Environmental governance at the global level has become an arena of intense human corporate activity, particularly in the water and energy sector.

The reasons are various but include: Increasing corporate interest in the privatisation of the freshwaters; increasing public concern about the environment and increasing public-private controversy over whether or not water is an economic or social and cultural good.

Around this intense corporate activity is the dynamic dichotomy between the civic public (non-governmental organisations) and the marriage of convenience between the World Bank, companies active in the water and energy sector and governments.

The theatre is the environment in all its diverse dimensions. The environment must act as the shock absorber, but is increasingly failing to do so as water becomes more and more targeted.

Nevertheless, there is now talk of hydrosolidarity as an imperative in water governance. Hydrosolidarity is perhaps responsible for the current doctrine of private-public partnership engineered by corporates under the leadership of the World Bank Water Council (WWC), the Global Water Partnership and the World Water Forum (WWF). However, questions concerning the ethics and morality of the corporates and their strategies and policies in the water and energy sector continue to generate intense scepticism.

The issues of public ownership versus private control are now critical. Hence the question: Public or private: what will the future of world water governance be?

Hydrosolidarity is the opposite of hydroegoism. While hydrosolidarity is an ethical base for wise water governance and use, hydroegoism is an all-too-prevalent, fragmented and sectoral approach to water management where the strongest lobbyists tend to win. The lobbyists are united and located in governments, research institutions, water-based companies, the World Bank and its institutions, etc.

The Swedish International Water Institute (SIWI) has been at the centre of developing the ethical base for global water governance. According to SIWI, the concept of hydrosolidarity could be developed into a commonly accepted ethic and provide guidelines problem-solving and to protect the global commons. The institute maintains that rather than offering a universally agreed set of principles, hydrosolidarity should be based upon commonly accepted thinking.

Two issues, however, remain unresolved as the idea of hydrosolidarity is perfected: The measuring of hydrosolidarity at the global, regional, constitutional, national and catchment levels; and how the obstacles to hydrosolidarity can be overcome in a globalising world increasingly dominated by the corporate and social behaviour of the World Bank, its partners and institutions.

All indications are that in the true spirit of "Think Global Act Local" strategies will continue to be generated to enhance corporate dominance over the global fresh water, particularly in the poor regions of the world. The WWF idea is such a strategy.

What seems to be reigning today is a public-sector-private sector tug of war in which the latter is determined to completely remove the former. The public sector, which is where civil society resides, doubts whether privatisation will solve our water problems. On the other hand, major water supply management questions the ability of governments and multilaterals to lend the necessary helping hand.

Big business says it is going to contribute the know-how to overcome pressing environmental problems. It presents itself as "Partners in Dialogue and Action on Water". It was against this background that the3rd WWF was organised by the World Water Council (WWF) - all a product of the doctrine of "Think Global act Local" that reigns at the World Bank and held in Japan, March 2003. It attracted 35,000 participants. It was significant in at least one sense: it took place in the year (2003) that the United Nations designated "The Year of Fresh Water".

Fresh Water is today regarded as one of the serial challenges of resource management: the First Water Forum held in Morocco 1997; the Second Water Forum was held in the Netherlands 2002. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa 2002 also allocated disproportionately large attention on fresh water. However, a predominant view emerging is that whereas the corporate promise is "financing water for all", in reality, the real corporate goal is "financing water for profit!

In pursuit of the profit motive, there are frantic efforts by the International Hydropower Association - an association linking governments, hydropower lobbies, dam lobbies, hydropower developers and huge dam financers - to discredit the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD).

Dams and Environment: a new framework for decision-making. In effect, WCD's report seeks better development outcomes involving big dams. It urges caution in the use of our dwindling resources. But this does not sound good advice to governments, particularly in Africa, which believe that its aim is to prevent them exploiting their rich water resources.

Uganda has planned to seek hydropower energy sufficiency mainly via construction of big dams on the Nile. Bujagali dam is being fast-tracked with the support of the World Bank, ostensibly to achieve this. Not even the continuing decline of the waters of Lake Victoria and River Nile is sending adequate signals that the plan needs rethinking.

Civil society believes that the proponents of the big dam way of development are overwhelmingly influenced by the profit motive which is often satisfied by big dam building. Such motive can only be expected to make it impossible to evolve new frameworks for decision-making.

Continuing as if nothing is wrong spells doom, not boom in development. The losers will be the people for whom development is said to be pursued. This then explains why we may never convert our numerous vicious cycles into virtuous circles for prosperity.

The writer is a lecturer in the Department of Zoology, Makerere University.