Solar Power Desalination
Who Owns Water?

By Maude Barlow & Tony Clarke
The Ntaion
September 2, 2002

At the same time, activists from South Africa and around the world
with a very different vision will gather in very different
settings to fight for a water-secure future. One such venue will be Alexandra
Township, a poverty-stricken community where sanitation, electricity and water
services have been privatized and cut off to those who cannot afford them.

Alexandra is situated right next door to Sandton and divided only by a river so
polluted that it has cholera warning signs on its banks. There could not be a
more fitting setting for Rio+10 than South Africa, because neighboring Sandton
and Alexandra represent the great divide that characterizes the current debate
over water. Moreover, South Africa is the birthplace of one of the nucleus
groups that form the heart of a new global civil society movement dedicated to
saving the world's water as part of the global commons.

This movement originates in a fight for survival. The world is running out of
fresh water. Humanity is polluting, diverting and depleting the wellspring of
life at a startling rate. With every passing day, our demand for fresh water
outpaces its availability, and thousands more people are put at risk. Already,
the social, political and economic impacts of water scarcity are rapidly
becoming a destabilizing force, with water-related conflicts springing up around
the globe. Quite simply, unless we dramatically change our ways, between
one-half and two-thirds of humanity will be living with severe freshwater
shortages within the next quarter-century.

It seemed to sneak up on us, or at least those of us living in the North. Until
the past decade, the study of fresh water was left to highly specialized groups
of experts--hydrologists, engineers, scientists, city planners, weather
forecasters and others with a niche interest in what so many of us took for
granted. Many knew about the condition of water in the Third World, including
the millions who die of waterborne diseases every year. But this was seen as an
issue of poverty, poor sanitation and injustice--all areas that could be
addressed in the just world for which we were fighting.

Now, however, an increasing number of voices--including human rights and
environmental groups, think tanks and research organizations, official
international agencies and thousands of community groups around the world--are
sounding the alarm. The earth's fresh water is finite and small, representing
less than one half of 1 percent of the world's total water stock. Not only are
we adding 85 million new people to the planet every year, but our per capita use
of water is doubling every twenty years, at more than twice the rate of human
population growth. A legacy of factory farming, flood irrigation, the
construction of massive dams, toxic dumping, wetlands and forest destruction,
and urban and industrial pollution has damaged the Earth's surface water so
badly that we are now mining the underground water reserves far faster than
nature can replenish them.

The earth's "hot stains"--areas where water reserves are disappearing--include
the Middle East, Northern China, Mexico, California and almost two dozen
countries in Africa. Today thirty-one countries and over 1 billion people
completely lack access to clean water. Every eight seconds a child dies from
drinking contaminated water. The global freshwater crisis looms as one of the
greatest threats ever to the survival of our planet.

Tragically, this global call for action comes in an
era guided by the principles of the so-called Washington Consensus, a model of
economics rooted in the belief that liberal market economics constitutes the one
and only economic choice for the whole world. Competitive nation-states are
abandoning natural resources protection and privatizing their ecological
commons. Everything is now for sale, even those areas of life, such as social
services and natural resources, that were once considered the common heritage of
humanity. Governments around the world are abdicating their responsibilities to
protect the natural resources in their territory, giving authority away to the
private companies involved in resource exploitation.

Faced with the suddenly well-documented freshwater crisis, governments and
international institutions are advocating a Washington Consensus solution: the
privatization and commodification of water. Price water, they say in chorus; put
it up for sale and let the market determine its future. For them, the debate is
closed. Water, say the World Bank and the United Nations, is a "human need," not
a "human right." These are not semantics; the difference in interpretation is
crucial. A human need can be supplied many ways, especially for those with
money. No one can sell a human right.

So a handful of transnational corporations, backed by the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, are aggressively taking over the management of
public water services in countries around the world, dramatically raising the
price of water to the local residents and profiting especially from the Third
World's desperate search for solutions to its water crisis. Some are startlingly
open; the decline in freshwater supplies and standards has created a wonderful
venture opportunity for water corporations and their investors, they boast. The
agenda is clear: Water should be treated like any other tradable good, with its
use determined by the principles of profit.

It should come as no surprise that the private sector knew before most of the
world about the looming water crisis and has set out to take advantage of what
it considers to be blue gold. According to Fortune, the annual profits of the
water industry now amount to about 40 percent of those of the oil sector and are
already substantially higher than the pharmaceutical sector, now close to $1
trillion. But only about 5 percent of the world's water is currently in private
hands, so it is clear that we are talking about huge profit potential as the
water crisis worsens. In 1999 there were more than $15 billion worth of water
acquisitions in the US water industry alone, and all the big water companies are
now listed on the stock exchanges.

Water Lords

There are ten major corporate players now delivering freshwater services for
profit. The two biggest are both from France--Vivendi Universal and
Suez--considered to be the General Motors and Ford of the global water industry.
Between them, they deliver private water and wastewater services to more than
200 million customers in 150 countries and are in a race, along with others such
as Bouygues Saur, RWE-Thames Water and Bechtel-United Utilities, to expand to
every corner of the globe. In the United States, Vivendi operates through its
subsidiary, USFilter; Suez via its subsidiary, United Water; and RWE by way of
American Water Works.

They are aided by the World Bank and the IMF, which are increasingly forcing
Third World countries to abandon their public water delivery systems and
contract with the water giants in order to be eligible for debt relief. The
performance of these companies in Europe and the developing world has been well
documented: huge profits, higher prices for water, cutoffs to customers who
cannot pay, no transparency in their dealings, reduced water quality, bribery
and corruption.

Water for profit takes a number of other forms. The bottled-water industry is
one of the fastest-growing and least regulated industries in the world,
expanding at an annual rate of 20 percent. Last year close to 90 billion liters
of bottled water were sold around the world--most of it in nonreusable plastic
containers, bringing in profits of $22 billion to this highly polluting
industry. Bottled-water companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are engaged
in a constant search for new water supplies to feed the insatiable appetite of
this business. In rural communities all over the world, corporate interests are
buying up farmlands, indigenous lands, wilderness tracts and whole water
systems, then moving on when sources are depleted. Fierce disputes are being
waged in many places over these "water takings," especially in the Third World.

As one company explains, water is now "a rationed necessity that may be taken by force."

Corporations are now involved in the construction of massive pipelines to carry
fresh water long distances for commercial sale while others are constructing
supertankers and giant sealed water bags to transport vast amounts of water
across the ocean to paying customers. Says the World Bank, "One way or another,
water will soon be moved around the world as oil is now." The mass movement of
bulk water could have catalytic environmental impacts. Some proposed projects
would reverse the flow of mighty rivers in Canada's north, the environmental
impact of which would be greater than China's Three Gorges Dam.

At the same time, governments are signing away their
control over domestic water supplies to trade agreements such as the North
American Free Trade Agreement, its expected successor, the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA), and the World Trade Organization. These global trade
institutions effectively give transnational corporations unprecedented access to
the freshwater resources of signatory countries. Already, corporations have
started to sue governments in order to gain access to domestic water sources
and, armed with the protection of these international trade agreements, are
setting their sights on the commercialization of water.

Water is listed as a "good" in the WTO and NAFTA, and as an "investment" in
NAFTA. It is to be included as a "service" in the upcoming WTO services
negotiations (the General Agreement on Trade in Services) and in the FTAA. Under
the "National Treatment" provisions of NAFTA and the GATS, signatory governments
who privatize municipal water services will be obliged to permit competitive
bids from transnational water-service corporations. Similarly, once a permit is
granted to a domestic company to export water for commercial purposes, foreign
corporations will have the right to set up operations in the host country.

NAFTA contains a provision that requires "proportional sharing" of energy
resources now being traded between the signatory countries. This means that the
oil and gas resources no longer belong to the country of extraction, but are a
shared resource of the continent. For example, under NAFTA, Canada now exports
57 percent of its natural gas to the United States and is not allowed to cut
back on these supplies, even to cut fossil fuel production under the Kyoto
accord. Under this same provision, if Canada started selling its water to the
United States--which President Bush has already said he considers to be part of
the United States' continental energy program--the State Department would
consider it to be a trade violation if Canada tried to turn off the tap. And
under NAFTA's "investor state" Chapter 11 provision, American corporate
investors would be allowed to sue Canada for financial losses [see William
Greider, "The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century," October
15, 2001]. Already, a California company is suing the Canadian government for
$10.5 billion because the province of British Columbia banned the commercial
export of bulk water.

The WTO also opens the door to the commercial export of water by prohibiting the
use of export controls for any "good" for any purpose. This means that quotas or
bans on the export of water imposed for environmental reasons could be
challenged as a form of protectionism. At the December 2001 Qatar ministerial
meeting of the WTO, a provision was added to the so-called Doha Text, which
requires governments to give up "tariff" and "nontariff" barriers--such as
environmental regulations--to environmental services, which include water.
The Case Against Privatization

If all this sounds formidable, it is. But the situation is not without hope. For
the fact is, we know how to save the world's water: reclamation of despoiled
water systems, drip irrigation over flood irrigation, infrastructure repairs,
water conservation, radical changes in production methods and watershed
management, just to name a few. Wealthy industrialized countries could supply
every person on earth with clean water if they canceled the Third World debt,
increased foreign aid payments and placed a tax on financial speculation.

None of this will happen, however, until humanity earmarks water as a global
commons and brings the rule of law--local, national and international--to any
corporation or government that dares to contaminate it. If we allow the
commodification of the world's freshwater supplies, we will lose the capacity to
avert the looming water crisis. We will be allowing the emergence of a water
elite that will determine the world's water future in its own interest. In such
a scenario, water will go to those who can afford it and not to those who need
This is not an argument to excuse the poor way in which some governments have
treated their water heritage, either squandering it, polluting it or using it
for political gain. But the answer to poor nation-state governance is not a
nonaccountable transnational corporation but good governance. For governments in
poor countries, the rich world's support should go not to profiting from bad
water management but from aiding the public sector in every country to do its job.

The commodification of water is wrong--ethically, environmentally and socially.
It insures that decisions regarding the allocation of water would center on
commercial, not environmental or social justice considerations. Privatization
means that the management of water resources is based on principles of scarcity
and profit maximization rather than long-term sustainability. Corporations are
dependent on increased consumption to generate profits and are much more likely
to invest in the use of chemical technology, desalination, marketing and water
trading than in conservation.

Depending on desalination technology is a Faustian bargain. It is prohibitively
expensive, highly energy intensive--using the very fossil fuels that are
contributing to global warming--and produces a lethal byproduct of saline brine
that is a major cause of marine pollution when dumped back into the oceans at
high temperatures.

The antidote to water commodification is its
decommodification. Water must be declared and understood for all time to be the
common property of all. In a world where everything is being privatized,
citizens must establish clear perimeters around those areas that are sacred to
life and necessary for the survival of the planet. Simply, governments must
declare that water belongs to the earth and all species and is a fundamental
human right. No one has the right to appropriate it for profit. Water must be
declared a public trust, and all governments must enact legislation to protect
the freshwater resources in their territory. An international legal framework is
also desperately needed.

It is strikingly clear that neither governments nor their official global
institutions are going to rise to this challenge. This is where civil society
comes in. There is no more vital area of concern for our international movement
than the world's freshwater crisis. Our entry point is the political question of
the ownership of water; we must come together to form a clear and present
opposition to the commodification and cartelization of the world's freshwater resources.

Already, a common front of environmentalists, human rights and antipoverty
activists, public sector workers, peasants, indigenous peoples and many others
from every part of the world has come together to fight for a water-secure
future based on the notion that water is part of the public commons. We
coordinated strategy at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, last
January. We will be in South Africa for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in September and in Kyoto, Japan, next March, when the World Bank
and the UN bring 8,000 people to the Third World Water Forum. There, we will
oppose water privatization and promote our own World Water Vision as an
alternative to that adopted by the World Bank at the Second World Water Forum in
The Hague two years ago. We will stand with local people fighting water
privatization in Bolivia, or the construction of a mega-dam in India, or water
takings by Perrier in Michigan, but now all of these local struggles will form
part of an emerging international movement with a common political vision.

Steps needed for a water-secure future include the adoption of a Treaty
Initiative to Share and Protect the Global Water Commons; a guaranteed "water
lifeline"--free clean water every day for every person as an inalienable
political and social right; national water protection acts to reclaim and
preserve freshwater systems; exemptions for water from international trade and
investment regimes; an end to World Bank and IMF-enforced water privatizations;
and a Global Water Convention that would create an international body of law to
protect the world's water heritage based on the twin cornerstones of
conservation and equity. A tough challenge indeed. But given the stakes
involved, we had better be up to it.


Promoting Green Building Design, Construction and Operation, Sustainable Living,
Clean Technology, Renewable Energy Resources and Energy Independence