Now the real debate on water use begins
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mart 25, 2009 00:00
Like a crash course with too many books and too many reports, the 5th World Water Forum that has just concluded in Istanbul may, in its massiveness, be a bit much to summarize and digest into a meaningful strategy in the short term. Some 25,000 specialists from 155 countries, world leaders, angry protesters... all of this results in a spectacle distracting from the forum’s content.
Statistics, however impressive, can also be overpowering to the point of abstraction. Some 8 million annual deaths worldwide attributable to poor water quality, some 1 billion people without access to healthy water. Yes, these numbers are dramatic. But how to mobilize internationally in the face of such numbing facts, and how to mobilize in Turkey where many of these problems remain manifest? No easy answers emerged from the week’s discussion.
At the Daily News, we would agree that water is a basic human right. But simply declaring it so does not do much for the slum dweller in Cairo or Nairobi suffering from the denial of this right. If such a declaration simply enfranchises another set of well-meaning NGOs to demand entitlement on behalf of this suffering, then little of value will result. We are wary of this line of argument.
Listening to the debate, we also find ourselves unconvinced by those arguing the supremacy of the market: That if we simply allow water markets to work, the invisible hand will apportion water where it is needed. Some of the examples we heard, Chile’s for example, are compelling. But we see no panacea here either.
If Turkey excels in a number of areas, one of them is surely the ability of Turkish society to synthesize, to take lessons drawn from diverse sources and harmonize them into novel solutions. The venerable "dolmuş" system of public transport might be one example; the ability to blend tradition and modernity in new art forms might be another. Examples abound.
We suspect Turkey will be successful in synthesizing a similar blend of innovative solutions in regards to water use. Yes, market mechanisms and rights of usage certainly need to be introduced into Turkish agriculture. Waste and environmental damage could be greatly curtailed by an appropriate body of agricultural law and practice where none exists today.
But entirely privatizing the supply of potable water in urban areas could lead to practices that make difficult lives even harder for the poor. A baseline of publicly provisioned water supply should not be sacrificed for the theoretical magic of the market. In this sense, the concept of water being a basic "human right" is one we would support. The water summit is now over. Now is the time for us to consider what we have learned. Public debate on the future of water use in Turkey should build on what has been shared in Istanbul over the past week but Turkey should find its own unique solutions.
At the Daily News, we would agree that water is a basic human right. But simply declaring it so does not do much for the slum dweller in Cairo or Nairobi suffering from the denial of this right. If such a declaration simply enfranchises another set of well-meaning NGOs to demand entitlement on behalf of this suffering, then little of value will result. We are wary of this line of argument.
Listening to the debate, we also find ourselves unconvinced by those arguing the supremacy of the market: That if we simply allow water markets to work, the invisible hand will apportion water where it is needed. Some of the examples we heard, Chile’s for example, are compelling. But we see no panacea here either.
If Turkey excels in a number of areas, one of them is surely the ability of Turkish society to synthesize, to take lessons drawn from diverse sources and harmonize them into novel solutions. The venerable "dolmuş" system of public transport might be one example; the ability to blend tradition and modernity in new art forms might be another. Examples abound.
We suspect Turkey will be successful in synthesizing a similar blend of innovative solutions in regards to water use. Yes, market mechanisms and rights of usage certainly need to be introduced into Turkish agriculture. Waste and environmental damage could be greatly curtailed by an appropriate body of agricultural law and practice where none exists today.
But entirely privatizing the supply of potable water in urban areas could lead to practices that make difficult lives even harder for the poor. A baseline of publicly provisioned water supply should not be sacrificed for the theoretical magic of the market. In this sense, the concept of water being a basic "human right" is one we would support. The water summit is now over. Now is the time for us to consider what we have learned. Public debate on the future of water use in Turkey should build on what has been shared in Istanbul over the past week but Turkey should find its own unique solutions.