 Welcome to our seminar organized by IHE Delft. Today we will have the topic paradigm lost on the value of lost causes in transforming cities and water systems, development pathways by an alumnus and doctor Jonathan Godinez Madrigal. Before making, doing the introduction, I would like to invite everybody to silence the microphones and to keep it during the whole event. And of course, let us know your country of residence and place of work to facilitate the networking. After the seminar, we will have a time for questions and answers. So I invite you also to write your questions in the chat. Good, my name is Maria Laura Sorrentino I'm an alumni relations officer at IHE Delft and it's my pleasure to be the moderator of this event today and to have the presence of an alumnus as a speaker and my colleague, BJ, as a technical support of this event. But let us talk of our seminar. I would like to introduce very briefly to Jonathan. You can read his complete CV and work at the web page of IHE Delft. But Jonathan is born in Mexico in Guadalajara and he was always very interested in social, in social environment problems and a passionate person about finding new ways to address them. He first graduated from the International Relations in 2007 in the Shizuit University of Guadalajara where he learned how economics, culture and politics influence in international conflict and cooperation. But above all, the ethics and the serving, the underprivileged and the urge to transform the world. He came to IHE Delft to follow the PhD program and he graduated last year. His thesis, paradigm lost on the value of lost causes in transforming cities and water systems, development pathway that was his focus and it focused on a conflict that take place in Mexico. He began studying the conflict over the El Saboticio project in 2015. For over 16 years, this project has been a cause of tension within the Mexican state of Jalisco. The construction of Adam within the Berde River basin aimed to address water supply challenges in two prominent cities. However, the project also posed a threat to three villages placed in the homes of an ancestral lands of the residents at Ritz Flodin. The construction of the land then led to a conflict that had long been considered intractable. By collaborating with the communities and proposing workable alternative solutions for both the water supply and the cities and the security of villages, Jonathan facilitate a break out of the parties involved. The very important point of this thesis also is that was awarded the prize for the best interdisciplinary PhD thesis in the Netherlands by the Royal Holland Society of Science and Humanities. This thesis achievement holds even greater significance as it marks the inaugural presentation of this esteemed prize. And the thesis was the selected one anonymously chosen by the jury among 76 submissions of thesis of all university in the Netherlands. Congratulations, Jonathan. And as he says, this prize is a recognition of the unawaring greed of Mexican communities of Tema Capolim as Casico and Palmarejo to resist overwhelming oppression and imposition of the state. Good, with other further words, I would like to invite Jonathan to have his presentation. Thank you, Maria, for your kind words and your introduction of my work and myself and then welcome everybody that is coming from all around the world. Thanks a lot for being interested in my research and what I have done in my PhD. Okay, so as Maria already mentioned, so the name of my thesis is called Part of them lost on the value of lost causes in transforming cities and water systems in development pathways. So first of all, like, what do we start? No, we start by something that seems counterintuitive that what are conflicts can have a positive dimension. Is it that possible? Because what are conflicts? They usually have a bad reputation everywhere in the media in many countries. Nobody wants to be in conflict seems like, no, like if you're in conflict personally with your family, with at work or something, people don't like to have this conflict going on. And the common sense that we need to avoid them at all costs because they usually are destructive. Nevertheless, I claim that some conflicts may signal in a birth of problems or symptoms in water systems. The same way happens also at work or even between nations. There is an underlying issue going on that conflict is just the symptom or the presentation of that underlying problem that is going on. So therefore I claim that the water conflicts, they have a generative dimension. So what are conflicts? They are as an emerging symptoms in unsustainable water systems. Therefore conflict as well as crisis, they have an influence on water systems management and evolution. So then the question that is rumbling now is that conflicts understood as critical moments can open windows of opportunity to reform sustainable water systems because then this is what's happening here. Like if a water system is sustainable and is just, then it would never have any sort of conflict going on. Therefore, if water systems are unsustainable and unfair, then this elicits the possibility of having conflicts going on. Then the hypothesis that I tried to prove is that for conflicts to have a generative dimension, then they need to be driven by actors with legitimacy. So this I will try to prove by the end of the presentation. So in my thesis, I tried to have a contribution to the fields of knowledge of political ecology, peace and conflict studies and sociotechnical transitions. So the study and our understanding of what a conflict is is still in its infancy. So this is something that I was really surprised in while I was doing my research is that what a conflict is, we still don't really understand them and conflicts in general as well. But then water conflicts are conceived either as preventable events. Like this is the view of the peace and conflict studies when conflicts can be prevented and we should be able to prevent them or there are a collision of worldviews, values and power to control water flows, which is the idea of political ecology. And just if you'd allow me a little bit, I have a lot of noise and I will just close the window. Yeah, thank you. And these fields of knowledge, they do not relate conflict to social processes and dynamics from the perspective of complex systems that in the long term lead to systemic changes in sociotechnical systems. For example, in this case, urban water systems. So then there is an emerging field of knowledge, for instance, social hydrology that understands that complex systems such as urban water systems is a combination or a coupled system of human and nature and they interact with each other. So then how to think of what are conflicts in this idea of complex system? It is not well understood yet. So I will start by trying to explain what is the position on the perspective of a peace and conflict studies. They claim that there is a direct relationship between an increasingly variable climate that is assumed as the main driver of social environmental conflicts. So then for one of the most important examples or cases that they have used to make this case, they have used the war and the revolution in Syria in 2013 and then they were able to see that there was a trend as you can see in the image above in which the climate has become more variable in the past decades. And then therefore they claim that this variability in climate and the technological regime, it had an impact or it had a causal relationship that caused a water conflict. However, this is a very deterministic approach, as if we humans are incapable of trying to find an agreement and not fall into war or fall into conflict. And the big example of that is precisely the Netherlands. The Netherlands have been for the past five years undergoing a series of droughts and we haven't seen a conflict or much less a war happening. So there's a deterministic approach that we should consider as not acceptable. It also does not address the structural and dynamic social political factors underlying conflicts. But then of course, the situation or the ground truth in Syria was really complex already since for many years before a drought seemed to have triggered this conflict. So then how does a structural and dynamic such a political factors are also interacting with the weather? That is something that has been trying to shed some light on but the still results are really inconclusive. So also the cases are not studied ethnographically. So we have no idea how different actors are having different perspectives. They have different kind of power relationships with other actors. Then it can also not differentiate between the various actors acting at different scales and motivations. This is also related to the ethnographic research. If we don't consider or differentiate actors with different motivations and acting at different scales like a local and national, even international then we don't understand how also the climate can also have an impact locally as well as nationally. There's also not a comprehensive solutions based on good practices because then usually in conflict studies they say like, oh, like you have to have good practices in order to avoid having a conflict in any country. And then however, this may fail to address the unequal conditions that produced the conflict in the first place. This is quite important. Some conflicts are produced by as I mentioned before the structural and dynamic sociopolitical factors that they perhaps they just created the right situation for a country in which the climate just represented as only a trigger of that. But then if we ignore that then any kind of good practices are going to fail. Then because of that, this can depoliticize conflicts because then like no actor have any responsibility they don't bear any responsibility in the conflict because apparently the whole culprit then is the climate. Then depoliticization of conflicts come back fire because they will just reproduce the conflict in the war in the future without addressing the underlying structural and dynamic sociopolitical factors. So then now I want to explain how this relates to the Zapotee project in Mexico. So in a nutshell, I'm going to explain what is the issue that has caused a conflict for the past 20 years in Mexico, which is that two cities, as you can see in the map above, Guadalajara and León painted in blue and in green. They have been experiencing water shortages for the past decades. So they have been experiencing water deficit that is experienced in a way that the local aquifers are overexploited, then also experiencing a way that many regions of the cities, they don't have access to water and 24 hour seven they have intermittent water access. And then what has been the solution proposed by the government? Well, then it was just to create a large scale water project, which is called as a Potillo project. And then you can see that in the map, there's an inverse pyramid there in the green line that represents the Verde river. Then they pretended to have to accumulate water to be able to send it or to do a water transfer all the way to León. And you can see that in the dotted line as well as just to deliver water to Guadalajara via the same course of the river. Then as you can imagine, then so this is an inter-basin water transfer, having water being accumulated in one place and then transfer all the way to two cities that are lying outside of that basin, Guadalajara and León. Then as you can imagine that this water or this infrastructure wasn't well received locally because this infrastructure would mean that at least 600 people would need to be relocated from the homeland as well as the whole region would need to just give up water that is a semi-arid and also happens to be the second largest producer of animal protein in the whole country. And even home of the second largest egg producer in the world. So then you can imagine that this region is economically vibrant and vibrant and then they're supposed to give up their water for these two cities. So then because of that, there was a conflict, a water conflict for 20 years in which the dam was already built at 80 meters as you can see in the picture below, 80 meters height, but then they wanted to continue the construction another 25 meters to 105 meters in total, but then the project was stopped at 80 meters height and then for 15 years having been used. So it has been only half built but never put in use because there was this social conflict present. So in the meanwhile for 15 years, Guadalajana and León having also increased the water deficit because the economy and the population keeps growing and then if they don't have water, then it means that the water deficit keeps increasing. So what happens when the water deficit keeps increasing is that the pressure, the political pressure keeps also increasing and the conflict is getting worse and worse and worse. So to be able to understand the conflict, we need to understand also the uncertainties. So to be able to analyze what the conflicts, we need to analyze the epistemic and social controversies which are the heart and soul of the conflicts, the first uncertainty and controversy as the policies to achieve water security in Guadalajana and León, which means that there is not a given or a comprehensive solution to be able to bring about water security for these two cities because the gamuts of possibilities of solutions, they're huge. So there's not only one possible solution. So the government, they argue that the best way to achieve water security in Guadalajana and León was to build a water supply and meditation project. So increasing the water supply and then the people against this project, they argue that why? Why you haven't considered also demand management? It's also possible. Like it's not that there's a water deficit but that water deficit means that the people are consuming much more water than they should. Yeah, so then just to give you an idea in Guadalajana and León, they are using around 200 liters per day per person when, for example, in the Netherlands there has much more water and they are using 120 liters per person per day. So then you can see that there's a huge room for improvement. For example, the physical losses in the urban water system in both cities is around 30%. 30% of the water goes down the drain. Why? Because the distribution network is so old. We're talking about almost 100 years old but then the faulty pipes are just cracking. And then because the pipes are cracking, then it means that the water pressure cannot be elevated and then that means that there's also water intrusion in pipes, which means that the people are receiving so far water quality in the homes and then they cannot drink it. And therefore also in Mexico, it happens to be the number one consumer of bottled water in the world. Then, so then you can imagine that then this created or this became a huge controversy. Like is this a Poteo project ideal for Guadalajana and León or do we have more other solutions that have a lot of potential as well? So the second uncertainty and controversy is the negative consequences in the donor basin of Los Altos de Jalisco, which is the donor basin, yeah? So then as I mentioned already, then this is a hugely productive region, semi-arid. And then it's now of course experiencing many of the limit change consequences by having variability in the basin. So then this became also a source of controversy because then if you have a lot of variability, would it even be feasible to have a dam that is going to continuously transfer water to cities? Many of the local people, they say, no, the river is dry. Where are you going to get the water to be able to pump it to Guadalajana and León? And then even if there's water, that what should it be for us? To feed the water that is the motor of the economy or Los Altos de Jalisco, which is agricultural. Then of course, there is this social issue that why should these people that are living in the reservoir or the dam, why should they need to be sacrificed in order to provide water for these cities that are not even doing their best in managing their water? But then these two uncertain controversies became crucial in understanding the conflict. So for many years, there was an impasse. There was not going anywhere because then everybody thought, everybody came up with their own data. So now in this era of post-truth, anybody can make their own data and argue for or against something. So in 2017, the government hired UNOPS, which is the United Nations Office for Product Services to enter the fray and be able to develop a water model of the donor basing to test different kinds of scenarios and then try to answer the question if the support to your dam was actually feasible or not. So then they developed, as I mentioned, the whole water model, dynamic water model of the whole region, how much water is raining, how much water is being pumped, how much water is being used, how much water is lost to evapotranspiration, et cetera, et cetera. And then they tested the model with five different kinds of scenarios, testing also different kinds of heights of the dam. So as you can see here, 105 meters for the first scenario, but then fewer water transfer in the second scenario, then the same kind of water volumes being transferred, but with a lower dam at 80 meters height, et cetera. So then in all of the scenarios, they used historic data and current water dynamics here and then only in the fourth one, they used a scenario with climate change and future water demand. But then the one scenario that they were able to optimize in order to find the feasibility of the dam was the scenario number five, in which they've reduced 13% of the water volumes being transferred to Boda La Jala Leon. Why? Because then they realized that some of the data, some of the knowledge that was being bullied by the oppositors of the dam, they were right. There was a higher water demand in the region that was not acknowledged by the water authorities. So then they claim, okay, we have acknowledged that, but you need to decrease the water being transferred, the water flows from the dam to Boda La Jala Leon by 30%. And then you will see that in the coming 60 years, which is the life expectancy of the dam, then it will never become empty for the next 60 years. So then if you just build the dam 105 meters and just reduce 13%, then it's good to go. However, what I did was to request this model from UNOPS, then I replicated these results to be able to understand how the model was built. And what I found was that if you just include limit change and future water demand in the donor region, alas, then the scenario that I found was that the dam gets empty years of usage. That means, so this was a bomb in a conflict because then it showed that of course, if you want to be serious about doing scenarios, developing scenarios, you must include future water demand in the region and you must include limit change in your scenarios. So then when you include the dose, then the dam wasn't feasible at all. So then after three years of work and more than $6 million spent in UNOPS, then the science policy process failed miserably. So then the conflict continued because then nobody believed the results of UNOPS and then the dam was not built at 105 meters in height and then it continued to be stalled, to be stopped and to not be used. So then from this, I gathered some results, which is that the role of science will not be limited to evaluating infrastructure projects, but to critically analyze the water human systems to open the space for decision. Yeah? So then what I found is that if UNOPS will have opened the space for decision it will include some of the other alternatives that had been proposed by the people opposing the project. Then in that way, the conflict may have had a chance to actually be solved because they failed to do that because they only consider the separative dam as the only solution, then its results were not legitimate. So then I proceeded to do exactly what I thought they were missing, which is to understand the system as a whole. So then I want to mention this quotation by Henry David Thorough that I really love. It says, in my brief experience of human life, the external obstacles, if any have not been leaving men but institutions of the dead, it is pleasing to make your way through this last generation as through the deal with covered grass. Men are as innocent as mourning to those who do not suspect. I love humanity, but I hate the institutions of the cruel dead. Men execute nothing so faithfully as the wheels of the dead down to the last cortisol and letter. The rule of this world and the living are about its executors. Even virtue ceases to be such if it is stagnant. A man's life must constantly be as fresh as this river. It must be the same channel, but new water at every moment. This is to us as a path dependency locking systems, feedback mechanisms that generate vicious cycles and ideological devices to keep doing the same resolve the same actions over and over and over, even though they failed to do to help. And I saw this happening in both Leon and Guadalajara. So then I found that there was a supply demand cycle in Guadalajara, which means that a city can no longer be self sufficient in terms of these water supplies because of its constant growth. And then you may think, okay, this is obvious, no? This is obvious because then if the city keeps growing in a small water, yes and no. So the Sepotige project was the continuation of the development path of a large scale water supply and ventilation. And then I found that through a historic research or the city in which what I found was that every time that there was a water supply and ventilation, then the water demand increase artificially. How was I able to understand this by locking together the water use and the population proportionally. So you can see that in the first 40 years, since 1908 until 1950, the population and the water demand are growing together. So as far as there, then the theory is compliant, no? It's common sense, more people, more water is needed. But then when the city start to develop new water supply systems or new water supply sources, then the dynamics of water use and population they are uncoupled. So in 1956, when the city introduced the water transfer from Malake, then you can see that the water demand started to increase and the water demand is the blue line. So the water demand started to increase artificially and uncoupled from the growth of population. Then this trend just continue over the years while more and more water supply sources incorporated into the system. And then you can see that in the years that the city was experiencing water shortages, which is around the 90s and 2000s, then is when the water use started to become closer to the natural growth of the population. So then with the support to your project, then the expected water use was going to be expected to increase by almost 20 points, yeah? In that way, to continue the trend of increasing separation between water use, water demand and population, meaning that there is an unexpected consequence of building more and more water supply sources is that people consider that there is more water and because there's more water, I can use much more. And then I realized that every time that the government would present or develop a new water source, they were always saying, this water source is going to guarantee water for the city forever. We will never need a new one. And what happens after 15, 20 years, we need a new one because they would never expect that the people, the population, would increase the water supply, I mean, sorry, they would increase the water demand artificially. So then there is a paradox of increasing water supply in the cycle of the water supply and demand. So there is again a coupled system in the water system. So it means that there's a water shortage. Whenever there's a water shortage, there's an economic damage. So there is this translate pressure, more public pressure becomes or is translated into an increasing reservoir storage, which also increases the water supply. And then the government, they only consider the blue cycle. If we have more water supply, then we will solve the issue of water shortages. What they don't understand is that this creates unexpected consequence of increasing artificially the water demand and by creating the water demand, they will also ensure that in the future there will be a water shortage. And this creates or makes the cities be dependent as well as vulnerable for economic damage because then they have already built the water demand, but they don't have any more sources for any extra supply sources for water supply. So then by building this up with the UTAM, it also meant that in the future, they will no longer be able to supply water to this artificially or create water demand for water handling. So then what happened? After the fiasco of UNOPS in 2023, there was a plan to retrofit the Sepoteo dam and to, as you can see in the last picture, they were able to crack open six windows of 12 meters by 12 meters in depth. Why? Because then the conflict was resolved. The conflict was resolved in a way that it protected the communities that were going to be relocated because of the dam while still being able to reduce its water transfer to only Guadalajara. So what happened? What I claim is that, so the new always happens against the overwhelming also of statistical laws and the probability, which for all practical everyday purposes amount to certainty. The new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. This is a quote I love because then it almost felt like a miracle. How did it happen? That this dam was able to be retrofitted and the communities were able to win this whole conflict. So then I want to unravel these guise of a miracle. So what happened was that in 2018 after I replicated the results of UNOPS, then I also refurbished the model to be able to do what UNOPS was unable to do, which is to create new different water alternatives or new water solutions for the dam, and I'm sorry for the cities for Guadalajara and León. So then I incorporated in the model all of the different kind of alternatives that the oppositors of the dam were proposing for the past 15 years, which is like for example, to install water harvesting systems in both cities to be able to also have water, sorry, to buy the water rights from farmers to be able to use that water sources instead of the farmers, to be able to fix the leakages in the system. And then in that way I invited all of the key actors in the conflict to do participatory modeling and then to let them play this water model by also developing a user interface that would be user friendly. So that the people that don't have experience or are not technical, they will also be able to just click easy steps in the user interface and then develop their own scenarios. They were able to test different kind of scenarios and then see how it would happen in the future, like what would be efficient, what would be feasible, what not. And then they were able to in this workshop to compare the results also with the government, also with the communities, also with the farmers, and then they will have a new understanding of the system as well as a new proof that there is more alternatives than only a dam. So then what happened was that after this workshop, then many of the social actors that were trying to prove their case, that there's alternatives to the dam, then finally they had the proof available and then they started a campaign, a social campaign and communication campaign, saying like, hey, we need to look away from the dam. The dam is not feasible and is even dangerous because it makes the cities to be vulnerable to droughts and hydroclimatic changes. So then what I found is that this vicious cycle that I showed you before can be broken, can be broken by the same actions and advocacy of actors by developing alternative, alternative development pathways that could contribute to opening up the decision space and then have an uncertain outcome and also be able to reduce the water demand as well as increase the water supply. And because now we're conscious, we're aware of this cycle and we can design solutions to avert this cycle. So then there's a difficulty to understand change. How change functions. So then I did ethnographic research to be able to understand how a bunch of farmers, a bunch of people who don't have any master as you guys, like you guys, like many of you came to Delft to learn, to do a master degree, to have a master degree on many different expertise and then you know, you guys know a lot, but then these people they just probably only have their secondary education finished and they were able to transform this conflict not only by force, but also by presenting alternatives. So then what I found was that we need to unpack the social capitals from social movements as agents of change in coupled water human systems. It means that people have different kinds of skills which are called social capitals because then you can put a capital to reproduce itself. So actors in water conflicts, they own different kind of capitals understood as intangible dudes put to reproductive juice. So they have social capital which is the legitimacy if different actors can see the social movement as legitimate, as an legitimate actor. It means that the people will listen more to them. Then they also increase their technical capital which is knowledge. And then in that way, I see Delft through my project as well as the support of my two supervisors, Peter van der Sar and Noda van Cowenberg, we were able to develop knowledge that would also increase the technical capital of the movement. This also increased the relational capital which is network. So then because of Aisin, we also supported the movement to also have different kinds of relationships. For example, with the consultancy firms in Switzerland to be able to have a better comprehension of the dam and to propose to drill all these seven windows into the dam because they became spillways. Then economic funding which they found in actors living in the United States, people who migrated from Mexico to the United States they were able to have more funding because of that and then support the movement as well as legal capital which legal strategy can yield a better result than human rights. So during the conflict, they accumulated these capitals by implementing different strategies to achieve their interest. Then I was able to map how these capitals were evolved throughout the conflict. And then you can see that in the first period of the conflict which is in 2005, then the capitals of the agents of the social movement was quite small because then they just were just literally only farmers. So they only have a little bit of legitimacy and relational capital. Well, the government, they had a huge capital. They could do everything with it. So that's why they were able to build a dam for the coming five years. But then in those five years, the actors, the social movements, they didn't remain idle. They kept working to develop their capitals. Then in that way, they started a campaign, a legal campaign that would prove successful to stop the dam legally because of certain factors of, they were able to argue that this would affect the human rights. And because of that, they were able to stop this dam. They also increased their social capital, their legitimacy, as well as increase also their economic capital. Then in the third period, there was a political formation, they were able to understand the different strategies to navigate the political system in Mexico. And then to also start gaining more legitimacy and also some technical capital. But then you can see that because of that, the government, they hired UNOPs and then they were still having the higher hand in the conflict by trying to solve the conflict through signage. However, in the last period, so we're talking about since 2019, all the way to 2022, that the social movement was able to accumulate much more capital than the coalition for supporting for the Zepoteo project. And it was in that moment, when they were able to convince the president of Mexico to carve all these six windows into the dam and support the cause of the social movement to avoid any kind of cost in being relocated. So then for the future, will the cities will be able to seize the opportunity to transition to an inclusive and sustainable urban water system? Or will they not be able to resist the temptation to execute the mandato or the death by repeating again temporary solutions based on large infrastructures? The coin is tossed, we are at the crossroads that will take us to two completely opposite destinations. But for now, the fortune seems to be smiling to the communities that they are aiming to not be relocated and to keep their ancestral land untouched and now it is still a time for uncertainty but it seems like for now, the supply demand cycle has been temporarily disrupted. So because of this, we were able to find that the scientists, they have not only a mandate to produce science, but also to produce actionable science that can have an impact social. So thank you very much. This is the end of my presentation and I'm really open to any questions and have a nice discussion with all of you. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much, Jonathan. And I will share my screen if I can to just start with the first questions that the first one comes from Professor Gopal Kumar from India and the question is, was there no AEA conducted before sanctioning of the El Sapatishu project by Mexico government? Thank you for the question. Let me see. Can you see my screen? No, I cannot see your screen. Okay, let's see what happened. Okay. Now? Yes, I can see it now. Yes, perfect. So what was the environmental impact assessment conducted? Yes, there was environmental impact assessment. However, the problem was that it was a really biased environmental impact assessment because they only made this assessment on the area of the reservoir. So this means that they only consider an environmental impact assessment in a very contained area that did not include the whole of the basin. So then because of that, then they were able to just comply with the law but not really understand the meaning of the law because the meaning of the law is that if the project was going to cause any irreversible damage to the environment but then they only consider the small hectares contained within the reservoir but did not include the whole of the basin. So this was also a contentious part of the conflict. Very good. And Hassan Mohamed would like to know how to solve water scarcity and run water depletion. Thanks for the question, Hassan. I can imagine that you were asking this question for the specific case that I mentioned. And then I can, I would say that the question perhaps is not, it's not the right question to ask because then I think the question is what is causing water scarcity? So if water scarcity is being caused by an overdraft and by artificial created point of demand. So imagine that we have the water demand of 1,000 liters per day per person. Then the question is not how to supply water to this person who is having this huge water demand but the question is like, isn't that too much? So then perhaps the water scarcity is being caused by a large water demand and we shouldn't be thinking only with the eyes of the water supply and just create more water supply sources because then it's just unsustainable. So then the groundwater depletion is also a cause of the huge water demand that is present in these regions. So the question is not to think to replace the water source but to be able to see if there's a space for water demand management, I think. Thank you, Jonathan. And Samar Mahmoud requests, when considering the future water demand and climate change in your assessment, did you estimate it based on current demand patterns and physical losses or assume better water management strategies? Could you elaborate more on the climate change factors considered? Thanks for the question, Samar. So then there are two moments of my research. One in which I consider future water demand and climate change only to prove that the study of UNOPs, they didn't consider them. So then what I did was to replicate the results, also introducing future water demand and climate change. And then in the second moment, I also introduced better water demand, sorry, better water management strategies as the one I mentioned, which is that, okay, like if in these cities, it's raining almost 800 millimeters per year, then it's possible also to just capture this water as a new water source that is just currently being wasted and just flowing into the sewers. So then, of course, in this second moment, I just included climate change and also included future water demand just to be able to have a better understanding of how the scenarios would play out considering these two variables. Thank you very much. And Masny Ditta-Angriani, would like to know how did you measure the social capital, political capital and other capitals quantitatively? Thank you, Masny. This is a really super good question. This was a really difficult, a difficult methodological obstacle that we faced in the research. So then, because we saw, like we were able to see in our story of 18 years, that there has been a change in the way the actors were deploying their strategies and the way they were perceived by other actors. So then the question was like, qualitatively we were able to see that it was a difference in the capitals and their skills. The question was how to do it quantitatively. So then what we decided was to be able to structure the conflict in four periods and then just to be able to see if it has been like crucial changes in the way that the different capitals were used and deployed in the conflict and then to see if they have been more or less in the new conflict period. And then by doing so, we were able to say like, okay, like in the new period the capital was more. We just don't decide how much more. We just say like, okay, one point more or one point less. And then in that way, in the four periods, we were able to see like this really nice evolution of the capitals that also coincided well with how the each in each period, each conflict period, there was winning or losing for the two groups of actors. So, but indeed this is a really good question. And in my, I have an upcoming article that is about to be published. We acknowledge that this is something that still needs to be discussed in the future. How to quantitatively be able to assess the capitals of the actors. And we think that perhaps for further research, a new method could be the Delphi method, which is based on having an interview with key actors and ask them, what do they think is their expert opinion on how the capitals are evolving over time. But yeah, I think it's a really good question. Thank you for your question. There are a few questions on the chat. And Ellen Barbosa, sorry, a Tena, a Godlin line, and requests, if you have considered the environments, let it be made to water use right. Yes, indeed. Thank you for the question in the participatory modeling that I designed and that I developed. One of the options was for the actors to be able to prioritize the environment. So in that sense, to be able to, in any kind of scenario, to be able to assure that the environmental flows would be compliant, and then of course, this is actually by law, that any kind of water development should have environmental flows considered. So in that way, the actors, they were able to just click on that option in the user interface to be able to make sure that the environment is taken care of. And then if they wouldn't do that, then explain why with the other actors, but they let everybody comply, I mean, this is the law, and this is something that we want to achieve. Thank you, Jonathan. And we are reaching our end time of this conversation, but for the ones who had to leave, you are no problem, leave the room, but I will take a few minutes more to just say a comment and an extra question, but not before saying thanks to Jonathan for the excellent presentation. There's a lot of excellent comments for you, Jonathan. Thank you very much. Also to announce that in November, we are going to have our next online seminar that will be informed in the webpage of IHE Delph and also send the invitation through social media and by email to all alumni. And of course, thank you very much for your constant participation. The video will be available on IHE Delph's YouTube channel and also will be sent to all persons who have registered for this event. But before closing, I would like to read a comment of Wangala Ba Saha. Sorry for my pronunciation. That is an MSc, alumnus of water management's 2016-18 that he said that I think, I quote, the implementation of the dam was done much faster than the involvement of the community. That's why they are convincing the community to be relocated when the project is already on the ground. Would you like to comment, Jonathan? Yes, thank you, Wangala indeed. So they didn't consider, or the authorities didn't consider to involve the communities into the decision-making. So then they had already made a decision to build this dam before they even started to do the social work of contacting the communities and to involve them in the decision-making process. So then, of course, it was also a really bad decision for the authorities because they just created a lot of animosity against the project and against the authorities. And even though there was a lot of pressure from the authorities for the communities to accept this as a don't deal, and then this just made the communities so angry so against the project, that they, I think they give them a lot of strength to just say like, hey, we have human rights and you are just trampling them. You need to give us informed processes to know what's going on and then give us the chance to also have a say in this project and they didn't give it to them. So indeed, because of trying to hurry up the project, they actually just trampled the project and then created this conflict that lasted for 20 years, indeed. Thank you very much. Jonathan, so I'm going to go to the last questions of, of who was that? Of, of, of, of. Oh my God, I cannot find it. Who wrote it? But I did not understand. He says exactly, my cursor is not doing well. Sorry. I did not understand exactly what is causing such a high water demand of 200 liters a day to such a point of conflict. Also, when you talk of 200 liters, this is how much water is used or available? So I think the question can be answered by many, it's not only one answer, but it's many factors that are involved in this really high number. So one of them, as I mentioned is that the cities, they have 30, 40% of physical losses in the network. So this, so if you, if you rest these two, more than 200 liters per day per person, 40% only physical losses, then you already have an answer to that. But also another answer is just that the authorities, when they think they have a lot of water, and then they start approving any kind of development, economic development and also trying to increase the population of the city, because there's a lot of internal migration in Mexico. So I think it's happening everywhere, like the rural areas are just going into the cities. And then if the cities are using like, yes, yes, yes, let's grow, let's grow, let's grow, then you're also artificially increasing the water demand. You cannot say no to any water demand. And then of course, there's the psychological part of water use that then if whenever people, they say like, oh, you know, like we have a new water supply. And then everybody's saying that this is the answer, that this is the ultimate answer to the water security of the city. Then people are just using more water, like because they think that the water is endless. And this is promoted by the government. They say water forever, literally, like over the course of 50 years with every new water source, they say this is water forever. So then it just creates this image in the people that this water is literally forever when it is not. And then they create a lot of water demand because of that. Well, thank you very much, Jonathan, for your excellent work, excellent presentation. I think we all have enjoyed that. There is a lot of comments in the chat. And I will close this seminar of today saying, sans for the interests and all the people who have registered and let us stay in touch. And of course, if you would like to send more questions to Jonathan, do not hesitate to send it to me or to Jonathan that you can see his profile and contact details on the webpage of IHEDELF. Thank you very much to all and hope to welcome you in the seminar of November. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Maria and everybody.