|
|
|
|
Private sector still running after
water rights
By Anil Netto
PENANG - Selling water rights to private
institutions and then having people buy them back
again is an issue that rears its ugly head at
every World Water Day, which fell on Tuesday.
Goaded by international financial
institutions and corporate interests, regional
governments are pressing ahead with plans for more
private participation in water services. And yet
all across Asia, water privatization schemes are
failing to deliver clean and safe drinking water
to communities, despite forcing consumers to pay
for a basic human right.
"If you look for
a water privatization arrangement that works ... I
cannot think of any," Manila-based Mary Ann
Manahan, a researcher with Focus on the Global
South, told Inter Press Service in a telephone
interview.
In contrast, the sterling
performance of some major publicly managed water
utilities in Asia has demolished the argument that
private-sector participation is the only way to
improve efficiency.
Cities such as Osaka,
Phnom Penh and Penang, where water is publicly
managed, have outperformed Jakarta and Manila, two
cities with massive privatization arrangements in
several key sectors.
Osaka, for instance,
has a non-revenue water level (NRW) of 7%. This is
an indicator of the level of unaccounted water and
lost income due to leakages and unpaid bills. An
NRW of 7% is a sign of outstanding performance.
Phnom Penh records an NRW of 26% and
Penang a commendable 19%. In comparison, Jakarta
has an NRW of 51% and Manila 62%.
The
British-owned Thames Water Plc and the French
operated Suez-Lyonnaise respectively, operate the
largest water privatization schemes in Jakarta and
Manila.
Public Services International
(PSI), based in Britain, which analyzes the
privatization and restructuring of public services
around the world, revealed in a recent study that
Sri Lanka's capital Colombo, where water is
publicly managed, has a water-leakage level of
only 23% compared to a leakage level of 35% for
the city of London, which is covered by Thames
Water Plc.
"There has been an extremely
high failure rate for private concessions and
long-term BOT [build-operate-transfer contracts]
which may get worse if Suez and Thames leave their
contracts in Manila and Jakarta," said the study.
And yet, privatization schemes are being
pushed with vigor by international financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank, coupled with lobby groups such
as the Global Water Partnership and the World
Water Council. Manahan pointed out that the World
Bank has increased its lending on water projects
from US$546 million in 2002 to $3 billion in 2005.
"But there is no clear indication that this has
led to cleaner, more affordable water for people
on the margins," she said.
In addition,
the European Union has come up with initiatives in
the World Trade Organization to pry open national
water services to the big foreign players. Indeed,
since the mid-1990s, developing countries have
been coaxed to privatize water services through
"public-private partnership" or private-sector
participation.
But many of these schemes
in Asia have had disastrous results, leading to
soaring water tariffs, unmet targets, and
crippling financial losses and debt.
Faced
with embarrassing results, several Western
multinationals that once thirsted for
water-privatization projects in Asia have tried to
make a quick exit from loss-making or
problem-saddled privatization agreements in Asian
countries. Instead, they are now restricting
themselves only to sure-fire problem-free projects
or "safer" markets such as Japan and South Korea.
Critics of water privatization complain
that it tends to focus on urban consumers, whereas
the vast majority of those who most need water
live in rural areas.
Worse, privatized
water operations are diverting water in rural
areas to urban centers, said Kuala Lumpur-based
economist Charles Santiago, coordinator of
Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization.
"They do this in two ways: by actually
channeling water meant for rural areas into urban
areas and by ground-water mining in rural areas
[for use in producing] bottled water, which is
largely consumed in urban areas," Santiago told
IPS.
The experience in cities across Asia
and elsewhere is that when multinationals enter
the scene, or when private participation is
introduced, water-tariff rates invariably soar.
For instance, in Manila, the government
touted water privatization as the solution to a
looming water crisis in the Philippines. "They
promised there would be no price hikes in water
for five years," Manahan pointed out. "But within
three years, they filed for tariff increases."
Instead of the promised lower rates,
Maynilad Water Services, which holds Manila's west
zone concession, raised tariffs by as much as 400%
between 1997 and 2003. Manila Water Company, the
east zone concessionaire, raised water tariffs by
700% in the same period.
When Manila's
privatized arrangements failed, the eventual
"solution" by the Philippine government was
"rehabilitation". But Manahan prefers to call a
spade a spade. "It's a bailout," she said starkly.
Civil society groups now are making their
voices heard. In Manila, they have filed a
petition in court to oppose the ongoing
"rehabilitation", arguing that it is against
public interest and would only burden consumers
and taxpayers. In Thailand, thousands of workers
protested against the government's privatization
policy in early 2004 - though the administration
of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has since
reiterated its plans to press on with
privatization. And in Malaysia, a newly set up
Coalition Against Water privatization, made up of
26 civil society groups, is opposing the
government's plan to privatize even more publicly
owned water utilities in the country.
Manahan has her own solution to the
dilemma facing many Asian governments. The Focus
on the Global South researcher points to the
example of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Water services in
Porto Alegre were private until 1904, then the
city took it over.
In the participatory
budget process the city people get together in
meetings throughout the year and decide where the
investments of the Municipal Department of Water
and Sanitary Sewage are going to be made. Between
1989 and 1996, the number of households with
access to water services rose from 80% to 98%,
while the percentage of population served by the
municipal sewage system rose from 46% to 85%.
"My bias would be to call for a
democratization in decision-making on how water
should be managed in the community," said Manahan.
"Water is such a basic need, it should remain in
the hands of the public."
(Inter Press
Service) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Sex and Entertainment News
|
|
|
