|
|
 |
|
55.4%ANMag Issue 23 Public Surveillance
Why the World's Poor Need Privatized Water
By Yousef Salama, Staff Writer
Toronto, Canada − There is a crisis in the world today. Water, clean water, is not making its way to the world’s poor across the globe. This resource that makes up 66% of the earth and makes up 80% of human bodies is becoming scarce in nations in the south. Unlike some other non-renewable resources, however, water in itself is not truly scarce; it is simply not being adequately distributed to the impoverished in the developing world. One billion and a hundred million people in the third world lack access to clean drinking water, and 2.7 billion people lack access to proper sanitation.1 The reality is that 4,700 children will die every day this year because of water-related illnesses.2
It is common knowledge then that water is the necessary ingredient to sustain life. No other element can replace its life-sustaining properties, but with the course of time, our world is faced with its depletion. The concern, then, becomes how we manage our limited resources to the most maximum efficiency that is beneficial for the greater good. Some have argued that privatization is the answer, and here I will examine why they hold this belief.
Many governments in developing countries are realizing that things cannot go on as they are, and they have consequently begun looking for ways to improve their national water distribution. They have realized that they cannot afford to wait much longer for their countries to attain a level of development at which water is supplied to the majority of citizens. They have also come to acknowledge that the widespread lack of clean and safe water is very much a result of the negative consequences of distribution in public hands. Unfortunately for many developing countries, public investment in water infrastructure is not a political priority. Investments in fresh water have long been neglected in poor countries. According to the World Bank, less than five percent of infrastructure investments in the developing countries have concerned the water sector. But of course, these under-investments are a consequence of developing countries being just that – developing countries. They are poor, and capital is in short supply than in rich countries. Quite simply, neither the public sector nor local private-sector firms have enough money to finance the investments needed.
The ultimate goal that all governments around the world have been trying to achieve has been easy and sufficient water access, though in my opinion they have failed horribly; whereas, on the other hand, privatization of the water industry has achieved great strides in water access. It is unfortunate that only 3 percent of poor people in the developing world today get their water from private formal-sector suppliers, even though the results have been nothing short of incredible. A study conducted by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs discovered that in developing countries where private interests have been allowed to enter and become involved in water and sanitation, 80% of the population on average has access to safe water versus only 73% in countries that do not. Guinea offers one of the earliest and most widely noticed instances of a poor country admitting private interests to its water sector. In 1989, when the water management in the cities was handed over to a private company, little more than two Guinean urban dwellers in 10 had access to clean, safe water. Twelve years later, in 2001, the figure was no fewer than seven in ten. Cities with water mains increased from 10 to 18, end-users with water pipes jumped from 12,000 to 30,500 and water production soared 12,000m3 to 30,500m3.
Prior to the privatization that took place in Buenos Aires’ water distribution had been a sorry business. The public utility, OSN, had grossly neglected its infrastructure investments. Progressively fewer people were being supplied with water, the pressure in the pipes was steadily declining, and in summer the supply often dried up completely. Little more than half the 5.6 million people living in the poor districts of the city were connected to the water supply network, against nearly all the 3 million living in the more affluent districts. Spillage was 45 percent, 99 percent of water consumption was not metered, and only 80 percent of bills were being paid. Thankfully, privatization changed things dramatically. Heavy investments and efficiency improvements radically boosted output. Portable water production in 1998 was 38% higher than it had been in 1992 and the private distributor quickly reached a million more users than the public utility had, and within a few years the number of households connected had grown by no less than 3 million. Thirty-seven percent more households gained access to water pipes, 20% more to sanitation. The private company, then, was able to deliver far more water to citizens than the public utility had contrived to deliver. Most (85%) of the new customers were in the poor suburbs of Buenos Aires. They now gained access to water that was 10 times cheaper than the water they had previously been compelled to buy from small-time vendors. Quality, which presented certain problems to begin with, was also appreciably higher in 1998 than it had been before.
It has been seen how privatization can improve access to safe water, but more importantly it can save many lives, especially the lives of our children. Every year the United Nations studies have reported that nearly three million children die from water-born diseases such as cholera and other diarrhea disorders. As often as every 10 seconds, a child dies from a water-born disease that could have been prevented. Through the effects of privatization in Argentina, those numbers are being reduced. It is estimated that in municipalities that have privatized their water, between five and seven percent fewer children are now dying from water-related causes, compared with municipalities where water is still supplied by public utilities. The effects were greater still in the poorest municipalities. Child mortality there dropped by a massive 24 percent. Water privatization in Argentina has saved lives of thousands of children, most of them poor.
The major reason why private players can play a major role in helping the world’s poor get out of the misery is because they do not share the weaknesses of public utilities. Private concerns generally have bigger investment resources, more competence for handling water and running an organization, access to newer and better technology, superior cost-awareness and healthier initiative structures, added to which they are less bound by political dogmas and allegiances. Opponents to privatization such Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke need to understand the economic realities behind the situation: poor governments lack the financial resources and know-how to remedy the situation, and at the same time, they do not view the situation with much importance, otherwise one may say if governments did care to help the poor they would have already, and public management has failed in doing so.
Unless governments can get their acts together, activists need to realize that miracles do not occur overnight, and that privatization is the best alternative to fix the problem. Activists ought to tell the world’s poor they have to continue to wait, while they fight the governments to spend more. Unfortunately, they (activists) fail to see that these governments do not have the money to fix the water crisis. If only the critics would finally accept the documented positive effects that a strong infrastructure can produce, money would surely flow as freely as the abundance of water in a privatized system.
Although this article is written by Yousef Salama, it is simply an explanation underlying the supporting belief for water privatization. It does not in anyway underline the views and/or opinions of Yousef Salama.
2 ibid