Related Stories Budget must sidestep the soft optionsNano lessons for changeIn 2008, build on economic good newsRevival of Nalanda & Asian renaissance

 I was in Davos like many others last week. Over its 38 years the World Economic Forum has grown from a minuscule group to a giant mammoth. It is not easy to manage and engage scores of prime ministers, presidents, ministers, corporate chiefs, policy makers and others in a meaningful way. Veteran Davos hands know that its real value is outside the over 100 panel discussions — in corridors, in receptions, and in the informality which fosters new associations and renews old bonds. Only those adept at the art of networking and reaching out to new people and disciplines can benefit.

While registering for the conference, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times enquired about the Indian delegation and promptly added that the marketing of India was over and the world had generally accepted its new position as a significant economic power. However, India’s problems and challenges were far from over. In an interdependent world, we need to make our presence felt and periodically reiterate that we continue to perform well on growth, poverty reduction, the human development index as well as positively contribute to the more contemporary concerns on climate change and security of energy, food and water. The sentiment expressed by Larry Summers in a private dinner hosted by me that Chidambaram represents our most acceptable reform face is widely shared.

The session on ‘World Economic Brain-storming’, which had many economic heavyweights, clearly recognised that the current economic turmoil was an outcome of regulatory failures, systemic under-pricing of risks, too much off-balance-sheet exposure and inadequate coordination between supervisory entities. Gordon Brown reiterated the need to reform global institutions — IMF, World Bank, the United Nations — to address contemporary challenges of managing new power equations, terrorism, peace-keeping, global pandemics, energy security, food distress and climate change. Failure to do so quickly will make them increasingly irrelevant.

Re-christening the World Bank as an institution for development and environment might be stating the obvious. However, multilateral financial institutions have yet to come to terms with the changing equilibrium of economic power, a significant shift in favour of Asian emerging markets, particularly China and India, when it comes to voting rights, selecting heads of institutions and more transparent decision-making processes.

Recognising that skills and domain knowledge was more relevant than mere country of origin for leadership of global institutions is a continuing concern. Besides, what does increasing ownership of the world’s most coveted private banks by governments and institutions in Asia mean for these organisations, their management structure and decision-making processes? In the past they have habitually sermonised on prudential norms, risk management capital adequacy and oversight expertise.

Two other engaging concerns were water and food security. I participated as a panelist in the session on ‘Who is managing your water?’ It was generally agreed that the world’s supply of fresh water is under pressure. Rising water consumption, demand from a growing world population, increased industrial needs and effects of climate change are contributing to the crisis. More than 1.5 billion people lack access to clean water. The poor suffer most from water poverty and 2 million deaths take place a year from diarrhoeal diseases alone. Broadly speaking, agriculture uses 70 per cent of the world’s water supply. Therefore, the need for research and adaptation of cropping patterns that are more water economical is central to the second Green Revolution. This is particularly so because the International Food Policy Research Institute predicts that humans would draw 50 per cent more water by 2025 for non-agricultural uses.

Management of water involved three significant components:

• First, far greater co-ordination among institutions. Too many people, ranging from local to provincial, national and international authorities are trying to manage water. Each one lacks adequate accountability. There is urgent need for coordinated action.

• Second, there are regulatory uncertainties. Absence of contemporary water laws for multiple uses, enforcement agencies, and dispute resolution mechanism lead to mismanagement.

• Third, there are political ambiguities. It is necessary to reconcile the egalitarianism with sustainability. How to price water in a fair manner has multiple responses. For example, how much should we charge the farmers or what kind of differential water tariffs should be applied to the poor in urban conglomerates compared to, say, the conspicuous consumption of swimming pools in five-star hotels?

The second big issue that received attention was food security. The year gone by saw a dramatic increase in the price of corn and wheat. This was both on account of rising demand and switching land use for bio-fuels with government incentives for renewable energy. Corn and wheat prices have doubled if not tripled. This has serious consequences for many developing countries. Keeping food prices affordable as well as managing climate change is a challenge.

Davos always highlights emerging concerns and offers some globally accepted responses. It needs a combination of political will and overall awareness to respond to these themes. However issues of energy, water, and food security will need sustained action. They will remain our abiding concerns.