Non-governmental water experts, health advocates, local authority leaders and trade unions put up a unified front at the third World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, 16-23 March 2003. They unanimously rejected a report from the development banks calling for dams and privatisation, and called for investment for the poorest of the poor with appropriate technology and public control of privately-funded water projects.
The World Water Forum in March 2003 aimed to promote action on the UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) that "the proportion of people without access to clean water and sanitation should be halved by 2015." (The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 reinforced the UN goal by adding a commitment on sanitation.)
A difference of view between the organisers and civil society emerged even before the meeting had begun. It came in reaction to a report released in preparation for the meeting by Michel Camdessus, former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its key recommendations are that international institutions: 1) increase guarantees and other public subsidies for private investors in water infrastructure and supply, and 2) resume lending for dams and other major hydraulic works.
According to Patrick McCully of the International Rivers Network, the report justifies the need for privatisation on grossly overestimated costs of providing drinking water, sanitation and hygiene. Whereas the Camdessus report says that investment needs to rise from an annual US$75 million to US$180 billion, McCully believes that achieving the MDG could be met with an additional US$10 billion a year.
He is also highly critical of dam projects, which he says have "performed extremely poorly" in terms of both power production compared to original projections and disruption to millions of traditional resource users. (1)
Sascha Gabizon of Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) agrees that much less money is needed if the technology is right. "If end-of-pipe, high-technology solutions are chosen it will be impossible to finance programmes that will reach the poorest of the poor who live spread out in rural areas," she says. "Low technology, multiple stakeholder approaches are needed, plus a reduction in the use of water for irrigation." This may require a shift away from cotton or rice farming in some water-scarce areas.
Community self-management
WECF showed two documentaries featuring women’s sustainable water projects in the European region at the Kyoto meeting. One film is about the Odessa example featured on page 9. The other is based on a project in Romania, where women groups in Garla Mare are testing and monitoring drinking water in public and private wells. The tests are for both biological and chemical contamination, after which the community is advised on which wells are safest for drinking.
The main cause of contamination is human faecal waste that leaches into underground and other water sources. But the second cause is over-use of chemicals in agriculture. WECF proposes simple solutions. First, the introduction of low-technology "dry separation" toilets to divide out the solid waste from the liquids. Next, to reduce chemical contamination, a shift away from the use of pesticides and fertilisers in agriculture. The clear message is prevention of pollution through community action, including a strong role for women, and a shift towards organic agriculture. (2)
Michael Rouse, incoming president of the International Water Association, also favours community-led solutions. He says that the United Nations’ plans to build sewage works for the 1.2 billion people in the world currently living without fresh water and sanitation should be abandoned as unachievable. (3) Like WECF, he favours dry separation toilets rather than sewage pipes, which are too expensive and often drain into and pollute water courses. He says that reed beds or similar natural methods could clean the liquid waste before it is allowed to flow into the ground, and that human solid waste should be used as compost and fertiliser.
Local government role
Community involvement and low technology are part of the solution but integrated water systems are nevertheless necessary to create an integrated and regulated environment. Mohamed Boussraoui of the Mediterranean department of the World Federation of United Cities (UTO), which brings together almost 1,400 local authorities, says local government has an important role to play. He proposed to the meeting the following four practical approaches to unite and create capacity among the municipalities and local and regional authorities taking part in the Kyoto meeting. (4)
Interdependence between regions, countries and often between towns of a same country, given their water needs;
Solidarity between towns, given the shortage of water, for a better distribution of this resource and the reinforcement of decentralised co-operation on the theme of water;
The strengthening of existing know-how, institutional capacity-building, training and the spheres of competence given over to local governments;
The mobilisation of financial resources, particularly the financing of water by water (centime/m3) and the improvement of management models.
The public service option
The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), which represents 10 million public service workers in Europe, is strongly opposed to privatisation. Working closely with Public Services International (PSI), and a wide coalition of NGOs, EPSU says that it has demonstrable evidence why public water systems give quantifiably better results on quality, cost, and accessibility. (5)
In simple terms, EPSU is convinced that in order to provide the practical framework for the delivery of the principle of water as "a pre-requisite to the realisation of all other human rights", the public option is the only option. (6) The arguments relate to transparency and accountability, and shareholder pressure that leads to problems with extending access.
In preparation for the Kyoto meeting, EPSU was one of many NGOs invited to take part in helping the EU prepare the launch of a European Water Initiative. The original "Water for Life" initiative was launched at the World Summit for Sustainable Development last year where European Commission President Romano Prodi said that the EU was already investing Euro 1.4 billion a year in water-related development aid and scientific co-operation. (7) Water is a focal sector for the EU’s assistance programmes in many African countries and an important component of EU co-operation with South Africa and in the SADC region. The initiative has now been extended to the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia region.
EPSU believes that the "Water for Life" initiative is aimed to further water privatisation and represents an attempt to sidetrack the growing opposition to privatisation. They asked their affiliates around the world to raise awareness among national governments about the Commission’s support for privatisation.
The EPSU affiliates were also encouraged to discuss the GATS component of the Commission water policy. A number of Europe’s trading partners are being asked to liberalise their water services under the Environmental Services provisions of GATS. This move offers European corporations greater access to these markets and is likely to have the effect of increasing the pressure for privatisation. (8)
Development funding
EPSU and Public Services International recognise that raising finance for investment is a key issue. But they say that a range of sources of funding is available to both private and public sector operators. They regret, however, that World Bank loans may carry conditionalities that create political obstacles to public sector water undertaking.
PSI also acknowledges the need for expertise and managerial capacity-building, which they say can be done through public-public partnerships, without the need to hand control to the private sector. Successful examples exist in the Baltic states where financial packages were often arranged as part of public-public partnerships. (5) Other groups are less hostile to private investment in water as long as an effective system of public control is in place.(2)
The aim of the Kyoto meeting was to turn targets into action. When it was over, not much more money was on the table. But the discussions had produced major media coverage contributing to greater awareness of the existence of the global water crisis. Equally important, civil society had offered a very clear message on the wide range of options existing to address the challenge of the Millennium Development Goals. Some idea of how far the message has been taken on board may become clear at the G8 Summit in Evian, France, 1-3 June 2003.
References
(1) Some preliminary comments by International Rivers Network on the Camdessus, Report by Patrick McCully.
(2) Further information from Sascha Gabizon, International Director, Women in Europe for a Common Future, e-mail: wecf@wecf.org; Website: http://www.wecf.org
(3) World sewage plans "should be abandoned", The Oberver, Sunday March 09 2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk
(4) World Federation of United Cities (UTO), e-mail: mohamed.boussraoui@fmcu-uto.org Website: http://www.fmcu-uto.org
(5)"Water in Public Hands" is available at http://www.world-psi.org/psi.nsf/Publications/A348F0664B950B88C1256AB700348439?OpenDocument
(6) United Nations Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, General comment on water as a human right.
(7) Water for Life, http://www.health.fgov.be, EU Institutions Press release IP/02/1265, 03/09/2002.
(8) More information from Brian Synnott, EPSU, e-mail: bsynnott@epsu.org; Website: http://www.epsu.org
