According to the charity WaterAid “not a single additional person”
has benefited from the promises the European Union made nearly five years ago
regarding water and sanitation projects for the world’s poorest people.
More than 1 billion people lack safe drinking water, more than 2.4 billion
people lack adequate sanitation, and 2.2 million people, most of them children,
die every year from preventable diseases associated with contaminated water
and inadequate sanitation.
WaterAid has condemned European officials for designing the European Union
Water Initiative (EUWI) with “absolutely no meaningful input” from
those responsible for water supply and sanitation in developing countries and
EU member states for “making half-hearted or virtually no effort to make
the initiative work.”
It reports that a diminishing share of European aid is being spent on water
supply and sanitation projects, falling from an average of 5.5 percent in 2000
to 4.2 percent in 2003. It criticises the EUWI for promoting large-scale projects
dependent on private investment, saying, “Despite the proven disinterest
of international investors in financing water and sanitation projects in developing
countries, the EUWI persists in trying to attract private money, leaving no
opportunity to debate the need for increased EU aid to the water sector.”
The EUWI was proclaimed at the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in Johannesburg by then-European Commission President Romano Prodi, who
said, “The global water crisis is a major threat for our planet and the
future of our children. Together with our partners we are fully committed to
achieving the WSSD’s now-agreed targets to halve the proportion of people
without access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation by 2015. The EU
is already investing €1.4 billion ($1.8 billion) a year in water-related
development aid and scientific cooperation. We are ready to increase financial
resources over the coming years, in response to the priorities developing countries
The WSSD was convened to counter the widely held view that the Earth Summit
held in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro in 1992 had failed. UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan attributed the lack of progress to “too few resources,
a lack of political will, a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach and continued
wasteful patterns of production and consumption.”
The basic conclusion that the WSSD and countless other conferences reached
was that the only way to solve the world’s complex social and environmental
problems is to rely on businesses and the profit motive.
For more than a decade, the IMF and World Bank have made loans for water supply
and sanitation projects conditional on agreeing to privatisation. In 1990, just
51 million people worldwide received their water from private utilities. This
has grown to nearly 500 million today and is expected to reach more than 1 billion
Europe-based water transnational corporations have been the main beneficiaries
of this privatisation process. The world’s two largest water utilities,
Suez and Vivendi (based in France), control nearly three quarters of the global
market. Other European companies involved are France’s Saur, as well as
RWE Thames Water, International Water and Severn Trent, all based in the UK.
The European Commission has aggressively defended their interests and pressed
for water to be included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services—the
international trade agreement that came into effect in 1995 under the auspices
of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that aims to remove all barriers to the
penetration of private capital.
The water companies are now shifting their attention to Europe, the United
States and Japan where most water supply and sanitation is still under state
control. It is estimated that 75 percent of European and 65 percent of US water
utilities could be privatised by 2015.
Another reason the TNCs are shifting their attention to advanced capitalist
countries is because privatisation projects elsewhere have not worked. Many
schemes have sharply increased water prices, exacerbating the problem of scarcity
for the majority of the population. In 2002, Suez pulled out of both Manila
and Buenos Aires, two cities often highlighted by the World Bank as beacons
of successful privatisations. In early 2005, poor residents of the Bolivian
city of El Alto rose up against the company’s failure to provide water
and sanitation services.
Sir Paul Lever, the Global Development Director of RWE Thames Water, which
is also shedding its overseas operations, said, “The enthusiasm associated
in the past with a possible involvement of the private sector is misplaced....
We will not find the classic private investment as we know it in the developing
countries. Instead, we should do better to concentrate on public-private concepts.”
Loïc Fauchon, president of the World Water Council and executive director
of the Marseille Water Supply Company, a Suez subsidiary, echoed Lever’s
call at the Fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City in March 2006. “Public
and private water operators are both needed and the choice should be left to
local authorities,” Fauchon told the assembled presidents and prime ministers,
corporate leaders, academics and NGO representatives.
The TNCs are busy looking for a fig leaf to cover their abandonment of the
poorest people of the world. In their promotion of public-private partnerships,
the water utilities mean local governments having to subsidise investments,
take the risks and guarantee corporate profits. And they are looking to the
NGOs to help them.
Both Fauchon and Gerard Payen, a former Suez vice president and president of
the lobby International Federation of Private Water Operators (AquaFed), supported
the “Right to Water”—a principle hitherto opposed by the US,
UK, France and other Western powers.
The evoking of the “Right to Water” was an overture to the NGOs,
many of whom have already aligned themselves with big business. WaterAid’s
criticisms of European Union bureaucracy and incompetence should be seen in
The organisation helped set up a Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP)
scheme in September 2004 with Thames Water and Unilever (it needs water to be
able sell its soap products). The scheme is “not looking at projects requiring
investments from the private operators” and hopes that “by teaming
up for the longer term, the private sector and the NGOs can unleash unique synergies
particularly as they grow to know and trust each other over time.”
The WSUP organisers are “deliberately choosing to keep a low profile”
because “in the current anti-globalisation climate, prematurely publicising
this ‘respectable’ initiative could backfire horribly if it fails
to deliver.” There is no information on WSUP’s web site about its
current activity in its two projects in Bangalore and Kenya.
WaterAid’s boardroom is full of past and present water industry executives,
and Vice President Baroness Lynda Chalker is a director of Unilever.
It is not just a question of a few greedy water companies, but of a socioeconomic
system based on relentless competition between different corporations and different
national governments that represent these corporations. The experience of the
last two decades has shown that economic restructuring programmes dictated by
the banks and Western governments have led to falling living standards for the
mass of people around the world. Their application to water supply and sanitation
has accelerated the process of impoverishment.
An attempt to seriously address the problems of lack of clean water
and sanitation requires massive social investment on a global scale, which is
incompatible with a system based on the private accumulation of wealth.
Read from Looking Glass News
Forces Seek to Control the Essence of Life -- Water
Overload: Peak Oil, Peak Grain and Peak Water
and Water - An Unsustainable Relationship
for oil threatens a fifth of the world's fresh water
money flows to the water privateers
Water Activists Launch Anti-Privatization Campaign