Neo-liberal Water

Blog 9-Counter-arguments and Neo-liberal Water

Although the usefulness of ES is more than apparent in the WfW PES scheme I discussed in my last blog, it is not always the case. As has already been mentioned in other blogs there are a range of cases where producing values is flawed, if not impossible.

Attempting valuations in abstract usages such as ‘cultural’ and ‘aesthetics’ are problematic, whilst the ideological issues for some remain, but I won’t revisit them. Of more relevance to water in Africa is that of complexities in valuations, limits in data and in flawed methodology.

For example, the work on wetlands I have discussed prior to this admits the flaws in its methodology, relying on simplistic outputs of resources extracted, taken to markets and the like. The true economic value, based on maximal sustainable yield (MSY) is unknown, but despite being estimates, the outcomes they provide are useful.

Likewise there are complex ways individual eco-system services can be commoditised, with water no exception. Although not directly comparable, a particularly novel way of looking at and assessing this is illustrated in the ‘Neo-liberal Elephant’, with elephants worth different things to different people, but are still commoditised even when tourist attractions and not harvested for ivory. Some similarities can be seen in water in Africa, due to the range of uses available. Water is not only used for direct human consumption, but for a whole host of activities, ranging from hygiene, agriculture, industry and fisheries. Thus it has competing values, and is worth different amounts to different people. This raises some issues for ES.

Firstly, values can not only be competing, but in some cases outright negative, which ES doesn’t account for. An example within the African water context is that of the impact of standing water from reservoirs acting as breeding grounds for mosquitoes and aiding in the spread of malaria. Should that, and how could it be, incorporated into valuations, as although these reservoirs provide drinking water or hydro-electric power, they also spread disease to nearby populations?

Secondly, even within urban environments utilisation could be seen to have varying values, such as in the impact of waiting times and levels of utilisation brought about not by the water itself, but the infrastructure. Having piped water inside homes, rather than having access through an exterior tap, has drastic consequences on levels of usage, and so could be seen as having varying levels of utilisation.

However despite these issues, it is important to recognise that ES can be useful in specific situations. Constanza deals with this to some extent by claiming that multiple classification systems are needed. This stance recognises that the huge range of applications that ES covers through its definition of ‘the benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ cannot be addressed through one valuation system. Thus a range of methods need to be used, even within the context of water, and as Turpie et al mention, the development of these methods must be based on well researched understandings of the ecology and geography surrounding each specific ecosystem service.