The politicisation of water is the biggest obstacle to the production of a national plan as no administration will take the obvious risks of tough decisions, according to a think-tank report.

The Today Public Policy Institute report, launched this morning, was authored by World Bank expert Lee Roberts, Malta’s leading hydrologist and water treatment engineer Marco Cremona, and retired Royal Dutch Shell geologist Gordon Knox.

It is entitled “Why Malta’s National Water Plan Requires an Analytical Policy Framework”. It argues that a national water plan cannot deliver the required results without such an analysis.

Divided in 10 parts, the report ranges from the political context to a discussion of the essential characteristics of policy analysis, and from the core issues a water policy framework must answer to the need for agriculture sector analysis, and others.

It describes the most urgent priorities to be tackled within the first phase of developing a policy framework to carry forward the project.

The report warns that there needs to be a consensus between the two main parties on the goals, processes and outcomes for the creation of a water policy framework and subsequent plan.

A mechanism needed to be established to ensure the full involvement of all political parties in reviewing the results of the analytical phase, creation of the policy framework, and the subsequent development of the plan.

The report stresses the importance of sustainability, which lay at the very heart of a water policy and notes it is crucial that this is properly defined, calculated and regularly measured using a valid and reliable methodology, reviewed over time, and the results made public along with their policy implications.

It points out that Malta faces serious problems in maintaining its natural ground-water resource, which is being incrementally over-extracted and polluted by nitrates, and will gradually, vanish as a usable asset.

But instead of taking the action needed to establish and maintain a sound status for Malta’s aquifers, emphasis was made on sea-water purification through reverse osmosis.

“There has been a lack of objective, competent policy analysis and long-term plans, and initiatives that have been undertaken have not been designed as part of a comprehensive planning process.

“Such initiatives are seldom accompanied by rigorous project analysis, clear stated measurable goals, and cost-benefit calculations. Instead, the management of water has been mainly subordinated to the political advantages and risks of the two party electoral processes.”

The report notes that while consultation is a natural part of Maltese life, that which occurs takes place in the context of wide-spread ignorance of the facts, possibilities, and limits.

“This invariably results in promises that are neither achieved nor achievable. Malta has had limited experience in carrying out the type of in-depth economic and social analysis that could result in a Water Policy Framework.

“The government has neither the capacity nor resources to carry out such work, and Malta lacks the presence of the sector policy institutes that in other European countries provides an independent and objective service upon which national planning can be based.”

A proper policy framework grounded in analysis and practical research would provide a sound foundation for the allocation of public resources as well as a degree of objectivity that would move the water debate outside political rivalries and reliance on opinions and vested interests.

But “so far, efforts by the Malta Water Association to encourage Government embark on such a process, have been largely fruitless”.

The report speaks on existing tariffs and noted that they contain “a number of uncalculated and hidden subsidies”, the justification of which based on an economic value of water has not been publicly demonstrated.

Tariffs needed to reflect all economic costs, including the environmental costs of using fossil fuel electricity to produce reverse osmosis water and distribute the groundwater mix, as well the environmental cost of groundwater pumped from overexploited aquifers by the public utility and private boreholes.

“Throughout the developed world and in many developing countries, tariffs are set to send signals, to ensure that water, a scarce strategic asset, is used for the most beneficial purposes. Such tariffs reflect a basic right to water, protect low income users, advantage low consumers, and penalise profligacy.

“At present, no differentiation is made based on how water is used. This may not matter in a country where water is abundant, but water stressed countries are compelled to pay attention to the uses to which scarce water is put…

“By and large, water tariffs need to be set at a level to discourage wastage and uneconomic use. The proper stewardship of water argues for higher tariffs for profligate use, whereas electoral advantage argues for lower, undifferentiated tariffs.”

The report states that while there is no inherent reason why any responsible government should not allow subsidies to exist. The argument has always been against the careless, hidden, and cavalier use of subsidies, or subsidies as a lazy alternative to effective economic management.

“Subsidies should (i) be properly calculated; (ii) completely transparent and in the public domain; (iii) not be used to prevent reasonable cost

recovery; (iv) be rational and avoid creating economic or market distortions; and (v) be publicly justified in terms of their importance, and defended in terms of their opportunity costs”

Malta’s water tariffs, the report states, do not meet most of these requirements and the basis and justification for subsidies has never been laid out.

The report can be read in the pdf link below.