Privatising water disastrous for poor: Experts

MUMBAI: For a substance so free-flowing, it’s sparking off wars in which both sides are uncharacteristically intractable. The debate over water privatisation has set off heated clashes at conferences around the world, most recently at a workshop on water in Asian cities organised in Manila by the Asian Development Bank.
The point of contention: Is water a free resource and a human right or is it a commodity that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.Developing countries hold the first position, developed countries the second. Their inability to reach an agreement highlighted how difficult it is to reach a consensus on tackling urban water-supply problems.
Governments are choosing to allow water resources to be privatised because this is easier than undertaking tasks such as ensuring equitable access to water, protecting and augmenting water resources, or helping vulnerable groups, said Charles Santiago, a consultant with the Malaysia-based NGO ‘Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation’.
While financial institutions—including the Asian Development Bank—encourage ‘full-cost recovery’ and ‘managerial efficiency’ for water resources, experts from developing countries warn of the consequences for the poor, who are already squeezed by the vagaries of an unstable and inflationary economy.
“Access to water will depend on the purchasing power of the people, and the poor will lose their ability to get pure water,’’ said Hemantha Withanage of Environmental Foundation of Sri Lanka. “The water required for meeting basic human needs and maintaining environmental sustainability should be guaranteed as a right.’’
The World Health Organisation recommends a miniscule five litres of water per day as a minimum requirement for an individual, but workshop participants could not agree on a minimum necessary supply. For instance, South Africa sought to provide for free so-called lifeline water of 200 litres per head daily and to charge only for use above that level. But this amount proved inadequate and sparked water riots, admitted Kalyan Ray, Kenya based UN-Habitat chief, water and sanitation branch.
Developing countries that have privatised water have seen tariffs rise, participants reported. The poor cannot shoulder the costs of building infrastructure and operational costs. Delegates felt that infrastructure costs, in particular, should largely be bourne by governments through appropriate taxation and budgetary allocations, supported by low-interest loans from international banks. They suggested that privatisation should not made a pre-condition for bank loans.
Insisting on a privatisation programme is flawed and inefficient, said Kamini Vitarana, a Sri Lankan activist. For instance, she says that such programmes emphasise building water-treatment plants to provide pure water to consumers. But this expensive water is also used for flushing, pouring money down the toilet, she said.
Manu Bhatnagar, advisor Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, said that instead of privatising water resources, the authorities should make current utilisation patterns more efficient. India’s water scarcity is the outcome of poor resource management, he said. While 80 per cent of India’s water is used for irrigation, most of this is wasted. Improving usage by even a mere two per cent could ensure adequate supplies for cities, he said.
Mr Bhatnagar emphasised that discussions about water should include poor consumers, rather than only middle-class activists. He warned: “In Delhi we are already seeing people taking to the streets to protest on the issue of water’’.
(This is the second in a series on water management)