None of us could have been unaffected by the disturbing scenes filling our television screens in the aftermath of the recent disasters in Burma and China. Whatever the rights and wrongs of internal and external politics affecting these two nations, the human suffering is there for all to see. It is now for aid organisations to step in and address the devastation created by these natural disasters, and it is for water engineers to assist in these processes. It is both perverse and unfortunate that it is only at times such as this that the full importance of the role of water engineers is recognised. Immediate aid is required to secure a robust supply of clean drinking water and appropriate sanitation measures in order that victims do not suffer further through outbreaks of water-related disease. Equally immediate must be the assessment of dam structural stability following the Chinese earthquakes to mitigate the risk of flooding and further tragedy. But it is also for water engineers to provide longer term support and expertise. For example, the restoration of effective water and wastewater treatment systems, water distribution and sewerage system rehabilitation, evaluation of future flood risks and the associated mitigation measures are all issues which will need to be addressed in China and Burma, and have been examined in recent issues of Water Management. It is an unfortunate fact however, that it takes disasters of this magnitude to awaken the world to the reality of suffering. Lack of safe water and sanitation are not restricted to earthquake, tsunami or typhoon-affected areas of the world. It is sobering to reflect on the fact that in 2000, 40% of the world's population lacked access to basic sanitation, prompting the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve the proportion of people living without safe water and basic sanitation by 2015.
The knowledge which water professionals can bring to relieve situations such as those ongoing in Burma and China is rooted firmly in a long and well-established history of experience and fundamental research. It is vital that we do not lose sight of the cost and value of that work. In the UK, we are fortunate to have a robust system of government-funded research directed through the Research Councils; often, for water science and engineering, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the main UK government agency for funding research and training in engineering and the physical sciences.1
Flooding is a key focus of academics, practitioners and, of course, the general public alike. Recent years have seen the EPSRC, in collaboration with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)/Environment Agency Joint Research and Development (R&D) programme on flood and coastal erosion risk management, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Scottish Executive and UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), provide major financial support for research into the causes and effects of flooding via the establishment of the Flood-Risk Management Research consortium (FRMRC) (Phase 1: £5·2 million, Phase 2: £7·4 million). The consortium consists of more than 20 research groups from academia and industry (and the work reported in one of the papers in this issue of the journal was supported by the FRMRC). By bringing together practitioners and academics, the FRMRC is focusing on the development of ‘tools and guidance useful to flooding practitioners in the short term, as well as strengthening the UK science and engineering base in flood research for the longer term’.2
Outside the UK, we are seeing calls for research funded under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the common name for the group of research-related EU initiatives. In excess of €54 billion has been committed to FP7 by the EU, and the programme will provide financial support for a wide range of activities including research, demonstration, networking, exploitation, dissemination and training. Its forebear (FP6) is funding the Switch programme,3 a €23 million project for sustainable urban water management. With the overall aim developing sustainable and effective urban water management schemes in ‘the city of the future’ (30–50 years from now), Switch is considering how we move from a set of ad-hoc, incident/problem driven responses, to more coherent, consolidated approaches to water management issues which are more sustainability-driven, using ten cities across the world to undertake a series of demonstration activities.
The FRMRC and Switch are, of course, just two high-profile examples of many individual water-related research projects currently ongoing throughout the world, most of which attract significantly less funding, yet aspire to advance our knowledge and understanding of the science and engineering which underpin our subject. They are examples however, of the kind of work which governments must continue to fund, and which water engineers must continue to undertake, if we are to be able to continue to respond to major disasters effectively, efficiently and with compassion.
Water Management continues to provide an important dissemination route for some of the water industry's latest work in all non-saline fields of study and experience. The last 12 months have seen the journal publish papers on flood risk assessment, river modelling, sediment transport, leakage reduction, and asset management methodologies; topics which are all of direct relevance to the journal's readership in developed, developing and disaster-affected countries. I encourage you to continue to support the journal.
