Marianne Hochuli gave the public an overview of the issues involved in the question of water privatisation. In the end, she said, the question turns on the issue of whether we regard water as a basic human right or simply as a basic need. At first glance the difference may not seem important, but the implications of these competing definitions are dramatic. On the one hand, if water is defined as a basic need then it may be treated as a commodity and ownership, distribution rights, etc., may be placed in the hands of private corporations. On the other hand, if water is regarded as a human right, then it is the role of the state to ensure that everyone has access to it.

Experience has shown that access to water is not guaranteed when its provision is in the hands of private companies. Phides Mazhawidza brought examples from Zimbabwe, Lesotho and South Africa illustrating that once water rights are sold to companies universal access suffers. She spoke of people having their supplies cut off for non-payment, something that is inconceivable if water is regarded as a human right - how can someone be forced to pay for enjoying a human right? Or denied that right if they are poor? Again, experience from around the world has illustrated that the price of water rarely decreases following privatisation. Usually, it rises significantly for consumers.

Why would governments agree to privatising water provision if the effects on consumers are so often negative? Andrey Delchev, who was a lawyer for the Bulgarian government and Project Manager during the process of privatising the water supply of Sofia at the end of the 1990s. He explained that the municipal government saw it as essential to improve water provision in the city but lacked the resources to pay for it. With the technical and financial help of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the government negotiated a contract with an English multi-national to modernise the water provision in the city. The company was granted a concession for 25 years although actual ownership of the water supply remained in the hands of the state.

The government recognised that the company would make profits, but the trade-off would be that consumers would enjoy better service, improved service and increased efficiency, and that while prices would increase they would remain fair. Krassen Stoichev was on hand to point out that not all these objectives were fulfilled, and that the consequences have been felt most dramatically by women. Mazhawidza argued that water privatisation always impacts women disproportionately as in most countries they are responsible for job of feeding their families, which includes getting water. All to often, water supplies are distant and this adds an extra burden to the already overburdened women. It is for this reason that the question of gender must be at the forefront of all social and economic impact assessments of privatisation projects.

All too often women’s issues are excluded from this decision-making process, including the question of how a government should spend its scarce financial resources. In the case of Sofia, the government had concluded that it was more important to spend money on national defence, including taking part in the war against Iraq, then it was to use resources for improving the local water supply. Empowering women could lead to changes in the setting of priorities at the level of government policy as well as in recognising the impact of privatisation projects on women.

Hochuli and Mazhawidza added to the discussion of government decision-making by pointing out that it the South governments are often persuaded that they will only have access to international financial support if they privatise many of the functions of the state. This is a central condition of the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programs, and therefore these conditions severely limit the alternatives governments may consider as they seek to improve water provision in the country.

Turning to the environmental arguments against water privatisation, Hochuli reminded the public that such projects discourage water conversation for the simple reason that once provision is in private hands there is actually a disincentive: the more water consumed, the more profits for the company. Thus, she concluded, «its about time we started treating water as the priceless resource it is.»

 http://www.evb.ch/index.cfm?page_id=2790