Invest $1 in tackling water shortage, get $5 return

10 most populous river basins will contribute 25 per cent of world GDP by 2050

Few resources are more fundamental to health and development than water. Agriculture, energy and industry rely on it, and access to safe, clean water can have an instant and dramatic impact on individuals and communities, helping them to move out of poverty and secure their livelihoods.

Yet, nearly 800 million people are without access to safe water, 2.5 billion people are living without access to basic sanitation and a quarter of the world’s population live in ecosystems that are under threat from water scarcity.

Change requires rapid, collaborative action worldwide and a significant investment – both public and private – but making the case for such investment is a complex matter. Addressing these issues has clear humanitarian and development benefits, and a new report from Frontier Economics, commissioned by HSBC, presents clear evidence and strong rationale of the significant potential of water to help economies grow at a local and global level.

According to new findings from the report, Exploring the links between water and economic growth, securing universal access to clean, safe water and sanitation would call for significant investment, whether from governments or businesses, of some US$725bn – but these investments would yield real returns.

Achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on water supply and sanitation worldwide would amount to an equivalent of more than $56bn per annum in potential economic gains between now and 2015; and providing universal access to safe water and sanitation would imply potential economic gain of $220bn per annum. Providing universal access in Brazil, India, and China alone would amount to an equivalent of more than $113bn.

Frontier Economics also found that globally the average return on each dollar invested in universal access was just under $5, even after taking maintenance costs into account. In Latin America the figure is $16 while in some African countries, the capital investment would be paid back in only three years. Several countries in Africa and Latin America would stand to gain an average of more than 15 per cent of their annual GDP from achieving universal access.

Alongside water and sanitation, there is also a strong economic argument for an investment in water resource management which includes; efficiently sharing or allocating the available water supply; ensuring water consuming industries are using it as efficiently as possible; protecting water quality and sustaining eco-systems and; managing water infrastructure.

The report reveals the world’s 10 most populous river basins are forecast to contribute 25 per cent of global GDP by 2050 – a sharp rise from a current 10 per cent and a figure greater than the combined future economies of US, Germany and Japan. However, as they stand, seven in 10 of those river basins face significant or severe water scarcity by 2050, meaning the forecasted economic growth in these basins may not materialise without investment in sustainable water management.

These findings make it clear that the future of river basins is critical for global economic growth and the economic rationale for improving access to freshwater and sanitation is strong and clear.

The HSBC Water Programme, a new $100m, five-year partnership with WWF, WaterAid and Earthwatch will tackle water risks in river basins; bring safe water and improved sanitation to over a million people; and raise awareness about the global water challenge - taking one step towards achieving change, delivering benefits to communities in need, and enabling economies to prosper.

Over the next five years, we will continue to share the lessons we learn and the data we gather, in order to encourage others to join us in recognising the value of water, benefiting communities today, and unlocking growth for years to come.

Please follow our progress at where you can also access the full research findings.

Note: The world’s 10 most populous river basins are: Ganges, Yangtze (Chang Jiang), Indus, Nile, Huang He (Yellow river), Huai He, Niger, Hai, Krishna and the Danube.

A bather in the Ganges river. Photograph: Getty Images

Nick Robins is head of HSBC's Climate Change Centre of Excellence

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.