This article from Global Water Intelligence intrigued me so I thought I would pass it on.
After Tucson, you would think a different title would have been in order. Duhhhh...
The water – food – energy nexus has emerged as one of the major themes of the World Economic Forum in Davos this week. With food and energy prices both rebounding towards 2007 levels, it is easy to understand why: the world can’t produce more food and more energy without more water.
It is one thing for an event like Davos to highlight such issues. It is a different matter to produce meaningful solutions. The event organisers have published a video summarising the issue and making some suggestions about what we need to do about it. Apparently the first thing we need is “integrated multi-stakeholder resource planning for the long term”. This is NGO-speak for “we need to book our places at next year’s WEF right now”.
The second suggestion is “regionally focused infrastructure development”, which is a bit platitudinous, but at least it is not a crime against the English language. Similarly, the fourth and final suggestion, “technological and financial innovation”, is one of those things which really should not require a summit of world leaders in Switzerland to pledge their support to before anyone can agree that it is a good thing.
That leaves the third point, “market-led natural resource pricing”. Readers of this column will know that this is something I feel strongly about, and it is good to see that the WEF has included it at the top of its Global Risks Agenda. It would be nice if they spelled out in plain English what they mean: people must be prepared to pay more for water, energy and food. It is a tough message that has to come from the top. My concern is how this sits with the soft talk about stakeholders.
In my experience, electricity companies don’t consult all the stakeholders before they put up the price of electricity. Nor do supermarkets worry for a minute about their stakeholders before they put up the price of food. But put up the price of water, and the stakeholders must have their say.
It is for this reason that in the battle among the three basic necessities of life – food, water and energy – you know which one is going to be at a financial disadvantage.
This post requires a curmudgeonly quote:
“There are probably more annoying things than being hectored about African development by a wealthy Irish rock star in a cowboy hat, but I can’t think of one at the moment.” – Paul Theroux, referring to Paul Hewson (aka Bono), The Honolulu Advertiser, 8 January 2006
Or an inane one:
"To me, one of the most exciting things i: the world is being poor." --
Thomas Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, whose personal worth wass
estimated to be $500 million at the time he said thia (c. 1993)
GWI: WHEN I HEAR THE WORD 'STAKEHOLDER' I REACH FOR MY GUN: … I concur but I note for far different reasons … as my experience over the 30 plus years being a “stakeholder” has been to watch as government agencies bastardize the process so as to make a “stakeholder” totally irrelevant … thereby allowing them to achieve their desired goal under the cover they complied with a rule demanding “stakeholder” participation.
Any process honestly allowing and endorsing “stakeholder” participation acknowledges from the get-go the process will be long, “grudging-consent” … if ethically achieved evolves slowly and facing conflict up the last minute.
This is NOT a process which any government agency chooses to endorse in a era where speed rules. And in America … today … speed rule$ …
Posted by: PAUL F MILLER | Sunday, 30 January 2011 at 12:37 PM