Voices from the 3rd World Water Forum

Water is water. Water is not just for making Coca-Cola.

Voices from the 3rd World Water Forum

Water is water.

Water is not just for making Coca-Cola.

Lee Yujin (leeyj@greenkorea.org)

International Cooperation Coordinator, Green Korea United

Is the ‘water’ and ‘diamond’ example still valid in this century when explaining the law of scarcity in economics? Water is not abundant anymore. The World Water Council (WWC) revealed a shocking outlook last March: 2.7 billion people will suffer from a shortage of water and 5 million people will die from a water-related disease every year. Rivers and aquifer are polluted and are over-extracted for industrial water usage and livestock grazing. These abuses brought about climate changes and abnormal weather, as indicated by more frequent and devastating floods, typhoons and droughts all over the world. Along with all of these crises, William Cosgrove, Vice-President of the WWC said that “the third World Water Forum will effect human beings more than the war in Iraq.”

The World Water Forum, which was first held in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 1997, has been held every three years. As the biggest and most significant world event about ‘water,’ the forum has wielded great influences on governments’ water policies. All the water forum participants agree on the need to confront the ‘crisis of water.’ But how we see ‘water’ is separated between ‘needs’ and ‘rights.’ The difference between the two points of view is quite extensive. For example, if we see ‘water’ as a need, we could sell and buy it. On the other hand, although practically all human needs are fulfilled through the market, nobody can sell and buy basic human rights.

In the 2nd World Water Forum, water was declared as a good. Since more than 1 billion people cannot access clean water, the water industry has a bright future. The water crisis also means new business opportunities for companies. The French multi-national water companies Suez and Vivendi are already listed as two of the top 100 companies in the world. Suez, Vivendi and RWE are supplying 160 nations and 300 million people with water. While these big water companies do $200 billion worth of business a year, people’s anger keeps rising as a result of the increased water prices and poor water supply system. Water prices in Bolivia have been raised 3 times since Bactel has undertaken the water supply; in France water prices jumped 150 percent after privatization and in England 106 percent. Some Indian families have to spend 25 percent of income just to buy water. When the water supply suddenly stopped in Alexandria in Johannesburg, South Africa, the poor people who could not pay their water bills had to drink polluted water and contract water diseases-some even lost their lives. In view of this, it is not far-fetched imagination to visualize the exporting of water from Alaska to China via big ships or selling icecaps from the Everest Mountain in plastic bottles.

Who owns the water? Who is going to supply and price water? Multinational water companies wished they can go on with the idea of ‘water for sale’ by securing support from the WWC and governments alike and by making sure that a ‘Public-Private Partnership’ clause is included in the forum statement. Their lobby to the WWC and governments was successful. The WWC bluntly supported water privatization. Similarly, governments released statements favoring the strengthening of ‘public-private partnership’ to promote investment. These statements did recognize the rights of the poor to drink clean water and did view water as a public good.

Nonetheless, these companies could not achieve all of their goals. They had to listen to what people had to say about the negative impact of water privatization. Furthermore, they could not block the voices from the poor people who are enduring the exorbitant water price and exhausted water resources. On March 18, the professor from the WWC side gave an impressive presentation, complete with the picture of smiling people happy with clean water in their poor neighborhood, emphasizing the efficiency of ‘public-private partnership.’ But a representative from the Philippines said, “If you think the person on the picture still gets clean water, think again. After the Maynilad (co-owned by Suez and a wealthy Filipino family) monopolized the water supply, the water prices increased 500 percent and they gave up water supply to the Parola area because it did not generate enough profit.” He added, “we should remember that when they signed a contract with the Manila government, they guaranteed 100 percent water supply within 10 years and no price raising for 10 years. This means they lied.” His remark touched off a wave of angry voices from South Africa, Bolivia, United States, Indonesia, India, and New Zealand, all of which were directed at water privatization. Needless to say, the WWC was embarrassed.

In July 2001, inspired by the anti-water privatization movement in Bolivia, the first civilian forum which is against water as a good was held in Vancouver, Canada. Representatives from more than 40 countries, including those from labor, environmentalist and consumer groups as well as some 1,000 anti-globalization activists declared that ‘water is a common resource’ to protect. They also launched ‘Blue Planet Project.’ The writers of ‘Blue Gold,’ Tony Clarke (Chair, The Polaris Institute) and Maude Barlow (Chair, the Council of Canadians), are leading this movement, with Friends of the Earth and International Rivers Network supporting it.

The problem with water privatization is that it is related with not only big water companies but also international finance institutes such as the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF. In 1998, for example, the World Bank announced that it will loan $25 million to Cochabamba, Bolivia, only if the city were to privatize its water services. Under the pressure, Cochabamba transferred water services to Bechtel. In January 2000, water prices increased 35 percent, which prompted tens of thousands of people to come out to the street and rally, and the city was paralyzed for four days. The president of the World Bank insisted that “if we do not transfer public service to private company, we cannot avoid wasting resources, all people have to accept the water bill with full cost recovery, including the poor.” The leader of the rally, Oscar Olivera, contradicted him by saying, “The family that has $100 a month income has to pay $20 just for water. This amount is more than they spend on food.”

Finally, this forum’s official statement, ‘Kyoto Water Statement,’ says that there is “no consensus on the public private partnership.” The Blue Planet Project stated though its own statement that “the way we understand water is quiet different from water companies, so it is almost impossible to reach an agreement with them.” Maude Barlow said, “Through this conference we could show to the world how strong the civic movement against water privatization is. As a result of this civic resistance, the Canadian government withdraw its plan to organize the 4th World Water Forum.” He added, “I think it is really worth flying from Canada to Japan.”

On March 20 in Kyoto at the water forum, there was an anti-water privatization rally held by NGOs. Against the water companies’ insistence on the need for open water service to prevent inefficiency and corruption, NGOs retorted by saying that “these companies think of water only as a means of making profit and they are not interested in the protection of water nor in the idea of water for all.” Tony Clarke said, “I can tell more than 10 reasons of how multinational water companies lie to the people around the world. Their aim is not about supplying water for all, but rather how much profit they can make for their owners and stockholders. They want profits while the price of water keeps increasing automatically. The Third World countries are misled to believe that water companies are investing their own money in their countries. However, the investment capital does not come from them; it comes from the loan of the World Bank, the Development Bank, and the IMF, all of which always demand a high interest rate. The companies, for their part, receive extensive benefits from the government, including tax exemption and relaxation of regulation. They even ask for a ‘profit guarantee’ clause when they have a contract with the local government.

The ‘Blue Planet Project’ speaks ill of the World Water Forum organized by multinational water companies, the World Bank and the IMF, all of which are actually in favor of constructing more large dams as well as privatization, commodification and profit maximization of water as an answer to the water crisis. For example, the Camdessus (former managing director of the IMF) report, ‘Finance Water for All,’ implicitly argues for water management programs in the third world, privatization, and dam construction with the guarantee of the World Bank. The WWC insists that the most urgent issue among the whole range of water problems is the shortage of water. On the contrary, the ‘Blue Planet Project’ thinks cleaning of the polluted water is more urgent. According to the latter point, if we keep extracting water from nature we will face water shortage. We have to clean the water and find a way to raise water efficiency. For example, we must use the exact amount of water for farming. We also have to adjust our lifestyle so that the amount nature needs to provide us is even less. During the last century the world water consumption doubled. The amount of water we use daily for toilet (13 liters) combined with water used for washing, cleaning and cooking (7.6 liters) is much more than what the people in less developed countries use.

Finding alternative ways to solve water problems is also important. On March 19, the Blue Planet Project organized a meeting to discuss alternative ways of solving water problems. Porto Alegre in Brazil is an outstanding case in this regard. The local government made ‘DMAE,’ but the management and finance remained independent. This non-profit company managed water for 1.4 million civilians. They spend all of the “profits” on the improvement of water service. They also implemented ‘Participatory Budget,’ in which civilians participated in making plans to making decisions. The DMAE thus gets the credit for providing efficient service that allow 99.5 percent of civilians to drink clean water. Currently, the DMAE has a campaign to ‘reduce the water usage.’ The question is: Is it possible for the DMAE private company to reduce the water usage? We need to find such alternative and wise ways to use water like the Porto Alegre people.

Korea is not an exception to the world water privatization trends. Since 1999, changes in law have made it possible for foreign companies to invest in sewage systems. Vivendi set up a branch company in Korea in March 2000 and it now manages an industrial sewage disposal system of Hyundai Oil and Chemical Company and Hynix Semiconductor. Also, the municipal government of Incheon transferred construction and management of sewage disposal system in Songdo Mansu area to Vivendi in cooperation with Samsung Engineering. Suez and Hanhwa Construction will construct three sewage disposal systems in Yangju, Kyunggido, in the next 20years. Of all the foreign firms, Vivendi has been most active, establishing six local offices in the hope of participating fully in the local government sewage water management business. Privatization can only be accelerating in the near future.

During this World Water Forum, civilians organized water social forums in Florence, Italy; Sao Paulo, Brazil; New York, USA; and New Delhi, India. The social forums were held to allow civilians to share their experiences and information in order to seek alternative ways to solve the water problem through international solidarity. The Blue Planet Project adopted the declaration calling for the protection and preservation of water as a common resource for all human beings and nature. As such, the struggle against water privatization is getting stronger all around the world and it will only get stronger as time passe.

* The Blue Planet Project is an initiative of the Council of Canadians to support an international network opposed to the privatization and commodification of the world’s fresh water. For more information, check http://www.blueplanetproject.net