Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address common problems and to build constructive international partnerships. Science diplomacy is a form of new diplomacy and has become an umbrella term to describe a number of formal or informal technical, research-based, academic or engineering exchanges, within the general field of international relations and the emerging field of global policy making.
Although diplomacy featuring science is ancient, science diplomacy began to formally emerge in the 1930s, and the term science diplomacy appeared shortly after the end of the Cold War. Science diplomacy is taken to involve the direct promotion of a country's national needs, and/or the direct promotion of cross-border interests, and/or the direct meeting of global challenges and needs, including via the United Nations system and relevant conferences. Its remit thus includes the global networked governance of such major global issues as development of renewable energy, management of climate change, fusion power, space exploration, and technology transfer.
Notable developments in science diplomacy may arise as the result of scientific conferences and can feature the creation of new organizations to promote science diplomacy. Examples include the 1931 founding of the International Council of Scientific Unions, now the International Council of Science (ICSU); CERN, founded in 1954; the International Space Station, which had its origin in the early 1980s; and the ITER nuclear fusion experiment, conceived of around the same time. In more recent years, science diplomacy has been applied to pandemics and to the new age space race, in the form of space diplomacy.
Background
Science diplomacy, along with e.g. economic, digital or para-diplomacy, is a subcategory of the so-called new diplomacy, as opposed to the long-standing traditional diplomacy known to date. Science diplomacy is thus also a sub-field of international relations and typically involves at some level interactions between scholars and officials involved in diplomacy, although whether scientist diplomats or diplomat scientists are more effective is an open question.
That said, forms of science diplomacy originated in previous centuries. The great voyages of exploration and colonization brought with them science-based diplomacy – such as trade in rifles in North America – as a form of diplomacy of influence. The emergence of blocs during the era of industrial warfare also saw the deployment of technology as a means of influencing less developed countries, with the Cold War bringing ideologically bloc-based science diplomacy, in areas such as space exploration and the development of fission reactors and weapons, to its ultimate incarnation.
The term ‘science diplomacy’ only began to emerge following the end of the Cold War, in the early 2000s, as a description of the need for new strategic partnerships at the country level to promote “activities of international cooperation and compromise on issues with a heavy scientific input”, on issues of global concern, such as biosafety. This involved the development of strategic scientific relations between historical or potential rival countries or blocs as a way to promote scientific cooperation to the extent that it could hedge against diplomatic failures and reduce the potential for conflict. As one UNCTAD researcher stated, “These activities and resulting networks offer excellent opportunities to share resources and hedge against diplomatic failures through exchanging experiences, opening countries up to better funding opportunities from international sources and sharing organisational capacity and expertise.” In the second half of the first decade of the twenty-first century, calls for the promotion of science diplomacy emerged in earnest, especially between the West and former Soviet Union countries.
Definition
The concept of science diplomacy in academic discourse is of relatively recent origin. The intensification of research, including attempts to define and classify practices that can be included in the science diplomacy category, date from the beginning of the 21st century. The attempts to conceptualise science diplomacy are still ongoing. There exists neither a clear-cut definition of the term nor a consensus on science diplomacy's stakeholders, instruments and activities. Science diplomacy as a discourse draws the attention of multiple social actors who present diverse interpretations of the concept. The debate is attended by researchers who treat science diplomacy as an empirical object and by actors who are or have been involved in science diplomacy practices in various ways. These are career diplomats, science counsellors/advisers, experts to national and international decision-making bodies, and politicians. They perceive science diplomacy through the lens of interests (national, group) and goals to be fulfilled. Therefore, the definition of science diplomacy is not based on analytical categories but draws its meaning from a compilation of different narratives, approaches and ideas of changing relations between science and politics, science and foreign policy and the evolution of diplomacy as an institution of international relations.
Types of activities
In January 2010, the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science noted that "science diplomacy" refers to three main types of activities:
- “Science in diplomacy”: Science can provide advice to inform and support foreign policy objectives
- “Diplomacy for science”: Diplomacy can facilitate international scientific cooperation
- "Science for diplomacy”: Scientific cooperation can improve international relations
In 2017, the current and former science advisers to the Foreign Ministers of the United States, New Zealand, the UK and Japan framed science diplomacy as
- Actions designed to directly advance a country's national needs
- Actions designed to address cross-border interests
- Actions primarily designed to meet global needs and challenges
Before the term science diplomacy was coined, such initiatives—-in the United States—were often called “smart power” or “soft power” by those in the field. The term, “soft power,” was coined by Joseph Nye of Harvard University in a 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. In an editorial in the Washington Post that he cowrote with Richard Armitage, he said, "In a changing world, the United States should become a smarter power by once again investing in the global good -- by providing things that people and governments want but cannot attain without U.S. leadership. By complementing U.S. military and economic strength with greater investments in soft power, Washington can build the framework to tackle tough global challenges." His notion of "smart power" became popular with the term's use by members of the Clinton and Obama Administrations, although the Obama Administration also used the term science diplomacy.
Bridging the world through science
Science as a tool for diplomacy has been used for several decades and by many countries around the world. Science diplomacy can be seen as a form of networked and transnational governance, involving human collaboration, especially via United Nations bodies such as UNESCO. In particular, it suggests a means for helping manage paradigmatic and disruptive change. For instance, the sheer scale of the problem of climate change has caused researchers to call for the reinvention of science communication in order to address humanity's cognitive limits in coping with such a crisis, with the International Panel on Climate Change alone constituting a science-diplomacy nexus. Especially within the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, the first calls to begin seeing science and its products as global public goods which should be tasked to fundamentally improve the human condition, especially in countries which are facing catastrophic change, are being made. Science diplomacy challenges the way international relations operates as a field of human endeavor, presenting a ‘boundary problem’ involving actors from different social worlds.
There are numerous basic patterns via which scientific and technological advances influence international relations. These include:
- as a juggernaut or escaped genie with rapid and wide-ranging ramifications for the international system;
- as a game-changer and a conveyor of advantage and disadvantage to different actors in the international system;
- as a source of risks, issues and problems that must be addressed and managed by the international community;
- as key dimensions or enablers of international macro phenomena;
- as instruments of foreign policy or sources of technical information for the management of an ongoing international regime;
- as the subject of projects and institutions whose planning, design, implementation and management provide grist for the mill of international relations and diplomacy.
While both science and technology create new risks in and of themselves, they can also alert humanity of risks, such as global warming, in both cases transforming commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, investment, and war.
One of the earliest ventures in joint scientific cooperation was in 1931 with the creation of the International Council of Scientific Unions, now the International Council of Science (ICSU). Through partnerships with international science unions and national science members, the ICSU focuses resources and tools towards the further development of scientific solutions to the world's challenges such as climate change, sustainable development, polar research, and the universality of science.
_(12219071813)_(cropped).jpg)
The civilian scientific exchanges between the United States and the then Soviet Union throughout the Cold War provide another example of science diplomacy. These collaborations linked the two countries when official diplomatic connections were stalled. Today, the U.S. and Russia work together on the International Space Station and on the ITER nuclear fusion science experiment.
Another example is European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Following a series of meetings, UNESCO hearings and a formal ratification by 12 member nations—Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia— CERN was created. At present, CERN is run by 20 European member states, but many non-European countries are also involved in different ways. Scientists from some 608 institutes and universities around the world use CERN's facilities.
Individuals who are not connected with the government have also practiced science diplomacy. For example, in 1957, American philanthropist Cyrus Eaton hosted a meeting of 22 scientists (seven from the United States, three each from the Soviet Union and Japan, two each from the United Kingdom and Canada, and one each from Australia, Austria, China, France, and Poland) in the village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, Canada. The stimulus for the gathering was a Manifesto issued on 9 July1955 by Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein—and signed by Max Born, Percy Bridgman, Leopold Infeld, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Herman Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil Powell, Joseph Rotblat and Hideki Yukawa—which called upon scientists of all political persuasions to assemble to discuss the threat posed to civilization by the advent of thermonuclear weapons. The meetings eventually grew and gathered the attention of high level government officials. Since then, scientists have continued to gather at the Pugwash Conferences.
In 1967, the African Scientific Institute was created to help African scientists reach others through published materials, conferences, seminars and provide tools for those who lack them. And in 1996, countries with interests in the Arctic came together to form the Arctic Council to discuss sustainable development and environmental protection.
In the beginning of the new century, the term "science diplomacy" gained popularity during the Obama administration, and academics called for a 'new era' of science diplomacy. In 2009, President Barack Obama called for partnership during his “A New Beginning” speech in Cairo, Egypt. These partnerships would include a greater focus on engagement of the Muslim world through science, technology, and innovation building and connecting scientists from the United States to scientists in Muslim-majority countries.
By the 2010s, the early emphasis on biosafety and plant genetic resources had given way to a longer list of specific risks for science diplomacy to address, including “the rising risks and dangers of climate change, a spread of infectious diseases, increasing energy costs, migration movements, and cultural clashes”. Additional areas of interest include space exploration; the exploration of fundamental physics (e.g., CERN and ITER); the management of the polar regions; health research; the oil and mining sectors; fisheries; and international security, including global cybersecurity, as well as enormous geographic areas, such as the transatlantic and Indo-Pacific regions. Increasingly, science diplomacy has come to be seen as a multilateral endeavor to address both global challenges and the matter of global goods, via science internationals (such as the Malta Conferences); international NGOs, especially UN bodies; and various science-policy interfaces, such as the U.S. National Academies system.
Several U.S. Government agencies, including the White House the State Department, and USAID have science and technology offices and advisors to aid with developing and creating S&T outreach policy. These advisors are regular speakers (e.g., J. Holdren, E.W. Colglazier, A. Dehgan, in 2010 and 2011) at meetings of the Science Diplomats Club of Washington, to strengthen links with foreign "science diplomats". E.W Colglazier and Alex Dehgan have also contributed to Science & Diplomacy.
Additionally, several non-profit organizations in the United States have continued science diplomacy practices in their work. CRDF Global, in partnership with the U.S. Department of State, launched the Global Innovation through Science and Technology (GIST) initiative in 2010 in Egypt with follow-up meetings in Malaysia and Morocco in 2011. In addition to the GIST Initiative, CRDF Global has been active in both the United States and in the Middle East on promoting science diplomacy through conferences, panel discussions and programs including the Iraqi Virtual Science Library, Maghreb Virtual Science Library, and the Afghanistan Virtual Science Library.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) established the Center for Science Diplomacy whose goal is to use science and scientific cooperation to promote international understanding. “It approaches this goal by providing a forum for scientists, policy analysts, and policy-makers through whom they can share information and explore collaborative opportunities”. In March 2012, the center launched the quarterly publication Science & Diplomacy Additionally, CRDF Global, the Partnership for a Secure America and AAAS have worked together on science diplomacy initiatives and events. Others, such as the Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) have dedicated an entire portion of their website for science diplomacy related articles, events and op-ed pieces.
The European Union is also concerned with science diplomacy. Science collaboration is seen as a way to make diplomacy through "parallel means". Several EU-funded projects are currently exploring and conducting research on the topic of science diplomacy.
Implementing science diplomacy
The first major post-War science-based diplomatic initiative was the Baruch Plan, which sought to internationalize fission under the newly formed United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and stop an atomic arms race. When this failed, the Cold War resulted, and America developed a separate fission energy diplomatic program, the 'Atoms for Peace' initiative.
John F. Kennedy established a science and technology cooperation agreement with Japan in 1961 following appeals to repair the “broken dialogue” between the two countries’ intellectual communities after World War II. That agreement helped round out a tenuous relationship at the time rooted only in security concerns.
In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger requested, and took, several science initiatives to his talks with China. These initiatives focused on areas in which both countries could participate; as evidenced in the Shanghai Communiqués. In 1979, when official diplomatic ties were established between China and the U.S., science played a big role in the shaping of renewed efforts, and December 2010 marked the 30th anniversary of normalized relations between the United States and China.
The late 1980s saw the development of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject, which will be the world's largest magnetic confinement plasma physics experiment when it begins plasma operations in 2025. ITER began in 1985 as a Reagan–Gorbachev initiative with the equal participation of the Soviet Union, the European Atomic Energy Community, the United States, and Japan through the 1988–1998 initial design phases. Preparations for the first Gorbachev-Reagan Summit showed that there were no tangible agreements in the works for the summit. One energy research project, however, was being considered quietly by two physicists, Alvin Trivelpiece and Evgeny Velikhov. The project involved collaboration on the next phase of magnetic fusion research — the construction of a demonstration model. At the time, magnetic fusion research was ongoing in Japan, Europe, the Soviet Union and the US. Velikhov and Trivelpiece believed that taking the next step in fusion research would be beyond the budget of any of the key nations and that collaboration would be useful internationally.
A major bureaucratic fight erupted in the US government over the project. One argument against collaboration was that the Soviets would use it to steal US technology and know-how. A second was symbolic — the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov was in internal exile and the US was pushing the Soviet Union on its human rights record. The United States National Security Council convened a meeting under the direction of William Flynn Martin that resulted in a consensus that the US should go forward with the project, which will continue into the 2030s and 2040s.
In the years following the end of the Cold War, U.S. Congressman George E. Brown Jr. was an outspoken champion of science and technology issues, particularly in international relations. As Chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Brown promoted conservation and renewable energy sources, technology transfer, sustainable development, environmental degradation, and an agency devoted to civilian technology when there were few listeners, and even fewer converts. Consistent with his long-held conviction that the nation needed a coherent technology policy, Brown articulated his concept of a partnership between the public and private sectors to improve the nation's competitiveness. His concern for demonstrating the practical applications of advances in science and technology laid the foundation for what became the U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation, later CRDF Global—a private non-profit organization initially established to promote bilateral science and technology collaborations between the U.S. and newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. Brown also helped establish the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the (now defunct) Office of Technology Assessment and the first federal climate change research program in the Federal Climate Program Act of 1978.
On March 12, 2010, Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) introduced the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act, which proposed an increase in the application of science and scientific engagement in America's foreign policy.
Additionally, several non-profit organizations in the United States have continued science diplomacy practices in their work. CRDF Global, in partnership with the U.S. Department of State, launched the Global Innovation through Science and Technology (GIST) initiative in 2010 in Egypt with follow-up meetings in Malaysia and Morocco in 2011. In addition to the GIST Initiative, CRDF Global has been active in both the United States and in the Middle East on promoting science diplomacy through conferences, panel discussions and programs including the Iraqi Virtual Science Library, Maghreb Virtual Science Library, and the Afghanistan Virtual Science Library.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) established the Center for Science Diplomacy whose goal is to use science and scientific cooperation to promote international understanding. “It approaches this goal by providing a forum for scientists, policy analysts, and policy-makers through whom they can share information and explore collaborative opportunities”. In March 2012, the center launched the quarterly publication Science & Diplomacy Additionally, CRDF Global, the Partnership for a Secure America and AAAS have worked together on science diplomacy initiatives and events. Others, such as the Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) have dedicated an entire portion of their website for science diplomacy related articles, events and op-ed pieces.
The Malta Conferences Foundation seeks to provide a bridge to peace in the Middle East through science diplomacy. Starting in 2001, Dr. Zafra Lerman began working with the American Chemical Society Subcommittee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights to develop a scientific conference that would bring together researchers from many different, often mutually hostile, nations in the Middle East so they could cooperatively work toward solving problems facing the region. With support from the American Chemical Society (ACS), International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC - England), and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, the first conference was held on the island of Malta from December 6 to 11, 2003. Attendees included six Nobel Laureates and scientists from 15 Middle Eastern Countries (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates). The conference included five workshops to foster cross-border collaborations:
- Nanotechnology and material science
- Medicinal chemistry and natural products
- Alternative energy
- Science education for all levels
- Environment - Air and water quality
The organizers followed up by hosting a second meeting two years later, Malta II. The meeting was honored by United States Senator Dick Durbin in a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate entitled "Chemists Working Cooperatively".
Lerman led the initiative to continue with the conferences and founded the Malta Conferences Foundation to support them. She secured the support of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
List of Malta Conferences
| 2003 | Malta I | Malta |
| 2005 | Malta II | Malta |
| 2007 | Malta III | Istanbul, Turkey |
| 2009 | Malta IV | Amman, Jordan |
| 2011 | Malta V | Paris, France |
| 2013 | Malta VI | Malta |
| 2015 | Malta VII | Rabat, Morocco |
| 2017 | Malta VIII | Malta |
| 2019 | Malta IX | Malta |
| 2022 | Malta X | Malta |
The American Association for the Advancement of Science awarded Zafra Lerman the 2014 Award for Science Diplomacy.
In Spain, in December 2018, a group of stakeholders and experts on science diplomacy from around the world coming together at a global conference in Madrid defined several principles and highlighted the benefits of science diplomacy. As a result, the “Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy” was signed by a group of high-level experts who contributed to the conference. It proclaims a common vision of science diplomacy in the future, emphasises the benefits science diplomacy can bring to tackling the global challenges of our time and outlines the principles needed to foster science diplomacy worldwide.
Importance of science diplomacy
In a speech at the 2008 Davos World Economic Forum, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, called for a new form of capitalism, that goes beyond traditional philanthropy and government aid. Citing examples ranging from the development of software for people who cannot read to developing vaccines at a price that Africans can afford, Gates noted that such projects “...provide a hint of what we can accomplish if people who are experts on needs in the developing world meet with scientists who understand what the breakthroughs are, whether it's in software or drugs.” He suggested that we need to develop a new business model that would allow a combination of the motivation to help humanity and the profit motive to drive development. He called it “creative capitalism,” capitalism leavened by a pinch of idealism and altruistic desire to better the lot of others.
Scientists and engineers have an important role to play in creating what New York Times columnist Tom Friedman calls a “flat world,” a world of economic opportunity made equal through electronic communication technologies.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said, during the 2010 InterAcademy Panel of the British Royal Society, “The scientific world is fast becoming interdisciplinary, but the biggest interdisciplinary leap needed is to connect the worlds of science and politics.”
CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Rush D. Holt, Jr. wrote, in his article, “Scientific Drivers for Diplomacy,” published in Science & Diplomacy: “Beyond providing knowledge and applications to benefit human welfare, scientific cooperation is a useful part of diplomacy—scientific cooperation to work on problems across borders and without boundaries, cooperation made possible by the international language and methodology of science, cooperation in examining evidence that allows scientists to get beyond ideologies and form relationships that allow diplomats to defuse politically explosive situations.” Holt was the U.S. representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional district from 1999 to 2015, and has a PhD in physics from New York University.
Many of the global challenges related to health, economic growth, and climate change lay at the intersection of science and international relations.
Science diplomacy and pandemics
Global organizations, researchers, public health officials, countries, government officials, and clinicians have worked together to create effective measures of infection control and subsequent treatment. They continue to do so through sharing of resources, research data, ideas, and by putting into effect laws and regulations that can further advance scientific research. Without the collaborative efforts of such entities, the world would not have the vaccines and treatments we now possess for diseases that were once considered deadly such as tuberculosis, tetanus, polio, influenza, etc. Historically, science diplomacy has proved successful in diseases such as SARS, Ebola, Zika and continues to be relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic today.
Science diplomacy and space
With the rise of privatized space exploration and the growing competition with nations across the globe in the new age space race, space diplomacy refers to a globalized effort by scientists, national officials, and private corporations to reach a consensus on what is safe, effective, and sustainable space travel. In addition to possible space jurisdictions to each country interested in space travel, science diplomacy and space, or space diplomacy, can involve considerations towards environmental pollution or a set of international laws and legislations, such as the Outer Space Treaty.
Science diplomacy and branding
Instead of showcasing military power in international relations, public relations have become the core of public diplomacy. With the fragile and complex political realities among nations, through leveraging global challenges, e.g., climate change, terrorism, and recent pandemics, public diplomacy becomes a strategic trigger to position a nation or tackle some critical challenges. As such, branding, seen as a creative tool used by policymakers towards individual projects, national policy sectors, or nation-states, can be used as a tool for science diplomacy. Three layers of branding have been identified: place branding, policy branding, and policy tool branding. Place branding is often used in policy-making, as is the case of countries like Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates, which use education policies to attract foreign universities and position their countries as science-oriented. Also, public health policy during pandemics uses policy branding, especially for social campaigns. Despite the paucity of research on how branding can aid science diplomacy, it can be part of the equation to advance science diplomacy.
Science diplomacy and vaccine/drug distribution
During epidemics and pandemics, vaccines and drugs are an effective method for reducing incidence and mortality from diseases. Underdeveloped countries often face obstacles that hinder timely development and deployment of vaccines during times of crises, including structural barriers (which make transport more difficult) and monetary barriers. As a result, it is important for these nations to collaborate with international institutions to develop and distribute treatments that can mitigate the effects of the outbreak. In the past, institutions including large pharmaceutical corporations have donated vaccine doses to underdeveloped countries, and charitable organizations have funded trials to test the efficacy of the vaccine . These collaborations are exemplified in various nations’ responses to the malaria, rotavirus, HIV/Aids, HPV, and COVID-19 outbreaks.
Science diplomacy and water scarcity in the U.S
The Scope of the Problem
With increasing changes to the earth’s climate and population comes issues surrounding water scarcity. These include both the amount of water that is available and the quality of that water. The topic of water scarcity is one most often associated with developing countries, overlooking critical issues that can also be found in first world countries. Most recently, the U.S. has seen many environmental issues which have exacerbated the clean water crisis in several states. The most recent incident being in February with the derailment of a train in Ohio that led to the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. This however is not the only incident which has affected water in the U.S., as past incidents such as the flood in Jackson Mississippi have also greatly impact the availability of water. Both the incident of September 2022 in Jackson, and the led water crisis in Flint have been due to old water treatment infrastructure greatly impacting communities which are majority black . Despite this access to potable water is not the only issue as many states especially those in the west of the U.S. have seen droughts leaving many without running water. It’s observed that more than 50% of the U.S. has experienced drought conditions in recent years and this problem will only worsen as it is estimated that 40 out of 50 states will experience water shortages in the next 10 years.
The Causes of Water Scarcity in The US
Water scarcity in the United States is a complicated problem with multiple causes that are contributing to it including water infrastructure, climate change, transboundary water challenges, and many more. In many areas of the US, aging water infrastructure is a significant problem that causes leaks, water losses, and decreased availability of water. This is due to the complexity of the infrastructure with its thousands of miles of pipes and aqueducts that deliver water to our homes, businesses and farms across America. However, many of these structures are aging and in need of repairs and replacements. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave the US drinking water infrastructure a grade of "C-" in its 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, indicating that much of the country's drinking water infrastructure is in poor condition and in need of significant investment. Many of these water systems were constructed decades ago, and it is now necessary to repair and replace them. But due to the funding shortages, the upgradation of these repairs have been delayed drastically resulting in water shortages in many parts of the country. Another cause of the water shortage is the issue discussed everyday, climate change. Climate changes affect the precipitation patterns , increase temperatures and change the timing and intensity of the storms. The change of precipitation patterns have led to more frequent and severe droughts in some regions and more intense rain causing flooding and erosion in other areas of the country. The increase of temperatures are leading to snowpacks and glaciers melting faster than normal. This has become an issue as to how it is used in the role of storage and supplying water throughout the region. High temperatures also lead to increased evaporation which is another source of water loss. Another issue that is a cause of water scarcity is the transboundary challenges. Water resources have been shared across political boundaries such as rivers, lakes and any other form of groundwater. In the US, there are several transboundary water challenges, including the Colorado River, which flows through seven US states and Mexico, and the Great Lakes, which are shared by the US and Canada. An issue that arises from this is the allocation of water resources which can bring a significant source of conflict, as different stakeholders may have competing demands for the same water. For example, farmers may need water for irrigation, while cities may need water for drinking and sanitation. The water quality can be impacted by pollution of one state and contaminate it for everyone else. This has led to disputes over responsibility and liability for water quality problems. In conclusion, understanding and addressing the root causes of water scarcity, including issues related to infrastructure, climate change, and transboundary water challenges, requires a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that includes science diplomacy.
The Consequences of Water Scarcity in the US
Solutions to Water Scarcity
Desalination is one technology that is being used to solve water scarcity around the world. Israel is a leader in this field. Israel currently has five operation desalination plants. The oldest, the Ashelkon Plant (which began operation in 2005) can produce up to 120 million cubic meters of potable water in one year. The Palmachim plant (which began operation in 2007) can produce up to 100 million cubic meters of potable water in a year. The Hadera plant (which began operation in 2009) can produce up to 127 million cubic meters of potable water in a year. The Sorek plant (which began operation in 2013) can produce up to 150 million cubic meters of potable water in a year. The Sorek plant (which began operation in 2015) can produce up to 100 million cubic meters of potable water in a year. Combined, all of these operational plants contribute to around 60% of Israel’s potable water supply. Two additional plants are planned which will produce 300 million cubic meters of water a year between the two of them. Once these plants are online, desalination will make up 90% of Israel’s potable water supply. In response to the growing urgency of the water crisis in California, lawmakers have greenlit a project to introduce desalination plants to support California’s water supply.
Israel’s desalination infrastructure is so extensive that they are now producing a surplus of water. The country is using the surplus to refill previous reservoirs of freshwater such as the Sea of Gailee. The surplus also opens up avenues of water diplomacy. In 2021, Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan signed a deal where Israel would provide 200 million cubic meters of desalinated water to Jordan per year–this would account for 20% of Jordan’s freshwater needs. In exchange, Jordan would provide clean solar energy to Israel. This relationship is just the latest in a long history of water diplomacy between the nations. The State of Utah in the United States has also been in talks with Israel to learn how the small nation has taken control of its water scarcity issue. Some topics discussed during the meeting between a delegation of Utah lawmakers and Israeli representatives like Yehezkel Lifshitz (Director General for the Israeli Water Authority), included drip irrigation and vertical gardens. Drip irrigation, as opposed to sprinkler irrigation, has helped Israel save 50% more water in its agricultural sector than when sprinkler irrigation was the predominant form of irrigation in the country. Water conservation efforts are especially important for American States facing water scarcity issues due to legal issues of water rights which limit their access to the water that the Colorado River provides. Localities such as Las Vegas have begun to limit outdoor swimming pool sizes in an effort to save water. California has emergency rules in place to save water by limiting the watering of lawns.
A major issue of using desalination to solve water scarcity is the energy cost of desalination. While great strides have been made in the energy efficiency of desalination technology, much of the desalination effort still uses fossil fuels, such as the Ashelkon Plant which is gas fired. The emission of greenhouse gasses to solve the water scarcity problem only exacerbates the issue since global warming is a major cause of new water scarcity issues around the world. Novel technologies such as small-medium scale solar powered desalination systems are being developed in Israel to supply farming operations and hotels with potable water. The new solar powered desalination systems use up to 90% less energy than conventional desalination systems.
The water scarcity issues around the world largely revolve around lack of access to fresh water; water is still extremely abundant in the world. Desalination is a method of turning unusable saltwater into potable water. In a sense, it is transporting water from areas of high availability into low availability. Aqueduct systems do the same. In the American West, water scarcity largely revolves around a drought which is drying up the Colorado River, the primary source of freshwater for a number of Western States. However, in the American Northwest, there is an abundance of water. Methods to transport that water to the water scare American Southwest can help alleviate water stress in the region. Similar projects have been undertaken multiple times in the American Northeast. During the 19th century, the Croton river in Upstate New York was diverted via the New Croton Dam. During the 20th century, more projects were undertaken to continue to divert water from areas of high-availability and low need to New York City where the availability of clean water in the area could not meet the demand. The Catskill Aqueduct System, which began construction in 1907, built over 160 miles of aqueducts. Following the completion of the Catskill Aqueduct System, city planners looked for other sources of water to supply the city in preparation for future increases in demand. The city planners identified the Delaware Aqueduct System which built around 115 miles of aqueducts to transport water from the Delaware River to New York City. A similar project was developed during the 1960s called The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA). NAWAPA would divert water from rivers in the Pacific Northwest to the American Southwest as well as connect the water sources to the Great Lakes in the Midwest. However, due to the grand scale of the project, it ultimately failed to come to fruition.
The Role of Science and Technology
As an intrinsic human need, water and its accessibility remains a universal concern that accentuates the vital importance of having a reliable and safe supply for its myriad of uses so much hygienic as agricultural. The implications of overcoming such a task are only feasible through the use of novel and innovative technologies in conjunction with interdisciplinary collaboration which could provide the science and resources necessary to combat water scarcity with water treatment and management solutions. Technological headways in nanofiltration, oxidation-reduction, and reverse osmosis use state-of-the art filtering membranes in high pressurized systems to remove contaminants as small as .005 um, thus reusing existing water sources to regenerate purified water. The Western States Water Council (WSWC) have negotiated federal, state, financial, ecological and technological constraints on water reuse with release of the EPA’s National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP) in 2020 as a collaborative effort in sustainability, security, and resilience of resources.
In addition, rainwater harvesting in conjunction with cloud seeding has been receiving more attention for the western United States where acute drought stricken regions are desperate for any uptick in precipitations. Releasing silver iodide particles into atmospheric storm or rain clouds generates supercooled water crystals around them which sparks a chain reaction of water crystallization, condensation, and precipitation. On a broader front, groundwater treatment and desalination provide large scale options to harness alternative sources of fresh water to increase the mere 4% that constitutes earth’s total water volume, 68% of which is frozen and a further 30% being underground. Major points of water contentions deal with decreased rainfall, increased dryness and drought, exploitation of river, aquifer, and lake resources, all of which contribute to diminishing reservoirs of freshwater. Desalination of ocean and brackish groundwater as a means of water replenishing have seen headway in California’s San Joaquin Valley, a region heavily associated with extreme droughts, diminishing water supplies, and increased sinking from worn water tables. While these methods have their drawbacks in terms of cost and traction, the role of science and technology cannot be understated in its indispensability to apply sensible and productive approaches on a national macroscale in real time.
In order to achieve this level of scientific and technological collaboration, multidisciplinary coalitions are vital to address the various hurdles in treatment and management with pragmatic solutions aimed at different aspects of the problem. Stakeholders in water water management solutions include both federal and state governments and legislation involved in interstate and regional river agreement compacts. Tribal groups, watershed groups, international bodies and water treaties, as well as climate activities and research institutions to name a few. Interdisciplinary studies in law and policy making, geophysics, engineering, hydrology, meteorology and weather patterning, economics, and ecosystem/climate science play crucial roles in development of integrated water plans and conservation measures which extend to remote sensing, modeling, and regulatory action of water resources.
