Tag Archives: water privatisation

Europe: one million signatures for Water as a Human Right

Water is a human right logoThe first up and running European Citizens Initiative (ECI) ‘Water is a Human
Right’ made history as also being the first ECI in the history of the European Union to have collected over 1 million signatures.  The water initiative aims to get the European Commission  to propose legislation on the human right to water covering the following three issues:

  • guaranteed access to water and sanitation services for all EU citizens, including the 2 million currently without access and those threatened with disconnection because they can’t afford to pay their bills
  • no liberalisation of water and sanitation services
  • more European action to ensure that everyone in the world can enjoy the human right to water and sanitation

While the one million signatures are enough to get the proposals on the European political agenda, a further requirement is to reach a minimum number of signatures in at least seven EU countries. Up to 12 March, five countries have  met this requirement: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Slovakia and Slovenia.  The organisers have collected 1.35 million signatures so far, and aim to get 2 million signatures by September 2013

The organisations behind the water is a human right campaign include the following trade unions and NGOs:

  • Aqua Publica Europea
  • European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN)
  • European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
  • European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)
  • European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)
  • European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
  • Public Services International (PSI)
  • Social Platform and 
  • Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF).

The ECI is the first transnational instrument of participatory democracy in world history. It is considered to be one of the major innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Watch the campaign video.

Related websites:

Source: EPSU, 11 Feb 2013 ; EurActiv, 12 Feb 2013 ; right2water, 07 Mar 2013

World Water Forums: seeking sustainable water management solutions

In March 2012, two global but contrasting forums in search of sustainable solutions to the water crisis took place in Marseilles, France.

The realisation of the human right to water and sanitation was prominent in the declarations of the both the 6th World Water Forum (WWF) [1] and the Alternative World Water Forum (FAME 2012) [2].  In addition, the WWF6 declaration officially recognised disaster mitigation and emergency response as a priority. Where the WWF6 declaration fell short though, according to the Butterfly Effect, a group of 90 civil society organisations, was that it did not explicitly mention the commitment of states to implement the right to water and sanitation. [3]

Watch the video of the Public-Private debate at WWF6.

While the WWF was home to the water and development industry, FAME 2012 gave a voice to the uncompromising group of anti-privatisation water activists. Loïc Fauchon, head of WWF organiser, the World Water Council, dismissed the alternative forum as “insignificant at best and harmful at worst”. A commentator added that “the pro- and anti-privatisation debate grew stale a long time ago” [4]. As if the anti-privatisation activists anticipated claims that they present infinite criticisms but few alternatives, two new studies [5,6] promoting public management of services have been released.

Watch a video Prof. David McDonald of the Municipal Services Project (MSP) Canada talking about his new publication “Alternatives to Privatization“.

The WWF and FAME 2012 are taking their declarations to Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in June. The next World Water Forum will take place in Daegu Gwangyeoksi, South Korea, in 2015.

For more commentaries on the two forums see:

  • Babatope Babalobi, How Marseilles hosted two World Water Forums in one week, eWASH, 10 Apr 2012
  • Daniel Moss, The right water debates in the wrong place, Huffington Post, 02 April 2012

[1] 6th World Water Forum – Ministerial Declaration, 13 Mar 2012

[2] Alternative World Water Forum – Declaration, 13 Apr 2012

[3] Butterfly Effect reaction to the 6th World Water Forum ministerial declaration, Freshwater Action Network (FAN), 15 Mar 2012

[4] Claire Provost, No single course for providing water, Guardian Poverty Matters blog, 22 Mar 2012

[5] Pigeon, M. et al. (eds), 2012. Remunicipalisation : putting water back into public hands. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. Available at: <http://www.tni.org/tnibook/remunicipalisation> [Accessed 14 May 2012]

[6] McDonald, D.A. and Ruiters, G., 2012. Alternatives to privatization : public options for essential services in the global south. Cape Town: HSRC Press. Available at: <http://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/product.php?productid=2287> [Accessed 14 May 2012]

Related news: World Water Forum: water unites but forums divided, E-Source, 03 Apr 2009

Related web sites:

Bolivia’s Evo Morales calls for UN declaration against water privatisation

President of Bolivia, Evo Morales speaking to World Social Forum attendees.

Bolivian President Evo Morales called on African leaders to back a proposed United Nations declaration that would block the sale of public water services to private companies. Speaking at the 2011 World Social Forum in Dakar on February 6th, he said:

We are going to go the UN to declare that water is a basic public need that must not be managed by private interests, but should be for all people, including people of rural areas.

Commenting on Morales’ statement, IATP Senior Policy Analyst Shiney Varghese wrote:

Coming from the president of a nation, this is a very important statement in the international campaign towards the right to water. [...] Given that nearly three-quarters of the “water poor” belong to rural communities, it is high time that international deliberations around the right to water focus on rural communities access to safe water.

At the World Social Forum, water justice activists drafted a “Water Justice Movement Media Statement” in support for Morales’ proposal to “block the sale of public water service to private companies”:

We oppose the dominant economic model that prescribes privatization, commercialization and corporatization of public water and sanitation services. We will counter this type of destructive and non-participatory public sector reform, having seen the outcomes for poor people as a result of rigid cost-recovery practices and the use of pre-paid meters.

The water activists are “looking forward to the next World Water Forum in 2012″ in Marseilles to voice their demands. The media statement was signed by 25 organisations ranging from Food & Water Watch, USA to People’s Coalition for the Right to Water (KRUHA), Indonesia and Zanzibar Water Authority, Tanzania. So far nearly 6,500 people have signed an online petition “Speak Out Against Privatization of Water” petition in support of the Water Justice Movement statement.

Source: Drew Hinshaw, Bloomberg / Business Week, 07 Feb 2011 ; Emily L., Care2.com, 16 Feb 2011 ; Shiney Varghese, Twin Cities Daily Planet, 26 Feb 2011

Human rights: obligations related to private and other non-state service provision in water and sanitation

The human rights framework does not express a preference for public or private models for the provision of water and sanitation services, as long as the human rights to water and sanitation are guaranteed. This is one of the main conclusions of the latest report [1] by the UN Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque. She calls for a more nuanced, less ideological and emotional, debate that acknowledges that wide variety of actors and arrangements, which are rarely exclusively public or private, in service delivery.

Ms De Albuquerque has a three-year mandate (2008-2011) to provide recommendations on the right to water and sanitation to the UN Human Rights Council. Each year she focuses on one or more specific issues. For 2010 Ms De Albuquerque chose the contentious issue of private sector participation in the provision of water and sanitation services.

Continue reading

G8 meeting: a thirst for water justice

Activists Maude Barlow and Meera Karunananthan of the Council of Canadians criticize their country’s Prime Minister for positioning “himself as a champion of maternal and child health at this year’s G8 and G20 meetings” on the one hand, while on the other hand refusing to recognize water as a human right.

What Stephen Harper fails to acknowledge is that women need greater control over the factors that contribute to their health and well-being. Charity-based models like aid packages are not sufficient.

Poor women in the global South have borne the brunt of neoliberal economic policies that have placed profits for transnational corporations above the environment and human health. They need international support for strong public services and healthy environments.

Take water for example. Canada has prevented the recognition of water as a human right and promotes the privatization of water services while Canadian mining companies destroy watersheds throughout the world. This has disproportionately affected poor women.

After stressing that women and girls are more adversely affected when access to water is restricted, they add:

While several countries are working to have water recognized as a human right through a covenant at the UN, the Canadian government has opposed it. Such a covenant would provide a legal tool for communities that are denied access.

Yet Canada has voted against resolutions to officially enshrine water as a human right at several key UN meetings.

Canada is also a strong proponent of water privatization. It funds and plays an active role within the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility which promotes the privatization of drinking water and sanitation systems around the world.

Canada also directly invests in private water through pension funds.

Yet experiences around the world show that private water has denied women their basic needs. [..] A recent report published by the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health highlights the disproportionate impacts of water privatization on women.

Barlow and Karunananthan claim that Canadian mining companies “are notorious for their disregard of the environment and human health”.

In Mexico, for example, 87 per cent of the mining projects are run by Canadian mining companies that continue to destroy land and contaminate water supplies despite massive protests by farmers, indigenous communities and environmentalists.

Groups like Mining Watch and the Council of Canadians are hoping Bill C-300, a new bill that passed a narrow vote in the House of Commons in April 2009, will make Canadian extractive industries accountable for their actions abroad.

Source: Chronicle Herald, 28 Apr 2010

Climate change: no water in Copenhagen talks

In the last two years, the conclusion among decision-makers has been that the only way to solve the climate crisis is to turn carbon into a commodity and privatise the atmosphere.

Similar market-based solutions will be used to “solve” the growing water crisis, warned experts at the Klimaforum09, a parallel meeting a few kilometres away from the official 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held Dec. 7-18 in Copenhagen.

Adriana Marquisio and Maude Barlow at the Klimaforum09

Adriana Marquisio and Maude Barlow at the Klimaforum09. Photo:Stephen Leahy/IPS

“Corporations do not want regulations and have convinced governments that they can deliver continued economic growth and save the planet,” said Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, the largest citizens group in Canada and author of several books about water issues.

“It shows the power of the corporate lobby that nearly everyone, including many big NGOs, all see the market as the solution to climate change,” Barlow told Tierramérica.

Meanwhile, the climate justice movement is fighting against carbon trading and carbon offsets and advocating for real emissions cuts, while recognising that the commons – air and water – are a public trust, she said.

“I’ve spent five days in the Bella Centre (the site of the official COP15 negotiations) and the real issues around water and land are being ignored,” said Adriana Marquisio, vice president of FFOSE, the union of employees of Uruguay’s public water agency. “The little countries who are suffering real impacts (of climate change) are trying to bring attention to this,” Marquisio told Tierramérica.

Both Uruguay and Bolivia have pushed hard to broaden the vision on this issue, but the United States is dominating the talks with its agenda of corporate interests, she said.

In 2004, Uruguay approved a reform that gave constitutional priority to the right to water, and banned its privatisation. Other countries are considering similar measures.

To properly address vital issues dealing with water and climate, “we can’t be talking about profits,” she said.

“Why should we have to defend water or air as a commons?” wondered Italian expert Riccardo Petrella, founder of the International Committee for the World Water Contract and a member of the World Political Forum’s Scientific Committee.

“If water or air are turned into commodities, that is equivalent to commodifying life itself and leads to the privatisation of democracy,” Petrella said. “If we do this, it will make democracy a lie.”

The negotiations to reach an agreement for confronting climate change ignore water, biodiversity and land. It is all about energy and finance, which are the only interests of the rich countries, he says.

But water is an essential ingredient for energy production: 44 percent of freshwater in France is used by its energy sector. And the portion reaches 60 percent in some other countries, according to Petrella.

“The reality of resource depletion, including water, and the reality of two billion hungry people are peripheral in the official talks,” he said.

The central focus of climate justice is food, land and water, he explained.

Petrella and others are lobbying for a global agreement on water and a new United Nations agency to “prevent and settle international disputes on the property and use of water through common monitoring systems,” states a proposal [Memorandum for a World Water Protocol] from the World Political Forum.

Having seen the widespread distribution of mobile phones in Africa and elsewhere, some water companies believe they can do the same with bottled water so that their products become the only source of drinking water and negate the need for investing in public water infrastructure, said Barlow.

“Around the world, investors are buying up water rights and land. India and China are doing this already in Africa,” she said.

If water becomes just another commodity, in many parts of the world farmers will sell water rather than grow food because they can make more money that way, she said.

Water is also a crucial element in the manufacture of many goods: an automobile requires 400,000 litres of water to produce the steel, plastic, electronics and other components.

Oil production also uses enormous amounts of water. Petrella believes that the urgency of the water crisis is such that no country in the developing South should export products to the industrialised North that require water to produce.

It is equivalent to exporting water, he said, and “that is one of the biggest problems we have to deal with in future.”

A model for effective water protection is that of the small northeastern U.S. state of Vermont, says Barlow. Water there belongs to all the people of the state and the government oversees its distribution.

The state issues permits for water use, with first priority going to people, nature and agriculture. Industrial uses are second, and the government has the right to deny water access to companies that pollute.

Looking to the future and the potential for millions of climate refugees, Barlow believes that most of those forced to relocate will be due to lack of water.

With water excluded from the formal climate negotiations and the predominance of corporate interests, the best outcome in Copenhagen is a total failure, she said.

Petrella argues that peace, justice and democracy have never come from pricing common resources: “Commodification of carbon and privatisation of the atmosphere will cause enormous conflict and devastation.”

Source: Stephen Leahy, IPS, 17 Dec 2009

Commenting on COP-15 and the Copenhagen Accord, WaterAid commented on their web site that:

“The crucial subject of water didn’t even figure in the discussions and there were no real signs that Copenhagen’s delegates would make water adaptation strategies a priority.”

[...]

“It is clear from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change will have significant impacts on water resources and access to drinking water and sanitation, but where and how these impacts will be felt is less clear. The projections for rainfall, evaporation and run-off show a high degree of variability across countries and regions. All these impacts, whether they are long-term water stress or an increased frequency of storms and flooding, will be keenly felt by those who have limited or no access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, pushing more and more into water poverty.”

“In response to this, WaterAid has developed its responses to minimise the impact.”

“The Copenhagen Accord promises to deliver $30bn of aid for developing nations over the next three years and outlines an aim of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.”

“What remains to be seen is whether any of that aid will go towards supporting adaptation strategies to protect existing water and sanitation systems, as well as expanding access to climate-resilient water and sanitation services for all.”

Source: WaterAid, 23 Dec 2009

Clean Water Should Be Recognized as a Human Right, PLoS editorial

The editors of the open access journal PLoS Medicine have added their voice to  those who are demanding that access to water should be framed as a human right. Their editorial elaborates on three main reasons for demanding such a right:

  • ensuring access to clean water could substantially reduce the global burden of disease
  • the privatization of water—which exploits the view that water is a commodity rather than a public good—does not result in equitable access
  • the world is changing in ways that will both exacerbate water scarcity and threaten the quality of the current water supply.

The editors conclude that “a human rights framework offers what the water situation needs—international recognition from which concerted action and targeted funding could flow; guaranteed standards against which the protected legal right to water could be monitored; and accountability mechanisms that could empower communities to advocate and lobby their governments to ensure that water is safe, affordable, and accessible to everyone”.

Citation: The PLoS Medicine Editors (2009) Clean Water Should Be Recognized as a Human Right. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000102. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000102

At the forthcoming Stockholm World Water Week in August 2009, there will be two side events on the right to water:

“The prime obstacle to guaranteeing a human right to water in international law has been the U.S. federal government”, writes Peter Asmus in AlterNet. “It is this somewhat surprising political dynamic that makes AB 1242 by California Assemblymen Ira Ruskin, D-Los Altos, so significant. The legislation, which establishes the right of every Californian to have clean water for basic human needs, passed a key state Senate committee in early July [2009] and may just be heading toward Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk this fall.”

“The California legislation was introduced in response to conditions in the Central Valley that are much more common in the developing world. Here, where undocumented Latino farmworkers make up a large share of the population, safe, affordable and clean water is hardly a given. In these communities, more than 90 percent of drinking water is sucked from contaminated groundwater.”

“In Delano in Kern County, the water is undrinkable altogether, yet poor residents pay between $20 and $45 per month for it. All told, more than 150,000 California residents lack safe water for drinking, bathing and washing dishes; even more have water service disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their water bills.”

Read more: Peter Asmus, AlterNet, 30 Jul 2009

For background information on AB 1242, visit the web site of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee Action Network, California, one of the co-sponsors of the bill.

Water unites but forums divided

Three forums on water remained divided during the 5th World Water Forum. Civil society and other organisations boycotted the World Water Forum in two separate events, the Alternative Forum, which focuses on environmental protection and dam issues, and the Counter Forum, which was primarily concerned with stopping the privatization of water. Even within the World Water Forum, there was a significant physical separation between the civil society in the NGO village and the other pavilions. As a result, protests marked yet another set of forums, which separated decision makers from civil society and may have impacted the Ministerial Declaration which had a marked absence of the Right to Water.

Read more: Nick Dickinson, IRC News, 02 Apr 2009

 

Johan Kuylenstierna (left), Chief Technical Advisor, UN-Water, facilitating the high-level roundtable on “Adapting to global changes in transboundary basins,” to commemorate World Water Day 2009. Photo: IISD

Johan Kuylenstierna (left), Chief Technical Advisor, UN-Water, facilitating the high-level roundtable on “Adapting to global changes in transboundary basins,” to commemorate World Water Day 2009. Photo: IISD

See below a Democracy Now video report on the different World Water fora

Is Water Becoming ‘The New Oil’?

“Population, pollution, and climate put the squeeze on potable supplies – and private companies smell a profit. Others ask: Should water be a human right?”

In his article in the May 29, 2008, edition of The Christian Science Monitor, Mark Clayton provides an overview of issues surrounding the looming water crisis and predictions that water, or “blue gold”, will become “the new oil”. Clayton presents only one supporter of water privatisation, Peter Cook, executive director of the US National Association of Water Companies and even he said that water should be “subsidized for those who can’t afford it”. More room is given to three representatives of the “water justice” movement, including Canada’s Maude Barlow.

More interesting is the section on the potential for conflicts over water in Asia especially “China’s keen interest in Tibet’s Himalayan water supplies.[...]. “Himalayan water is particularly sensitive be”cause it supplies the rivers that bring water to more than half a dozen Asian countries. Plans to divert water could cause intense debate”.

Read the full article

Global debate: “Resolved: Water should be considered national property”

In March 2008, the topic of the People Speak Global Debates considers whether water is a national property (including both government control of water and privatization) or whether water is part of the global commons with no ownership at the nation-state or corporate level.

The People Speak.org (TPS) is an initiative of the United Nations Foundation to engage young people on the global issues that will shape their future. Global Debates are organised for U.S. and international high schools (grades 9-12). Students research and prepare arguments for a public debate held in their school and all students who attend the debate vote for the side they felt was most compelling. The final results from all participating schools are published on the TPS site.

The Global debate “Resolved: Water should be considered national property” runs from 1-24 March 2008.

Debatepedia has set up a wiki for the 2008 Global Debate topic.