This is my review of "A Survey of Water"

An article in "The Economist", July 19th-25th 2003.

A very interesting article - overall a fairly balanced analysis. I learnt a few things too, although the language might scare a few fellow 'greenies'.

I wholeheartedly agree that many nations use water for irrigation in a totally unsustainable manner, like growing cotton in arid areas of Australia. The article paints Australia as leading in the right direction, but we have only just begun and inter-state wrangling is making progress slow. Neither the Labour States or the Federal 'Howard' Liberals will swallow the political suicide pill of charging farmers for the real cost of the Murray-Darling water they use and subsidising a change to more suitable crops. Yet the article concludes that "a sensible start would be to get farmers to see water as something that has to be paid for", which should be reflected in the price consumers subsequently pay for their produce.

"America's sugar regime is already outrageous enough, keeping sugar prices at three times world levels and blocking imports from some of the world's poorest countries. This egregious irrigation scheme compounds the folly by destroying the Everglades as well". This short paragraph from such a radical journal as "The Economist" neatly summarises the key structural problems with world trade - it is neither free nor fair and does not value the environment.

The U.S. with its 51% controlling stake in the World Bank, along with most of western Europe do not abide by the most fundamental conditions that they apply to developing nations. Every single developing nation that borrows from the IMF and the World Bank is given the conditionality of selling off their water systems. "In the United States...almost all the water is delivered by the public sector".

In it's conclusions, the article commends the "Chilean idea of giving water stamps to poor people to meet their bills" and the "South African one of providing a basic minimum quantity cheap or free but imposing higher charges for greater consumption". I have seen the truly astounding progress in former South African townships. Very basic but greatly improved housing, with access to a minimum level of electricity, sewage and clean water nearby. It is providing clean water to millions who did not have it under apartheid, does not encourage waste, and has not been the result of a privatised water utility.

The French and American water companies will take away from this article that "economic and institutional reforms, and above all greater reliance on pricing and markets" is the answer. Their past interpretation and implementation of this statement has not improved access to clean water for those in poverty. The article could not quote any long lasting success stories, barely mentioned Africa, and showed that even the private companies are pulling back, having finally decided the model doesn't work so well for them either.

Long lasting solutions, whether public or private, will require "good local government" and "effective regulation".