This year’s World Water Week will see activists gather in Stockholm to discuss ways of getting clean water to the 1 billion people around the world who are currently without it. But, if water activists remain blinkered by ideology and continue to oppose private water provision, this goal will not be met – as explained in a new paper from the Sustainable Development Network.
Even though private water provision sees clean and safe water delivered to millions around the world, many politicians and NGOs remain irrationally opposed to the idea that profit should be made from “essential resources” like water.
According to the paper’s author, Alex Nash, a water engineer with experience of both public and private sector water projects in less-developed countries, this mindset is actively hindering universal access to water, and with it the achievement of several Millennium Development Goals.
The truth is that many public utilities in less-developed countries suffer from endemic corruption and rarely deliver services equitably – even refusing to recognise and connect slum-dwellers:
“The reality of many state run utilities is not pretty. Bribes, extortion, kickbacks, nepotism, patronage, shoddy technical standards; it’s all in a day’s work.”
Meanwhile, it is the private sector – from individual water porters to larger companies – that fill in the gaps left by dysfunctional state utilities.
The World Bank estimates that in most cities in less developed countries, more than half the population get their water from suppliers other than the public utility. This is the case in many peri-urban areas, as in Asunción Paraguay where 500 aguateros work to supply water to 500,000 people. But political opposition to private water could spell the end of such vital services.
“The net result of these ideologues’ well-meaning efforts is a staunch defence of the corrupt, lazy or incompetent utility managers and mayors. It is a defence of the comfortable middle classes in developing countries who have cheap water while their poorer compatriots queue and walk all day.”
Read the full paper: “Water Provision for the Poor- How ideology muddies the debate”,
by Alex Nash, published 13 August 2007 by the Sustainable Development Network – available for download at http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Water_Provision_for_the_Poor.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Blow the worlds poor Jennifer; a report card out yesterday says most Australian Cities will go begging for new water sources. Melbourne and guess where are down 80% on inflows.
Aside from your provocative post, Gavin, you have actually highlighted two very different problems. One is distribution, the other, supply. Australia is a wealthy enough country to resolve its supply problems one way or another.
This post is about distribution deficiencies in the cities of poor countries, and about how the ideology of some NGO’s is contributing to inefficiencies and perverse outcomes.
To switch to your anecdotal style, years ago I completed a Land Management course (distance ed) through an Australian tertiary institution. The methodology of the final subject, Flora and Fauna Management, was a cracker.
First analyse the problem, (a threatened species, pest control, ecology management, etc). Learn as much as possible about everything impacting on or exacerbating the issue. From this, work out how to get the best results from the limited resources available (land, capital – or money if you don’t like the “C” word – machinery, time, labour, etc). Available resources are ALWAYS limited – ask your local Land Care group. This methodology is about the efficient use of available resources, or, if you want to use the economic term, avoiding inefficiencies, which simply means avoiding waste. (And as an aside, isn’t avoiding waste what the concept of ‘earth stewardship” is ultimately about?)
This is a disciplined methodology that I have found useful in wider situations. To take the situation of this post, some NGO’s don’t like the idea of business delivering the supply systems, as profits might be redistributed to shareholders (or small business owners like that chicken farmer). Bl–dy H-ll. Those NGO’s don’t seem more accepting of the Government looters who redistribute the CAPITAL before it ever gets used to do the job.
Those NGO’s lack the intellectual discipline needed to get the job done. Private enterprises, small and large, are available resources, and often very efficient ones. Having one’s financial skin in the game clears one’s thinking.
Sorry, Correction. Third last line. “Those NGO’s seem more accepting …”. Delete “don’t”.
Helen: Correspondence learning can be fun but RMIT made us do all the prac in their labs during holidays
My launch on this one was partly to save it from being a dead thread. Also water and its engineering has long been an interest. However I think we are deep enough now in certain aspects of climate change to put many old expectations on their head.
Populations everywhere are bound to suffer and we are no exception despite our modern technology. Reuse of water remains extremely low in Australia.
Regarding yesterdays report on national infrastructure, there was a previous water crisis for Melbourne. I worked in MMBW system upgrades during the early 70’s when pumping the Lower Yarra became the last resort. “Portable” sewage treatment plants suddenly became inadequate.
On a good note –
This ABC report on natural sequence (Peter Andrews) for the Murrumbidgee River group caught my attention today. The Murrumbidgee is on my western side.
http://www.naturalsequenceassociation.org.au/
This particular discussion on AM about soft overflows in beaver dams raised an old issue for me and that’s all about maintaining natural log jams as flow barriers in the distribution of up stream floods. For me tributaries in restored woodlands are the key.
It seems there is widespread interest in Andrews style drought proofing including a group on the upper reaches of the Shoalhaven to our east that was also hard hit by drought recently. Diversions for cities like Goulburn in this region of the Great Divide weren’t possible
http://www.fromthesoilup.com.au/agriculture/natural-sequence-farming-2