Water Wars

Submitted by John Paul on March 24, 2006 - 15:17.
Published in: |
1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and more than 2 million children die from dirty water and unhygienic sanitation each year. This was the bleak picture painted this week in Mexico City during the 4th World Water Forum. But is privatization the answer?

The Globalisation Institute thinks so. This week they released a report advocating greater use of private-sector management and investment in developing country water systems. Water for Life blames the current problems on the fact that 95% of the world's potable water is supplied by governments rather than by properly regulated private sector providers.

"Government provision in water has overseen millions of deaths through poor quality and lack of sanitation. Bringing in private sector expertise and investment is needed, both to meet the UN's Millennium Development Goals and to actively contribute towards social justice the world over. In the vast majority of cases, where the private sector has been called upon, it has delivered the goods – even in cases decried by critics as failures."

On the other side of the debate are the protesters who chanted "Water is not for sale" during demonstrations this week. It’s hard to argue with that sentiment, nor would it be hard to argue with the idea that clean air, food, healthcare, education, and all the other necessities in life should not be for sale either. But private or public, water utilities need to make money, and according to experts attending the Forum, “people are willing to pay if the price and quality of the water is reasonable”.

But violent protests have driven away much of the corporate investment needed to upgrade municipal water systems in developing nations. The ironic outcome is that the world's poor are increasingly paying more to buy bottled water from Coke, Pepsi and other companies than they would on upgraded municipal networks.

According to an AP report, “Sales of bottled water in China rose by more than 250 percent between 1999 and 2004. They tripled in India and almost doubled in Indonesia, according to a study released by the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental group.”

Is there a middle ground? Several studies unveiled at the conference did show that “financing delivery of water to those who need it requires a complex dance between governments, private companies and the tariff structures.” In other words, a balance between provision and profit.

Here at NextBillion, we’ve been tracking a number of specific examples that also try to strike this balance. These include low-cost pumps for the BOP, individual or household water filtration, a village-wide solar-powered irrigation systems with delivery via "water credit cards." , and nutritional supplements to mix with water.

We’ve also recently added a 'Water' category to our news and blog posts, making it easier for you to find additional information about the topic. Look for more new categories in the coming weeks!
. . . . .
Submitted by Rob Katz on March 24, 2006 - 15:59.
When you distill it (pun intended) down to its core, the water issue is about access and quality. If governments can't provide sufficient access and/or satisfactory quality, then there's some kind of systemic failure going on. There are businesses currently addressing this failure in a variety of ways.

One that stands out is WaterHealth International, "a health-focused developer and manufacturer of innovative water purification and disinfection technology." What makes WaterHealth especially interesting is the use of a franchised distribution system - something that has worked in other sectors like Health (see HealthStore). According to Emeka, the company "has developed a franchise model that makes distribution and marketing easy for local entrepreneurs."

If franchising works for water and health, two historically difficult areas for the private sector, isn't it time we explored it further? Via TimbuktuChronicles
Submitted by Jeremy on March 30, 2006 - 15:57.
The problem with "privatizing" any formerly public function is the politics involved, not the idea that these commodities and services cost money to develop and deliver. Governments - especially in the third world - simply cannot be trusted to cut in the common people in any deal they make with powerful multinationals. There are certainly legitimate functions in recognizing and trading private property. But when privatization becomes a wholesale appropriation of a formerly public "commons" then it's easy to see why the people are going to have a problem with it right off the bat. The water privatization in Bolivia, for example, resulted in a tripling of costs to villagers in many cases. Investment in infrastructure creates a monopoly situation - there's no way around this as of yet - and corporations cannot expect to just waltz in and get all the benefits of state-granted privilege without themselves adhering to some basic limitations (such as capping profits and eventually ceding the improvements back to the people). I agree that it costs money to deliver services, and certainly profits are justified when investments in these services pay off. But people must be dealt in on the hand - the gov't cannot legitimately act as a proxy for the people's ownership of such a vast and basic resource. And corporations who exploit broken third world political systems should expect resistance from the electorate. When one is destitute, a cup of possibly contaminated water is still more valuable than all the running water one can buy.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Basic HTML tags are accepted.
  • To ensure that you are human, your comment must first be previewed, then posted to the site. Please click "Preview" to see how your comment will look when posted.