Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor ... - Nanowerk

nanotechnology,
water, & development
SWAMP should result in the development of a flexible sustainable
water resource strategy, which may be implemented through water
supply and demand policies and programs that make effective use of
decentralized market forces and incentives.The figure shows a
variety of policy instruments available for implementing SWAMP as
well as the most important impediments that limit effective policy
formulation and implementation.
Figure 5 shows how a simple sari-based water purification method
may be assessed quite simply within the SWAMP framework using
MCA. Outward movements along the axes trace improvements in
the three sustainable development indicators: economic efficiency
(net monetary benefits), social equity (improved benefits for the
poor), and environmental protection (reduced water pollution).
Figure 5: Analyzing the Sustainability of Improved Water Quality
Using SWAMP and MCA.
The policy options may be analyzed as follows. First, triangle ABC
describes the existing situation.Waterborne diseases increase both
morbidity and mortality rates, thereby causing great economic harm
(e.g., loss of earnings, medical expenditures, etc.). Social equity is also
low because the poor and disadvantaged are most affected, and
overall environmental pollution is bad. Next, triangle DEF indicates a
“win-win” future option with the simplified sari filtration technique, in
which all three indices improve. Economic losses due to sickness are
reduced overall. Social gains accrue to the rural poor, especially
women and children.The environmental benefits arise from reduced
pollution of water sources.
After realizing such “win-win” gains, the introduction of other options
may require trade-offs.Triangle GHI suggests that further
environmental and social gains are attainable only at the expense of
sharply increasing costs.Thus, more advanced water supply and
purification methods (e.g., wells and surface water sources with
purification plants and pipe borne supply, or
nanotechnology-based techniques) may yield
further environmental and social benefits
but with increased economic costs. In sharp
contrast to the “win-win” move from ABC
to DEF, which is unambiguously desirable, a
policymaker may not wish to make a further
shift from DEF to GHI without knowing the
relative weights that society places on the
three indices. Such preferences are often
difficult to determine explicitly but it is
possible to narrow the options. Suppose a
small economic cost, FL, yields the full social
gain, DG (e.g., by targeting poor
households), while a large economic cost, LI,
is required to realize the environmental
benefit, EH (e.g., widespread water supply
and sanitation). Here, the social gain may
better justify the economic sacrifice. Further,
if purely budgetary constraints limit cost
increases to less than FK, then sufficient
funds exist only to pay for the social
benefits, and the environmental
improvements will have to be deferred.
Source: adapted from Munasinghe 135
135
Munasinghe, Water, op. cit.; and Munasinghe, Sustainomics, op. cit.
42