|
‘Water
is not like oil. There is no substitute. If we continue
to take it for granted, much of the earth is going to
run short of water or food—or both.” This insight comes
from a recent study made by the International Food
Policy Research Institute and the International Water
Management Institute entitled “Global Water Outlook to
2025: Averting an Impending Crisis.”
The
report created three scenarios based on sophisticated
computer modeling. The “business as usual” scenario sees
substantial increases in global water consumption,
resulting in lower levels of food production because
competition from growing cities and industries worldwide
would limit the amount of water available for
irrigation. The environment would also sustain
significant damage as water is diverted to agriculture,
households and industry.
The
“water crisis” scenario reveals even more dramatic
increases in water consumption. Poor planning and lower
levels of investment would significantly increase
malnutrition and food insecurity, causing declines in
food production and skyrocketing food prices.
The
“sustainable water” scenario, on the other hand, shows
global water consumption at 20 percent lower than
“business as usual” levels, allowing for overall
increases in food production and lower levels of food
insecurity and malnutrition worldwide. This entails
increased investment in improving water productivity,
rural infrastructure and technological changes, as well
as pricing water to reflect its cost and value.
The
report concludes with these words: “A crisis is not
inevitable. The world can achieve sustainable water use,
but we must act now. The required strategies take not
only money and political will, but time as well.”
This
observation is particularly relevant today, when the
urgent need is to promote efficient, equitable and
sustainable use of water resources.
Secretary Lito Atienza of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) is, therefore, on the right
track when he recently invited foreign investors to
invest in the country’s water sector. Among the viable
areas for investment, he said, are desalination and
wastewater treatment, water-supply projects, especially
outside Metro Manila, and water-related projects such as
sewerage and waste management.
It is
good to know the DENR has already embarked on programs
to make every drop of water count. Among these are
water-supply projects for Metro Manila—where only 82.2
percent of the population is connected through piped
water, with the remainder still getting water supply
from private water deliveries or groundwater extraction
through pumps—and for 432 priority municipalities; use
of innovative water technologies like recycling,
desalination and rainwater harvesting; promotion of
water conservation; and strict enforcement of
water-pollution laws.
Atienza
points out that water scarcity is not our main problem,
because we have an abundant water supply from rainfall,
of which only 28 percent is used. The challenge, he
says, is “bringing this excess water to where it is
needed, when it is needed.”
Squeezing blood from stone
On June
11 the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) issued a
provisional order to the National Power Corp. (Napocor)
to reduce rates in Luzon by 71.16 centavos/kWh and in
Mindanao by 2.46 centavos/kWh. Visayas, however, will
have an increase in rates by 8.78 centavos/kWh. The
adjustments were supposed to be effective starting the
May 26 to June 25, 2008, billing period. The ERC order,
according to ERC Chairman Rodolfo Albano, was intended
“to further help moderate the plight of end-consumers
who are already burdened with high prices of basic
commodities.”
For
consumers like you and me, this is welcome news, as this
would give us some relief from high power rates. But
what’s this we hear that the P10-billion refund due
consumers should have been made two years ago? Is it
true that Napocor intentionally delayed for 21 months
the filing of the P0.71/kWh refund to customers in
Luzon? With the peso steadily gaining against the dollar
in the last three years, power rates should have been
correspondingly reduced. But even with the peso
appreciation, consumers have not benefited, since we
have to bear electricity rates based on the high
peso-dollar exchange rates.
What the
ERC order means is that Napocor overcharged consumers to
the tune of P10 billion between July 2006 and March
2008. But the refund would only be for six months. And
that’s not the end of it. At the end of six months,
electricity rates would increase again because Napocor
has a pending application for an increase in the
generation charge that could reach P4.75/kWh.
This is
a classic instance of what the left hand gives, the
right hand takes away; something that the state-run
power generation enterprise seems to have perfected to
state-of-the-art over the years. Napocor is clearly part
of the problem of high power rates in this country, and
not part of the solution, as it claims. Can we expect
lower electricity- generation charges by Napocor in the
near future? Not by a long shot, given its lackluster
track record in protecting the public interest.
E-mail: ernhil@yahoo.com. |