The state of our rivers profoundly impacts the way we live.
In 2006, the UN Development Programme estimated an overwhelming 1.3 billion people live in river basin worldwide, consuming water below acceptable quality levels.
More than 450 cubic kilometers of wastewater find their way into streams and rivers each year, causing injury to human security, health and livelihoods. The situation is even more precarious for water bodies situated in urban centers with much bigger populations, more intense competition for basic services and greater environmental pollution.
Extreme environmental -challenges are likely to persist until our rivers regain their capacity to function as healthy water bodies should.
Asian rivers are challenged by climate change, population expansion and changes in land use. Even those with better water quality standards are not without their own share of battered histories. The Singapore River, Seoul’s Han River and Shanghai’s Suzhou Creek once served as receptacles of enormous residential, commercial and industrial wastes that poisoned water quality and aquatic life. Decades of clean-up interventions cost their governments more money than it takes to prevent pollution in the first place.
Many others are still struggling. Despite huge financial investments, the Philippines’ Pasig River has yet to overcome the problem of illegal settlements. No wonder the WHO estimated a payback of between US$3 and US$36 for every dollar invested in sanitation, given its far-reaching social and economic costs. About 65 percent of solid waste comes from thousands of illegal settlers along its banks. Water pollution is further worsened by domestic wastewater and runoff from worn-out septic tanks used by 90 percent of Metro Manila’s residents. The ongoing rehabilitation relies heavily on loans, bilateral assistance from various international donors and local government-based grants to fund protection areas, buffer zones, resettlement and sanitation facilities. Industrial and commercial enterprises also share substantial costs to abate pollution of wastewater.
Indonesia invested in a water quality study of the heavily polluted 320km Citarum River in 2007. The study monitored sources of water pollution in more than 20 locations in the West Tarum canal which provides 80 percent of Jakarta’s freshwater. The work is part of the government’s commitment to improve water quality and implement integrated water resources management in the Citarum river basin.
Other initiatives demonstrate similar promise such as the revival of the Min River, Fuzhou City’s main water source for 1.8 million residents in China. Fuzhou is expanding the treatment of municipal water through build-operate-transfer schemes from the private sector. Private sector participation is working satisfactorily because the local government is primed to undertake sector reforms, provide the financial outflows and guarantee the fulfillment of social obligations. Neighborhood associations are also being mobilized to foster environmental awareness using a community-driven development approach.
Government inaction is usually driven by the magnitude of infrastructure costs and the difficulty of attracting private sector investments, but this need not be the case. While it is true that supply and demand mismatches commonly deter appropriate investment, the investment required to achieve healthy rivers is dependent on more than financial costs.
The quality and quantity of financial flows are also influenced by the availability of decision support, government accountability and creditworthiness, donor harmonization and the ability to foster strategic and multi--disciplinary partnerships.
In recent years, integrated water resource management approaches have emphasized the delicate balance of economic, social and environmental benefits to ensure the success of clean-up interventions. There are definitely alternatives that can be used to overcome the hurdles ahead, because ultimately the costs get bigger the longer it takes us to act.
Amy Leung is chair of the Water Committee at the Asian Development Bank.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath