Political, Scientific and Social Views

Political, Scientific and Social Views on Water

Moderator: Thank you all for your participation today at an event where we are going to advertise the EthicalAqua ™ product and program. The best way to this is to let the experts talk about the importance of water, which is why I will briefly introduce them and then just step out to have nice glass of water. No, I am only joking: I will actually stay and here some of the different perspectives that each of our guests will have. The first one to share with us his notes on the importance of water and on its presence among us is Paul Muldon. I encourage the speakers to speak as freely as possible and to have an open exchange of ideas that is likely to benefit all of us.

As an introductory statement, I would like to point out towards the different perspectives that we can look at water and why it is important. There are political, ethical

Paul Muldoon: Thank you. I had actually written this funny and witty speech on water management in Canada, but the more I thought about it on my way here, the sadder I became, because water management is really a very serious issue. As I was walking towards our conference hall, I eventually threw it out, so I am here without my speech and most likely will be speaking to you from the heart, which, you will have to agree, is not something you see a lot for a politician.

As I have pointed in several of my articles, we currently face a water crisis. With that, I was able to resume the consequence in just a couple of words, but it will take my whole 15 minutes (no, just 10 minutes, ok) to go into the details of the causes that have led to that. I have identified several and some of the other individuals that have researched this phenomenon have identified many more. I think that the common denominator is that "the diverse views of the stakeholders within the policy debate" (Muldoon, McClenaghan, 2007) sometimes creates a situation when all those involved do not bring added value to the subject. On the other hand, as Boyd has pointed out, the government should also step in its moderator role and "establish a robust governance framework for water" (Boyd, 2003).

I am pretty sure that this type of situation occurs in many other countries as well, and, in many cases, like, for example, in Central Asia, between countries as well. The lack of a joint coordinated policy between local and central authorities or, as mentioned, between different governments, simply leads to the incapacity to ensure that all communities receive the amount of water they need.

In my opinion, for a resource as sensitive and as necessary as water, there should be a federal water policy and an overall framework that could coordinate the approach of the local communities and the central government towards water management. Such an approach could also encourage a continuous dialogue at a federal level, which could stimulate the adoption of the efficient solutions in water management. This would be the wonderful way out of the tangled web of jurisdiction that I have described in a more ample manner in my article. However, because I see Karen Bakker is almost asleep following my peroration, I will just briefly touch on the "need for a strategy that not only allows for but also expects meaningful citizen and stakeholder participation" (Muldoon, McClenaghan, 2007) and will pass on the baton for her intervention.

Karen Bakker: Thank you, Paul -- I have actually listened to your intervention with all of my interest and I think you bring some very valid point. Certainly, one could tell from your presentation that your political past and present has not yet left you, but the valid ideas remain. My discourse is structured less on what we should do, but rather on how water is both a commodity and a public good.

Moderator: Excellent, but please make sure you don't get into a fight with Paul's rigorous political approach!

Karen Bakker: Right, will do. We can all understand why water is a public good: because the public drinks it, washes with it and uses it for water balloons. On the other hand, there are companies who see that water can also be a commodity and, as such, they stock the water in water balloons and them sell them, either to the state, in public-private partnerships, or directly to the population. France is a good example in this sense, but then, it was also them who had the Revolution in 1789, wasn't it?

Taking the discussion further on this line (I will actually stop with the funny line though), treating water as a commodity is also likely to increase competitiveness on the market and ensure the appropriate and efficient distribution of water to the final recipients or, at least, that is the hope. There markets where this type of approach works and other markets where it does not and "privatization has worked well in other sectors" (Bakker, 2003).

On the other hand, discussing water as a public utility will tend to increase the involvement of the government in the management process. To what degree is that a positive thing? Well, Pink Floyd would tell the teachers to leave the kids alone, but we know that the teachers are sometimes needed there to intervene when the kids are pulling their hair out.