Selling our water: Unethical, yet unstoppable?<\/p>\n
Budi Widianarko, Head, Graduate School of Environment and Urban Studies,
\nSoegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang<\/p>\n
Privatization has become a magical buzzword in the water
\narena. Globally, in just a decade the number of consumers has
\nrisen eightfold, from 51 million in 1990 to 460 million at
\npresent. Many analysts have predicted that the trend of water
\nprivatization will continue to accelerate. It is estimated in
\n2015 that more than 1 billion people will use \"privatized water\".<\/p>\n
This is among the core issues at the ongoing third world water
\nforum from March 16 to March 23 in Kyoto, Japan.<\/p>\n
This privatization option -- dubbed \"public-private
\npartnership\" -- has been promoted by water corporations as an
\neffective means for improving people's access to water.
\nPrivatization is believed to be a capable weapon to combat the
\nweaknesses of existing public sector water undertakings (PWUs).
\nGenerically, these are reckoned to be their lack of financial
\ncapacity to expand systems as well as inefficiencies from
\ntechnical, financial and managerial aspects. Privatization is
\nthus believed to promise better and wider access to water.<\/p>\n
Very sadly, in Indonesia these drawbacks are profoundly
\nbelieved, not only by municipal governments but also by PWU
\nadministrators. Even if options for improving the performance of
\na PWU are available or can still be explored, usually
\nprivatization is chosen as the best and most immediate therapy.
\nOne possible explanation for this attitude is the widespread
\npreference for instant solutions. This kind of attitude is
\nperfectly matched by the strong drive of transnational water
\ncompanies to expand their market.<\/p>\n
This \"perfect match\" takes place in metropolitan areas where a
\nvariety of problems related to water service provision are
\nprevalent. Shockingly enough, the same tendency is spreading to
\nsmaller towns (thanks to decentralization?), many of which have
\nno significant problem with their water service provision.<\/p>\n
The underlying principle of privatization is the market-based
\nmechanism, which basically consists of supply and demand, price
\nand profit. Viten, a Dutch water company sums it up perfectly in
\nits slogan \"people-planet-profit\". Once water is turned into a
\ncommodity, the notion of ownership will prevail.<\/p>\n
Claims over water ownership generate an ethical challenge.
\nHowever, there is already a generic counterargument to it. In
\nhis article in Development Outreach (Fall 2002) the chief
\nexecutive officer of giant French water corporation Suez, Gerard
\nMestrallet, wrote \"water is a common good, one of the basic
\npublic goods. At Suez, we are opposed to the private ownership of
\nwater resources precisely because ... water is not a commodity.
\nWe do not trade in water. We do not sell a product. We provide a
\nservice. The service of making clean water continuously available
\nto all, and returning water to the natural habitat once it has
\nbeen treated. It is the price of that service that is billed, not
\nthe price of water as raw material\".<\/p>\n
By pricing \"only\" the cleanup and distribution service, not
\nthe water itself, the company seems to be paying ample respect to
\nwater. However people have to pay for water: Water has a price.<\/p>\n
The higher the profit margin incorporated into the price, the
\ngreater the attractiveness of water pricing.<\/p>\n
This is not to say that provision of water by PWUs is free
\nfrom pricing. As a subsystem of municipal and local governments,
\nPWUs should not include a maximized profit margin in the bill,
\nfor it is a political responsibility of the (local) government to
\nsecure its citizens' access to water.<\/p>\n
The bill can duly be considered as the people's contribution
\nto government efforts to provide and distribute clean and safe
\nwater. So, the notion of water pricing is less pronounced.<\/p>\n
With privatization, water tariff hikes have taken place in
\nmany countries. In terms of environmental ethics, giving a price
\nto water as a tradable good is clearly paradoxical, while access
\nto clean water is declared by the UN to be a human right.<\/p>\n
Water is vital for the life of the biosphere. It can be found
\nacross the levels of living beings, from simple cells to complex
\necosystems. Copious exchanges of water within the biosphere are
\ncrucial to its maintenance, especially temperature control.
\nAnd, according to what is called the Gaia hypothesis (after the
\nGreek goddess of Earth) the Earth is a single, living organism
\ncomprising, among other things, the atmosphere, oceans, the
\nclimate, land and living creatures. Since water is the most
\nessential factor for the earth's survival it should be assigned
\nan intrinsic value.<\/p>\n
By having an intrinsic value, environmental ethic experts say,
\nwater would be valued beyond its utility. This is somehow
\ncompatible to some traditional beliefs and religions in
\nIndonesia: Water is seen as the origin and posterity of all life,
\nspiritual blessing, and also as a healing substance (Tony Whitten
\net al., Ecology of Java and Bali, 1996). Traditional communities
\nare well-equipped with local wisdom related to water rituals,
\nuse, distribution and conservation.<\/p>\n
Having been practiced for thousands of years this wisdom has
\nbecome a social norm largely obeyed by community members. In the
\nface of such a norm the pricing of water is incompatible.<\/p>\n
In addition to the ethical problem, privatization of water
\nhere also tends to trigger a social justice problem. With very
\nweak enforcement of environmental laws and regulations, various
\nacts of pollution -- particularly by industry -- can still occur
\nwithout any strict penalty be imposed.<\/p>\n
There is thus an obvious risk of overcharging the ordinary
\nhuman user for the cost of purifying polluted water. It is
\nclearly unjust to charge an ordinary user solely based on the
\nvolume of water, without subtracting the cost component for
\ncleaning up the contamination caused by others.<\/p>\n
Without incorporating the \"polluter pays\" principle in the
\nformula, the calculation of cost recovery would be unjust. Costs
\nof purifying polluted water are thus borne by all users,
\nregardless of their responsibility for contaminating it.<\/p>\n
Despite problems of ethics and justice, water privatization in
\nIndonesia seems unstoppable. Worse, the currently available draft
\nof the water resources law stresses commercialization. Now is the
\ntime to seek the attention of the public, in order to prevent
\nunnecessary privatization of PWUs in their cities and towns.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/selling-our-water-unethical-yet-unstoppable-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}