Rules, not privatization, needed to ensure water access<\/p>\n
The government has submitted a bill on water privatization to
\nthe legislature for approval. The government sees water
\nprivatization as the best way of improving people's awareness of
\npreserving the commodity. Resistance to the bill, however, is
\nbased on the fear that it would gradually lead to denial of
\npublic access to clean water. Ahmad Safrudin, chairman of the
\nJakarta-based Environmental Task Force (ETF), shares his views on
\nthis issue with The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto.<\/p>\n
Question: What do you think lay behind the government's
\ndecision to submit the bill on privatization of water to the
\nlegislature?<\/p>\n
Answer: International influential organizations, which have
\ninterests in Indonesia, had a role in pushing the government to
\npropose the bill (to the House of Representatives).<\/p>\n
Obviously, in recent years, water resources for both drinking
\nand other purposes, like irrigation, have gradually decreased.
\nTherefore, the reasons for proposing the bill should be perceived
\nas efforts to manage and conserve water properly and to maintain
\npeople's equal access to (clean) water.<\/p>\n
Q: The World Bank has reportedly recommended water privatization
\nin some countries, including Indonesia. Do you think this has
\nserved as an inspiration to the government?<\/p>\n
A: Directly or indirectly, yes. There is a tendency that the
\ngovernment believes that economically, privatization will benefit
\nthe people.<\/p>\n
Q: If the House passes the bill what would be the most serious
\nenvironmental and social economic impacts?<\/p>\n
A: Environmentally, overexploitation of water will likely
\ncontinue simply to meet market demand -- water resources would no
\nlonger support environmental conservation.<\/p>\n
Would private companies with permits to exploit water
\nresources put conservation interests above business interests?
\nExperience proves that private companies are all business-
\noriented.<\/p>\n
From the socioeconomic point of view, people's lack of access
\nto water resources could trigger conflicts. Why don't we learn
\nfrom our own experience that privatizing natural resources could
\ncause social conflict? We could take as examples the exploration
\nof oil in Lhokseumawe, Aceh, and gold mining in West Nusa
\nTenggara, Papua, North Sulawesi and East Kalimantan.<\/p>\n
Conflict emerges whenever privatization denies people's access
\nto water. I believe that the people would be in weak position
\nregarding the process for deciding water tariffs.<\/p>\n
Q: What should be done to prevent excessive exploitation of
\nwater? Do you see any appropriate control mechanism that could be
\nestablished by the government to guarantee access to clean water?<\/p>\n
A: Privatization could obviously get out of hand (in the future).
\nIf the government just wants to manage water resources in a more
\nefficient and effective manner, privatization is not the answer.
\nTo manage water resources properly, the government simply needs
\nto make comprehensive regulations (on water exploitation) and
\nimplement them in a very careful and transparent manner.<\/p>\n
If the House deliberated the bill and passed it into law, the
\ngovernment would be overwhelmed in controlling the investors
\nauthorized to manage water resources, despite a mechanism or
\nsystem to control the privatization.<\/p>\n
The government would bow to private investors ... The case of
\nPDAM Jaya (the Jakarta city water firm) is an example of the
\ngovernment's helplessness in implementing the control mechanism.<\/p>\n
Government officials tend to show dishonesty ... This attitude
\nhas inspired private companies to ignore business ethics and this
\nwill by all means affect people's proper access to clean water.
\nThis could cause a domino effect -- meaning that the clean water
\nmarket was open while people's access to clean water gradually
\ndeclined.<\/p>\n
Water privatization offers big business opportunities to
\ninvestors, but, in the long run, threatens the people's
\nlivelihood.<\/p>\n
Q: Many springs in mountainous areas in Java, Sumatra and
\nKalimantan are now controlled by private companies producing
\nbottled water. In urban areas both foreign and domestic investors
\nhave been competing in the water supply business. How should we
\nsee this phenomenon?<\/p>\n
A: Many springs are indeed controlled by private companies. The
\n2002 drought and water crisis in Jakarta has been perceived by
\ninvestors as a promising business opportunity.<\/p>\n
Anyhow, we must conserve and protect water resources as public
\ngoods that must be professionally managed through transparent
\nregulations at regional (regency) levels. Enforcement of the
\nregulation must be controlled by local communities. The
\nlegislature must be responsive to people's aspirations in law-
\nmaking, while the executive must facilitate everything regarding
\nwater management.<\/p>\n
Q: Water has become an expensive commodity, even more expensive
\nthan gasoline. How do you see this?<\/p>\n
A: Water will continue to be an expensive commodity. I'm afraid
\nthis is the business opportunity that will be captured by
\ninternational institutions in order to benefit from water
\nresources in developing countries, including Indonesia.
\nTherefore, we should all be more critical in the way we perceive
\nthis development.<\/p>\n
We all agree that water resources management needs new and
\nbetter regulations, which are able to maintain and preserve
\nwater resources or springs as valuable natural resources.
\nHowever, once again, privatization is not the formula to improve
\nwater management.<\/p>\n
Q: How do you see Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, which
\nstates that essential resources should be controlled by the
\nstate?<\/p>\n
A: Water, soil and all natural wealth are controlled by the
\nstate ... this means that the state must use its authority to the
\nbenefit of its citizens' lives.<\/p>\n
The state must produce regulations or laws to empower itself.
\nBut this is not a monopoly. The regulations must cover the
\npeople's interests ... cultural values and ethics in society must
\nbe adopted to make the regulations more transparent and
\naccommodating. In this way water resources could be properly
\nmanaged (by the state and the people).<\/p>\n
The (focus of the) bill should be changed to regulation of
\nwater resources at the macro level, together with regional
\n(regency or mayoralty) level laws as the directives. The people
\nmust be involved in law-making and the monitoring of law
\nenforcement.<\/p>\n
Q: Could you elaborate?<\/p>\n
A: The bill, which could be later passed into law at the central
\ngovernment level, is supposed to be the umbrella for all relevant
\nregulations, including the provincial and regency regulations
\nwhich regulate more technical aspects.<\/p>\n
The making of provincial and regency regulations must
\naccommodate local aspirations, the culture and tradition. Take
\nthe Balinese irrigation system of subak. The regulations must not
\nnegate or annul the subak, but develop it for the sake of
\npeople's prosperity.<\/p>\n
Echo bio-region system must be adapted in the management of
\nwater resources. The Ciliwung river flows through Jakarta and
\nBogor. Consequently there must be a kind of joint regional
\nregulation to manage the river.<\/p>\n
A special body can be set up if necessary to prevent
\nconflicting interests between the two administrations. Or, a one-
\nriver-one-management system could be applied to avoid conflict.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rules-not-privatization-needed-to-ensure-water-access-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}