The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has just released its “Asian Water Development Outlook Report 2013”. This report deserves attention not only to get a quantitative and comprehensive view of water-related problems afflicting our part of the world but to also understand the sort of policy prescriptions being emphasised by prominent international lending agencies to tackle the emergent challenge.
The mentioned report has found 37 out of 49 countries in the Asia-Pacific region (where about 60 per cent of the world’s population resides) as having very low levels of water security. Moreover, South Asia was found to be the most vulnerable in terms of household water security (including sanitation) and environmental water security issues.
The ADB has acknowledged the very real social, economic and political consequences of water shortages and the fact that water-related disasters are being exacerbated by climate change. However, it falls short of criticising the industrialised world for causing climate changes, as well as for overlooking the environmental impacts of the projects it has been funding over the past many years in developing countries.
Instead, the ADB singles out poor management and a lack of investment in infrastructure as the major issues meriting attention in order to address the growing water insecurity problem.
The ADB recommends mobilising additional resources to clean up major river systems, the need for which is evident in regions like our own, where as little as 22 per cent of waste water discharges are treated before being released into freshwater. Besides industrial solvents and toxic sludge, return flow of irrigational water to river systems is also heavily contaminated with agricultural chemicals and pesticides. While the ADB acknowledges these problems, it does not take responsibility for the fact that it was multilateral agencies like itself and the World Bank that nudged poorer countries of the region to increasingly use fertilisers and pesticides since the “Green Revolution”. The same institutions also supported unchecked industrial growth in the region for decades before pollution or other environmental concerns became prominent issues.
To overcome the water scarcity challenge in agriculture, which consumes the majority of freshwater sources, the ADB also proposes introducing modern technology for water application, such as drip and sprinkler irrigation. It, however, offers little insight to effectively address the plight of poorer farmers, who lack the resources to invest in such technologies. Conversely, the ADB endorses the use of new biotechnical innovations, including GMOs which require less water, despite health and environmental concerns, as well as the fact that poor farmers cannot afford such expensive seeds.
The market mantra also pervades the ADB’s suggestions for managing water utilities, which it wants to corporatise. The impact of corporatising water utilities on improving service delivery and making it more responsive for the poor is, however, not a foregone conclusion.
More encouraging ADB suggestions include the need to support low-cost, decentralised treatment plants and sewerage management systems, and to reduce leaks in water delivery infrastructure. It also recommends the installation of water-saving fixtures in all newly-constructed homes, offices, and public buildings, which is another good idea.
However, the ADB and other multilateral agencies like the World Bank need to realise that market-based principles such as privatisation and encouraging big business may not offer the best means to achieve many of the above-mentioned goals, since the ensuing benefits can often bypass the poor who are already facing the brunt of water insecurity.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 26th, 2013.