Manuel Alegre anunciou, naquele seu estilo declamador inconfundível, durante a campanha para as presidenciais, que dissolveria a Assembleia da República se uma lei de privatização das águas fosse aprovada pelos deputados. Lembrei-me desta citação tronitroante de Alegre quando vi Byron citado no artigo, que transcrevo, do economist desta semana acerca da ameaça da falta de água que pode vir a ser ainda mais dramática para a humanidade que o inevitável progressivo esgotamento das reservas de petróleo.
.
A escassez de recursos aquíferos em muitas áreas do globo é tão antiga como a própria humanidade mas nunca a sobrevivência da humanidade esteve tão posta em causa por falta desse elemento essencial à vida como aquela que se perspectiva se a humanidade não arrepiar do caminho que conduz à redução que a condenará à míngua.
.
Mas estará melhor defendida a utilização racional da utilização da água mantendo o Estado guardião e gestor dos recursos de água, como supõe Alegre, ou essa defesa é melhor conseguida fazendo intervir o mercado, como sugere o articulista do economist?
.
Entre o tradicional laxismo na utilização dos recursos que caracteriza em geral a actuação do Estado e a voracidade que o mercado em roda livre incentiva, a solução mais conveniente encontrar-se-á, certamente, algures onde os recursos sejam protegidos pelo Estado e as condições da sua exploração optimizados pela concorrência. As perdas de água que hoje se observam na distribuição domiciliária em Portugal decorrem, em grande parte, do facto do próprio Estado descurar a protecção de um recurso que, para muitos, ainda não parece escasso mas é. Tal desatino, reflecte-se na factura apresentada ao consumidor, que não tem fornecedor alternativo, pode induzir menores consumos domésticos mas não remedeia os consumos das rupturas das condutas.
.
A irracional utilização da água, sobretudo para fins industriais e agrícolas, decorrente da sua subsidiação, constitui uma ameaça que a intervenção de uma lógica de concorrência pode evitar.
.
WATER - A soluble problem
More trading could help to alleviate water shortages
economist
SO WORLD markets are short of oil, and supplies of food are running thin. The prices of all sorts of basic commodities are soaring, and now there may also be reason for many to worry about the most fundamental of necessities—water. Some experts believe so, at least, and they are spreading doom-laden warnings of a Malthusian crisis in the world’s water supply.
Goldman Sachs, an investment bank which likes to ponder the future of the world, recently suggested that a global lack of water could prove to be a bigger threat to mankind than rising food prices or the depletion of energy resources. Sir Nicholas Stern, who reviewed the economics of climate change in a big report for the British government in 2006, is worried too. He points to some big local problems, for example in the Himalayas, where melting glaciers risk disrupting supplies of usable water in the region, just as many underground aquifers are drying up. He argues that water—at least the fresh sort—is not a renewable resource, and because it is not priced properly it has been “mined” without restraint.
Global water consumption is doubling every 20 years says Goldman Sachs. According to Sir Nicholas, in many places supplies are running short as rising consumption cannot be matched by fresh rainfall. As a result, suggests Goldman Sachs, the price of water is bound to rise: bad news for the poor and thirsty, but an opportunity for investors. The excited bank even suggests that water might be considered to be the “petroleum for the next century”.
It expects profits to be made less from selling the stuff directly, and more from investments in infrastructure and new technology. The bank estimates that America alone needs to spend around $1 trillion on new pipes and waste-water plants by 2020. It estimates that the higher-tech side of the industry—for example in desalination efforts, or ultraviolet disinfection—is now worth $425 billion dollars, globally.
There could be plenty of money to be made in supplying water. However, more efficient use of the stuff depends on pricing it properly. Mark Zeitoun, a researcher at the London School of Economics, suggests that agriculture is responsible for the greatest waste of water, largely because of government subsidies. Farmers often plant water-intensive crops which slurp up supplies precisely where they are most limited. Growing potatoes, a thirsty crop, in Israel looks to be particularly wasteful, especially given desperate shortages of water in nearby Palestinian territories. Similarly Egyptian oranges, Australian cotton and Californian rice require huge amounts of water to produce crops that could in theory be cultivated more easily and cheaply in wetter climates. But when such crops produce valuable exports and create local jobs, governments have been keen to provide subsidised water.
Local conditions and needs vary so much that talk of a global water shortage is misleading. In total there is more than enough water for all, but it is often in the wrong place and is difficult and expensive to transport. And discrepancies are likely only to get worse as the effects of climate change becomes more pronounced. That Canada and Brazil have more water than they need is of little consolation to parched Yemen and northern China. Even within individual countries distribution is unequal. Cherrapunji is one of the wettest places on earth; elsewhere in India, Gopalpura receives only a few inches of rain a year. Surprisingly though, it is Cherrapunji which suffers the water shortages. Sensible water management would go a long way to redressing the balance.
Better functioning water markets would be one way to share out water more efficiently. Once governments have defined water rights clearly, farmers, and others who use water, could be encouraged to trade, first with each other and with industrial and urban users. Allotting options that can be taken up as and when required rather than handing out permanent water rights would encourage water trading and avoid accusations of water “theft”. It may be difficult to rein in the world’s extravagance with water, but Byron had it right when he wrote: “Til taught by pain, men really know not what good water is worth.”
More trading could help to alleviate water shortages
economist
SO WORLD markets are short of oil, and supplies of food are running thin. The prices of all sorts of basic commodities are soaring, and now there may also be reason for many to worry about the most fundamental of necessities—water. Some experts believe so, at least, and they are spreading doom-laden warnings of a Malthusian crisis in the world’s water supply.
Goldman Sachs, an investment bank which likes to ponder the future of the world, recently suggested that a global lack of water could prove to be a bigger threat to mankind than rising food prices or the depletion of energy resources. Sir Nicholas Stern, who reviewed the economics of climate change in a big report for the British government in 2006, is worried too. He points to some big local problems, for example in the Himalayas, where melting glaciers risk disrupting supplies of usable water in the region, just as many underground aquifers are drying up. He argues that water—at least the fresh sort—is not a renewable resource, and because it is not priced properly it has been “mined” without restraint.
Global water consumption is doubling every 20 years says Goldman Sachs. According to Sir Nicholas, in many places supplies are running short as rising consumption cannot be matched by fresh rainfall. As a result, suggests Goldman Sachs, the price of water is bound to rise: bad news for the poor and thirsty, but an opportunity for investors. The excited bank even suggests that water might be considered to be the “petroleum for the next century”.
It expects profits to be made less from selling the stuff directly, and more from investments in infrastructure and new technology. The bank estimates that America alone needs to spend around $1 trillion on new pipes and waste-water plants by 2020. It estimates that the higher-tech side of the industry—for example in desalination efforts, or ultraviolet disinfection—is now worth $425 billion dollars, globally.
There could be plenty of money to be made in supplying water. However, more efficient use of the stuff depends on pricing it properly. Mark Zeitoun, a researcher at the London School of Economics, suggests that agriculture is responsible for the greatest waste of water, largely because of government subsidies. Farmers often plant water-intensive crops which slurp up supplies precisely where they are most limited. Growing potatoes, a thirsty crop, in Israel looks to be particularly wasteful, especially given desperate shortages of water in nearby Palestinian territories. Similarly Egyptian oranges, Australian cotton and Californian rice require huge amounts of water to produce crops that could in theory be cultivated more easily and cheaply in wetter climates. But when such crops produce valuable exports and create local jobs, governments have been keen to provide subsidised water.
Local conditions and needs vary so much that talk of a global water shortage is misleading. In total there is more than enough water for all, but it is often in the wrong place and is difficult and expensive to transport. And discrepancies are likely only to get worse as the effects of climate change becomes more pronounced. That Canada and Brazil have more water than they need is of little consolation to parched Yemen and northern China. Even within individual countries distribution is unequal. Cherrapunji is one of the wettest places on earth; elsewhere in India, Gopalpura receives only a few inches of rain a year. Surprisingly though, it is Cherrapunji which suffers the water shortages. Sensible water management would go a long way to redressing the balance.
Better functioning water markets would be one way to share out water more efficiently. Once governments have defined water rights clearly, farmers, and others who use water, could be encouraged to trade, first with each other and with industrial and urban users. Allotting options that can be taken up as and when required rather than handing out permanent water rights would encourage water trading and avoid accusations of water “theft”. It may be difficult to rein in the world’s extravagance with water, but Byron had it right when he wrote: “Til taught by pain, men really know not what good water is worth.”
1 comment:
Engano. No caso da água a economia de mercado não funciona. O bem é indispensável, não há alternativas nem substitutos. As concessões são monopolistas: só há uma empresa a oferecer o serviço numa determinada área. Caso tivéssemos duas companhias da água numa mesma área teríamos que separar a gestão da rede da captação e distribuição da água.
No caso em que o serviço foi privatizado não se melhorou a eficiência do sistema, pelo menos em Portugal tal não está documentado.
Na Figueira da Foz desde que o sistema foi privatizado (1997) a água aumentou 142%.
Deixo ainda o seguinte texto
Water privatization in England was undertaken in 1989 by the government of Margaret Thatcher which privatized the ten previously public regional water and sewerage companies in England and Wales through divestiture (sale of assets). At the same time the economic regulatory agency OFWAT was created, following the model of infrastructure regulatory agencies set up in other sectors such as telecommunications and energy. The Drinking water Inspectorate (DWI) monitors water quality and the Environment Agency monitors river and environmental pollution.
Water privatization in England and Wales remains controversial. A 2001 study by the [Public Services International] Research Unit, which is affiliated with trade unions and opposes privatization, stated that
* tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years,
* operating profits have more than doubled (+142%) in eight years,
* investments were reduced and
* public health was jeopardized through cut-offs for non-payment.[1]
At privatization the industry's 4.95 billion Pound debt was written off.[2]
On the other hand, a World Bank paper argues that the reforms
* increased investment (in the six years after privatization the companies invested 17 billion Pound Sterling, compared to 9.3 billion Pound in the six years before privatization),
* brought about compliance with stringent drinking water standards and
* led to a higher quality of river water.
The World Bank paper agrees that tariffs and profits increased. [3]
There are also 16 mostly smaller water only companies in England that have been privately owned since the 19th century. In Scotland and Northern Ireland water and sewerage services remained public during the Thatcher years and until today.
Post a Comment