MUNICH HAS PROVEN THAT IT IS CHEAPER TO CONVERT TO ORGANIC FARMING THAN TO FILTER WATER CONTAMINATED BY CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

MUNICH HAS PROVEN THAT IT IS CHEAPER TO CONVERT TO ORGANIC FARMING THAN TO FILTER WATER CONTAMINATED BY CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

What kind of government is able to discover an opportunity at the crossroads of water management and agricultural policy?

Apparently, the government of Munich did.

When Munich's municipal water utility, Stadtwerke München (SWM), became concerned about agricultural pollution in its drinking-water catchment, it did not simply wait for the problem to become a water-treatment problem. In 1992, it launched the Ökobauern program to encourage farmers in the Mangfall Valley to shift from conventional to organic farming. 

The idea was surprisingly simple: pay farmers to protect the water.

SWM compensated farmers for income losses and investments associated with converting to organic agriculture. The first 23 farms signed agreements in 1993. Today, more than 185 farmers are participating in the Mangfall Valley, farming about 4,600 to 4,650 hectares organically. 

One important clarification is that Munich did not simply choose between “paying farmers” and building a filtration plant after its water was already poisoned. Rather, its municipal utility, Stadtwerke München (SWM), created the Ökobauern program in 1992 as a preventive drinking-water protection strategy. The economic comparison, however, is very striking.

And here is the part that should make our own government agencies sit up.

A peer-reviewed study estimated that the program added only about €0.005 per cubic meter to the water price, compared with an estimated €0.23 per cubic meter for the water-treatment costs that could be avoided. In other words, preventing pollution at its source was far cheaper than treating it after the fact. 

Nitrate levels in the Mangfall Valley drinking water subsequently fell from about 16 mg/L in the early 1990s to an average of 7 mg/L. 

Now, how did they figure this out?

My first theory is that perhaps there was no corruption involved, so nobody was thinking about which project would be easiest for somebody to make money from.

My second theory is that somebody was actually thinking about the welfare of the people first, rather than personal self-interest.

Could that happen here?

This is where I see a major problem in our own government. Our bureaucracy appears to be balkanized. We have agencies dealing separately with agriculture, water, environment and health, as if they were independent islands.

Take water management. We have the NWRB, MWSS, DPWH and NIA, among others, while DENR has major responsibilities for water resources and environmental protection.

Shouldn't DENR be talking directly to the Department of Agriculture about agricultural practices that can affect our water supply?

And shouldn't the Department of Health be asking how contaminated water and agricultural chemicals affect our healthcare costs?

Perhaps the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) should be looking at the bigger economic picture.

I am not an economist, but even my few economics units tell me that this is essentially a macroeconomic question.

Why pay more to clean polluted water when we can pay less to prevent the pollution?

Why treat the symptom when we can eliminate the cause?

Munich's experience tells us that organic farming can be more than an agricultural policy. It can also be a water policy, a health policy, an environmental policy and an economic policy.

Perhaps this is the kind of joined-up thinking that our government urgently needs.

Clean water starts with the farm. And good governance starts with seeing the connections.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres  iseneres@yahoo.com  senseneres.blogspot.com  09088877282/08-30-2027