Editor’s note: David Zetland, a Western water
economist, offers an insider’s
perspective into water politics and economics. We will be
cross-posting occasional posts and content from his blog, Aguanomics, here
on the Range.

Scam may be a harsh word, since well-meaning people seem to want to improve water management, but I wonder if they aren’t (un)intentionally accommodating greenwashing.

From my perspective, most water footprinting is a waste of time.* Why?

  • Most measurement requires lots of engineering assumptions.
    Water used in one place has a totally different impact on sustainability
    than water used elsewhere, but prices probably fail to reflect scarcity
    (sustainability) in both places.
  • Say you measure water content/impact. Then what? Do you now have FOUR bottom lines? How do you reconcile them?

It’s much easier to manage to one yard-stick, such as price or
profit. Why aren’t corporations pushing for better water pricing? Why
are they using a “green” metric that’s subjective, non-operationable,
and impossible to reconcile against other corporate goals (e.g.,
profits)?

There seems to be an entire industry out there, devoted to talking up
footprints and selling services that corporations can present as green,
when they seem to be more about greenwashing. Maybe footprinting is
cheaper than paying more for water? Maybe corporations can say they are
“green” even as they drain aquifers?

That’s not good for them or us in the long run, but it may make sense in
places where corporations, farmers and utilities are racing for water
supplies. It may be easier than pushing fundamental reform on
politicians who also prefer status quo mismanagement.

How much does it cost to say you’re green?

The Water Footprint Network is offering an international water footprint training course in
Amsterdam on 16-18 November 2010. About 19 hours of training costs 2300€
($3,220) for governments, civil society, international organisations
and universities or 3550€ ($4,970) for commercial organisations
(business and consultants).**

What do you get? Besides case studies, you also sign this pledge of perpetual royalties to WFN [doc],

 The WFN training agreement for commercial organisations says that:

After completion of the Water Footprint Training Course I will receive a certificate.

I declare that I may use my water footprint knowledge for commercial purposes and I agree to the following conditions:

  1. I am committed to participate in refresher courses provided by
    the Water Footprint Network to keep up to date with the most recent
    developments.

  2. I always use state-of-the-art water footprint knowledge in my projects.
  3. I agree to share the knowledge and data that my organisation has
    generated by applying the Water Footprint methodology with the Water
    Footprint Network and its partners as much and widely as possible as
    allowed or negotiable under confidentiality agreements that might be in
    place.

  4. My organisation is allowed to use the Water Footprint Training
    Certificate and the related “trained by WFN” logo in the communications
    with (potential) customers to show that I have been properly trained in
    water footprint assessment.

  5. My organisation gives an annual donation (R&D grant) to the WFN
    Research & Development Fund equal to 10% of the total value of all
    contracts that contain Water footprint work and that are signed by my
    organisation, with a maximum of 1500 Euro per calendar year.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the certificate.

Bottom Line: Water footprinting has no operational, economic or
social value to companies if the cost of labor and equipment to reduce
water consumption exceeds the cost of the water saved. Instead let’s
have accurate water prices that reflect scarcity, distribution and
treatment. Then let businesses figure out how much water it takes to
maximize profits. That’s a footprint we all understand.

* Veolia is trying to improve the water foot printing metric [pdf]. They claim their “New Tool will… ensure sustainability,” but I
disagree. Ensure implies 100% reliable, and politics can derail
reliable in two seconds flat.

 ** WFN has a free WF e-learning course [pdf] for 15-30 November, but you have to sign up by 10 Nov.

 Originally posted

at Aguanomics.

Republish

Spread the word. News organizations can pick-up quality news, essays and feature stories for free.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.