The Third World Water Forum was held
in the three neighboring Japanese cities of Kyoto, Shiga and Osaka from
March 16th to the 23rd, on various interlocking themes dealing with water,
especially on how to bring safe water and sanitation to the entire world.
Some 24,000 participants from 182 countries attended the sessions. "The
key issues addressed revolved around balancing increasing human requirements
for adequate water supplies and improved health and sanitation with food
production, transportation, energy and environmental needs. The forum
in its conclusion while drawing up more than 100 new commitments felt
that most countries would require more effective governance, improved
capacity and adequate financing."(From the concluding statement of the
forum; highlights as given in the statement).
Was it a conference genuinely aiming to solve the water problems by drawing
up implementable plans or was it one huge public relations exercise serving
to advance the image of the huge multinational water companies? Which
figured more- the concern for the water needs of the millions around the
world or the millions of dollars of the few large water companies around
the world? Was there any opposition sounded to the 'magical' water solution
called privatization, in spite of the backing of the IMF-WB, other international
lending institutions and 'democratic' pressure groups of the water firms?
Last question first. Non-governmental organizations and pressure groups
argued on the basis of past performances of the private water companies
around the world that private companies are unlikely to provide the solutions
for the millions of poor people without adequate clean water and decent
sanitation.
International lending institutions such as the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund came in for scathing criticism, from various sections of
the non-governmental and civic organizations, for their "obsession"
with the private sector. The groups presented a report showing that international
companies were not interested in working in very poor countries, except
at very high rates of profits under sovereign guarantees of the governments
of the concerned poor countries. The report further argued for the need
for policy-makers to focus on enabling local and central governments to
serve the poor through working with local communities, replacing their
belief in privatization as the panacea for all water problems.
The report pointed out that international policy-makers and institutions
like the World Bank and IMF are misguided in thinking that the private
sector will have any real impact on reaching the 1.2 billion poorest people
in the world who lack access to safe water. The report also expressed
a crucial reality troubling much of the developing world, which is that,
the international community must stop arm-twisting countries to give access
to private sector companies as a condition for receiving development aid,
grants and loans.
But the World Bank itself was not too far in putting up its own arguments
as a counter to that put forth above. The World Bank claimed that it "simply
wished" to encourage the most effective methods of delivering water services
to the poor.
The bank's vice-president for sustainable development, Ian Johnson said
that the WB always had discussions with governments who in turn had to
determine what the right combination of public and private sector roles
should be in delivering services. It is only then that the WB works with
the respective government. According to him, in his own words, "We
do not have an ideological prima facie position that says that we must
force privatization on anyone. We are not religious zealots when it comes
to privatization."
The words of the WB's vice-president are not wrong per se. The World Bank
does have discussions. But in terms of the stubbornness of what they require
from the governments, in return for their financial assistance to help
their struggling economies, the discussions are an enforcement of the
dikaits of the World Bank. Further the 'we-are-not-privatization-zealots'
realization has emerged not due to an ideological transformation at the
World Bank, but has emerged from the need of private companies, who are
finding their profits and positions threatened in the poor developing
countries. The 'public-private partnership' is a partnership between the
government and the private companies such that the government bears all
the risk while the private companies reap all the rewards of profit of
the government risk.
In short, there were ideological differences but very little space for
dialogue as the international lending institutions and private companies
dominated the discussion. Even in such a scenario, ideological differences
were put forth. The expectations of true ideological differences being
allowed to emerge and be debated at this forum are best reflected by the
fact that an alternative forum was simultaneously held at Florence in
Italy as the First People's World Water Forum. This meet in Italy gathered
to protest at the direction of current water policies - which it believes
are dominated by private corporations who favour large projects such as
dams, instead of simpler technologies. They met to carry forward the Porto
Alegre World Social Forum's call in January for a new democratic world
water parliament and a halt to water privatization.
The 'ideological battles' were hardly an issue as the private water companies
went out of their way with marketing techniques to get to the civic and
non-governmental organizations with their newfound ideological transformation
to 'private-public' partnership. But the underlying theme was the same-
Help secure private profits from water and the water problem will be solved
the world over. Water profits were the issue and not water problems per
se. The call for public-private partnership is to make the government
undertake the risks in the water business while the private companies
rake in the profits. This answers the second question.
"After eight days of discussions involving 12,000 participants, mountains
of paper and lakes of coffee, beer and sake, the Third World Water Forum
ended with this ringing endorsement from the World Conservation Union:
The (ministerial) declaration will have virtually no impact on national
policies. There is nothing in the text which will make a difference."
This was the opinion of the BBC correspondent on the water forum. BBC
report went further to say that "international conferences are often described
as talking shops. But not this one. This was a giant talking hypermarket."
It can be argued that the world's attention was distracted by the war
on Iraq, but it still is doubtful if the forum would have merited more
interest than it actually received. In terms of solid outcomes it certainly
would not have deserved any more attention than it got. The six-page declaration
agreed by ministers on the final day is a model of blandness, at best
repeating commitments made at previous conferences and in some respects
moving backwards.
The environmental groups were frustrated by the scant attention paid by
ministers of governments to the importance of using natural environments
to conserve the supply of fresh water - with the emphasis instead on big
building projects such as dams and pipelines. Many questioned the credibility
of a forum where the governments do not draw on the 12,000 water specialists
gathered together to identify common sense solutions to water problems,
but instead continue to promote massive infrastructure as the sole solution
to the world's water crisis.
So has the whole thing been a waste of time and money? Well, not completely.
It would be a pessimist indeed who did not believe that amongst the thousands
of discussions, formal and informal, amongst such a huge array of water
experts, some practical solutions would be taken back to communities around
the world and put into practice.
Some NGOs seemed wrong-footed during the forum as they launched attacks
on their enemies in institutions such as the World Bank for advocating
wholesale privatisation of water - only to find that that the international
institutions had moved the goalposts. Even the most market-oriented participants
now concede that the vast majority of services to poor communities will
continue to be provided by the public sector, partly because those water
companies venturing into the developing world have often had their fingers
badly burned and have suffered financial or reputational disasters.
There was also agreement at the forum that the 40% of the world's population
who live in river basins shared by more than one country required their
governments to come to sensible arrangements with one another on how to
share out the water - though of course that is easier said than done.
But in any case, cross-boundary national issues can be solved only through
active community participation involving the state and not through profit-driven
private companies. Some had hoped that the forum would set out a coherent
route map for the world to follow in order to avoid a growing crisis in
the availability of fresh water, but what emerged was a confused set of
directions on the back of an 'private –public' partnership agenda.