1. WANA and the Value Chain: Towards a Conceptual Framework for Human
Security
Prof. Odeh Al-Jayyousi, Regional Director- IUCN
E-mail: odeh.al.jayyousi@iucn.org
Setteing the scene:
Insights on water management may be gained by looking at three different levels:
local level, where operations are carried out, regional level, where policies are made,
and global level where funding and external support are generated. It is crucial to identify
the “enabling factors” such as sound water instiutions and laws and “change agents"
such as WANA forum to build the bridges between water stakeholders at global, regional
and local arenas.
This article aims to shed some light on a framework for viewing and harnessing
water-energy-food tacit and explicit knowledge in WANA region. The birth of a new
economic system is driving the changes in governance models, just as it did in the early
modern era, when market capitalism outmoded the feudal economy and forced a shift in
governing models from city-states to modern nation-states. It is argued that the market-
exchange economy and territory-bound nation state were not designed to accommodate
a communication revolution (or transformation) that can envelop the globe and connect
everyone and everything on the planet simultaneously. The result is that we are
witnessing the birth of a new economic system and new governing institutions that are
as different from market capitalism and the modern territorial state as the latter were
from the feudal economy and dynastic rule of an era ago.
Markets, in effect, are linear, discrete and discontinuous modes of operation. The
new communications technologies and partnerships, by contrast, are cybernetic, not
linear. The operational assumptions that guide networks (like WANA forum) transform
much of conventional modes of partnerships/ networks models and open up a new
window for rethinking governance of natural resources and linkages between water,
energy, food, water, and environment.

2. In a globalized economy where everybody is connected and ever more interdependent,
the idea of autonomous free agents maximizing their individual self-interests in simple
exchange transactions in markets seems an obslete notion. A network or a think tank
(like WANA), in a very real sense, is a regional model that is commissied to devise a
meta-narrative for a regional vision for regional cooperation. WANA forum should look
for “the hidden connections” that store the social DNA for innvovation and inspiartion for
a tranistion to sustainability by linking practice to policy and science to policy.
WANA forum can facailiate dialogue and be a convening platform for “socilaization and
combination of knowledge”. WANA forum can be harnessed as a vehicle for
mainstareming and navigation of knowlegde in hydro-informatics, regional water
governnace, environmental flow, environmental economics, human-centred
development and public participation. WANA forum key role is to promote the circulation
of ideas and initiatives for a susatainable WANA as a human civilization.
Conceptual framework: Knowledge Creation in the Water Sector
The dynamic transformations and changing nature of the water sector demands more
anticipatory responses from the water organizations, communities and professionals
who need to carry out the mandate of a faster cycle of knowledge-creation and action
learning based on the new water knowledge (Al-Jayyousi, 2001).
Taken-for-granted interpretation of knowledge works against the generation of
multiple and contradictory viewpoints that are necessary for meeting the challenge
posed by transformations in the water management in many developing countries from
public to community or to public-private participation (Al-Jayyousi, 2001).
It has been argued in the integrated water management literature that water may be
used as a means for peace and development, but “water for knowledge creation” is an
overlooked concept. The current conception of IT-enabled knowledge management
doesn't address the processing of tacit knowledge, which is deeply rooted in an
individual's action and experience, ideals, values, or emotions (Nonaka & Takeuchi
1995). Although tacit knowledge lies at the very basis of organizational knowledge
creation, its nature renders it highly personal and hard to formalize and to communicate.

3. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) have suggested that knowledge is created through
four different modes as illustrated in Figure 1:
1. Socialization which involves conversion from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge,
2. Externalization which involves conversion from tacit knowledge to explicit
knowledge,
3. Combination which involves conversion from explicit knowledge to explicit
knowledge, and
4. Internalization which involves conversion from explicit knowledge to tacit
knowledge.
To tacit To explicit
knowledge knowledge
From tacit Socialization Externalization
knowledge
From Internalization Combination
explicit
knowledge
Figure 1: Model of organizational knowledge creation
The dominant model of inquiring systems manifested in water networks and
partnetships is limited in its ability to foster shared experience necessary for relating to
others' thinking processes thus limiting its utility in socialization. It may, by virtue of its
ability to convert tacit knowledge into explicit forms such as metaphors, analogies and
models, have some utility in externalization. This utility is however restricted by its ability
to support dialogue or collective reflection.
The current model of inquiring systems, apparently, may have greater role in
combination, which involves combining different bodies of explicit knowledge, and
internalization, which involves knowledge transfer through verbalizing into documents,
manuals, and stories. A more explicit recognition of tacit knowledge and related human
aspects, such as ideals, values, or emotions, is necessary for developing a richer
conceptualization of knowledge management. Subjective and interpretative nature of

4. knowledge creation calls for interpretation of new events and re-interpretation of
practices; such as, water deslination, water harvesting, traditional water uses practices
(Aflaj and Kanat), and water rights.
Interestingly, the constructive aspect of knowledge creation is also expected to enable
multiple interpretations that can facilitate the organization's anticipatory response to
discontinuous change. Some examples in this realm include the following:
a. The shift of paradigm from water supply-driven policies to demand-driven.
b. The introduction of the closed loop concept where sanitation and agriculture are
incorporated in the water management.
c. The view of wastewater as a resource rather than a waste.
d. The definition of water as an economic and as social good rather than a free
good.
e. The distinction of many “forms or types” of water like Blue water, Green water,
Greywater and Virtual water and water footprints.
f. The realization of the need to evolve and nurture water partnerships and to
incorporate local water knowledge in water management in WANA.
To operationalize KM in the water-energy-food nexus in WANA, it is critical to ensure a
process of team learning and the realization of a community of practice. Team learning
is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a group to create the results
that its members truly desire. It builds on the discipline of developing shared vision. It
also builds on personal mastery, for talented teams are made up of talented individuals.
When teams learn, they become a microcosm for learning throughout the organisation.
Insights gained are put into action. Skills developed can propagate to other individuals
and to other teams. The team's accomplishments can set the tone and establish the
standard for learning together for the WANA region. Such teams have in fact been called
“communities of practice”. Communities of practice (CoPs) have shared culture, identity
and history which evolved over time. One possible WANA results can be to develop a
set of COPs in water, energy, and food. Another result can be to develop scenarions for
“virtual water” and food security in WANA.

5. This process of knowledge and value creation requires engaging with key partners and
stakeholders in WANA. The propsoed approach for WANA forum is to invest time and
resources in a small number of partnerships like KAUST, MASDAR, etc. When
successful, WANA Forum can become more explicitly associated with a specific partner
and ensure the existence of an enabling environmnet for knowledge creation through the
identification of the following (Senge, 1995):
 Knowledge navigators who represent middle managenet prefessionals in
all sectors.
 Knowledge architechts who represent senior staff and policy makers.
 Team learning processes through structured meetings and
communication.
In summary, the following key issues have been identified as constraints to improved
water management in WANA:
i. the need for inter-stakeholder agreement on how to assess various wastewater
reuse options;
ii. fragmented and unclear governance of the water basin;
iii. crucial environmental, health and social concerns in wastewater reuse in
agriculture;
iv. Lack of sufficient awareness on water conservation and demand management
practices and pollution prevention.
Water entities in WANA (like UN, IUCN, etc) can contribute to make the transition to a
new water paradigm in the WANA Region. These requirements are:
1) Capacity: There is a need to build a “water knowledge society”. Capacity
needs to be built from within, but nurtured from the outside;
2) Pilot Activities: There is a need to build technical networks based on the
experience of pilot sites;
3) Capital: It will be important to mobilize capital and ensure that it is invested
wisely;
4) Collaboration: There is a need to scale-up collaboration and to promote
regional dialogue and diplomatic efforts.

6. Table 1 outlines the modes and forms for KC in the case of the restoration of the Zarqa
River. Local knowledge for indigenous communities about early fishing practices, land
cover and agricultural practices, which is tacit, requires a process to be “externalized”
and to be fed in the current thinking. This can be carried out through having a semi-
structured forum or focus group discussions to share this knowledge through story-
telling, reflection and effective communication. Many donors adopt this approach to
synthesize local knowledge.
Within different local communities, who have a richness of “tacit” knowledge,
“socialization” takes place in the form informal dialogues and meetings. This is facilitated
through a process of “cultural communication” which encourages sharing experiences
and knowledge in an informal manner.
Combination of explicit knowledge normally takes place among policy makers,
professional people, experts, and technicians in different administrative settings and
locations through a more structured and formal meetings, publications, e-
communication, e-debates and facilitated workshops.
Internalizing an explicit knowledge to be tacit, is part of evolving a new awareness and
consciousness which takes some time for people to embody knowledge. Usually, this
form of knowledge requires action and experiential learning.
Table 1. The process of KC through networks and partnerships in WANA
Objective WANA Partners/network Process for
s KC
1. Practice Document best MoW, MoE, UoJ, Combination
and bad InWRDAM, JUST, and
practices in InWent, IUCN, socialization
freshwater UNU, etc…
management
2. Instruments
Institutions & Supporting MoE, InWent, UoJ, Combination
Negotiations institutional JES, FoE, JACA,
capacity building IUCN, UNU, etc…
Establish support
mechanisms for
stronger decision
making capacity

7. Consolidate
existing networks
and partnerships
on sustainable
water
management
Economics & Develop and UoJ, IUCN, UNU, Internalization;
Finance support etc..
application of
economic
incentive
mechanisms
Communications & Facilitate the JES, IUCN, Externalization
New Learning dissemination of InWRDAM, MoE,
accurate and UoJ.
relevant
information on
ecosystem
approach to
water
management
3. Policy Promote a Arab Leaguem Combination;
systemic AWC, MoE, MoW, Socilaization.
approach for IUCN
water
management
References:
Al-Jayyousi, O., and Mamlouk, R., Expert Knowledge-Based System for Evaluating Water Conservation
Programs in Jordan Using Fuzzy Sets. IEEE Proceedings on Computer Simulations and Modeling, Aug. 24,
2000. Philadelphia University, Amman-Jordan.
Al-Jayyousi, O. and Shatanawi, M., An Analysis of Future Water Policies in Jordan Using Decision
Support Systems. International Journal of Water Resources Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1995, U. K.
Al-Jayyousi. O. R., Capacity building for desalination in Jordan: necessary conditions for sustainable water
management. Desalination 141 (2001) 169-179.
Al-Jayyousi, O. R., A Methodology for evaluating environmental impact of solid waste disposal sites: Case
study from Jordan. The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. Vol. 26, Number 2C, Dec. 2001.
Al-Jayyousi O.R., and Mohsen. Evaluating small RO units for domestic uses in Jordan. Desalination. 139
(2001) 237-247.
Al-Jayyousi O. R. Focused environmental analysis for greywater reuse in Jordan. Env. Eng. And Policy.
Dec. (2002).
Al-Jayyousi O. R. and Mrtin Jaffe. Planning models for sustainable water resources development. Env.
Planning and Management. 45 (3) May 2002.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi, (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation.

8. Rifkin J, (2004). The Eurpopean Dream. Penguin, UK.
Senge, Peter. (1995). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.