The just published global Water Poverty Index may indeed turn out to be a book of yellow pages, throwing up ideas on trade and investment in the water sector instead, writes Dr Sudhirendar Sharma

DEVELOPED by a team of 31 researchers from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Britain and the World Water Council, the Water Poverty Index (WPI) is a veritable who's who on who possesses how much water and who wastes how much.

Of the 147 countries indexed, Finland tops the list with best per capita access, efficient usage and environmental valuation of water. For a highest per capita consumption and an overall inefficient water use, the United States has justifiably been ranked 32. And by virtue of its very poor per capita access and weak environmental components, India has been placed at the bottom half of the table.

Like previous indices of the kind, notably the yearly Human Development Index released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the WPI might embarrass countries for being classified into water have-nots category. If past experience with the HDI is any indication, have-nots often seek additional resources and technologies to move up the ladder. Often, it means securing soft development loans and foreign direct investments.

The significant change the WPI brings to the existing global donor-recipient dynamics is that of 'additional emphasis' on water-related investments. Consequently, developing countries with lowest scores on the WPI provide justifiable ground for investment of resources and technologies by the water-rich nations and technology-rich multinational water companies.

Tossing up opportunities for the developing world, William Cosgrove, vice-president of the World Water Council, made it clear: "The economies of the countries at the lower end of the Water Poverty Index, and many others, are unable to generate the user fees or tax revenues needed for infrastructure development." Such countries will certainly require assistance from the developed world, he remarked.

By providing a holistic perspective on water, the WPI unfolds investment opportunities in the health and sanitation sector as well. According to Dr Caroline Sullivan, the key author of WPI, "... targeting people who suffer the greatest on account of water poverty will help the global community meet its commitment of cutting the proportion of people without access to water and sanitation by half by 2015."

Even though the information given in the WPI is average at the national level only, major policy decisions are being pegged around it. This kind of macro assessment does not address local variability, which is crucial for effective management, and yet the upcoming World Water Forum in Kyoto in March 2003 is expecting strong political commitment based on the findings of the WPI.

Unless the long-term implications of water poverty indices get carefully examined, any attempt at developing policy decisions around these will be fraught with uncertainties. Given the fact that export of food essentially means export of scarce water resources, the WPI may influence trade in food across the globe thereby impacting food-security of poor countries.

Ideally, water-haves should start producing food for water have-not countries rather than buying from them to preserve a water balance. Cosgrove said that in buying food from other places, countries such as the US and Canada "are really purchasing a water resource". However, any shift in the present food trade system will put additional pressure on the poor countries, further aggravating poverty.

The implications of the WPI are far-stretched and overwhelming. The fact that water is now being linked to food trade opens up window of opportunities for the developed world to arm-twist developing countries under the already skewed world trade regime. By establishing a clear link between water scarcity and poverty, the WPI may trigger a move to reduce "colossal movement of water around the planet".

While the WPI may have far-reaching impact, Dr Sullivan is clear that it is not a definitive statement. The links between poverty, social deprivation, environmental integrity, water availability and health becomes clear in the WPI, enabling policy makers and stakeholders to identify problems and to deal with their causes. However, if it is interpreted otherwise should the WPI be held accountable?

Clearly, not! But by unfolding new linkage of water-poverty with income-poverty and by creating a new breed of water have-nots, the WPI creates a water-divide around which a New World order may finally emerge. At the present times when corporate interests are guiding political decisions, any new tool may indeed prove to be counter-productive to the interests of the poor and the marginalised.

However, if the poor and the marginalised are considered a resource, the conditions could be reversed. "The reality is that marginalised people are usually highly motivated to help themselves," says Cosgrove. "They are very often held back by constraints imposed on them by society. In every case, these people should be looked upon as an important resource to be involved in planning and implementing solutions."

Given the present conditions, warn experts, the number of people without access to safe water may increase to 2.3 billion by 2025. While it an imposing challenge for the world community to rally around to reverse the trend, tools like the WPI provide yellow pages of opportunities for the others to make the best out of a water-stressed conditions. Clearly, battle lines have been drawn up!

Dr Sudhirendar Sharma is a water expert and a development analyst attached to the Delhi-based the Ecological Foundation. He can be reached at sudhirendar@vsnl.net