Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Profit Amidst Misery- Water is Not a Commodity

Profit Amidst Misery- Water is Not a Commodity

|Views: 29|Likes:
Published by Yanuar Nugroho

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Yanuar Nugroho on Aug 01, 2008
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Opinion and Editorial – The Jakarta Post January 24, 2003
Profit amidst misery: Water is not a commodity
Yanuar Nugroho
,Director, Business Watch Indonesia,Lecturer, Sahid Univ. Surakarta,Researcher, Unisosdem Jakarta,yanuar-n@unisosdem.org The bill on water resources management may be ratified at any time this year. It involves plans fortotal restructuring of water management -- the country's water sector will be managed according tothe market mechanism and there will be wide opportunities for private sector involvement in thewater-based business. Precisely, it is all about privatization of water resources.We are in danger of facing a brutal autumn in the provision of water as essential services. Before thebill there was already the Presidential Decree No. 96/2000, stating that share-ownership for anycompany in this sector could make up 95 percent of their total share. Doesn't it mean an enormoussurrender of public authority under market domination?Hiding behind the argument of imbalance between declining water supply and rising water demand,privatization is transforming scarce resources into profitable commodity. This newspaper reportedthat in a city like Jakarta, around 70 percent of the population has to meet their needs for water fromlow or deep wells and the rest from rivers.Hence the fear that if private water corporations take control of water, an essential scarce resource,there will be loss of livelihood. The World Bank notes many lack access to safe water -- but manymore lack access to affordable water.The
magazine cited estimated annual revenues of the water industry -- some US$400 billion-- or 40 percent of the oil sector and one-third larger than the pharmaceutical sector.There are now multinational corporations, The Big Ten, who control the water market and relatedindustries, worth more than $150 billion. Nine of those are in Europe, which include three Frenchtransnationals -- Vivendi, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, Bouygeus; five British based companies --United Utilities, Thames Water Plc., Severn Trent Plc., Anglian Water Plc. and the Kelda (previously:Yorkshire Plc.) group; and one German utility company RWE Aktiengesellschaft. There is also Enron,the U.S.-based multi-utilities company. Except for Severn Trent Plc., the RWE group, and Enron, allthe others have investments in Asia.Suez-Lyonnaise, which operates in about 130 countries and supplies water to some 115 millionpeople is now investing in Indonesia, taking over PDAM in Jakarta and other cities, hand-in-hand withBritish Thames. Ondeo, another water corporation whose investment in various Asian cities andprovides 23.5 million people with drinking water, in October 2001 won a 25-year contract for servicingand distribution of drinking water in Tangerang, Indonesia.Thus the above bill cannot be separated from this big scenario of privatization of an essential service.It is part of a program for water resources restructuring in Indonesia, promoted by the World Bankthrough its Water Resources Sector Adjustment Loan (WATSAL) scheme, worth $300 million. The"Structural Adjustment Program" enforced by the International Monetary Fund is the toll-road torapidly privatize services provision.Through this, the government is required to implement critical policy reforms which include the mostcrucial aspects, i.e., public sector expenditure including cuts in subsidies, privatization of state-ownedenterprises and expansion of private sector participation.
The World Bank and Asia Development Bank have provided budget support loans attached tomandated reforms -- including policy reforms, social safety net, power sector, health and nutrition,water, etc -- through an integrated package of adjustments. It is here that WATSAL gets its context.To really understand service privatization, look at the fact that international trade in commercialservices was worth $1.35 trillion in 1999 and keeps increasing. Service accounts for 60 percent oraround $210 billion of annual foreign direct investment, which is largely connected with privatizationof state entities.Thus, with its willingness to finance Indonesian water resources restructuring program, the WorldBank also upholds privatization of water resources. This, surely, also happens in other servicesectors in various parts of the world.It is an irony that water corporations, backed up by such policies imposed by international financeinstitutions (IFI), are making huge profits amidst water scarcity. Scarcity of resources andenvironmental degradation is often perceived as an investment and business opportunity bycorporations.In water resources management, the core issue lies in the fact that water is turned into a commodity.This contradicts various UN covenants and international agreements that view access to water as afundamental human right. These covenants even stipulate state obligations to ensure that all citizenshave access to water.But the World Bank stresses that public institutions have failed in handling this business. Poor qualityand low reliability of service have reduced consumers' willingness to pay fees for the service, leadingto lower operational funds and further deterioration in public service including water.And the Bank always contrasts all this with the performance of the private sector, described as beingcapable of providing an efficient service as well as large financing and investment funds. Thus theBank asserts that the private sector will have to be increasingly involved in water resourcesmanagement through, concessions, management contracts and private ownership, etc.Last but not least, the Bank is also confident that it is now the time for full-cost recovery, to smoothen"subsidy abolition" and institutionalization of water property rights or business lease rights, as writtenby researcher Henry Heyneardhi.And this is precisely the most serious flaw.First, as the bill suggests, water resources are managed, assuming that water is an economiccommodity. The idea is rooted in the Dublin Principle, an outcome of the 1992 International DublinConference on Water and Environment which resolved that "water has an economic value in all itscompeting uses and should be perceived as an economic good."The ADB, in its 2002 policy paper on water, added the need to "underlie all efforts for rational waterresources management". The principle made sure that access to water was to be organizedaccording to market mechanism. Yet, actually water is common property (not to be confused with"collective ownership") instead of an individual asset. Water is thus a social object for everybody anddoes not belong to anybody.Second, it seems that "full-cost recovery" is a catch-all phrase required to "get prices right" and thebasis of a market-demand driven approach to the distribution of water resources. Yet such anapproach to allocation of water services will never lead to adequate and equal access to wateramong competing ends.Third, distribution and access to water organized around the rules of the market and profit motiveensures that only communities and individuals who can afford to pay for water services will haveaccess to safe drinking water. Privatization is hence potentially instituting a "water divided" society,reflecting the larger rich-poor divide.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->