshwater
sources. In Nicaragua, Lake Nicaragua provides freshwater to some small
cities, but the nation’s second largest lake, adjacent to capital Managua,
14
World Health Organization. 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015
Update and MDG Assessment, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization).
15
K. Vammen. 2014. “Supply and Sanitation: How Are the Unserved to Be Served? Serving
the Rural Unserved.” In Water for the Americas: Challenges and Opportunities (Contribu-
tions from the Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy) (London and New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group).
16
World Health Organization. 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015
Update and MDG Assessment (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization).
Lake Xolotlan, has been heavily contaminated, and although a treatment

plant was installed in 2009, the water quality will never reach potable
water quality again. Chile’s ability to afford sanitation provision for all
citizens may be attributed in part to its gross domestic product (GDP) per
capita, which is more than four times that of Bolivia.17
While drinking water coverage in urban centers in Nicaragua is at
98 percent, the progress with relation to sanitation has been relatively slow, at
63 percent for urban areas and far less for rural ones. The Nicaraguan drink-
ing water supply is also increasingly threatened, as the detrimental effects
of climate change, such as floods, add to those of industrial and agricultural
runoff and sedimentation. Already, two important bodies of water are no lon-
ger usable as drinking sources: Lake Tiscapa and Lake Xolotlan/Managua.
Lake Xolotlan, as mentioned above, received both industrial and domestic
wastewaters of Managua from 1927 to 2009 and also received mercury
wastewaters from a factory, which produced sodium hypochlorite and chlo-
rine, and in operation from 1967 to 1992, located on the shores of the lake.18
About 60 percent of the Latin American urban population is con-
nected to sewage systems; however, only 20 to 30 percent of this sewage
is adequately treated before release.19 The remaining 70 to 80 percent is
the result of decades of widespread negligence and is released into the
environment without treatment, culminating in the contamination of bod-
ies of water, exposure of urban peripheral populations to human waste,
and a myriad of health risks. 20 The United Nations estimates that raising
sanitation levels to 64 percent for Latin America and the Caribbean would
cost $33 billion, and although monetary capital is necessary to improve
wastewater treatment, it is only a part of the solution.
In addition to the capital required, the organization and selection of
wastewater treatment systems must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Some rural settlements don’t need centralized sewage systems but instead
need remedies that are widely adapted to specific areas that better fit the
physical and human systems and assures widespread use.21 For rural pop-
17
World Bank. 2017. “Latin America and Caribbean.” http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/
lac (Accessed June 6, 2017).
18 IANAS. 2015. Urban Water: Challenges in the Americas: A Perspective from the Acade-
mies of Science (London, Canada: IANAS)
19
“Ibid”
20
A.M. Ingallinella, G. Sanguinetti, T. Koottatep, A. Montanger, M. Strauss. 2002. “The
Challenge of Faecal Sludge Management in Urban Areas-Strategies, Regulations and Treat-
ment Options.” Water Science and Technology 46, no. 10, pp. 285–294.
21
K. Vammen. 2014. “Supply and Sanitation: How Are the Unserved to Be Served? Serving
the Rural Unserved.” In Water for the Americas: Challenges and Opportunities (Contribu-
tions from the Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy), edited by A. Garrido and
M. Schechter. (London and New York: Routledge, Taylos & Frances Group).
ulations, condominium- style, collective septic tanks have been used with
great success in multiple countries and should be encouraged to increase
sanitation in rural areas.22 The treatment of the waste collected, though,
is usually insufficient in rural areas, often due to inadequate funding for
treatment centers or those that treat the wastewater to only minimum
acceptable levels.23 Frequently, the situation is the latter, with 67 percent
of facilities in Latin America treating lesser amounts of waste to usually
unacceptable levels. For urban areas themselves, a centralized approach to
wastewater treatment seems to be the most effective course of action, as it
allows for the treatment of large volumes of waste as well as sufficiently
treating the waste at a lower cost per volume than smaller facilities due to
economies of scale.24 As for national strategies, it is likely this process will
be slow and incremental, as it has been in the past, with wastewater stan-
dards slowly increasing until acceptable. A focus on critical points in the
pipeline of the water treatment process and the intense regulation of where
waste is dumped will allow for the minimization of environmental damage.
CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND USE

MODIFICATIONS FOR WATER RESOURCES: THE NEED
FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Most cities of Latin America are under great pressure due to extreme events
of drought and floods. Cities are vulnerable to these extreme events due
to failures in planning of growth and extension, lack of modernization of
water distribution systems, and development of drainage systems that are
better adapted to intense precipitation events. All countries have reported
change in precipitation patterns accompanied by modifications in soil use
in surrounding urban watersheds. Deforestation also causes an increase in
erosion, bringing heavier sedimentation into cities.25 For example, Buenos
Aires suffered 24 floods from 1990 to 199826; its urban development has
been within 11 water basins, all distinct in characteristics of their hydro-
logical system; therefore, each basin reacts differently to increasing rainfall
22
“Ibid”
23
S. Wallsten, K. Kosec, G. R. G. Clarke. 2004. Has Private Participation in Water and
Sewerage Improved Coverage? Empirical Evidence from Latin America. Policy Research
Working Paper; No. 3445. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank, License: CC BY
3.0 IGO. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/13898
24
“Ibid”
25
of Science (London, Canada: IANAS)
26
J. Hardoy, and G. Pandiella. “Urban Poverty and Vulnerability to Climate Change in Latin
America.” Environment and Urbanization 21, no. 1, pp. 203–224.
and in the magnitude of its risk for flooding.27 In Latin America there has
been an increase in years of drought and therewith an expansion of arid
zones. For example in Central America, a study revealed a clear reduction
in surface runoff since the 1980s associated with higher evapotranspiration
rates due to gradual increase in temperatures.28 These results are important
as Central America is dominantly dedicated to agriculture in many areas.
Drought has also caused a severe crisis in provision of potable water, which
has forced authorities to ration water use for irrigation and give priority
to human consumption. This has also caused intermunicipal conflicts for
access to the scarce available water. One example is the Dominican Repub-
lic illustrated in “Urban Waters: Challenges in the Americas.”29
Constant urbanization in most cities has meant an increase in imper-
meability of soils in surrounding watersheds of cities, which cause and
increase in input flow toward city settlements. Some cities are making
detailed studies of the vulnerable zones where the drainage system is inad-
equate under high precipitation, for example, in Montevideo, Uruguay. As
the design of the drainage system was made in the 1950s, it does not pro-
vide sufficient drainage and was not designed with climate change in mind
that requires a higher degree of absorption of heavy precipitation. The
drainage system needs to be reformed completely to avoid frequent flood-
ing due to overflow of urban ditches close to housing and nearby rivers.30
All 20 countries of the Inter-American Network of Academies of
Sciences (IANAS) study of urban waters emphasized that proper urban
water management must include watershed management within urban and
surrounding rural areas. Consideration of individual basins and solutions
developed per basin may be the most efficient way to counteract and plan
for flooding in most urban areas.
In rural areas the contamination of watersheds are dominantly
associated with agriculture and intensive use of pesticides. Domestic and
community wastes have caused problems with high concentrations of
nitrates in water sources. Bacterial sources due to poor-quality sanitation
and open defecation in some rural areas have been observed. As a whole,
there is widespread eutrophication of surface waters due to changing soil
use pattern and deforestation accompanied by an increase in agricultural
and pasturelands in watersheds.
27
28
H.G. Hidalgo, J.A. Amador, E.J. Alfaro, and B. Quesada. 2013. “Hydrological Climate
Change Projections for Central America.” Journal of Hydrology 495, pp. 94–112.
29
30
“Ibid”
WATER PROBLEMS CONCERN EQUITY AND LACK

OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RESPONSIBLE
INSTITUTIONS
Water is the quintessential equity issue as it is a public resource as well as

an economic good. It is clear that rural areas where supplies are diverted
and polluted sometimes by cities as well as urban poor in peri-urban a reas
are slighted. Decision-making processes for water management and to
assure access and sanitation are often opaque, closed, and nonparticipa-
tory. The water resource community has ignored water equity and not
developed ways to serve distributional and procedural fairness.31
It is notable that most countries of Latin America have Water Authorities
and specific legislation for water management and supervision, but most
countries observed a lack of effectiveness in water management under these
institutions and the laws are not being adequately enforced.32 Water gover-
nance should include the correct management to maintain a dequate social
uses, efficient use of better technology but also to maintain environmental
services.
THE PROPOSED NICARAGUAN CANAL

AS EXAMPLE OF SCIENCE DIPLOMACY
AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION
In 2013, the Nicaraguan government approved the construction of a trans-

oceanic canal that would pass through Lake Nicaragua (Lake Cocibolca),
the largest tropical lake in the Americas. This approval was granted with-
out an adequate assessment of the proposed canal’s economic benefits or
environmental hazards. Additionally, the company that proposed to build
the canal had no experience in the construction of transoceanic canals. The
company’s lack of established credibility resulted in widespread unease
with respect to the feasibility of the canal’s development, both in and out-
side of Nicaragua.33
In late 2014, international experts met in Nicaragua to discuss the
technical viability, economic benefits, and potential environmental costs
31
H. Ingram. 2014. Presentation in Bridging Science and Policy to enhance Water Security
in Africa and the Americas, Inter-American Network of Academies of Science (IANAS) and
Network of African Academies of Science (NASAC), Panama, 2014.
32
33
S. Daley. 2016. “Lost in Nicaragua, a Chinese Tycoon’s Canal Project.” The New York Times
3, no. 4.
of the proposed canal at a meeting organized by the Nicaraguan Academy

of Sciences (ACN) and. It was concluded that no known construction
techniques could prevent the widespread water contamination of the Lake
Nicaragua projected to occur due to the canal’s development in construc-
tion and operation. Also, the disruption or devastation of numerous eco-
systems along the canal route would be either unavoidable or highly likely.
Moreover, there were poor indications that the canal could provide socio-
economic benefits to Nicaragua, outside of those directly involved with
operating the canal.34 Groups of local farmers from rural communities along
the projected canal route organized a continuing series of protests against
the governmental plan for the canal. These two activities from national and
international scientists and organized protests from farmers have played an
important role in the constant stalling of the project’s initiation. Today, there
is no observable source of funding for the project, as its original benefactor
has also had financial problems and has not achieved financial partnerships
to support the canal construction. Therefore, several social and economic
issues may have contributed to the fading of the construction project.35
These chains of events offer several key lessons and examples. For
instance, economic development can be costly to environmental and water
resources. Also, the economic development associated with a project may
not necessarily improve equality. The story of this project also demon-
strates the importance of data-driven policy making and the role of not only
national science academies or politicians but also individual international
scientists and engineers in ensuring the ethical, cost-effective sustainable
development of a country. It shows the important role international and
national scientific organizations can play in analyzing information from
mega projects bringing environmental consequences, which would have
an impact on sustainable development in countries with a strong need for
poverty reduction through rational development investment projects.
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTORS

IN SOLVING WATER CHALLENGES
Infrastructure issues are not a problem specific to the developing world,

as the United States and Canada struggle to reinvest sufficient amounts to
maintain high-quality water services. The situation in the United States
34
A.H. Jorge, P.J.J. Alvarez, J.L. Schnoor, B.E. Rittmann, A. Clayton, M.L. Acosta, C.E.M.
Bicudo, et al. 2015. “Scientists Raise Alarms about Fast Tracking of Transoceanic Canal
through Nicaragua.” Environmental Science and Technology 49, no. 7, pp. 3989–3996.
35
“Ibid”
can be characterized as follows: “Water scarcity is intensifying. Water

quality is declining. Urban water supply and sanitation infrastructure is
aging. Planning and financing for maintenance and renewal is inadequate
and, without action, will become more so over time.”36 The water pollution
problem in Flint, Michigan, provides one of the most recent, widespread
examples.
There is ample capital available for development, though, as Nicaragua
alone received aid from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development
Bank, Germany, Korea, Japan, Spain, and other countries to invest an esti-
mated $492 million from 2008 to 2012 in potable water provision and san-
itation systems, the latter making up 61 percent of the total investments.37
Improvements in water management and institutional planning and
oversight for urban areas must be given priority, as most countries are
conscious that the management of water in cities has been fragmentary
and has not considered the infrastructure for urban water management
in a holistic way. One proposal would entail incorporating, into one
organizational unit, all elements of urban water management: supply of
potable water, collection and treatment of wastewater, and storm drain-
age and u rban flood control as demonstrated in Toronto, Canada. A water-
shed-based planning approach is advocated to mitigate the water quality
and quantity impacts of wet weather flows, including water pollution,
flooding, and stream erosion. This would help better direct urban growth
away from high-risk areas such as flood plains and embankments. The
case study of water management in Toronto shows the integration of urban
water management into one institution.38 But each country must develop
effective institutional structures and management plans according to the
specific characteristics of their own water management necessities.
International scientific cooperation can fulfill other roles to aid in
Latin America’s development. The lengthy and thorough study organized
by IANAS provides an excellent resource on the state of water infrastruc-
ture in the Americas.39 IANAS also helped to organize, along with the Nic-
araguan Academy of Science, the conference that led to an analysis and
the recommendation to suspend the construction of the proposed transoce-
anic canal through Lake Nicaragua.40
36
37
“Ibid”
38
“Ibid”
39
“Ibid”
40
A.H. Jorge, P.J.J. Alvarez, J.L. Schnoor, B.E. Rittmann, A. Clayton, M.L. Acosta, C.E.M.
Bicudo, et al. 2015. “Scientists Raise Alarms about Fast Tracking of Transoceanic Canal
through Nicaragua.” Environmental Science and Technology 49, no. 7, pp. 3989–3996.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable progress has been made in Latin America’s development.

Rates of provision for piped water and sanitation have increased in every
country, reducing the risk of waterborne disease and improving public
health; however, there is still much to be done. The treatment of wastewa-
ter is severely lacking throughout the region and, without improvement,
will result in the continued contamination of bodies of water resulting in
higher health risks. Climate change, modifications of land use, and other
environmental conditions will strain many current water systems, from the
provision of water for citizens to the prevention of flooding. Water man-
agement must be managed in relation to uses for energy and food security.
Additional investments coupled with the possibility of the reorganization
of water management to target these investments efficiently and appropri-
ately will allow for continued and sustainable development. Investments
should also be considered to build the capacity to encourage collaboration
between Latin American nations in order to address current problems and
mitigate future ones, especially threats posed by climate change. Encour-
aging collaboration by nations early on in order to monitor environmental
and water conditions, as well as to address the potential consequences of
climate change, may in turn prevent discord between nations, as access to
resources is increasingly strained by a changing climate. It is crucial to
have scientific information and analysis as a base for water management
and planning for the adequate use of water resources.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Budds, J., and G. McGranahan. n.d. “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Miss-
ing the Point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America.” Environ-
ment and Urbanization 15, 2.
Clarke, G. R. G, K. Kosec, and S. Wallsten. 2004. “Has Private Participation in Water
and Sewerage Improved Coverage? Empirical Evidence from Latin America.”
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/13898
Daley, S. 2016. “Lost in Nicaragua, a Chinese Tycoon’s Canal Project.” The New
York Times 3, 4.
Dourojeanni, A. 2001. Water Management at the River Basin Level: Challenges in
Latin America. Santiago, Chile: ECLAC.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). February
2, 2016. “Latin America Population Will Reach 625 million Inhabitants by
2016, According to ECLAC Estimates.” https://www.cepal.org/en/noticias
FAO. 2016. “Aguastat.” http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/indexesp.stm
Hardoy, J., and G. Pandiella. “Urban Poverty and Vulnerability to Climate Change
in Latin America.” Environment and Urbanization 21, no. 1, pp. 203–224.
Hidalgo, H.G., J.A. Amador, E.J. Alfaro, and B. Quesada. 2013. “Hydrological
Climate Change Projections for Central America.” Journal of Hydrology 495,
pp. 94–112.
IAI Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research. 2017. “Small Grants for
Collaborative Research in the Americas (SGP-CRA) 2012-2015.” http://www
.iai.int/?page_id=3074, (accessed June 6, 2017). http://www.iai.int/
Interamerican Network of Academies of Sciences. 2015. Urban Water Challenges
in the Americas: A Perspective from the Academies of Sciences. México, D.F.:
IANAS. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=246414&gp=0&
lin=1&ll=
Ingallinella, A. M., G. Sanguinetti, T. Koottatep, A. Montanger, M. Strauss. 2002.
“The Challenge of Faecal Sludge Management in Urban Areas-Strategies,
Regulations and Treatment Options.” Water Science and Technology 46,
no. 10, pp. 285–294.
Ingram, H. Presentation in Bridging Science and Policy to Enhance Water Security
in Africa and the Americas, Interamerican Network of Academies of Science
(IANAS) & Network of African Academies of Science (NASAC), Panama, 2014.
Jorge, A.H, P.J.J. Alvarez, J.L. Schnoor, B.E. Rittmann, A. Clayton, M.L. Acosta,
C.E.M. Bicudo, et al. 2015. “Scientists Raise Alarms about Fast Tracking of
Transoceanic Canal through Nicaragua.” Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy 49, no. 7, pp. 3989–3996.
Josse, C., F. Cuesta, G. Navarro, V. Barrena, M.T. Ramirez, E. Cabrera, E. Chacón-
Moreno, W. Ferreira, M. Peralvo, et al. 2011. “Physical Geography and Eco-
systems in the Tropical Andes.” In Climate Change and Biodiversity in the
Tropical Andes, compiled by S.K. Herzog, R. Martínez, P.M. Jørgensen, and
H. Tiessen. São José dos Campos y París: Instituto Interamericano para la
Investigación del Cambio Global y Comité Científico sobre Problemas del
Medio Ambiente.
Noyola, Adalberto, A. Padilla-Rivera, J. Manuel, M. Sagastume, L.P. Güereca,
and F. Hernández-Padilla. 2012. “Typology of Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Technologies in Latin America.” CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water 40, no. 9,
pp. 926–932.
Ohira, M.S. 2007. “IAI Capacity Building Activities in the Americas: Fostering Mul-
tinational and Multidisciplinary Research.” In AGU Spring Meeting Abstracts.
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2007.
Pagiola, S., A. Arcenas, and G. Platais. “Can Payments for Environmental Services
Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date
from Latin America.” World Development 33, no. 2, pp. 237–253.
Shiklomanov, I.A. 1999. State Hydrological Institute and United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Paris: UNESCO.
The World Economic Forum Water Initiative. 2017. Water Security: The Water-
Food-Energy-Climate Nexus. 2011. United Nations World Water Assessment
Programme. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017
Wastewater: The Untapped Resource. Paris: UNESCO.
Vammen, K. 2014. “Supply and Sanitation: How Are the Unserved to Be Served?
Serving the Rural Unserved.” In Water for the Americas: Challenges and
Opportunities (Contributions from the Rosenberg International Forum on

Water Policy), edited by A. Garrido and M. Schechter. London and New York:
Routledge, Taylos & Frances Group.
World Bank. 2017. “Latin America & Caribbean.” Accessed June 6, 2017. http://
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/852411493655498052/Global-Economic-
Prospects-June-2017-Latin-America-and-Caribbean-analysis.pdf
World Health Organization. 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water:
2015 Update and MDG Assessment.Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
The Challenges of
Creating a Science-
Policy Interface
Paty Romero-Lankao
Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
ABSTRACT
Climate change in the Americas can be effectively managed and mitigated

via the development of a science-policy interface. The design of a sci-
ence-policy interface, however, is resource intensive for the scientific com-
munity and challenges in three distinct ways: the first is concerned with
relevancy of information, the second focuses on the validity of research
conclusion, and the third deals with ensuring an unbiased approach to
problem-solving. The role of the scientific community in designing this
interface requires a rapid infusion of robust technological information into
policy, which can be accomplished by adapting diplomatic methodologies
for cutting-edge STEM data.
Keywords: Climate change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

science diplomacy, science-policy interface
OBSTACLES TO A SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACE
Reflecting on her experience at the intersection of sociology and climate

science, Dr. Romero- Lankao, Senior Scientist at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, has outlined three challenges for the devel-
opment of an interactive, influential science-policy interface to address
the most demanding of threats posed to the environmental ecosystem
today.
Rapporteurs: Benjamin Seigel, Nico A. Contreras, Jennifer Salazar, and Ravindra Dwivedi
The first challenge is the need for scientific advice to be relevant to

society and decision making. Building upon the relevance requirement, the
second challenge in developing a science-policy interface is the filtration
and integration of high-quality, technically sound science. The final chal-
lenge is to create data-driven knowledge that does not favor one stakeholder
over another. Balancing these three challenges is the greatest deterrent for
bridging the worlds of science and policy.
Essentially, the first challenge deals with identifying knowledge gaps
in the policy world and shaping scientific conclusions to fill those voids.
While researchers care for publishing, expanding knowledge, and devel-
oping new ideas, their counterparts in the realm of policy and decision
making frequently deal with a myriad of urgent issues. As one decision
making in Buenos Aires told Dr. Romero-Lankao, “Paty, you are talking
about climate change; I have twenty issues to deal with, so be brief and
fast.” Thus, scientists are tasked with two objectives to overcome the
first challenge: (1) to bridge two different communities with distinct cul-
tures and (2) to adapt the dissemination of scientific information to the
fast-paced world of world affairs.
The second challenge, to ensure the validity and veracity of informa-
tion, is critical in both science and policy, as findings must be based on
empirical evidence in order to be relevant.
THE GLOBAL DECISION-MAKING LIFECYCLE
Humility is key to persevering throughout the arduous, slow process

of providing information to decision makers. No matter how effective
the scientific community is with respect to engaging decision makers,
it cannot directly affect decision making. Decision making has its own
lifecycle, and scientists cannot always infuse technological information
into decisions.1 Ensuring that mutual learning opportunities are contin-
ually offered is critical to ebbing away at the barriers to influencing de-
cision making.
Clarity is key to address the third challenge to developing the
science-policy interface. When working in these two distinct worlds, it
is important that science advisers precisely define the issue at hand. For
issues with universal stakeholder agreement, namely that all affected want
to achieve the same goal or share the same values, it is easiest to ensure an
impactful outcome. For example, in the aviation and weather forecasting
1
A. Chapman. 2016. “Strengthening the Energy Policy Making Process and Sustainability
Outcomes in the OECD through Policy Design.” Administrative Sciences 6, no. 9.
THE CHALLENGES OF CREATING A SCIENCE-POLICY • 21
industries, both groups want to improve the accuracy of forecasting to

reduce the impact of weather on aviation operations.2 For issues with
shared goals, it is easy to project the statistical likelihood of any given
outcome.
CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE FOR CLIMATE

CHANGE THROUGH CLARITY
Many of the sustainability issues of today are unclear and poorly

defined, leading to contested methods of addressing the problems. For
example, the vulnerability of a population to temperature is framed dif-
ferently by different disciplines. Epidemiology, for instance, focuses on
quantifying the impacts of exposure to temperature. In contrast, polit-
ical ecology wants to understand why some populations lack access
to green areas, swimming pools, and air-conditioning. Although the
underlying issue is uniform, the focus and the actors involved vary by
discipline. In order to be effective, scientists should ask these simple
questions before engaging with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) or other decision makers. Currently, this is not the
employed approach.
IPCC has laid the foundation for the science-policy interface by cre-
ating awareness and providing information on many issues, from those
that are simple, such as the likelihood of a hotter temperature, to those
that are contested.3 The present day marks what Romero-Lankao refers
to as “IPCC number 2,” which requires dialogue about changing practices
and institutions to enable the evolution of the interface to support climate
change solutions. The questions that surround this phase are not only
scientific but also social and political. The current social science tool-
kit, along with those from disciplines such as forestry, fishery, or urban
planning, offers tools to coproduce knowledge and evaluate whether there
are differences in values or desired outcomes. Where differences exist,
diplomacy is the solution. As diplomacy is about understanding the rules
of the game, the methodology of the social sciences can contribute to the
development of strategic science diplomacy.
2
J. Banks. 2013. “The Future of Forecasting: Aviation Meteorology.” (February 14, 2013),
http://www.futureairport.com/features/featurefuture-airport-weather-forecasting-airport-
aviation-meteorology-met- office-alan-hisscott
3
J. Jager. 1998. “The Science/Policy Interface and the Role of Participation in Assessment
Processes.” A Critical Evaluation of Global Environmental Assessments: Tropospheric
Pollutants and Climate Change (Cambridge: Harvard University). https://sites.hks.harvard
.edu/gea/pubs/98sw_interface.pdf
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
On a personal note, Dr. Romero-Lankao expressed her belief that the

IPCC needs to be revised to no longer include 5- and 7-year exhaustive
processes. Instead, the IPCC should focus on issues such as the Special
Report on 1.5 Degrees or a place-based analysis of what the current chal-
lenges are to mitigating and adapting to climate change. The scientific
community is not only on the verge of a diplomatic breakthrough but also
in need of proactive, innovative, and aggressive leaders to champion this
cause to action.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banks, J. 2017. “The Future of Forecasting: Aviation Meteorology.” FutureAirport.

com. February 14, 2013. http://www.futureairport.com/features/featurefuture-
airport-weather-forecasting-airport-aviation-meteorology-met-office-alan-
hisscott, (accessed June 05, 2017).
Chapman, A, B. McLellan and T. Tezuka. 2016. “Strengthening the Energy Policy
Making Process and Sustainability Outcomes in the OECD through Policy
Design.” Administrative Sciences 6, no. 3, p. 9.
Jager, J., A. Farrell and S. VanDeveer. 1998. “The Science/Policy Interface and
the Role of Participation in Assessment Processes.” A Critical Evaluation
of Global Environmental Assessments: Tropospheric Pollutants and Climate
Change. Cambridge: Harvard University. https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/gea/
pubs/98sw_interface.pdf, (accessed June 05, 2017).
Collaborating to
Tackle Climate Change
in the Americas
The following lecture was delivered by Dr. Diana Liverman,
Regents’ Professor, Geography and Development, the University
of Arizona. It was transcribed, researched, edited, and condensed
for clarity for inclusion in the proceedings of the SD conference.
ABSTRACT
Drawing on her experience as a scientist in support of diplomacy in both

the United States and the United Kingdom, Liverman discussed the unique
political climate in the United States and entry points for science diplomacy
to engage government officials. With current greenhouse gas emissions
levels projected to yield high levels of global warming, the efforts of com-
prehensive climate agreements, such as in Paris in 2015, are a start in miti-
gating climate change. However, the commitment to fight this issue needs to
increase internationally to protect the global ecological and s ocial systems.
In the Americas, particularly in the United States, the main issue impeding
climate change mitigation is the opposition from some politicians to engage
with the global community to reduce fuel emissions. However, recent sur-
veys suggest that the public is concerned across the United States, including
in Arizona. By discussing climate research that addresses the priorities of
Americans, including the economy, food prices, and reduced international
conflict, scientists trained in the art of diplomacy can infuse government
platforms with evidence-based insights to ensure the world in 2100 is still
hospitable to life.
Keywords: Climate change, global warming, emissions, mean global tem-

perature projections, Paris Agreement, public response to science, public
skepticism, science diplomacy
THE NEED FOR A MORE SERIOUS APPROACH

TO GLOBAL WARMING
In the Western Hemisphere, the climate is warming as a result of human

activity, especially from fossil fuel emissions. Data suggests that, if emis-
sions continue as business as usual, their cumulative effect will cause the
hemisphere to warm by more than 2°C by 2050 and by 4°C by 2100.1 In
addition to increasing temperatures, climate change in the Americas could
cause sea levels to rise and the regions will see an increase in the frequency
of extreme events such as heat waves and storms. Although the Paris
Agreement was seen as a diplomatic success for both the international and
scientific communities, it falls short of solving the climate problem. For
example, even though nations pledged to reduce their emissions, the sum
of all individual commitments made in Paris, even if 100 percent fulfilled,
still leads the world to a 3.5°C increase in global mean temperatures.2 In
certain regions that are hot spots for climate change, like Arizona, this
increase could average 5°C or 6°C.3 These projected temperature increases
will cause very serious impacts in the Americas with respect to agriculture,
water resources, health, economic development, and ecosystems.
Thus, it is important that the scientific community ramp up its efforts to
promote more serious international commitments for mitigating the effects
of climate change and reducing emissions if a 2°C increase—let alone a
1.5°C cap that would protect low-lying nations—can be considered feasible.
CHALLENGES TO CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION

IN THE AMERICAS
Some of the challenges to addressing climate change in the Western

Hemisphere include working together to engage with the international
community to reduce emissions. One measure of commitment in the
Americas is the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).4
1
PHYS.ORG. 2016. “Global Warming Set to Pass 2C Threshold in 2050: Report.” https://
phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-threshold.html, (accessed September 29, 2016).
2
F. Harvey. 2016. “World on Track for 3C of Warming Under Current Global Climate Pledges,
Warns UN.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/03/world-on-track-for-3c-
of-warming-under-current-global-climate-pledges-warns-un, (accessed November 3, 2016).
3
“Ibid.”
4
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2014. “Intended Nationally
Determined Contribution.” https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-
contributions/synthesis-report-on-the-aggregate-effect-of-intended-nationally-determined-
contributions
COLLABORATING TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE • 25
Some INDCs from the Americas are laudable. Costa Rica, for example,
has committed to being 100 percent carbon neutral. Following Costa Rica’s
leadership, Brazil has committed to a 40 percent reduction in emissions;
Mexico, to a 25 percent reduction; and Canada, to a 30 percent reduction.5
In Paris, the United States committed to a 26 percent reduction.6 Many cur-
rent INDC commitments rely heavily on land use, which is an extremely
uncertain method to employ in reducing emissions. Another concern
with respect to the commitments is the fact that a significant amount of
emissions in North America are consumption based and are embodied in
imports that we consume from other countries.7 In contrast, as much as
one-third of China’s emissions are from what they export to the United
States and other countries.8
In the Western Hemisphere, Latin America is more receptive to infor-
mation about the changing climate than the United States, where there is
more skepticism about climate change.9 Liverman suggests that no other
country has the science communication and public perception problems
that foster climate skepticism in the United States. In a survey conducted
in 2015, Liverman and her colleagues found that most Arizonans, includ-
ing the majority of Republicans, do believe that the climate is changing
and that actions should be taken to mitigate the detrimental effects of these
changes.10 Another important finding from the survey data suggested that
the growing Hispanic population of Arizona was 10 percent more, which
concerned about climate change and more supportive of government inter-
vention to secure the environment than other ethnic or racial identities.10
One hypothesis for these findings is that the Spanish-speaking media,
including Univision and Telemundo, does not usually interview skeptics
about climate change.11
5
B. Kahn. 2015. “Two Maps Show Countries’ Plans for CO2 Pledges.” http://www.climatecentral
.org/news/maps-countries-co2-plans-18818, (accessed March 27, 2015).
6
B. Resnick. 2017. “4 Things to Know about the Paris Climate Agreement.” https://www
.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15724162/trump-paris-climate-agreement-
explained-briefly, (accessed June 1, 2017).
7
S.J. Davis, and K. Caldeira. 2010. “Consumption-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions.”
PNAS 107, no. 12, p. 5687.
8
P. McKenna. 2010. “US Still Responsible for Most CO2 Emissions,” https://www.newscientist
.com/article/dn18620-us-still-responsible-for-most-co2-emissions, (accessed March 8, 2010).
9
C. Funk, and B. Kennedy. 2016. “The Politics of Climate.” http://www.pewinternet
.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate, (accessed October 4, 2016).
10
D. Liverman G. Garfin, S. Doster, K. Bao, F. Gladstone, J.A. Krosnick, B. MacInnis,
J. Overpeck. 2015. Arizona’s Views on Climate Change, (Institute for the Environment). http://
www.environment.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/climate-survey/ExecutiveSummary.pdf
11
“Ibid.”
THE EMERGENCE OF SCIENCE DIPLOMACY

IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
With respect to climate change, science has affected diplomacy and inter-
national negotiations in several ways. One of the most notable examples
is the research that shows that the impacts of climate change depend as
much on vulnerability as they do on geophysical climate change and that
adaptation can reduce climate risks.12 Through IPCC and other efforts,
science has shown how reducing vulnerability and promoting awareness
can be important responses to climate change.
Another example of science diplomacy influencing international
negotiations is the significance of the Planetary Boundaries paper that
influenced the Rio+20 Earth Summit and the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs).13 Another example is the Future Earth initiative that con-
nects scientists through the International Council for Science (ICSU) to
other global organizations in order to provide more meaningful guidance
and impact by serving stakeholders and providing science in support of
development.14
CRAFTING CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

FOR THE U.S. AUDIENCE
Despite some noteworthy efforts to address global warming and emis-

sions in the Americas, Liverman suggests that many important research
issues have been left unexplored. For example, climate researchers need
to look beyond agriculture, water, and natural resources to the manu-
facturing and service sectors, from where over 90 percent of the gross
domestic product (GDP) of the United States comes.15 As the major-
ity of people in the United States work in these sectors, research at the
intersection of climate and the manufacturing and service sectors has the
potential to be more. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
12
Global Business Network. 2007. “Impacts of Climate Change.” https://media.washingtonpost
.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/gbn_impacts_of_climate_change.pdf, (accessed January
2007).
13
D. LeBlanc, W. Liu, D. O’Connor and I. Zubcevic. Rio+20 Working Papers (UN Divi-
sion for Sustainable Development, 2012), https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/761workingpaper3.pdf
14
S. van der Hal. 2016. “New Science for Global Sustainability? The Institutionalisation of
Knowledge Co-Production in Future Earth.” Environmental Science & Policy 61, p. 165.
15
McKinsey Global Institute. 2012. “Manufacturing the Future.” http://bit.ly/2vMG5ZJ,
(accessed November 2012).
mate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report overlooks manufacturing

for the most part, and no efforts have been made to include a specific
chapter on manufacturing in the next United States National Climate
Assessment. Disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy in New York and New
Jersey, demonstrate that climate change can have serious impacts on
manufacturing. Thus, researchers need to incorporate supply chain eval-
uations and assessment of economic losses to encourage dialogue with
communities traditionally disinterested in or opposed to climate change
research.
Scientists also need to investigate climate change from an intercon-
nected world perspective, Liverman argues. To date, most studies have
examined how climate directly affects a particular place, such as how
climate affects agriculture in Arizona, and uses this to make conclusions
about food security. However, in today’s globalized food system, climate
change on the other side of the world can affect customer prices as well as
the income that farmers receive for their crops. It is imperative that climate
change and food security is analyzed in the context of globalization and
how it connects the world.
Another key issue for researchers to address, suggests Liverman, is
the scientific research on the relationship between climate change and
conflict. Although it is widely reported that climate change can cause
conflict and trigger floods of refugees, climate change is just as likely to
create collaborations.16 Environmental stress can create cooperation, not
conflict.17
In order to ensure that the global temperature change over the next
century stays under1.5°C, both the scientific and policy communities
must confront the reality that the planet may have to endure warmer tem-
peratures on the way to 1.5°C. And we may only achieve 1.5°C through
negative emissions, part of what is called geoengineering and involves
taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or finding ways to prevent
social radiation warming the earth. But geoengineering is costly, with
one recent estimate hovering around $60 per ton for carbon capture and
storage. There are also uncertainties about the possible side effects.18 Not
only is more research into geoengineering required, but it is an important
arena for diplomacy and governance.
16
D. Liverman. “What If Climate Change Triggers Cooperation, Not Conflict?” http://www
.huffingtonpost.com/diana-liverman/what-if-climate-change-tr_b_5599886.html, (accessed
September 17, 2014).
17
“Ibid.”
18
R.M. Harrison and R.E. Hester. 2014. “Geoengineering of the Climate System.” Issues
in Environmental Science and Technology, p. 88. https://books.google.com/books/about/
Geoengineering_of_the_Climate_System.html?id=RWiPAwAAQBAJ
EDUCATING THE SCIENCE DIPLOMATS

OF THE FUTURE
Student training in science and policy is a pathway to future successful

diplomatic efforts. For example, Liverman suggests, young scientists
trained and supported by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change
Research have exerted substantial influence in the global decision-mak-
ing process surrounding climate change response efforts. They have
contributed to IPCC reports and led delegations to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations.19 Throughout
the world, universities and institutions need to create programs that link
science with diplomacy to encourage this trend. In the United States, the
Peace Corps and Fulbright Program are essential to maintaining dialogue
with the international community. Beyond producing the diplomats of
the future, scientific training also provides expertise to nongovernmental
organization (NGO) leaders who occupy key roles in crafting global dia-
logue. At the University of Arizona (UA), Liverman mentions, the Carson
Scholars Program trains graduate students in the art of communicating
with diverse stakeholders, including representatives from government.20
UA is also training science and policy students to engage one another and
impact the global community through a minor on global change, courses
on international environmental governance, and a certificate on connect-
ing science and decision making.21 UA students have also attended cli-
mate negotiations.
Climate change has no boundaries and demands extensive coopera-
tion between countries and within communities. There are several chal-
lenges to creating science policy for addressing global warming and the
reduction of emissions. But before actions are taken by decision makers,
communities must understand the relevance of the issue—an undertaking
best accomplished by scientists starting at the grassroots level and using
place-based analyses that advocate for specific actions.
19
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Information on Emerging
Scientific Findings and Research Outcomes Relevant to the Needs of the Convention: U
pdate
Provided in the Context of the Research Dialogue.” http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/
sbsta/eng/misc15.pdf, (accessed October 7, 2010).
20
The University of Arizona. 2016. “About.” Carson Scholars Program. http://www.carson
.arizona.edu/about
21
University of Arizona. 2017. “Graduate Certificate Program in Connecting Environmental
Science and Decision Making (CESD).” http://www.cesd.arizona.edu, (accessed June 5, 2017).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Davis, S.J., and K. Caldeira. 2010. “Consumption-Based Accounting of CO2

Emissions.” PNAS 107, no. 12. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5687.full
Funk, C., and B. 2016. Kennedy. “The Politics of Climate.” Pew Research Center.
October 4, 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate,
(accessed June 5, 2017).
Global Business Network. 2007. “Impacts of Climate Change.” Washington Post.
January 2007. https://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/
gbn_impacts_of_climate_change.pdf
Harrison, R.M. and R.E. Hester. 2014. “Geoengineering of the Climate System.”
Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. https://books.google.com/
books/about/Geoengineering_of_the_Climate_System.html?id=RWiP-
AwAAQBAJ, (accessed June 5, 2017).
Harvey, F. 2016. “World on Track for 3C of Warming under Current Global Cli-
mate Pledges, Warns UN.” The Guardian. November 03, 2016. https://www
.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/03/world-on-track-for-3c-of-warming-
under-current-global-climate-pledges-warns-un
Kahn, B. 2015 “Two Maps Show Countries’ Plans for CO2 Pledges.” Climate
Central. March 27, 2015. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/maps-countries-
co2-plans-18818
Le Blanc, D., W. Liu, D. O’Connor, and I. 2012. Zubcevic. Rio+20 Working Papers.
UNDESA Division for Sustainable Development, November 2012. https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/761workingpaper3.pdf
Liverman, D. 2014. “What If Climate Change Triggers Cooperation, Not Con-
flict?” Huffington Post. September 17, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
diana-liverman/what-if-climate-change-tr_b_5599886.html
Liverman, D., G. Garfin, S. Doster, K. Bao, F. Gladstone, J.A. Krosnick, B. MacInnis,
and J. Overpeck. Arizona’s Views on Climate Change. Institute for the Environ-
ment: 2015. http://www.environment.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/climate-
survey/ExecutiveSummary.pdf
McKenna, P. 2010. “US Still Responsible for Most CO2 Emissions.” New
Scientist. March 8, 2010. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18620-us-
still-responsible-for-most-co2-emissions
McKinsey Global Institute. 2012. Manufacturing the Future: The Next Era of Global
Growth and Innovation. November 2012. http://bit.ly/2vMG5ZJ, (accessed
June 5, 2017).
PHYS.ORG. 2016. “Global Warming Set to Pass 2C Threshold in 2050: Report.”
PHYS.ORG. September 29, 2016. https://phys.org/news/2016-09-global-2c-
threshold.html
Resnick, B. 2017. “4 Things to Know about the Paris Climate Agreement.” Vox. June
1, 2017. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15724162/
trump-paris-climate-agreement-explained-briefly
The University of Arizona. 2016. “About.” Carson Scholars Program. http://www

.carson.arizona.edu/about, (accessed June 05, 2017).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2010. “Information on
Emerging Scientific Findings and Research Outcomes Relevant to the Needs
of the Convention: Update Provided in the Context of the Research Dialogue.”
October 7, 2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc15.pdf
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2014. “Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions.” http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/
items/8766.php, (accessed June 5, 2017).
University of Arizona. 2017. “Graduate Certificate Program in Connecting Envi-
ronmental Science and Decision Making (CESD).” Connecting Environmental
Science and Decision Making. http://www.cesd.arizona.edu, (accessed June
5, 2017).
van der Hal, S. 2016. “New Science for Global Sustainability? The Institutionalisa-
tion of Knowledge Co-Production in Future Earth.” Environmental Science &
Policy 61.
Climate Change
Challenges
and Opportunities
for Marine Science
Hem Nalini Morzaria-Luna
Program Lead and Senior Research Scientist, Climate Change
and Ecosystem Program, Intercultural Center for the Study
of Deserts and Oceans
ABSTRACT
Marine ecosystems are intrinsically borderless, which leads to economic

tension between neighboring countries with access to shared water-based
resources. The competition for resource control is expected to rise as
global temperatures increase, which may force marine organisms and their
habitats to adapt to increasingly extreme environmental factors. Accord-
ingly, scientists must gain experience with governmental and managerial
methods in order to quickly and comprehensively inject evidence-based
reasoning into global decision-making processes. As climate research
funding declines, scientists are encouraged to increase the frequencies
of scientific communication and collaboration across borders to form
diplomatic alliances with their counterparts, especially in regions like
the Americas where the fishing economy provides a sizable percentage to
the GDP.
Keywords: Climate change, fisheries, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of California,

marine ecosystem, marine life, science diplomacy
Rapporteurs: Benjamin Seigel, Nico A. Contreras, Jennifer Salazar, and Ravindra Dwivedi
HOW GLOBAL WARMING WILL CHALLENGE

FISHERIES
Transboundary in scope, climate change research poses some of the most

complex questions affecting the discipline of marine science. In a world
where geopolitical borders are even more artificial in the sea than in land,
the difficulty of challenges involving marine science—and in particular,
the livelihood of fisheries—is ever increasing. For example, in the Gulf of
Mexico, exclusive economic zones lead to tensions among neighboring
countries. As the effects of climate change progress, the significance of
science and diplomacy surges.
One of the ways in which climate change might challenge the sur-
vival of the marine ecosystem is through effects on the reproduction of
organisms. As the growth of individuals is temperature dependent, an
increase in temperature is projected to modify the structure and biomass
of organism communities; however, data from current research suggests
that an increase in temperature is not directly correlated with the growth
of a population.1 Additionally, global warming is expected to increase the
dispersal distance for species with respect to birth site.2 Furthermore, the
distribution pattern of species is expected to shift to higher latitudes, dis-
placing traditional fishing areas.3
It is also projected that climate change will result in a decrease of dis-
solved oxygen concentration, which, in turn, will condense the location of
energy resources toward the equator, resulting in the relocation of marine
habitats.4 Clearly, climate change is poised to negatively impact the pro-
duction and livelihood of today’s fisheries.
PROCESSES FOR MITIGATING THE OBSERVABLE

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Not only will climate change alter the biophysical environment of global
waterways, but it will also affect the socio-ecological coupling of marine
1
P.L. Munday, G.P. Jones, M.S. Pratchett, and A.J. Williams. 2008. “Climate Change and the
Future for Coral Reef Fishes.” Fish Fish 9, p. 261.
2
J. Boeye, J.M.J. Travis, R. Stoks, and D. Bonte. 2013. “More Rapid Climate Change Pro-
motes Evolutionary Rescue through Selection for Increased Dispersal Distance.” Evolution-
ary Applications 6, p. 353.
3
M.C. Jones, and W.W.L. Cheung. 2015. “Multi-Model Ensemble Projections of Climate
Change Effects on Global Marine Diversity.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 72, p. 741.
4
H. Morzaria-Luna, P. Turk-Boyer, A. Rosemartin, and V.F. Camacho-Ibar. 2014. “Vulner-
ability to Climate Change of Hypersaline Salt Marshes in the Northern Gulf of California.”
Ocean Coastal Management 93, pp. 37–50, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.004
CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES • 33
systems and the fishers who depend upon these systems. Effective man-
agement processes and governance strategies must be derived in order to
mitigate the negative of effects of climate change on water and its associ-
ated industries.
Based upon experience as Program Lead and Senior Research Scien-
tist at the Climate Change and Ecosystem Program at Intercultural C enter
for the Study of Deserts and Oceans, it is clear that climate change is not
only observable in the world today but also rapidly proceeding. In Mexico,
climate may soon drive marine fauna to shift norther and deeper as the
oceans warm and currents and stratifications shift.5 In evaluating the
change in latitude for species, from 1950 to the present day, the main trend
is a noticeable movement of species toward northern waters.6
Scientists need to be attentive and responsive to the global discussion
surrounding climate change. Most importantly, scientists must maintain
relevant and technically sound scientific standards while minimizing the
time lag commonly linked with working in the policy realm. For example,
Morzaria-Luna and her associates have been working with the Mexican
National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP, Comisión
Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas), evaluating how best to assess
regional vulnerabilities to climate change.7 Through an axiomatic under-
standing of current trends in marine ecosystems, scientists can respond
directly to both policy and management information needs. In recent stud-
ies in collaboration with CONANP, the future of fishing communities that
depend upon the current marine conditions was investigated.8 Climate
change is not an isolated event; it actively interacts with other anthropo-
genic effects, such as overfishing. It is important to understand the needs
and desired outcomes of communities and stakeholders in order to ensure
successful efforts. Many of the management actions aiming to reduce
these associated effects will also help with climate change adaptation.
Scientists with standing relationships with stakeholders can contrib-
ute most to the global climate change discussion. Ideally, scientists must
start at the grassroots level, as is the case in the Gulf of California and
other sites in the Pacific Ocean, by interacting directly with fishermen to
help them devise optimal management strategies that respond to current
5
N. Marba. 2016. “Responses of Marine Organisms to Climate Change across Oceans.” Fron-
tiers in Marine Science, http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2016.00062/full
6
“Ibid.”
7
H. Morzaria-Luna, P. Turk-Boyer, and M. Moreno-Baez. 2014. “Social Indicators of Vulner-
ability for Fishing Communities in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico: Implications
for Climate Change.” Marine Policy 45, pp. 182–193, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.013.
8
M. Nendovic, and G. Epstein. 2016. “The Relationship of Social Capital and Fishers’ Partic-
ipation in Multi-Level Governance Arrangements.” Environmental Science & Policy 61, p. 77.
changes in marine ecosystems. Here, it is critical to fuse traditional knowl-

edge from the local communities as well as to engage stakeholders while
involving fishermen in the analysis of fishing frequency, impact, and
outcome.
To encourage international collaborations, barriers to partner-
ships must be eliminated. Professors Gabriela Cruz Piñon and Hector
Reyes-Bonilla of the Autonomous University of Baja California Sur have
been instrumental in facilitating marine science research collaborations
between Mexico and the Intercultural Center for the Study of Deserts and
Oceans.9
EDUCATION FOR ECOSYSTEM PRESERVATION
Public outreach and education are cornerstone elements in achieving sus-

tainable fishing practices. One example of an educational opportunity for
the youth to learn about the changing environment is through an annual
environmental contest for middle and high school students. Hosted by the
Intercultural Center for the Study of Deserts and Oceans, students author
their own strategies for coping with human environmental impacts, such
as climate change.10 In addition to academic tournaments, workshops and
panels that promote discourse on these issues are key.
Despite various approaches to engaging policy experts and decision
makers, scientists must understand that governments may not respond to
rapid changes. When cooperating with stakeholders, an entry point exists
for whatever changes are presently happening in the marine environment,
but for only a short period of time.
Another challenge is that the work revolving around fisheries occurs
with common resources in transboundary settings that are organically
governed by different cultural settings and management practices.11 The
shared nature of water resources requires that diplomacy is inherent within
the functional system itself. Common schemes, for instance, allow for the
9
A. Munguira-Vega, J. Torre, P. Turk-Boyer, R. Cudney-Bueno, S.G. Marinone, M.F. Lavín,
T. Pfister. 2015. “PANGAS: An Interdisciplinary Ecosystem-Based Research Framework
for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Northern Gulf of California.” Journal of the Southwest 57,
pp. 337–390, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283081950_PANGAS_An_Inter-
disciplinary_Ecosystem-Based_Research_Framework_for_Small-Scale_Fisheries_in_the_
Northern_Gulf_of_California
10
CEDO. 2016. “Environmental Contest.” http://cedo.org/en/visit/events/environmental-contest
11
P.J. Turk-Boyer, H. Morzaria-Luna, I. Martínez, C.A. Downton-Hoffman, and A. Munguia-
Vega. 2014. “Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management of a Biological Corridor along North-
ern Sonora Coastline,” In Fisheries Management of Mexican and Central American Estuaries,
Estuaries of the World (Verlag: Springer), pp. 155–180.
CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES • 35
straightforward transferability of policy and management practices. For

example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)
operates on ecosystem-based management, and successive marine policy
in the United States is modeled after this approach, which identifies com-
mon themes for transfer to Mexico or other countries.12
Mobilizing the existing scientific capacity around the world for col-
laboration is urgent. Human resources must be developed, and the impor-
tance of interdisciplinary, multinational projects must be highlighted. The
Intercultural Center for the Study of Deserts and Oceans collaborated
with the University of Arizona, and other Mexican and U.S. universities
and NGOs are to analyze management of artisanal fisheries in the Gulf
of California, which has successfully laid the foundation for new mul-
tinational collaborations.13 The nurturing and professional development
of new researchers by established senior faculty is nonnegotiable. For
example, the University of California frequently solicits seed funding for
dryland research to expand its climate science portfolio. Although fund-
ing for international projects is indispensable, there is little available from
governments, NGOs, and professional societies. Regardless, scientific
cooperation with government agencies across countries is important in
leveraging the limited number of current opportunities available.
The National Science Foundation’s Partnerships for Enhanced
Engagement in Research Program, or PEER, is one success at the inter-
section of climate studies, collaboration in the Americas, and student
exchange opportunities.14 For students, relationships are everything.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boeye, J., J.M.J. Travis, R. Stoks, and D. Bonte. 2013. “More Rapid Climate
Change Promotes Evolutionary Rescue through Selection for Increased Dis-
persal Distance.” Evolutionary Applications 6, p. 353.
CEDO. 2016. “Environmental Contest.” http://cedo.org/en/visit/events/environmental-
contest
Jones, M.C., and W.W.L. Cheung. 2015. “Multi-Model Ensemble Projections of
Climate Change Effects on Global Marine Diversity.” ICES Journal of Marine
Science 72,p. 741.
12
NOAA Fisheries. 2016. “Ecosystem-Based Management.” http://www.westcoast.fisheries
.noaa.gov/fisheries/ecosystem
13
C. Villanueva Aznar, H. Leslie, and L. Sievanen. 2017. “Gulf of California Project (PAN-
GAS).” http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/drupal/mebm/?q=print/49, (accessed June 5, 2017).
14
NSF. 2017. “Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research.” https://www.nsf.gov/
funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504726
Marba, N. 2016. “Responses of Marine Organisms to Climate Change across

Oceans.” Frontiers in Marine Science. http://journal.frontiersin.org/
article/10.3389/fmars.2016.00062/full
Morzaria-Luna, H., P. Turk-Boyer, A. Rosemartin, and V.F. Camacho-Ibar.
“Vulnerability to Climate Change of Hypersaline Salt Marshes in the Northern
Gulf of California.” Ocean Coastal Management 93, pp. 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2014.03.004
Morzaria-Luna, H., P. Turk-Boyer, and M. Moreno-Baez. 2014. “Social Indicators
of Vulnerability for Fishing Communities in the Northern Gulf of California,
Mexico: Implications for Climate Change.” Marine Policy 45, pp. 182–193.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.013
Munday, P.L., G.P. Jones, M.S. Pratchett, and A.J. Williams. “Climate Change and
the Future for Coral Reef Fishes.” Fish Fish 9, pp. 261–285.
Munguira-Vega, A., J. Torre, P. Turk-Boyer, R. Cudney-Bueno, S.G. Marinone,
M.F. Lavín, T. Pfister. 2015. “PANGAS: An Interdisciplinary Ecosystem-Based
Research Framework for Small- Scale Fisheries in the Northern Gulf of C
alifornia.”
Journal of the Southwest 57, pp. 337–390. https://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/283081950_PANGAS_An_Interdisciplinary_Ecosystem-Based_Research_
Framework_for_Small-Scale_Fisheries_in_the_Northern_Gulf_of_California
Nendovic, M., and G. Epstein. 2016. “The Relationship of Social Capital and
Fishers’ Participation in Multi- Level Governance Arrangements.” Environ-
mental Science & Policy 61, pp. 77.
NOAA Fisheries. 2016. “Ecosystem-Based Management.” http://www.westcoast
.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/ecosystem.
NSF. 2017. “Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research.” https://www
.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504726
Turk-Boyer, P.J., H. Morzaria-Luna, I. Martínez, C.A. Downton-Hoffman, and
A. Munguia-Vega. 2014. “Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management of a Bio-
logical Corridor along Northern Sonora Coastline.” In Fisheries Management
of Mexican and Central American Estuaries, Estuaries of the World, edited by
F. Amezcua and B. Bellgraph, 155-180. Verlag: Springer.
Villanueva Aznar, C., H. Leslie, and L. Sievanen. 2017. “Gulf of California Project
(PANGAS).” http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/drupal/mebm/?q=print/49,
(accessed June 5, 2017).
CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGES FOR THE AMERICAS • 37
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Question: The one thing I haven’t heard yet is anything about the popula-
tion relationship to all of these issues. It seems to me that, without stem-
ming population, this will never be taken care of. Are there some facts that
we can look at that will help us?
Katherine Vammen: I understand the question was: How are we going

to deal with the water resources with such as high population growth? Is
that right? Actually, I agree, but I think still it is really important to work
on better management systems. Some countries have been able to manage
their water supply from a watershed perspective, and considering the dif-
ferent groups of population in the different parts of the country. I think we
should be optimistic. I agree that population growth is going to have a high
impact on the access to water supply in the future and, especially, with the
impacts of climate change.
Question: Marcella, I had a comment and a question. The comment is, I’m
really sort of sad to see that the budget for IAI [Inter-American Institute for
Global Change Research] has not grown, given the accomplishments that
you have seen. You hinted at the problems of getting countries to contrib-
ute, but you’re giving extremely small grants and getting a lot for them.
And, it makes me a little sad, having been in it from the start, that we hav-
en’t been able to persuade the countries to invest in something that clearly
has had enormous payoff. What can this community do to make sure that
the funding for this initiative is secure and that these successes are known
about? The second question has to do with whether IAI has been able to
extend fully into the Caribbean yet. I knew that was always a challenge,
but if you look at issues of climate change and biodiversity, clearly, I know
Cuba and a few countries were involved. And, the final comment is, you
talked about training future leaders through capacity building, but I would
argue that if you look at the students who were trained in the late 1990s, by
IAI, those are the people that I see leading delegations at the climate nego-
tiations. They’re at the highest levels of government—people like Cecilia
Conde, who have been funded by IAI. So, I actually think you’ve already
invested in some really successful diplomats, like John Furlow who is so
important at AID [Agency for the International Development] now.
Marcella Ohira: You are right. The people we have invested in, or were in
our training, or PIs or co- PIs of our early projects in the early 1990s, they
are now either senior or very good researchers and PIs in many projects.
Those who have gone to government positions are in very high positions.
Especially in small countries, they go up the ladder very fast, such as the
vice minister that we know in Ecuador. We know many other people that
have been in very high positions within their governments, and we have
been trying to reach out to them to see how they can help us, not only in
terms of getting countries to back IAI at the political level, but also in
terms of funding. So, it is a very important group of people that are out
there, and, hopefully, we can partner up with them, but if you or anybody
else has good ideas, it’s always very helpful.
Funding base—it has been one of the challenges of the IAI. And
that’s twofold: One is to increase in the amount of funding that we get
for programs in fostering capacity building and more research, but also
to diversify because, still, we depend heavily on U.S. funding. We have
been successful in approaching some other organizations. We had a grant
from Canada’s IGRC[Integrated governance, risk and compliance]. IGRC
was the donor agency that funded the work in the La Plata river, the land
use. We were also able to get a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, and
they funded the work in the tropical Andes. So, I think we have had some
success in some specific cases, but that’s definitely not enough.
And, I also think that most of the funding should come from the mem-
ber countries; that was the original idea. They are the ones who can ben-
efit the most, not only in terms of the research, the capacity building, but
also in the research that will support decision making. We are working on
this cofunding agreement. I think the idea is wonderful; the bureaucracy
is very difficult with many issues, like a country usually can only fund
national projects. So how do we work with 19 different bureaucratic sys-
tems in terms of how funding flows? It is not like whenever we get grants
from the NSF [National Science Foundation]. So, it’s one layer of diffi-
culty at a time, the negotiation that is necessary to convince the secretaries
of science and technology.
We have been successful in approaching questions in São Paulo, in
funding our advanced course, the one that Chris was talking about. With
this summer school we are going to have in July on climate change, adap-
tation, the ability of mitigation, and also discussing the Paris Agreement,
one stakeholder is putting in almost $200,000 just for one training event.
And, they will fund 100 graduate students from all over the world to meet
in São Paulo for 2 weeks, so if you’re interested, if you want to see, please
visit the IAI website—the content is there. The deadline is the end of
March, so you have to hurry to send your application if you’d like to be
considered.
I think we probably have to do a better job in developing a strategy.
We’ve been approaching individual agencies. We know some people who
have been helpful, but more is needed.
We also had an interesting experience with the Inter-American Devel-

opment Bank. We were able to put a proposal together, a few years ago,
dealing with climate and health in many countries in Latin America. It
passed all the processes of approval, but we didn’t get the funding, and
the reason was the United States and Canada were member countries. The
Bank cannot fund any institutions that the United States and Canada are
part of.
So, we have to continue negotiating. Content, I guess, is not the issue.
Sometimes, the bureaucracy, or other things like that, is the problem.
Christopher Scott: Let me also just comment, as an IAI PI, there has been
a spinoff of a whole blend of IAI type of research that then actually gets
funded by the funding sources in collaboration with partners in a number
of countries that we’ve been involved with; that Marcella put up at the
beginning of her talk. Now, funding has come in from national sources
for those teams to do interdisciplinary applied science with stakeholders
at the table and so forth. So, I want to say that IAI’s impact goes even fur-
ther than those 10 and $200,000 grants, and so forth, although the CRNs
[Cystinosis Research Network]are a more significant source of funding
for those programs.
The second is in terms of capacity building. Within the projects them-
selves, there is a whole set of activities, so, though it’s part of a research
collaboration network and research is central, there’s involvement of state
actors as well as civil society, NGOs, wastewater agencies—all those other
kinds of things. So, that’s also capacity building, and many of those people
are at the head and helm of their water management agencies, or, in our
case, water and climate, but it could be a range of those things, so there’s
multiple spin-offs.
Question: Dr. Vammen, before going to my question, I’d like to make a

comment. The point was for populations that are increasing, that is always
going to create more water problems, which is not always the case for,
if you take Tucson city, our population is growing, economically we’re
growing, but if you see water supply and demand we are doing a lot better,
and our demand is lower than our supply. So, population increase is not
always a problem. So, my question is, Dr. Vammen, you showed us a seri-
ous picture all throughout the Americas and the world, other countries too,
where we’re seeing the urbanization and other issues like water problems
that are going to create a huge problem in human growth and develop-
ment, but can you please also take a positive like Tucson city, where we are
doing much better in terms of water education. I don’t want to take credit,
but our Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences Department is very active,
and myself, I am helping up to 600 students right now by teaching them,
helping them get better education in water science, so when you show
a picture that is so serious can you also show some pictures of positive
outcomes, like Tucson city where we are doing much better in terms of
water education and water conversation and brining new technologies to
save water? We are introducing a new method of bringing treated water
for drinking, too.
Question: I’d like to ask, as a professor, if you don’t listen to the students,
you’re not very smart. And if we’re in a developed nation, and we recog-
nize that Rio had problems, and it was across the world, that they had dirty
water for the Olympics. And, we’ve seen problems in Central America,
recently with a whole lot of rain, but the mudslides were problematic. How
can each of you tell us one thing that’s being done right in a small com-
munity somewhere in Latin or South America that the rest of the world
should listen to?
Katherine Vammen: Thank you for these questions because I hope I did
not paint such a negative picture because I’m always trying to point out
positive models. But, I think the question about education is really key
because also, in Latin America, there are strong forces being now devel-
oped to, for one thing, have better water experts, there are master’s pro-
grams, for example, which focus on—I founded a master’s program in
water sciences in Nicaragua which has now produced like almost thirty
graduates and this was also in all of Central America. So, this gives a
really important level of expertise to be able to introduce new management
systems for water. But, also in the engineering school where I am now, the
environmental engineers and civil engineers have a lot of courses really
focusing on water management and the better use of water technology.
Also, as I mentioned, in the rural areas, there are also efforts to try to
design better sedimentation systems really adapted to rural areas.
In urban areas, I do have to say that treatment systems are increasing.
In, for example, a lot of the cities of Central America, I know person-
ally that the water treatment systems have been introduced to the cities.
The city of Managua, in 2009, a very good water treatment system was
installed, and also in other cities of South America. Other good examples,
for example, are in the country of Chile where they have 100 percent cov-
erage of water and sanitization in the whole country. They have been able
to do this with different economic approaches since in the 1980s there was
a cholera outbreak in South America and Central America, and since that
time sanitation supply has been improved in all of the countries. So there
are very positive things going on, I think that education needs to be even
intensified. I would welcome all of your cooperation in also designing
and creating new and more efficient technologies. As I mentioned, some

of the water treatment systems are not really very efficient. For example,
we have in Nicaragua, an oxidation in some of the cities that goes on to
release its effluent water into lakes and, therefore, the lakes are completely
destroyed. We need new types of treatment systems, better adapted and
more efficient.
Marcella Ohira: I’ll take a different approach to reply to your question,
and this is the way we have been trying to address in training young pro-
fessionals. How can we address local problems? How can we address
seeding for solutions, whether they small problems or big problems? And
I think that goes to what Paty was saying yesterday and some other partici-
pants. It has to do with the training with the interdisciplinary or transdisci-
plinary approach. I don’t think, just for instance, one single discipline will
be able to address or solve the problem in Rio or elsewhere. Our scientists
prepared to do that kind of research, are they incorporating the people
who live there? And they may have interesting, important information to
maybe be important partners to participate in addition to the scientists.
And that is the approach we have been trying to take. And I’ll give you
an example of a field trip we had in Guatemala. Two years ago, we were
discussing social ecological problems with the participants which was, as I
said before, a mixed group of professionals including young scientists and
students. The field trip was to visit the Lake Titicaca in Guatemala which
is one of the most popular tourist places, lots of income for the country,
but is extremely polluted, so there is this huge concern for certain groups
of society. Not only were we able to observe the geophysics of the area,
which was very interesting for the parts, but also engage in conversations
with various groups. So, we talked to some local mayors of the provinces
around the lake; we talked with hotel owners because it is a touristic site;
and we talked to the research and university professionals and people who
are doing Lake Titicaca research. We weren’t able to talk to the indigenous
groups, but then the whole issue—not only it was very clear there were
huge problems related to government because those groups won’t talk to
one another—the politicians blame the hotel owners, the hotel owners
blame the indigenous communities, so there’s no communication. They
were asking us because they saw it was a group of scientists. “You have
all the responses. You have all the technology. You have all the engineers.
What can we do?”
It was frustrating for some of the people. It raised a level of empathy
from the group. “From my background and training, what can I do? If I’m
a geographer, what can I bring to the table? If I’m a climatologist, how can
I help?” And that helps a lot in building those teams that are focused on
solving a problem to that question of water contamination.
They weren’t able to solve the problem. One of the seed grants was
actually addressing the government issue, and working with local com-
munities. It’s one step, but it’s another approach to better prepare the pro-
fessionals who may be able to do a better job than we have addressing,
whether it’s the contamination in Rio or in Guatemala.
Question: I have a comment/suggestion, Marcela, and this is that IAI is

really well positioned to take advantage of the opportunity given by the
fact that everyone is focused on Asia—because they are growing like crazy,
they are on steroids—and on Africa because they have huge challenges.
And we have a huge vacuum, and I really think you guys have been con-
ducting surveys, asking us. It is time for us to say whatever nonresource
we have, what can we do to bring together EIE, or IAI, to come together
and finally get our act together and take advantage of, for instance, some-
one like me who is in the United States and is a Mexican and loves Latin
America, and really create those networks that will allows us to navigate
these very turbulent waters that we are faced with? It’s not only money, it’s
also vision. No matter whether the future earth is a maze or not, we need to
work with them; whether the countries are faced with many challenges, we
need to work with them. It is time for us to not complain—that’s not what
you did, Marcela—but to really get it together, and I just really want to
hear what you see as those windows of opportunity for us to move forward.
Question: My question is for Dr. Katherine Vammen. You mentioned the

disparity between access to water between urban and rural areas, and my
question is what is the greater issue? Is it a technical ability and access to
funding? Or is it not just high enough on the national and or local agenda
with governments? And in follow up, what is the most efficient way to
address that problem?
Katherine Vammen: Thank you for that question. It’s very important
because the disparity between rural and urban, I think, is the second option
you mentioned. People or governments are not putting priority to rural
areas, because the population is concentrated in urban areas. There are
some grassroots organizations that are taking the problem into their own
hands. Of course, they need a lot of support and a lot of suggestions from
people who have more expertise. For example, the committees are called
water and sanitation but actually they are working more on water supply
so that national problem in rural areas are really one of the most cru-
cial things in all of Latin America, and I think in a lot of our engineering
schools we are focusing on urban areas because it is more visible. But the
rural areas, for example, you have a distribution of the population, and it’s
a lot less populated, so how are you going to design really a system—there
are some systems called condominiums where they have a series of houses
or a series of communities organized into condominium treatment sys-
tems. Of course, this is not very widely spread, and it needs to be worked
on more, and it needs to be copied more.
Marcella Ohira: Just to follow up on what you were saying to Diana, and
I do have that figure. Diana, so for the CRN2, the collaborative research
network program, the IAI put about ten million dollars for the projects that
were funded, and the research teams were able to leverage 22.2 million in
addition to the initial funding of the IAI. So, although we don’t see that
money, it is flowing into the research networks, supporting the research
and the students that are part of those networks.
What you were saying it’s really important. And we’re aware of that.
I think we have to be better at looking for ways of obtaining—not little
funding—important funding either to launch more programs. I don’t think
the problem is the optics of the institution—I think we have to come up
with a better strategy, how and who to work with. I’ve seen, for instance,
I’ve seen some there are some regional. There’s the green fund now, and
I think many of them are looking at small countries in the Caribbean and
Central America, and I think somebody was talking about the Caribbean
because, yes, they are extremely vulnerable not only to climate change but
extreme events. So, I think that’s one region we should work more with,
whether it’s the green fund or other organizations. And themes. We were
talking about cities, and one theme that made me think a lot, you know,
Walter Beckin, and many of you know Walter—and he was saying things
like, “Well, the Chinese are now consuming and have a lot not only for
crops but for soybean, but what’s going to happen when they start eating
beef, land for cattle ranging?” It’s going to be Latin America. How are we
going to deal with it? So, I’m sure a lot of the funding agencies are not
thinking about it. Are we going to wait until the he problem is here? Or can
we come up with a good program to start addressing some of those issues
that we know will come?
It’s like the example I gave in Uruguay. They knew the day was going
to get there, and it did—it was just a matter of when. The conversations
we’ve been having with the banks, development banks, for instance, they
are very worried about global change, extreme event. For instance, if
there’s a 50-meter bridge they are going to fund, up to now they ask for
environmental assessment: “What is going to happen after the bridge is
built.” But how long is that bridge going to stand? But those are things
that we can and should be complimenting with the information we have,
so we just have to think how to develop a strategy to link those things up
nicely.
Question: (James Buzier) So, as I told you, this was going to be an amaz-
ing panel. As you think about your questions, I am going to sort of pose
one out there. I’ve had at least two opportunities I can think of where
my definition—anyway, one-third of the total definition—of science
diplomacy is science for diplomacy. Early in my career at NOAA, I had
a chance to be part of an early U.S.-China oceanographic program, the
Tropical Ocean-Global Atmosphere, TOGA—and I see John Boright back
there, I bet you remember—when, if you think about it, in the mid-1980s,
United States and China were having a hard time talking together. We
had played ping-pong together a decade earlier, but it was really through
science and art that we got to that point. And why science? Because you
learn to build trust between a scientist with a common goal and then you
can begin the conversations. And a second one is, and I’m looking at
Sergio Pastrana, the early days of IAI [Inter-American Institute for Global
Change Research], the two times I’ve gone to Cuba. And, this goes back to,
what, 2000? The only way I got to Cuba, and I got to know Sergio through
that way, through science, through the Inter-American Institute. And by
the way, the United States has something called the U.S. Interests Section.
There’s no embassy there, but there’s 200 Americans that live there and
work there in this Interests Section—and one Swiss guy, I think—but so,
you know, science and diplomacy, that’s what they mostly do. So, there’s
diplomacy that’s happening even when the official word is that we don’t
have communication. My question, though, is going to be if you have spe-
cific examples, perhaps in your work, that is a little like I was just saying,
that is science for diplomacy, to make that connection? I’ve heard a lot
about science for management, science for policy, but science for diplo-
macy perhaps in a bilateral way?
Paty Romero-Lankao: We have examples of science for diplomacy, but

in a multilateral way. We incur the two trainings that Marcella didn’t men-
tion, but they are very important. One was in Santo Domingo, which was
very important, and the other in Quito. And, we were some of the first to
do this experiment, and it was an amazing experience to see that some of
their students, or their practitioners, that participated there are just now
sending their students to us at NCAR [U.S. National Center for Atmo-
spheric Research], to work with us, so I would really like to say two things.
I started to be part of the IHDP [International Human Dimension Pro-
gramme on Global Environmental Change], and it was through going to
that, it was the International Human Dimensions Program that was part of
three international organizations that promoted science. And I remember
that by being there I was first confronted with climate change. I had always
focused on Mexico City, but that opened my mind to many other things,
and I have seen over and over again, how IAI, how IHDP, and I hope that
now we continue doing this with NCAR and also the Future Earth, how it
is a means to create that bonding among scientists and practitioners that
are key to these collaborations that we are creating. And, perhaps I don’t
know whether we will change the world, but we are changing small worlds,
some parts of it, and I see a lot of promise in these networking activities.
Question: (Helen Ingram) I’d like Hem to talk about what I think is grass-
roots science diplomacy. She made a nice connection between the recep-
tion of science close to the fishermen, but talk a little bit about the way
CEDO [the Intercultural Center for the Study of Deserts and Oceans] is
set up, and how it is, by nature, binational.
Hem Nalini Morzaria Luna: Thank you. So, the organization I work is a
nonprofit both in the United States and in Mexico, and there’s two boards:
the U.S. board, which Helen is part of, and a Mexican board that is actually
formed mostly of stakeholders, professors, and scientists, and they come
together and give recommendations and decisions to direct the direction
of the organization. And, there are other environmental organizations in
Mexico, not all of them are binational, but I think it really speaks to trying to
draw strength from our two countries and promoting diplomacy in that way.
Question: I wanted to pick up on Diana’s comment that I think you all

touched on a little, but that climate change provides as much incentive for
collaboration as it does conflict, and tie back to this grassroots effort, in
that, occasionally, the diplomatic efforts of a country actually work against
the potential for people to come together. And, I think we’re anticipating
that, if not already feeling that, in the United States, and as someone who
works on the U.S.-Mexico border, I’m wondering what your opinion is with
respect to the responsible activities of the scientific community to foster
this grassroots collaboration, cooperation, even when other efforts are
working against that sort of exchange through building of walls, literal,
political, etc.
Diana Liverman: I’ll make a brief response. Since November, I think

I’ve spoken in three different Latin American countries, and the moment
you open up the questions, people want to know about the implications of
political change in the United States for relationships with Latin America
and our response to climate change. And, one of my responses is that the
United States is not just Washington. California is one of the most, you
know, aggressive actors on climate change in the world, and our emissions
will probably continue to go down because of efforts at state—and like
Paty does—city level. Technology is ahead of the game.
And so, there are many other actors working on climate policy who
will keep going. And, I also think that things might change in Washing-
ton. I’m ever, ever optimistic. I think, actually, the new head of the State
Department may actually work to keep things going as well. So, I don’t
want to sort of give up on climate diplomacy in the region, just because
were moving from one administration to the other, and I don’t want it to be
seen as partisan because I came into this at the White House Conference
on Economics and Climate, which was under a Republican administra-
tion. George Bush was in Rio in 1992. I would like us to go back to a less
partisan diplomacy on climate, and that was the big difference in Britain
and here. When I spent 8 years back in England, it was pretty amazing to
be working in an environment as a scientist where, at the time, climate
change research was not politicized. This was preclimate gate. You really
felt, as a scientist, that you were part of “the big team,” and it’s hard to feel
that sometimes here.
Paty Romero-Lankao: I want to follow up on Diana’s by saying that I see
in Latin America, in the work I do with Latin America, and city officials,
and in the United States, such an energy and such a desire to do the right
thing; to mintage emissions; to respond to climate change. And, what is
more important, and that’s a challenge for us even with climate concerns,
to deal with the everyday aspirations of people. People want electricity.
People want water. They want to know that their kids will have a safe place
to live, and our challenge is to relate our climate concerns to those priori-
ties. I’m concerned not only about the United States; I’m concerned about
Latin America. I see that the lack of the rule of law is a huge concern that
we need to address in our countries. For instance, when I see that Mexico,
a country that I love because I’m Mexican, pledges to reduce emissions by
so much and so much, I’m very skeptical because I know that we are very
good at [making] the best laws on earth, but that we do not necessarily
commit to make them happen. So, there I see a challenge for diplomacy,
for us to work with decision makers and stakeholders. And the last point is
I have seen a lot of energy in communities, not only in Latin America, now
being at NCAR, working in China and working in India, communities in
Darabi that really have a lot to teach us about how to deal with priorities
which pursue the livelihoods, and their lives and the lives of their kids and
address any concerns. So, I see a lot of reason to be like hopeful, and I see,
and this coming from Latin America, that without mobilization, which
needs to be careful to not be politicized, without pressure from scientists
and stakeholders at the local and state levels, the change we want to see
won’t happen. This is a political thing, and science has its place in it, but
it’s not all of it, and we need to learn to be humble about that, and I some-
times see that we are not.
Hem Nalini Morzaria Luna: I just want to speak to the importance of
grassroots organizations. Organizations working indirectly with stake-
holders have huge weight, like they’re really helping nongovernmental
agencies who might have good intentions but might not have the adaptive
capacity—I mean, just the scientific capacity—or the energy to come up
with all these studies, and to help them apply it. And, I think it’s a really big
role that NGOs and other agencies are playing in Latin America.
Diana Liverman: One thing about climate diplomacy that has changed
over time. Many of us, when we first went into climate science, it wasn’t
actually about climate change and global warming. We were concerned
about natural disasters. We were concerned about drought on a seasonal
basis, and one of the things that has been difficult with climate change
coming to dominate and becoming slightly politicized is that sometimes
when you work on climate, as we’re working in the Caribbean on seasonal
forecasting and climate services, people just assume you’re working on
climate change, and there’s a lot of science diplomacy that needs to be
done about disaster risk reduction, helping people cope with current cli-
mate variability. So, I think it’s important to think of, I’ll call it climate
diplomacy, as being about more than global warming.
Question: My question is to you, Hem. You made a statement that if we

work together with all stakeholders directly that could also put scientists
under undue pressure to come up with answers that could contaminate
the analysis of our results. So, how do you plan to protect us from those
blame games?
Hem Nalini Morzaria Luna: I think it’s, to a degree, on the scientists,

that you have to be very clear on the expectations, and that you’re not
going to sacrifice your scientific integrity to get to a certain question.
I think as long as both parties agree on where you’re coming form—and
we haven’t had that problem. It’s always been, “This is the question that
we want to answer. You’re the scientist. You come up with what is the best
technical or scientific approach to solve that problem.” I don’t know if you
have examples from other parts of the world where that has been a prob-
lem, but it has not been an issue in Mexico at all. We have complete aca-
demic and scientific freedom to come up with those answers without an
exception of what the conclusion should be, and I would also argue that in
comparison to the United States, in Latin America, climate change policy
is not as politicized, and I think science, in general, is not as politicized.
People trust scientists and believe that science can advance everyday life,
and they don’t expect that politicians will tell scientists what and how they
will think.
Question: (Ambassador Macaya) This is a comment rather than a ques-

tion, and perhaps it’s already happening, but I’d like to follow up on a
comment that Diana mentioned. In maintaining the Peace Corps, perhaps
the Peace Corps should be approached to try to carve out an explicit type
of mission of the Peace Corps in science assistance or science diplomacy
for some of the volunteers, so that science graduates from U.S. universities
can go abroad after graduating and focus on some scientific aspect that a
country requires.
Diana Liverman: Somebody may know more about the recruitment strat-
egy of the Peace Corps, but I know a lot of scientists and engineers have
considered Peace Corps particularly through natural resource manage-
ment and education, but I’m not sure whether there explicit requirement
of scientists right now.
Question: I have a question for you, Paty. You were talking about making
statements as a scientist that are very brief, and that when you’re at the
decision-making table, that it allows you to share your expertise in such
a way that they understand you. Do you have any particular tips of some-
thing that you’ve seen from your experience that has allowed you to do this
more effectively, perhaps even training your own scientists in an elevator
pitch to decipher the entire problem and share in 2 minutes or less?
Paty Romero-Lankao: I don’t know if I have the answer, but let me tell
you what I’ve done with all the IPCC outreach in the world. Whenever
I got to a place, I really focus my findings on what people care about here
and now, meaning if I go to Quito: “This is what climate change will mean
for the Andes, and the water you are getting from the mountains. And,
this is how climate change will change the conditions of the epidemics
you are dealing with.” Whenever you bring things to people, to their back-
yard—because we are like that, we are not so cosmopolitan as we claim
to be—whenever you do that, really people care. That’s one thing that has
functioned well with me.
The other thing is I use a lot of stories, narratives. People care about
narratives. They really gloss over numbers. They are like, “Okay. Whatever.
That’s incredible, but show me some pictures,” etc. Does that mean that
your findings are not robust? No, you have already peer-reviewed litera-
ture; the peer-review process is forcing you to be as focused and as good as
you can in what you do. And then, when you talk to the media, I remember
when we were promoting the findings of the IPCC number 5. I came with
this idea that we think that climate change is only affecting the polar bears,
but no. Climate change is affecting us, and then with the AP guy, we came
with this idea that the polar bears are us. Simple—the polar bears are us.
So, try to be simple, don’t think that by being, you know, theoretical, etc.,
people will understand you. They will hate you. They will say, “What is she
talking about?” That’s my experience, and it more or less works.
Diana Liverman: One piece of advice my dad gave me, who was in gov-
ernment and did diplomacy, was start with your results. As a scientists, we
tend to spend a long time setting up our study, talking about the assump-
tions and research design, and what I’ve learned to do when I’m address-
ing stakeholders and policy makers is my first slide is my results, and then
I go into a little bit about the evidence that supports them, because that
gets people’s attention right now, rather than dragging them through your
sort of interim background.
Question: (Sergio Pastrana) Twenty-five years ago, Marcella and I were

working on establishing IAI. Diana shared with me Rio+20. There’s a lot
of talk about capability building. We were all the time [treating capacity
building] as a priority. Still, if you look at IAI now, we have a big mac in
which we have Chile and Argentina, Brazil in the middle, Canada and the
United States on top, and all the spam in between, so we need to do that
more. What are we doing wrong? What can we do better? This question
was for the previous panel, but this [panel] can answer it very well.
James Buzier: Thank you, Sergio, and I think that we have to some extent
addressed that. Capacity building and education are not just about very
specific projects. Institutions like the IAI, I think, have played an incred-
ibly important role in doing that. Of course, and I think Diana made the
point that science for diplomacy or science diplomacy really has to go
multigenerational. We really do have to have our next generation under-
stand that working in a place that maybe countries don’t politically offi-
cially get along is, in fact, a critically important thing.
Diana Liverman: I want to tell a story. The thing that changed my life
when I was 22, a masters student at University of Toronto, a very famous
Canadian climatologist and science diplomat asked if I wanted to help him
prepare for the UN conference, and he said, “I wanted you to be my Sherpa.”
And, I said, “What’s a Sherpa?” And, I went to that conference, and it really
inspired me, and I think it is really important for all of us to try to take
young people with us, and for our universities to support those students
going with us because I know it can transform someone early in their career.
Paty Romero-Lankao: Just two points more. Adding to what Diana said.
One is particularly for us, Latinos, in my case, I see that my responsibility
is to give back, to go to Latino students in primary school, in secondary
school; to inspire; to serve as a role model. And, in efforts we are develop-
ing on the border, where we are really working with Latino communities,
we are using the arts as the oldest effective aspect of dealing with climate.
And, it’s really working very well. I mean, there are so many challenges.
All these challenges are asking us to go beyond our little box, really en-
gage with other communities that have a lot of experience communicating,
engaging, and making people feel that we are caring about their values and
their feelings, not only about their signs or whatever knowledge, which is
good; we all care about that. No one needs to convince us of that.
Hem Nalini Morzaria Luna: I think one things that’s very important is
that we have to go beyond universities, and we have to go beyond col-
leges. I mean, we’re talking about helping develop interest in STEM from
very early on, and it’s really important, and I think as scientists, we some-
times forget that we have a social responsibility to do that. I spoke at my
second-grade daughter’s elementary school to third and fourth graders.
They wanted to know all about the megalodon and the Bermuda triangle,
so I was thinking of all these ways I could make links between the things
they are interested in and actual scientific concepts. So, I think it’s really
important to think you can’t expect that you’re going to increase capacity
once you get to college—it starts much earlier.
Addressing International
Water Challenges
through UNESCO,
Its Affiliated Centers
and the Academic
Community
William Logan
Deputy Director, International Center for Integrated Water
Resources Management, Institute for Water Resources,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ABSTRACT
As the global population continues to grow and economies develop,

international relations is enduring increasing strain due to shared water
resources challenges. UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme
(IHP) is helping to address these challenges through its “water family”—a
network of regional offices, affiliated centers, and academic researchers.
A prime example of this is IHP’s Global Network on Water and Devel-
opment Information for Arid Lands, or G-WADI, whose global techni-
cal secretariat is hosted by the International Center for Integrated Water
Resources Management (ICIWaRM) near Washington, DC. Water security
is especially critical in drylands, and G-WADI is developing tools to assist
countries in arid and semiarid regions to improve their water resources
planning and management, especially regarding hydrologic extremes. An
example of such a tool is given in this paper, emphasizing the international
and intersectorial collaboration over a decade that is leading to successful
applications.
Keywords: Drought Monitor, Global Network on Water and Development

Information for Arid Lands, International Center for Integrated Water
Resources Management, International Hydrological Programme, science
diplomacy, UNESCO, water diplomacy, water management
THE WATER SECURITY CRISIS
While as of 2015, over 90 percent of the world’s population was using

“improved drinking water sources,” more than two billion people live in
countries with “excess water stress” (i.e., with a ratio of total freshwater
withdrawn to total renewable freshwater resources of over 25 percent).1
As global population growth, land-use change, migration, and climate
change continue to threaten this resource, the international community
has increasingly recognized the key role of water security in interna-
tional development. Moreover, the colliding forces of increased water
demand (as much as 19 percent by some estimates) with the possibility
of decreased supply in some regions provide a chilling scenario for global
water use.
Given the necessity and importance of water as a shared resource, it is
unsurprising to see the recent growth in international and intergovernmen-
tal cooperation regarding its sustainability and governance. More specif-
ically, beginning with the Millennium Development Goals and extended
in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations has
committed itself and its partners to combat these forces. One of the most
visible elements of the strategy was the creation of a stand- alone goal
for clear water and sanitation (SDG#6), complemented by targets and
indicators for water-related disasters (SDG target 11.5) and other related
themes. Within the United States, concern for global water security has
been reflected in the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act and its successor,
the Water for the World Act,2 the latter of which requires formulation of a
single, government-wide Global Water Strategy.
Rapporteurs: Benjamin Seigel, Estefania Govea, and Stephanie J. Zawada
1
United Nations Economic and Social Council. 2017. Progress towards the Sustainable
evelopment Goals: Report of the UN Secretary-General. (United Nations). http://www
D
.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/2017/66&Lang=E
2
Congressional Research Service. 2017. “Summary of H.R. 2901 (113th): Senator Paul
Simon Water for the World Act of 2014.” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/

hr2901/summary, (accessed November 6, 2017).
ADDRESSING INTERNATIONAL WATER CHALLENGES • 53
UNESCO’S WATER FAMILY
The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) of the United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is play-
ing a key role in the overall global water security effort. IHP is “the only
intergovernmental programme of the UN system devoted to water research,
water resources management, and education and capacity building.”3
These areas are critical to the overall water strategy because simply drill-
ing wells for water supply has been shown to be of limited efficacy with-
out broader efforts to develop scientific and engineering capacity, stronger
educational institutions, and hydrologic and hydrogeological knowledge at
regional and national levels. Since its origins decades ago, IHP has evolved
into a program that addresses water issues in a broad, holistic manner.
Its current (2014 to 2021) phase, “Water Security: Responses to Local,
Regional, and Global Challenges,” incorporates interdisciplinary and inte-
grated approaches to watershed and aquifer management, including the
social dimension of water resources in addition to research, training, and
modeling relating to freshwater resources.
In the last several decades, IHP has put this approach into practice
by creating a network of what has come to be known as the UNESCO
“water family.” This network is made up of water scientists and engineers
at UNESCO headquarter in Paris; UNESCO regional offices for Asia,
Africa, Latin America/Caribbean, and the Arab states; 168 IHP National
Committees and focal points; water-related “chairs” at universities; and,
importantly, water-related “category 2” centers.
Category 2 centers and institutes operate under the auspices of
UNESCO, but are legally and functionally autonomous from it. They receive
little or no money from UNESCO (an exception being when they host an
event on behalf of IHP, for example) and are funded primarily through the
member state and grants or contracts they may receive from other sources.
UNESCO’s water-related centers are asked to:
• Address their thematic and geographic priorities within their

capabilities;
• Work together to contribute to implementation of UNESCO’s
strategic objectives in general and to the IHP’s strategic plans in
particular; and
3
UNESCO. 2017. “Hydrology (IHP).” http://en.unesco.org/themes/water-security/hydrology,
(accessed November 6, 2017).
• Develop their work plans in a coordinated fashion with UNESCO’s

biennial program.4
IHP currently lists 26 water-related centers and institutes, although

this number changes yearly.5 Some centers are more active than others, of
course, but most contribute in a substantive way to IHP’s mission.
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER

FOR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
One such category 2 center is the International Center for Integrated Water
Resources Management (ICIWaRM) at the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers’ Institute for Water Resources (IWR), outside of Washington, DC.
ICIWaRM focuses on “the advancement of the science and practice of
integrated water resources management (IWRM) to address water secu-
rity and other water-related challenges by regional and global action.”6
Originally established in 2007, ICIWaRM became a UNESCO category
2 center in 2009, greatly increasing its ability to engage in UNESCO’s
programs and projects and becoming a more integral part of the UNESCO
network. Its framework moves along four primary focus areas: policy and
governance, water security and hydrologic extremes, planning and conflict
resolution, and adaptation to change.
ICIWaRM acts as a technology transfer center and knowledge coor-
dinator within the UNESCO framework. One strength of the center is its
close relationships with academic institutions such as the University of
Arizona; Colorado State University; Oregon State University; Florida
International University; the University of California, Irvine; and Princ-
eton University. It also brings in many U.S. government departments and
agencies, such as NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey. ICI-
WaRM also coordinates closely with the U.S. National Committee for IHP
and U.S. National Commission to UNESCO, the U.S. State Department
Bureau of International Organizations, and the U.S. mission to UNESCO
in Paris.
4
UNESCO. 2012. Strategy for UNESCO’S Category 2 Water-Related Centres (International
Hydrological Programme, 2012). http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/
HQ/BSP/images/IHP_Strategy.pdf
5
UNESCO. 2017. “Water-Relates Centres under the Auspices of UNESCO.” http://en.unesco
.org/themes/water-security/centres, (accessed November 6, 2017).
6
ICIWaRM. 2017. “About ICIWaRM.” https://iciwarm.info/about-iciwarm/, (accessed O
ctober
15, 2017).
Examples of ICIWaRM activities are training courses in developing

and applying hydrologic, hydraulic, and ecological models from IWR’s
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) in Davis, California. Other com-
mon collaborations involve collaborative, or “shared vision” planning, who
combines stakeholder engagement, the Corps’ formal planning process,
and systems modeling to develop broadly acceptable solutions to water
resources planning and management challenges.
THE GLOBAL NETWORK ON WATER

DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION FOR ARID LANDS
The Global Network on Water and Development Information for Arid

Lands, known as G-WADI, is IHP’s arid regions water management pro-
gram. G-WADI promotes regional and international cooperation in arid
and semi-arid areas, and aims to build an effective global community
through the integration of selected material from networks, centers, orga-
nizations, and individuals. Its objectives are:
• Improved understanding of the special characteristics of hydrologi-

cal systems and water management needs in arid areas;
• Capacity building of individuals and institutions;
• Broad dissemination of information on water in arid zones to the
user community and the public;
• Exchange of experience; and
• Promoting integrated basin management and the development and
use of appropriate decision support tools.7
Since 2011, ICIWaRM has been functioning as G-WADI’s global

technical secretariat, at IHP’s request. ICIWaRM’s responsibilities include
coordinating with the regional secretariats, maintaining the website and
other communications, and help organize and support workshops, training
courses, and strategic planning events for G-WADI. It has also worked with
Princeton University to develop the African Flood and Drought Monitor
(AFDM) and Latin America and the Caribbean Flood and Drought Monitor
(LAC FDM) (stream.princeton.edu), and with the University of C alifornia,
Irvine, on a family of precipitation estimation products.8 The Princeton
University products figure prominently in the next section.
7
UNESCO, “Information for Arid Zones (G-WADI),” http://en.unesco.org/themes/water-
security/hydrology/programmes/g-wadi, (Accessed October 15, 2017).
8
Center for Hydrometeorology and Remote Sensing. 2017. “CHRS Mission Statement.”
http://chrs.web.uci.edu, (accessed November 6, 2017).
WATER DIPLOMACY AND WATER SCIENCE

FOR A SHARED WATER SOLUTION
In September 2017, a team of World Bank, Princeton University, and

Argentine hydrologists completed a preliminary high-resolution version
of the LAC FDM for the Salado River Basin in eastern Argentina. The
story of how this came to be illustrates the power of UNESCO’s network
of regional and country offices, category 2 centers, universities, and fund-
ing agencies.
In 2006, IHP and Princeton hydrologists discussed a possible demon-
stration system for Sub- Saharan Africa that would respond to the needs of
UNESCO members, contribute to IHP activities and capacity building, and
respond to the drought needs of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO).9
With modest funding from IHP and many hours of work by students and
staff, such a product was created. Then, with the assistance of UNESCO
offices in Nairobi, Kenya, and Windhoek, Namibia, workshops to test the
monitor were held at regional centers in Nairobi and Niamey, Niger, and at
a government ministry in Windhoek. This provided some real-world test-
ing of the platform in addition to some training of African hydrologists.
Feedback from participants led to many upgrades in the system.
In 2013, a global strategic planning meeting for G-WADI was held in
Beijing, China, with the support of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and
the Beijing and Jakarta, Indonesia, offices of UNESCO. Key G-WADI sci-
entists from both Africa and Latin America were at the meeting, which led
to a request for a Latin American version of the monitor. ICIWaRM and
UNESCO offices in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Santiago, Chile, worked
with Princeton University to create this product, which was completed
within a year since it could use most of the same algorithms as the AFDM.
A workshop on the LAC FDM was held in Santiago, organized by
UNESCO and the category 2 Water Centre for Arid and Semi-Arid Zones
in Latin America and the Caribbean (CAZALAC) and partly funded by the
Flanders UNESCO Trust Fund (FUST). Training on the platform was then
incorporated into a NASA ARSET (Applied Remote Sensing Training)
training course held in 2016 at the category 2 International Hydroinfor-
matics Center, which is binationally sponsored by Paraguay and Brazil.10
9
J. Sheffield, E.F. Wood, N. Chaney, K. Guan, S. Sadri, X. Yuan, L. Olang, A. Amani, A. Ali,
S. Demuth, and L. Ogallo. 2014. “A Drought Monitoring and Forecasting System for Sub-
Sahara African Water Resources and Food Security.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 95, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00124.1
10
ICIWaRM. 2017. “Technical Training and Short Courses.” https://iciwarm.sites.usa.gov/
technical-training-and-short-courses2, (accessed June 5, 2017).
One of the major challenges facing hydrology researchers is the lack

of scalable solutions. Many water challenges are regional or local in scale,
and continental-scale products such as the drought monitors cannot be
used as is to tackle such problems. One effort to address this operational
issue is underway at CAZALAC and the General Water Directorate in
Chile, for applications such as flood forecasting.
But how did the World Bank come to request such an adaptation
for a project in Argentina? The answer passes through the University
of Arizona—a core partner of ICIWaRM. A postdoc and later research
assistant professor at the university had been collaborating with ICIWaRM
through a series of fellowships, and then jointly with a NASA-USAID pro-
gram called SERVIR Africa. Through his work in Africa, he developed an
understanding of the potential applications of the AFDM and LAC FDM
and, when he was later hired by the Bank, decided to create such an appli-
cation targeted toward the water budget of the Salado River basin.
Thus, over a decade of time, and involving institutions from Africa,
South America, North America, Europe, and Asia, a conceptual notion for
one continent turned into practical application on another.
CONCLUSIONS
Today, science is moving at a mile per second; however, to apply the find-
ings of research, it requires patience, time, and a willingness to share credit.
One of the reasons that the IHP has been successful is due its leveraging
of the time, money, effort, and academic expertise of institutions around
the world. In conclusion, scientific networks can play a major role in tack-
ling global water issues, connecting organizations like UNESCO Paris,
category 2 centers like ICIWaRM, regional offices across continents, and
universities to study, analyze, and devise solutions for pressing water issues.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CAZALAC. 2017. “Water Centers Category II of UNESCO.” http://www.cazalac

.org/2015/index.php?id=6&L=0, (accessed June 5, 2017).
ICIWaRM. 2017a. “About ICIWaRM.” https://iciwarm.info/about-iciwarm/more-
about-iciwarm, (accessed June 5, 2017)
ICIWaRM. 2017b. “ICIWaRM Holds Training Course on Environmental Flows
Modeling in La Plata, Argentina.” https://iciwarm.info/iciwarm-holds-training-
course-on-environmental-flows-modeling-in-la-plata-argentina
ICIWaRM. 2017c. “Technical Training and Short Courses.” https://iciwarm.sites
.usa.gov/technical-training-and-short-courses2, (accessed June 5, 2017).
Sheffield, J., E.F. Wood, N. Chaney, K. Guan, S. Sadri, X. Yuan, L. Olang, A. Amani,
A. Ali, S. Demuth, and L. Ogallo. 2014. “A Drought Monitoring and Forecasting
System for Sub- Sahara African Water Resources and Food Security.” B ulletin
of the American Meteorological Society 95, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1175/
BAMS-D-12-00124.1
The Water Project. 2016. “Facts about Water.” August 31, 2016. https://thewaterproject
.org/water-scarcity/water_stats
UNESCO. 2012. Strategy for UNESCO’S Category 2 Water-Related Centres.
International Hydrological Programme, August 2012. http://www.unesco.org/
new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/BSP/images/IHP_Strategy.pdf
Wheater, H.S. 2006. “G-WADI—UNESCO’s Global Network for Waterland
Development Information for Arid Lands,” In The Future of Drylands, edited
by C. Lee and T. Schaaf, 189-198. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Science Diplomacy in the
Colorado River Delta
Restoration Initiative
Francisco Zamora, Fátima Luna, and Gabriela González
Sonoran Institute
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
“I love nature!” This was the expression of Mariana before she left the
Laguna Grande restoration area during a visit with her fourth-grade class.
Throughout the visit, Mariana was very curious and kept asking questions.
Her questions ranged from how did the trees get so tall? And how many
birds are here? Are there any dangerous animals here? At times, her ques-
tions were a little too much, especially considering that there were 35 other
kids who also had questions. At the end of the visit, and as Mariana was run-
ning toward the school bus, she turned around, put her hands in the air and
scream “I love nature” before getting into the bus. Mariana’s teacher, with
tears in her eyes, thanked Sonoran Institute’s staff for changing M ariana’s
life. According to her teacher, Mariana was a “special education” student
who normally didn’t interact with anyone, never spoke in public, and had
trouble paying attention to class. But that day, Mariana discovered her love
for nature, which helped her break through all internal barriers and she
was able to connect with nature and her classmates as she shined in her
own light. And that is precisely the mission of the Sonoran Institute—to
connect people and communities with their natural environments.
This story summarizes the social impact, an important and critical
aspect associated with restoration projects in the Colorado River Delta, but
it is sometimes overlooked by restoration scientists and decision makers.
The story shows that as a central element of life water is also a unifier,
bridging countries together to collaborate for lasting shared resource
management. Collaboration among decision makers, scientists, and con-
servation practitioners from Mexico and the United States has been instru-
mental to advance the Colorado River Delta’s restoration efforts, which
have resulted from decades of science diplomacy and water management

research in the Southwest region.
In the framework of the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty, NGOs like
the Sonoran Institute have conducted field research and proposed resto-
ration initiatives to enhance critical natural habitat in the Colorado River
Delta. In 2002, over 55 water managers, scientists, and conservationists
reviewed available scientific information and produced the “Map of the
Possible”, which describes the conservation priorities for the Delta. Since
then NGOs have not only contributed new information and ideas but also
implemented on-the-ground restoration projects. NGOs have also collab-
orated with policy makers on both sides of the border to develop plans that
address critical water management issues, as well as the ecological and
socioeconomic needs of people in the delta region. A new era of collabora-
tion began on November 2012 when Mexico and the United States signed
Minute 319, a binational agreement that has become a collaboration model
for other regions and countries worldwide with transboundary rivers. For
Sonoran Institute, Mariana’s story represents the positive impact that bina-
tional collaboration and international policy can have on youth who, it
is our hope, would become environmental and natural resource stewards.
Keywords: Colorado River Delta, NGOs, river restoration project, science

diplomacy, 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty
CHANGING LIVES THROUGH WATER POLICY

ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
In the Mexicali Valley, a group of 35 fourth-grade students from a local

community visited the Laguna Grande restoration site in the Colorado
River Delta. Enjoying their field trip to the riparian forest, the young stu-
dents were excited and loud—except for one girl Mariana who, at the very
beginning, sat quietly by herself. When the exploration tour began, she
stepped forward with a few questions. However, Mariana’s questions were
prominent as the tour continued. At the end, when the group was leaving
the restoration site, she turned around toward the river, exclaiming, “Amo
la naturaleza,” which translates to “I love nature!” As a nongovernmental
conservation organization, moments like this represent the lifeblood of
Sonoran Institute’s efforts to reconnect people to their natural environ-
ments. Surprised and pleased with her transformation at home and school,
Mariana’s parents visited her school a few weeks after the school field trip
Rapporteurs:Benjimain Seigel, StefaniaGovea, and Stephanie J.Zawada

SCIENCE DIPLOMACY IN THE COLORADO RIVER DELTA • 61
and informed her teacher that Marina went from being timid and disen-
gaged to become insatiable in learning about how ecosystems work.
Binational collaboration in Colorado River Delta restoration efforts
are changing the lives of local people. As part of the Minute 319 environ-
mental component, a pulse flow was delivered in 2014 through the More-
los Dam, the last dam on the Colorado River. The transformation of the
river was immediately evident. A river that regularly does not flow beyond
the dam, but rather disperses into irrigation canals, was freely flowing
once again. Given their proximity to the river, local residents of San Luis
Rio Colorado—a community located 22 river miles south of Morelos
Dam—welcomed the river with open arms. After a few weeks, the river
continued its journey for approximately 50 additional miles until it met
the sea. Along its way, the pulse flow inundated riparian areas that have
not seen water for 20 years or more. Local residents from multiple com-
munities also welcomed and enjoyed the river as it passed through their
communities. For many children, the pulse flow represented the first time
they saw and experienced a flowing Colorado River.
The social benefits of the pulse flow were complemented with the
more constant water deliveries of base flows that maintained established
and newly restored areas in the riparian corridor. These are the same res-
toration sites that were continued to be used to renew individual and com-
munity relationships with the river and promote long-term stewardship
through community engagement. Engaging community members is key
because it fosters long-term restoration results, builds a framework of
stewardship to conserve and enhance a healthy river into the future, and
promotes political willingness to dedicate water and other resources to
delta ecosystems. As part of Sonoran Institute’s community engagement
approach, we created the “Adopt the River” program which promotes envi-
ronmental awareness through in-school workshops and field trips to our
restoration sites where students learn about the benefits of having healthy
delta ecosystems as well as the process of restoring a site, from collecting
seeds from native trees to planting and maintaining the trees.
Through the “Family Saturday Nature Walks” program, we offer
guided visits to our restoration sites to promote healthy recreational
options for families who live in nearby communities and typically do not
visit green spaces. During the visits, the families learn about our ongo-
ing restoration efforts and the role that the delta plays for the people in
their community and the wildlife in the region. In addition, with support
from our partner Alas del Delta, we offer bird-watching and a boat/kayak
ride along the main channel of the river. Sonoran Institute also imple-
ments guided tours with government agencies from Mexico, the United
States, and international visitors from NGOs, schools, and individuals.
In addition, we implement annual public tree-planting events, where

volunteers from local communities, government agencies, not-for-profit
organizations, donors, and students help us plant native trees and shrubs.
Through all of our community engagement initiatives, we reached out to
over 4,000 people since 2016.
Working with community members is key because the long-term
recovery of the delta ultimately depends on the commitment of the people
who live in the region. And the people who live in the region can, in turn,
benefit from restoration or conservation efforts. In fact, our restoration
efforts have become an important source of employment for 25 permanent
employees and 85 seasonal workers who live in local communities and
who gain a significant amount of human capital that is highly valuable
in the green economy. Our employees, most of whom have limited for-
mal education, are trained in many restoration techniques, vegetation and
hydrological monitoring, wildlife and plant identification, among other
skills. Ultimately, what really matters is what restoration employment rep-
resents to the people. For David, one of our employees, his job allows him
to make house improvements, but more importantly it provides the means
to support his family.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
International Boundary & Water Commission. 2017. “Treaties between the U.S.
and Mexico.”. https://www.ibwc.gov/Treaties_Minutes/treaties.html, (accessed
November 29, 2017).
Kennedy, E.. 2016. “Colorado River.” The Nature Conservancy. https://www
.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/coloradoriver/colorado-
river-pulse-flow-update-from-eloise-kendy.xml, (accessed June 5, 2017).
Sanchez, A. 2006. “1994 Water Treaty between Mexico and the United States:
Present Situation and Future Potential.” Frontera Norte 18, no. 36.
The Nature Conservancy. 2017. “After a 1944 United States-Mexico Treaty the
Morelos Dam Was Built in 1950 across the Colorado River between the Town
of Los Algodones, Baja California, and Yuma County, Arizona. The Eastern
Half the Dam Lies inside United States Territory; but Mexico Is.” https://blog
.nature.org/conservancy/2014/03/27/colorado-river-hope-for-the-hopeless/
after-a-1944-united-states-mexico-treaty-the-morelos-dam-was-built-in-1950-
across-the-colorado-river-between-the-town-of-los-algodones-baja-california-
and-yuma-county-arizona-the-eastern-half-the, (accessed June 5, 2017).
Question: Though 2044 seems a long way off, how do we get these princi-
ples, this discussion, this patriation into what will become a very important
political and, of course, environmental instrument?
Francisco Zamora: The treaty was signed in 1944, and it’s such that the
way it operates is to Minutes, or a specific, you know, recommendation
or actions. So I don’t know if the United States and Mexico are going
to change the Treaty because, basically, when there is a new need, they
address those issues to Minutes, like Minute 219. Minute 219 tells you that
there have been 218 Minutes before that, so it’s been an ongoing process.
I don’t know if it’s actually going to be reviewed as a whole in the future.
Question: Thank you. A question for Helen. So, I was really interested in
what you were talking about risks and burdens, and I wonder if you could
expand a little on that, on how you would incorporate that.
Helen Ingram: On the issue of climate change, I see a lot of research

indicating that the people that will be hardest hit by climate change are
people that are in deltas that are going to be flooded; are people that are
in deserts that are going to be very difficult to maintain; and, of course,
fisheries where the changes in nature, of water temperature, are going to
change the productivity of things. And, as we address what to do about
climate change, I worry that the concern will always be with productivity
and with profits and not necessarily the lives of people who may become
much worse off. And, it would be my wish that studies done about climate
change focus, in particular, on distributional issues—not the economy at
large, but instead the impact upon. And, this is something that science can
do. These are good science questions. They are driven by values, but they
are good science questions, and I think that they need to be addressed.
Question: This may be a naive question, but when we think about Ecuador
putting more attention, for example, to rural areas, what would be some
steps to really come back to an equity society or to have people put more
attention to rural areas?
Helen Ingram: I think it’s fair to say people left rural areas not just by
accident. Much of it was driven by neoliberal policies that drove people
into cities where there have not been the right kind of capacity—there
wasn’t the right kind of water distribution system, and certainly not a
drainage system to take care of them—and taking people off the land, and
made them dependent upon imported products. And, as a consequence,

we’ve ended up with social problems that somehow, or another water peo-
ple, are supposed to solve, but clearly it is a matter of bringing the atten-
tion of officials to this problem. And, we have some opportunity, every
time we get a grant, to reinterpret that grant slightly, and I charge everyone
to do what you do with your presentation which could have totally avoided
the subject of equity, but instead put it out there. And, that’s what I’d like to
see. That’s doesn’t mean people will act on it, but as Paty said earlier, a lot
of scientific information isn’t acted on. So, the fact that we’ve got a tough
political road here doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying.
Francisco Zamora: Let me just add, so in the Colorado River Delta, in the
Mexicali Valley, 75 to 80 percent of water goes to agriculture. And, as you
know, we hear from farmers on a regular basis, “We need water. We need
more water.” And, they have 80 to 85 percent. And then, I tell them, “How
about fishermen? How about people who want to go fish in the water
[just for recreation]?” So, my point I want to make is that we need to be
able to share information with them. To make them understand that there
are other users, that the fact that they have 80 to 85 percent of water, and
asking for more water is maybe not a good thing. So there are other ways
for water conservation projects to be more efficient. And the second point
is, now we have, and we have been doing this for several years, an orga-
nization in Mexico. We own waterways now for environmental purposes,
so we are now on the table as another user of water, but, in this case, for
the environment.
Question: This question is for Francisco. Francisco, I’m wondering if you

have seen—if you have worked on this—whether stakeholders capacity can
be built with local stakeholders, so they can become diplomats. C ertainly,
they can communicate their other values and interest not only in water
resources but also, we have found, in working with fishing communities.
They can also communicate their traditional knowledge if we help them
systemize their information so that they can, in essence, become science
diplomats, so that policy makers respond to their stakeholders. Often, the
response is to conflict, but if they come in an organized way, they can be
very effective diplomats. Have you done that or found that to be true?
Francisco Zamora: Yes. Certainly, I think you’re right. I think that’s cer-
tainly possible, and it’s happening on a small, small scale, and it just takes
time for kind of local people, for local users to develop that capacity and
feel confident to engage in conversations with government. And you know
the fact that it takes time, and there are more organized groups that take
over most of the time from that conversation, and they don’t allow the
other groups to really be part of it, but yes it is possible. And, I think shared
information, being part of the process of changing or transforming the
system, and “how we use or manage water” are key elements so that they
can see that it is possible.
Question: It’s a question for Helen. What can be done to raise awareness
about how equity is as an important factor as efficiency for engineers and
scientists to make sure that my generation and the next integrates that as
an important value in the work they do?
Helen Ingram: Well, I think that it needs to happen on a number of levels,

and a lot of it depends on people like you. I think you need to ask depart-
ments of engineering, landscape architecture, and agriculture to have
courses on policy and social science, the philosophy of science, and envi-
ronmental ethics and equity. I think those are really important things to do.
And then I think, as I said, when you write a dissertation, methods
shouldn’t be the main thing you’re worrying about—and showing off
your fancy methods—but ask if this an important question that matters
to anybody. Who is going to care about this beyond the six readers that
pick up an awful lot of our work? I think the university could do a great
favor by changing the incentives so that those who do work—the synthetic
work of putting together other people’s papers, which are not necessarily
original research, but are most relevant to government—gets recognized
as important. I think the Academy has been helpful by highlighting the
careers of young people who have become members of committees and, by
doing work that serves the public interest, provides some important pub-
lications and some real rewards. I think departments need to offer minors
and majors in this kind of thing; more conferences like this need to hap-
pen; and I think we need to work with groups like USAID, and with the
Sonoran Institute, to make certain that they have access to the resources
of science within the university. We need to help this kind of organization.
Question: (Robert Varady) We are going to end this very soon, but I don’t
want to let Will off the hook, so I’m going to say something to him about his
presentation. I know Koon, the fellow who roped him into using his meth-
odologies by using the programs methodology for the Americas. And, when
I first began talking to him, and I looked at his maps, I said, “This is really
fancy stuff, and it’s great that we have this depiction of where the drought
vulnerabilities are. But, as I understand it, you’re measuring vulnerabil-
ities strictly by looking at physical conditions, whereas, in reality, we all
know that you can have places that are identical physically but with very
different vulnerabilities, for exactly the reason that Helen mentioned and
Francisco addressed.” And, Koon, of course, agreed, so the challenge for

programs like yours is to do the same kind of mapping that also includes
the social conditions that add to vulnerability.
Will Logan: Thank you. That’s a very, very difficult question, but a very
good question. The simplistic answer is that scientists don’t make the deci-
sions; policy makers make the decisions, so if you’re, for example, one of
the tools that Koon spent a lot of time was something called a drought atlas,
which was basically the statistics of drought and, if you’re in a drought,
what are the chances it’s going to last another 5 years . . . and 2 years . . .
Now, we’re looking for different people to make the kinds of inputs that
you are and so that tool—that particular tool—would be a single input into
a politician, a manager, and a policy maker. You’re absolutely right. We
have a phrase at the Institute for Water Resources with respect to water
management: “The soft parts are hard.” So, engineers can build almost
anything they want—and I’m not an engineer, I’m actually an earth scien-
tist, but I work for the Corps of Engineers—and so I’ll defend those of you
out there who are getting beaten upon, which is that most engineers now
are not just optimizing structures. As a matter of fact, they’re as interested
in resilience as they are in optimizing a system. But second, there’s an
awful lot of work going on now in repurposing dams, dams that may have
been authorized for one purpose but we’re trying to squeak, to squeeze
other purposes in, and, of course, this is generally codified in law. So,
structures were authorized for flood control or authorized for hydropower,
and then after they were built, we have the Engendered Species Act, Clean
Water Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, and all these other things—NEPA
[National Environmental Policy Act]. So, it’s actually one of the more fun
things, I think, for an engineer is to figure out how not to break the law
while trying to meet some of these other needs that society has, and that’s
where this system, this approach we have on shared vision planning that
is trying to understand what new needs are, while seeing what is actually
physically possible and trying to stay out of jail.
Index
A Climate Change and Ecosystem

ACN. See Nicaraguan Academy of Program, 33
Sciences (ACN) Colorado River Delta, 60–62
“Adopt the River” program, 61 Competencies, 75
Continuity of services, 8
B
Bolivia, 9 D
Decision making, 20
C Deforestation, 9, 11
Canada, 14–15 Dengue, 9
Carson Scholars Program, 28 Diplomatic institutes, 3
Chile, sanitation provision, 10 Disasters, 27
China, 25 Drainage system, 12
intergovernmental Drought, 12
cooperation, 71
Clarity, 20–21 E
Climate change, 6, 28 Engineering diplomacy, 73
action in America, 24–25 Enthusiasm, 74
approach to global warming, 24 Environmental sciences, 75
educating science diplomats of Equity, 73
future, 28 gender, 74
education for ecosystem preser- measure of, 6
vation, 34–35 Erosion, 11
effects of, 24 Evapotranspiration rates, 12
emergence of science diplomacy
in response to, 26 F
global warming will challenge “Family Saturday Nature Walks”
fisheries, 32 program, 61
and land use modifications for Fisheries, 32
water resources, 11–12
observable effects of, 32–34 G
research for U.S. audience, GDP. See Gross domestic product
26–27 (GDP)
92 • Index
Gender equity, 74 Intergovernmental Panel on

Geoengineering, 27 Climate Change (IPCC), 21
Global climate change, 33–34 International Center for
Global community, 74 Integrated Water Resources
Global Network on Water and Management (ICIWaRM),
Development Information for 54–55
Arid Lands, 55–56 International collaborations, 34
Global Sustainable Development International Council for Science
Reports, 73 (ICSU), 26
Global warming, and emissions, 26 International Hydrological
Grand Challenges for Programme (IHP), 53
Engineering, 75 International recognition, 71
Gross domestic product (GDP), International scientific
10, 26 cooperation, 13–14, 15
International water challenges
H Global Network on Water and
High-Level Political Forum, 77 Development Information for
Human resources, 35 Arid Lands, 55
Human rights international center for integrated
importance of, 70 water resources management,
Soviet violations of, 70 54–55
Humility, 20 shared water solution, 56–57
Hurricane Sandy, 27 UNESCO’S water family, 53–54
water security crisis, 52–53
I IPCC, 26–27
IANAS, 15 Iran, United States and, 78
Idealism, 74
Illegal hunting, 70 K
INDCs. See Intended Nationally Knowledge gaps, 20
Determined Contributions
(INDCs) L
Inequalities, 73 Lake Nicaragua, 15
Information, validity and veracity Lake Xolotlan, 9–10
of, 20 Land use modifications for water
Infrastructure issues, 14–15 resources, 11–12
Ingram, Helen, 73 Latin America
Institutional planning, water challenges of, 6
management and, 15 continuity of services, 8
Integral urban solutions, 8 urban population, 10
Intended Nationally Determined water-transmitted diseases, 9
Contributions (INDCs), Local community, 74
24–25
Inter-American Network of M
Academies of Sciences Malaria, 9
(IANAS), 12 Marchuk, Gury, 69–70
INDEX • 93
Mexican National Commission Schweitzer, Glenn, 69–71

for Natural Protected Areas Science, 69–72
(CONANP), 33 Science diplomacy, 3, 73
Millennium Development Goals, in America, 3
6, 52 and international scientific
Mote, Daniel, 75 cooperation, 13–14
and policy, 6
N water policy on U.S.-MEXICO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric border, 60–62
Association (NOAA), 35 Science-policy interface
Nicaragua, 9–10, 13–14 global decision-making lifecycle,
canal’s development, 14 20–21
drinking water coverage, 10 narrative for climate change
socioeconomic benefits to, 14 through clarity, 21
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences obstacles to, 19–20
(ACN), 14 SDGs. See Sustainable
Nicaraguan drinking water supply, 10 Development Goals (SDGs)
NOAA. See National Oceanic and Sewage systems, 10
Atmospheric Association Shared water solution, 56–57
(NOAA) Social equality, 6
Nongovernmental organizations Soviet violations of human
(NGOs), 28, 60–61 rights, 70
Strategic science diplomacy, 21
P
Sustainable development
Paris Agreement, 24
agenda, 73
Partnerships for Enhanced
goal framework, 73
Engagement in Research
Sustainable Development Goals
Program, 35–36
(SDGs), 5, 6, 26, 52, 75, 76, 77
Peri-urban areas, 8
engineering challenges for, 75
Piñon, Gabriela Cruz, 34
framework, 73
Poverty, 6
framework of, 75
R science, technology, and
Research universities, 73, 77 innovation for, 76
Reyes-Bonilla, Hector, 34
Rio+20 Earth Summit, 26 U
River restoration project, 60 UA. See University of Arizona (UA)
Rural populations, 9 UCA. See University of Central
America (UCA)
S Udall Center, 74
Sakharov, Andrey, 69 UN 2030 Agenda, 77
Sandy, Hurricane, 27 UN Habitat conference, 76
Sanitation, 7–11 UNESCO. See United Nations
infrastructure, 15 Educational, Scientific,
installation of, 9 and Cultural Organization
provisions, 9 (UNESCO)
94 • INDEX
United Nations Educational, distribution systems, 11

Scientific, and Cultural necessity and importance of, 52
Organization (UNESCO), 53 pollution, 15
water family, 53 quality, 15
water-related centers, 55–56 renewable reserves of, 6
United Nations Framework services, rural access to, 9
Convention on Climate Water for the Poor Act, 52
Change, 28 Water for the World Act, 52
United Nations High-Level Water management, 8
Political Forum, 73 decision-making processes
United States, 14–15 for, 13
and Iran, 78 effectiveness in, 13
United States National Climate and institutional planning, 15
Assessment, 27 Water Program at Inter-American
Universities, 74, 75 Network of Academies of
role in community, 76 Sciences, 7
University of Arizona (UA), 28, Water resources, 4
73–74, 75 global demands for, 6–7
University of Central America Water sustainability
(UCA), 5 climate change and land use
Urban centers in Latin America, 7 modifications for water
Urban development, 9 resources, 11–12
Urban population, 7, 9 effectiveness of responsible
Urban water management, 15 institutions, 13
Urban water supply, 15 global demands for water
Urbanization, 8, 12 resources, 6–7
Uruguay drainage system, 12 role of international actors in
U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty solving, 14–15
1994, 60 science diplomacy and
U.S.-Soviet relations, 69–70 international scientific
cooperation, 13–14
V science diplomacy and policy, 6
Vafai, Hassan, 77–78 water access and sanitation in
Vammen, Katherine, 3, 5 America, 7–11
Water-related disasters, 52
W Watersheds, 12
Wastewater treatment systems, 10–11
Water Z
access, 7–11 Zhivkov, Todor, 71
OTHER TITLES IN OUR SUSTAINABLE STRUCTURAL
SYSTEMS COLLECTION
Mohammad Noori, Editor
• Numerical Structural Analysis by Steven O’Hara and Carisa H. Ramming
• A Systems Approach to Modeling Community Development Projects by Bernard Amadei
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Concepts
and Development by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Seismic Analysis and Design Using the Endurance Time Method, Volume I : Advanced
Topics and Application by H.E. Estekanchi and H.A. Vafai
• Multi-Scale Reliability and Serviceability Assessment of In-Service Long-Span Bridges
by Mohammed Noori
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume I: A Tutorial for Engineers
by Wael A. Altabey
• Using ANSYS for Finite Element Analysis, Volume II: Dynamic, Probabilistic Design
and Heat Transfer Analysis by Wael A. Altabey
Momentum Press offers over 30 collections including Aerospace, Biomedical, Civil,

Environmental, Nanomaterials, Geotechnical, and many others. We are a leading book
publisher in the field of engineering, mathematics, health, and applied sciences.
Announcing Digital Content Crafted by Librarians

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research
Momentum Press offers digital content as authoritative treatments of advanced engineering

topics by leaders in their field. Hosted on ebrary, MP provides practitioners, researchers,
faculty, and students in engineering, science, and industry with innovative electronic content
in sensors and controls engineering, advanced energy engineering, manufacturing, and
materials science.
Momentum Press offers library-friendly terms:

• perpetual access for a one-time fee
• no subscriptions or access fees required
• unlimited concurrent usage permitted
• downloadable PDFs provided
• free MARC records included
• free trials
The Momentum Press digital library is very affordable, with no obligation to buy in future
years.
For more information, please visit www.momentumpress.net/library or to set up a trial in the

US, please contact mpsales@globalepress.com.

Part

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Part

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Science and Technology Diplomacy: A Focus on the Americas with Lessons

E. William Colglazier, Honorary Chairman of the Conference

Therese Lane, Senior Business Manager

Copyright © Momentum Press®, LLC, 2018.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

First published in 2018 by

ISBN-13: 978-1-94708-364-6 (print)

Momentum Press Sustainable Structural Systems Collection

Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Service Private Ltd.

First edition: 2018

Printed in the United States of America

Science diplomacy and policy can support collaborative national and

• To shed light and interface science, technology, and engineering

climate change, cross-cultural communication, global affairs, global

PART 2 SERVING AMERICA THROUGH SCIENCE 67

WHY HOST AN SDP CONFERENCE?

One concept of Science Diplomacy is that it is the use of scientific col-

focuses on examples of SD activities rather than stating a specific defini-

“Science in diplomacy”: Informing foreign policy objectives with sci-

The first activity can also be described as Science Policy, which

Figures 1 and 2. Opening session of the SDP conference—University of

then thoroughly reviewed by a scientific committee and approved by the

WHY ORGANIZE THE MEETING AT A UNIVERSITY?

Generally, this type of meeting would be hosted by a professional organi-

engineering that is needed to solve vexing global problems. Holding the

WHY HOST THE MEETING AT THE UNIVERSITY

Clearly, the hub of SD in the United States is Washington, DC; not

Scholars Program, and the establishment of a Science-Engineering

Committee on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy. 2011. National

We also convey thanks to the distinguished speakers for investing

Stephanie Zawada Ravindra Dwivedi Jacob Petersen-Perlman

Given their substantial efforts, Ms. Stephanie J. Zawada, the senior

Also, the extraordinary efforts of Ms. Sheri E. Dean, marketing direc-

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017—AT THE

6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2017—ROLES

8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2017—CLIMATE CHANGE

8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

In Latin America, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals are key

Keywords: International collaboration, Latin America, nicaragua sustain-

Rapporteurs: PattrickFinnerty, Ravindra Dwivedi, Nico A. Conterreras, and Stephenie

GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOR IMPROVING WATER

GLOBAL DEMANDS FOR WATER RESOURCES

already 70 percent of the world’s water is allocated to agriculture. The

WATER SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGES

WATER ACCESS AND SANITATION IN THE AMERICAS

(North America, Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South ­America)

In most countries of Latin America water-transmitted diseases are

Lake Xolotlan, has been heavily contaminated, and although a treatment

CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND USE

WATER PROBLEMS CONCERN EQUITY AND LACK

Water is the quintessential equity issue as it is a public resource as well as

THE PROPOSED NICARAGUAN CANAL

In 2013, the Nicaraguan government approved the construction of a trans-

of the proposed canal at a meeting organized by the Nicaraguan ­Academy

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL ACTORS

Infrastructure issues are not a problem specific to the developing world,

can be characterized as follows: “Water scarcity is intensifying. Water

Considerable progress has been made in Latin America’s development.

Opportunities (Contributions from the Rosenberg International Forum on

PART 2 SERVING AMERICA THROUGH SCIENCE 67

6:30–6:45 p.m. Introduction by Honorary Conference Chair:

8:00–8:15 a.m. Welcome: E. William Colglazier, introduced

Moderator: John Hildebrand, UA Regents’

8:00–8:10 a.m. Welcome and introduction by Kevin Lansey,

8:10–10:00 a.m. Keynote addresses, moderated by Christopher

(North America, Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and South America)

of the proposed canal at a meeting organized by the Nicaraguan Academy