Water at Risk in Argentina and elsewhere
by - 21.09.2005 15:26
reports on actions against water privatization:
Suez in Argentina, Action Day in Paris, interview with an activist in South Africa
Foreign shareholders in Argentina's private water company have decided to pull-out after months of fighting for the government to increase the rates of public utilities.
Many families risk losing water-service due to the break-down in a new proposal for the government to subsidize the transnational corporation. The Spanish company Aguas Barcelona which controls 25 percent of Argentina's water utility company announced they will leave Argentina.
(From Marie Trigona, Free Speech Radio News)
The move follows the French Suez WATER company's footsteps. Suez said they are pulling-out of the South American utility company because water is no longer profitable. Suez made threats to end the contract to pressure President Nestor Krichner to further subsidize utilities or reverse the
freeze on water rates.
Kirchner's administration responded that they are evaluating new concessionaires to take over Aguas Argentina. Economy Minister said that the government is willing to negotiate only if the private shareholders stay in the country. Suez could abandon the concession as early as September 19.
Part of the contract permits the company to cut service to consumers who haven't paid their water bill. The government wants to stave off increased rates with water already too expensive for many Argentines to afford. Over 30,000 families have already lost water service.
State-run Aguas Argentina was privatized in the 1990's, however the government has continued to subsidize the foreign run company.
Paris: Day of Action against Suez's Exploitative
Practices
Giuseppina Pagano, Public Citizen
On May 13th, 2005, when Suez shareholders convened in Paris for their annual general assembly,
social movements from around the world gathered in the French capital to paint a different picture of the company's performance. While shareholders might have been satisfied with Suez's financial performance (USS 2.42 billion net profit in 2004), water activists were denouncing the company's exploitative practices whereby those profits had been gained: unjustified and unaffordable water rates?, denial of access to water services for people unable to pay, broken contractual agreements such as extension of infrastructure, failure to do maintenance work resulting in public health hazards and environmental damage.
Representatives of social movements from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay and the Philippines came all the way to Paris to bear witness and protest against the social and environmental damage Suez is causing in their countries. From different corners of the world, the same story was being told, adding up to a complete and coherent picture of the company's offenses.
A common declaration of grievances was formulated and presented at a press conference held at the
Assemblée Nationale, the French parliament. The same declaration was read to Suez shareholders
during their annual meeting by Boston Common Asset Management, a US investment firm that holds shares of Suez and has expressed concern about of the company's questionable social performance.
Demonstrations both in front of Suez headquarters in Paris and Suez offices around the world rounded off this day of action.
Let companies like Suez be reminded that the world is watching and that public pressure will continue. And should collective protests of concerned citizens not be enough to have Suez rethink its policies, the fact that more and more socially responsible shareholders may decide to withdraw their investments from such a socially irresponsible company could move Suez and others of its kind to adjust their course.
For more information visit
http://www.stopsuez.org
Defend the Global Commons
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF562C.pdf
Against Water Privatization in South Africa
Interview with an Activist
Britt Fremstad, Water for All
Jennifer Makoatsane is a petite woman with such a carefree laugh that it was difficult, upon our meeting, to imagine her at the forefront of Phiri's bitter struggle against water privatization.
Once she begins talking, however, her more aggressive side comes through, and it becomes apparent that she is a leader in the fight against Johannesburg Water's pre-paid water meters. As
the secretary of Phiri Concerned Residents, Jennifer has many stories to tell.
BF: How quickly was the Phiri Concerned Residents Forum formed? How did people go about organizing it?
JM: It was formed so quickly because in August of 2003 these people came to dig trenches. They tampered with the electricity box, and we had to go two days without electricity.
We confronted them and they said they were just doing their job - that we should go to our councilor [locally elected representative]. We go to the municipality [to complain]. The councilor told us the workers were changing the infrastructure to install pre-paid water meters. As we went out of the administration office we told the people to stop because we were not consulted. Then, [in protest] we closed the trenches. And that's when we came together as residents and the APF [Anti-Privatization Forum] and Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee came, and they helped us to
form an executive committee, and the struggle continued.
BF: Did Johannesburg Water improve the infrastructure- something they had stated as an 'immediate goal'?
JM: Their infrastructure is messed up because there were no engineers to check to see if they should put in pre-paid water meters that way. They put in new pipes, and the water was hot because the pipes they dug were so close to the top of the ground. After drinking that water, you would get diarrhea. If it's not diarrhea, constipation.When it rains, the pumps don't function properly and you have to wait.
BF: Every household is entitled to 6000 liters of 'Free Essential Water.' What are some reasons this 6000 liters is not enough?
JM: Sanitation is very costly. women during that time of the month need to wash more than once a day. We don't even use a bath-we use a hand-bather. Now we only fill it 3-4 liter. Sick people need to be bathed sometimes twice a day. Only 1 sink-full a day is un-hygienic. Children can't play with water, and the community pool is expensive. And for traditions (e.g. funerals and weddings) we fill a 200-liter drum with ginger ale and another with Umqombothi [African beer].
BF: Have citizens been able to tamper with the prepaid water meters?
JM: They do. There was one incident where someone bypassed the meter. She was charged with tampering, and they cut off her water until she paid her bills.
BF: So, are illegal connections still feasible?
JM: Exactly. According to the residents, we are not doing something illegal. If they are doing Operation Gcin'amanzi [Johannesburg Water's name for program which installs the prepaid water meters - it means "operation conserve water"], then we are doing Operation Vul'amanzi. ["operation reconnect"]. There was this old lady, Sarapina, who was disconnected, so she bought materials and hired some plumbers to reconnect, and she's got water. But the material was too small to reach the toilet, so it's just by the kitchen window.
BF: Why was the 6000 liters based on an eight-person household?
JM: It was estimated because no survey was done. In our culture, I don't need to leave home. [People live with extended families, so many more than eight people live in one household]
BF: What was the flat rate for water before the water meters were installed? How many people could afford this?
JM: It was 62.5 rands/2000 liters (about S9). It always included everything - refuse and all, so people would pay. The minimum of 50 rands they would go and pay. 62.5 rands was the highest rate. Half of people owe arrears and people's water was never cut off.
BF: Have there been any serious hygiene problems? Any outbreaks of disease?
JM: HIV/AIDS victims are suffering because home-based care givers are fighting over water. Their life deteriorates. It becomes difficult to help the sick because they need water for medications and food. A family with diabetes has to take water for every day, and when it was cut off they had
to drink sanitation water. In the long run, we see a lot of diseases coming.
BF: What types of resistance have residents taken?
JM: We marched to the local council, the mayor, Joburg water offices (APF financed the transportation). We did some pickets (rallies). We sent memorandums, petitions. Barricade busiest street in Soweto - Old Potchefstroom Road. We cut the pipes, so water can run around. We take out the meters and destroy them [chuckle]. We did research. Workshops were held where we educated people about both sides of the issues. We attended debates about water being a public or private asset. We have poets, you know. We know how to paint wall murals on shop and graffiti on Joburg ads. We made some petrol bombs and bombed a Joburg storage place. Police came to keep out fire.
ECOTERRA Intl.
http://www.ecoterra.org.uk
http://www.ecoterra.net
http://www.ecoterra.de
http://www.ecoterra.info
Marine Group:
http://www.ecop.info
Eco_Alert ·
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Eco_Alert/
green is good - environmentalism is not political - it is sanity !
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
10 million water cuts in South Africa
source: afrol 07.02.2006 17:31
South Africa
10 million water cuts after South Africa's water privatisation
afrol News, 4 November 2002 - South African scientists have documented what organisations have warned about for years; water privatisation in African countries means denying access to safe drinking water to the poor. In South Africa alone, there have been 10 million water cuts since commercialisation started in 1994.
Edward Cottle of the Johannesburg-based Rural Development Services Network today presented a study about the consequences of water privatisation in South Africa at the Copenhagen EU SADC Civil Society Conference. The conclusion is bad news for Africa's millions of poors; with a cementation of the "full cost recovery" approach to water utilities all over Africa, poor households stand less chances of getting access to safe drinking water or may even lose the water access they had.
The reasons for the lowered access to water after privatisation are twofold. First, the "full cost recovery" model means cutting water to those not paying water bills. Property and eviction from resident homes can be part of the legal process to recover debt from customers. Mr Cottle says that "since 1994 over 10 million South Africans have had their water and 2 million South Africans have been evicted from their homes" for not paying their water bills.
Second, tariffs generally increase during the commercialisation phase prior to privatisation, only to increase more after privatisation. The black townships in Fort Beaufort had seen an increase in service charges by 600 percent between 1994 and 1996, the time of privatisation. Similar trends have been noted in most towns and cities were water utilities are being commercialised or privatised.
Other conference delegates added that this limitation of access to clean drinking water had already led to a return to the use of unsafe water sources all over Southern Africa. "A rising consume of sources that contain discharge water are the consequences," studies had shown.
The worst example of the health consequences of less access to clean drinking water in South Africa was given during the outbreak of cholera in year 2000. Mr Cottle told afrol News that there was a direct connection between the installation of prepaid meters and the unprecedented spread of cholera in KwaZuluNatal. Over 120,000 people got infected and 290 people died during the outbreak. Studies showed that in the most affected areas, very many people had returned to the use of unsafe water sources as they could not afford safe water.
- In effect, the prepaid meters are just another way of covering up the large number of poor households that are cut off from water supply, Mr Cottle says. As people disconnect themselves from water services, one could now say that "the responsibility for having access to water has been individualised." Gone are the days of public response and subsidies.
The Free Water Policy implemented by the South African government since July 2001 was not a solution to the growing problem, Mr Cottle said. The scheme's free allocation of 6000 litres of water per household per month "does not even meet basic sanitation requirements," given that the average poor household had eight members.
Water privatisation was following the same principles of "full cost recovery" - including price hikes and large-scale water disconnections - in all Southern African countries studied. Johannesburg, Maputo and Cape Town were already "firmly committed to privatisation."
According to information gathered by Mr Cottle, South Africa has a total of 5 privatised programmes making it the biggest in the region. Angola has two planned private ventures, Malawi one, Mauritius one, Mozambique two, Namibia one, Tanzania three planned and Zambia has two privatised ventures. A private operator had however withdrawn from Zimbabwe due to the inability to make profit there.
Pressure was high from all important players to continue the privatisation programmes all over Africa, despite of the negative experiences already known. The "full cost recovery" principle was originally introduced as a World Bank conditions for obtaining credit, and it remains an absolute condition among the Bank, the IMF and recently also aid agencies such as USAID, Britain's DFID, Germany's GTZ and the EU as a donor agency.
Curiously, water utilities privatisation is still a seldom phenomenon at a world-wide basis, especially in rich countries. Only an estimated 5 percent of the world's water resources are on private hands. Industrialised countries, where the largest private water operators have their headquarters, thus increasingly are pushing for privatisation in developing countries.
The policy has however even been widely endorsed by African governments, latest as part of the official NEPAD credo. According to Mr Cottle, the "emerging African bourgeoisie" also had shown a growing interest in the scramble for Africa's water.
Civil society however was mobilising resistance, the conference's delegates confirmed. Phelisa Nkomo, from Jubilee South Africa, said he would fight for "having the right to clean water established as an irrevocable rights principle." Human rights expert Brian Kagoro from Zimbabwe agreed.
Mr Cottle on the other hand told afrol News "we have yet to see the social explosion" to be produced by the ongoing water disconnections to which poor citizens are victims. In South Africa, trade unions, especially those organising municipal workers, were starting to take action against these privatisations. But there was "not sufficient resistance" from unions yet.
Also in other African countries, resistance to water privatisation is growing. In Ghana, government has been forced to halt its privatisation schemes due to civil society protest, although there now is another try to go ahead. In Tanzania, civil society is mobilising as the consequences of the commercialisation of the Dar es Salaam water utility are getting understood. Privatisation schemes are however under way all over Africa, from Mauritania to São Tomé and Mozambique.
- The policy of cost recovery must be scrapped, Mr Cottle says, addressing the South African and other governments. "The policy of cost recovery has already proven itself to be unworkable especially, in the African context." It was now time again to "prioritise public-sector delivery."
Sources: Copenhagen conference, Mr Cottle and afrol archives
http://www.afrol.com/News2002/sa024_water_private.htm