My article titled In abundance, scarcity was published on International Policy Network on March 3, 2006.
ONE fifth of Earth's inhabitants lack access to safe drinking water and two fifths lack adequate sewerage.
But it is neither scarcity nor overpopulation that makes this abundant natural resource an increasingly scarce commodity: it is the heavy hand of government.
Even India's north-eastern state of Assam - one of the wettest places on earth - suffers periodic bouts of government-induced water scarcity.
Yet Australia, the driest place on Earth, exports agricultural produce.
People are paying the price for this, and the poorest are paying with their lives.
For the past week, thousands of officials, researchers, businesses and international agencies have been meeting at the fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City.
This year's slogan is "local action for global challenges" and it might contain the beginnings of a push for local initiative to replace government monopoly.
These global jamborees do at least draw attention to the size of the crisis at hand and we hear that water scarcity will cause an increasing number of local conflicts around the world.
But wars aside, dirty water and bad sewerage contribute every day to the diarrhoea and malaria that kill more than three million people, mostly children, each year.
Blaming everything from population growth to commercial interests, those attending frequently exhorted governments to show leadership and galvanise political will to ensure more equitable access to water.
But few noted that government control itself has caused and perpetuated scarcity.
Mexico City faces an enormous water crisis, like many other cities in poor countries.
Their pipes are decrepit and failing, leading to huge losses, both financially and physically.
The systems do not generate enough revenue to cover their costs, so they cannot maintain their infrastructure, let alone invest in wastewater treatment or resource conservation.
At the same time, many cities provide a subsidy to households: most cities in Mexico charge a price which is ten times less than their costs; New Delhi's water is free, when you can get it.
Yet these subsidies do not help the poorest.
They may help wealthy people with swimming pools but the poor are lucky to get one hour of municipal water a week.
Many individuals, entrepreneurs and communities are refusing to wait for government to fulfil its empty promises and fill their empty pipes.
Countless private initiatives in India, Africa, Latin America and Asia are already sustaining local markets and improving access to water for millions of people, including the poorest.
For instance, farmers in Coimbatore district, in the southern Indian province of Tamil Nadu, sell water to the clothing industry in Tirupur.
This town has over 9 000 small textile units and contributes 56 per cent of India's cotton-knitwear exports.
It is no surprise that farmers are happy to sell groundwater to industry: they earn more money by selling water than they earn from producing crops.
But this is a rare instance of poor people owning their own water and being free to use it to their best advantage.
In Delhi's slums, "informal" entrepreneurs have responded to the demand for reliable water, supplying water from a borehole through a small pipe network which connects 50 to 100 dwellings.
The households pay a fee to the supplier, who assures water half an hour at least twice daily.
These informal local water entrepreneurs could easily become the nodes for the city's water authority to distribute water more widely, collect the rates and prevent leakage - around 40% of municipal water in Delhi's gravity-fed system is wasted or lost.
But they are illegal, "informal" and discouraged by government monopolies and the law.
Governments, like any monopoly, have no incentive to preserve, develop or innovate.
People do, given half a chance: that chance means giving them property rights and free markets, causing competition, efficiency and innovation to match local demand.
The end result would be that private entrepreneurs of all sizes and public agencies would compete against each other to provide this most vital of elements - and water scarcity would be no reason for anyone to go thirsty or go to war.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Water: Scarcity In Plenty
Individuals, entrepreneurs and communities are not waiting for government to fulfill empty promises and fill empty water pipes. Private initiatives in India, Africa, Latin America and Asia are already sustaining local markets and improving access for millions.
My article titled Water: Scarcity in plenty was published in Business Day on 23rd March 2006.
A fifth of the earth's inhabitants lack access to safe drinking water, and two-fifths lack adequate sewerage. But it is neither scarcity nor overpopulation that makes this abundant natural resource a scarce commodity: it is the heavy hand of government.
India's northeastern state of Assam ó one of the wettest places on earth ó suffers periodic bouts of government-induced scarcity. Yet Australia, the driest place on earth, exports agricultural produce.
For the past week, thousands of officials, researchers, businesses and international agencies have been meeting at the fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City. This year's slogan is Local Action for Global Challenges, and it might contain the beginnings of a push for local initiative to replace government monopoly.
Blaming everything from population growth to commercial interests, few noted that government control itself has caused and perpetuated scarcity.
Individuals, entrepreneurs and communities are not waiting for government to fulfil empty promises and fill empty water pipes. Private initiatives in India, Africa, Latin America and Asia are already sustaining local markets and improving access for millions.
Farmers in Coimbatore district, in the southern Indian province of Tamil Nadu, sell water to the local clothing industry. It is no surprise that farmers are happy to sell groundwater to industry: they earn more by selling water than from producing crops. But this is a rare instance of poor people owning their water and being free to use it.
In Delhi's slums, 'informal' entrepreneurs have responded to the demand for reliable water, supplying it from a borehole. These local entrepreneurs could easily become the nodes for the city's water authority to distribute water more widely, collect the rates and prevent leakage ó about 40% of municipal water in Delhi's gravity-fed system is lost. But they are illegal and discouraged by government monopolies.
Governments, like any monopoly, have no incentive to preserve, develop or innovate. People do, given half a chance: that chance means giving them property rights and free markets, creating competition and efficiency to match local demand.
The result would be that private entrepreneurs of all sizes and public agencies would compete against each other to provide this most vital of elements ó and water scarcity would be no reason for anyone to go thirsty or go to war.
My article titled Water: Scarcity in plenty was published in Business Day on 23rd March 2006.
A fifth of the earth's inhabitants lack access to safe drinking water, and two-fifths lack adequate sewerage. But it is neither scarcity nor overpopulation that makes this abundant natural resource a scarce commodity: it is the heavy hand of government.
India's northeastern state of Assam ó one of the wettest places on earth ó suffers periodic bouts of government-induced scarcity. Yet Australia, the driest place on earth, exports agricultural produce.
For the past week, thousands of officials, researchers, businesses and international agencies have been meeting at the fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City. This year's slogan is Local Action for Global Challenges, and it might contain the beginnings of a push for local initiative to replace government monopoly.
Blaming everything from population growth to commercial interests, few noted that government control itself has caused and perpetuated scarcity.
Individuals, entrepreneurs and communities are not waiting for government to fulfil empty promises and fill empty water pipes. Private initiatives in India, Africa, Latin America and Asia are already sustaining local markets and improving access for millions.
Farmers in Coimbatore district, in the southern Indian province of Tamil Nadu, sell water to the local clothing industry. It is no surprise that farmers are happy to sell groundwater to industry: they earn more by selling water than from producing crops. But this is a rare instance of poor people owning their water and being free to use it.
In Delhi's slums, 'informal' entrepreneurs have responded to the demand for reliable water, supplying it from a borehole. These local entrepreneurs could easily become the nodes for the city's water authority to distribute water more widely, collect the rates and prevent leakage ó about 40% of municipal water in Delhi's gravity-fed system is lost. But they are illegal and discouraged by government monopolies.
Governments, like any monopoly, have no incentive to preserve, develop or innovate. People do, given half a chance: that chance means giving them property rights and free markets, creating competition and efficiency to match local demand.
The result would be that private entrepreneurs of all sizes and public agencies would compete against each other to provide this most vital of elements ó and water scarcity would be no reason for anyone to go thirsty or go to war.
Governments Restrict Access to Healthcare and Prevent Medicine Development
My IPN press release titled Governments Restrict Access to Healthcare and Prevent Medicine Development was publishedon International Policy Network on March 23rd 2006.
London: 50 per cent of people in parts of Africa and Asia have no access to medicines due to harmful government policies, reports the Civil Society Report on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health. The document produced by 16 civil society organizations from around the world, is being released ahead of a report on a similar theme from the World Health Organization.
Examples of harmful government interventions identified in the report are:
Taxes and tariffs of up to 55 per cent on imported medicines price people out of treatment.
Byzantine and costly registration requirements mean many medicines already approved in the US, EU and Japan are simply not registered in most poor countries because manufacturers cannot justify the investment in registration.
Health insurance is hampered by government regulations, so the poor are unable to obtain insurance and are only able to pay for treatments if they have sufficient savings, or must rely on charity or meagre government healthcare provision.
Price controls - which proponents claim benefit the poor - actually reduce the availability of drugs, especially in distant rural regions, by making it uneconomic for pharmacies to stock them. Even in relatively wealthy South Africa, price controls have led to the closure of scores of rural pharmacies - leaving thousands of poor people without any access to medicines at all.
Inadequate protection for intellectual property in poor countries undermines incentives to invest in R&D for the diseases of poverty by making it more difficult to recover costs. The report found no evidence that intellectual property protection had hampered access to medicines.
Low pay and poor conditions at government run hospitals and clinics mean that a large number of trained medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) have emigrated to wealthier countries with better healthcare systems.
The Civil Society report was motivated in part by a concern that the WHO's Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health, would not address these fundamental issues because of concerns about the response of member governments.
Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute, India), one of the lead authors of the report, said:
"Our report shows that, when it comes to medicines for the diseases of poverty, governments are the main barriers to access and innovation. Intellectual property is an important driver of innovation but in poor countries governments currently prevent people from accessing cheap, generic medicines that could cure many of the diseases they face. In such circumstance, what is the point of producing new drugs for these diseases? Governments must remove the taxes, tariffs and regulations that prevent the sick from getting treatment."
London: 50 per cent of people in parts of Africa and Asia have no access to medicines due to harmful government policies, reports the Civil Society Report on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health. The document produced by 16 civil society organizations from around the world, is being released ahead of a report on a similar theme from the World Health Organization.
Examples of harmful government interventions identified in the report are:
Taxes and tariffs of up to 55 per cent on imported medicines price people out of treatment.
Byzantine and costly registration requirements mean many medicines already approved in the US, EU and Japan are simply not registered in most poor countries because manufacturers cannot justify the investment in registration.
Health insurance is hampered by government regulations, so the poor are unable to obtain insurance and are only able to pay for treatments if they have sufficient savings, or must rely on charity or meagre government healthcare provision.
Price controls - which proponents claim benefit the poor - actually reduce the availability of drugs, especially in distant rural regions, by making it uneconomic for pharmacies to stock them. Even in relatively wealthy South Africa, price controls have led to the closure of scores of rural pharmacies - leaving thousands of poor people without any access to medicines at all.
Inadequate protection for intellectual property in poor countries undermines incentives to invest in R&D for the diseases of poverty by making it more difficult to recover costs. The report found no evidence that intellectual property protection had hampered access to medicines.
Low pay and poor conditions at government run hospitals and clinics mean that a large number of trained medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) have emigrated to wealthier countries with better healthcare systems.
The Civil Society report was motivated in part by a concern that the WHO's Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health, would not address these fundamental issues because of concerns about the response of member governments.
Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute, India), one of the lead authors of the report, said:
"Our report shows that, when it comes to medicines for the diseases of poverty, governments are the main barriers to access and innovation. Intellectual property is an important driver of innovation but in poor countries governments currently prevent people from accessing cheap, generic medicines that could cure many of the diseases they face. In such circumstance, what is the point of producing new drugs for these diseases? Governments must remove the taxes, tariffs and regulations that prevent the sick from getting treatment."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
