GLOBAL WATER CRISIS:VALUES AND RIGHTS AT STAKE

Pedro Arrojo Agudo

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................

1. IMPACTS OF THE CRISIS ...........................................................................................1. On aquatic ecosystems ................................................................................2. In food ...............................................................................................................3. In the economy ...............................................................................................

2. A NEW ETHICAL APPROACH .......................................................................................1. Complex values at stake .............................................................................2. Functions and rights .....................................................................................

3. THE CHALLENGE OF “PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE” .......................................1. Public versus private management ..........................................................2. Promoting participatory governance .......................................................

BRIEF GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................

NOTES ...............................................................................................................................

QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................

27

30

2424

1614

12

14

855

3

31

32

Pedro Arrojo, is a Professor of the Department of Economic Analysis at the University ofSaragossa (Spain).

INTERNET: www.cristianismeijusticia.net - Translated by Gerarda Walsh - Cover illustration:Roger Torres - Printed on ecological paper and recycled cardboard - CRISTIANISME IJUSTÍCIA Edition - Roger de Llúria, 13 - 08010 Barcelona - Tel: 93 317 23 38 - Fax: 93 31710 94 - info@fespinal.com - Printed by: Edicions Rondas, S.L. - ISSN: 0214-6509 - ISBN: 84-9730-258-3 - Legal deposit: B-44.373-2010. Desember 2010.

The Lluís Espinal Foundation would like to inform you that its information comes from our historical archive belongingto our records. These go under the name of BDGACIJ and are registered with the code 2061280639. In order toaccess them, rectify them, delete or challenge them, please contact us at the street Roger de Llúria, 13, Barcelona.

3

INTRODUCTION

The current neoliberal model of globalisation, far from slowing down theeffects of environmental damage, eliminating injustices and guaran-teeing basic rights to the poorest people, has brought the watermanagement to the market, and turned it into a new businessopportunity, accelerating the pillaging of water resources and increas-ing the vulnerability of the weakest sectors of society. Today, it is estimated that 1.2 billion people do not have guaranteedaccess to drinking water, and if current trends continue, this figure willincrease to 4 billion by 2025. The widespread deterioration of continen-tal aquatic eco-systems is at the root of this humanitarian disaster. Thiscrisis of unsustainability is also aggravating the problem of world hun-ger, by destroying fish stocks (both in rivers and seas), as well as thetraditional agricultural methods of food production that are linked to thecycles of flooding in river floodplains.In summary, we are facing a global water crisis due to a combination offailures:

– Sustainability: through contamination and abusive exploitation ofrivers, lakes and aquifers, through the building of large-scale hydraulicworks, and also through widespread deforestation.– Poverty and injustice: which increases the vulnerability of the poorestcommunities faced with the destruction of their aquatic ecosystems.– Governance: due to problems of corruption and the privatisation ofwater and sanitation services.– Global democratic institutions: who should be making water a reasonfor collaboration between nations, and not a source of confrontation anddomination.This global crisis will undoubtedly worsen through the effects of climatechange if adequate adaptation policies are not assumed, in order toreduce the vulnerability of populations, in particular the poorest

communities, against the risks of drought and heavy rains which,according to all forecasts, are likely to increase in both intensity andfrequency.In this context, as well as bringing about political and institutionalchanges and improving technology, we need to adopt a new ethicalfocus, based on principles of sustainability, fairness and non-violence.We therefore find ourselves faced with the need to promote a «NewWater Culture» which restores, within the framework of modernity, theold wisdom of our ancestor’s cultures that was based on an attitude ofcare and respect for Nature.

4

Romanticism softened the idea of«domination» in order to emphasise thebeauty of Nature that «inspires passionand love». This moved towards a newkind of gender mythical understandingof Nature, but this time, taking on therole of the «lover» and the object ofman’s desire. Having reached this point,the «irrational, unstable, fickle andunpredictable...» side of Nature –traitsassociated with the feminine gender–became the motivating force behindwhat was viewed as the necessary andrational role of science and technology,

with man this time clearly assuming thetraditional role of the masculine gender,aiming to dominate Nature and put it atthe service of mankind1.

1.1. Destruction of the naturalenvironmentDriven by this logic, and with a blindconfidence in science and technology,significant achievements were madewhich nobody questioned. Neverthe-less, this also resulted in disturbing thenatural order, with an increasingly high

5

1. IMPACTS OF THE CRISIS

In every ancient culture we find the notion of «Mother Nature»: amythical vision of the mother as creator and source of life. Renaissanceculture moved away from this focus and introduced the idea of the«domination of Nature» which Francis Bacon, the father of scientificempiricism, announced in quite a brutal way when he proposed that«Science should treat Nature as the Holy Office of the Inquisitiontreated their prisoners: torturing her until she reveals the last of hersecrets».

1. ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

price to pay for both the poorest peopletoday and for future generations.

The fact that more than 1.2 billionpeople do not have guaranteed access todrinking water causes more than 10,000deaths per day, mostly among children.The lack of adequate sanitation servicesand the discharge of urban and indus-trial waste directly into the natural envi-ronment are directly responsible for thistragedy. In many cases, pollution fromheavy metals and other toxins (forexample, those produced by open pitmining) has triggered processes ofgradual intoxication, causing illness andeven death, although these figures donot even appear in the statistics quotedearlier regarding the impact on health orthe deaths caused by the ingestion ofcontaminated water.

The global water crisis we arecurrently experiencing is not so much aquestion of water scarcity, but is moreto do with the quality of water available.In fact, every community settles near ariver, a natural spring or a lake, orperhaps a place where undergroundwater can be accessed through wells.The problem lies in our insatiable andirresponsible development ambition,through which we have damaged theseecosystems and aquifers, resulting inhuge health problems among thepopulation.

Unfortunately, we have also wit-nessed a lack of democracy and respon-sible behaviour on behalf of manygovernments, together with the trendtowards deregulation championed bythe World Trade Organisation (WTO),the International Monetary Fund (IMF)and the World Bank (WB), under the

auspices of promoting «free competi-tion». These factors set the scene for and even encourage activities that causepollution or that lead to the overex-ploitation of rivers and aquifers withoutany regulation, in impoverished ordeveloping countries. This situation istherefore resulting in what is known as «environmental dumping2» (whichgoes further than «social dumping»), and which is becoming a habitual prac-tice, that operates within the domain of the «free market», even thoughparadoxically, it involves a practice ofunfair, unjust and immoral competition.

The causes of this environmentaldamage are many:

– Massive decrease in river flow.– A drastic alteration in natural sys-tems and a rupture in the continuityof river habitats caused by the build-ing of dams.– Sediment collapse at these damsand an alteration in the flow of solidsthat feed the deltas and beaches onthe coasts.– Drainage and drying of the wet-lands, which destroys their ability topurify and regulate river flows– Massive deforestation, with theresulting soil erosion and its impactson the water cycle: more runoff, lessfiltration through aquifers and damsilting phenomena.– Drilling and drainage works andthe occupation of wide floodingareas within the river domain, withthe resulting impact on biodiversity,the flow of nutrients and increasedflooding risks.

6

1.2. Pollution: a key problem

Undoubtedly, one of the main reasonsfor this ecological damage is in thesystematic and widespread contamina-tion of rivers, lakes and aquifers. Organ-ic and biological contamination, causedfor the most part by urban, agriculturaland livestock waste; and toxic con-tamination, resulting from industrial,agricultural and mining activities.

The direct discharge into the envi-ronment of domestic wastewater, aswell as the groundwater seepage ofeffluent from septic tanks and cesspits,are frequently the cause of serioushealth issues related to water. The diar-rhoea caused by drinking contaminatedwater from these sources is the secondhighest cause of infant mortality today.It is estimated that around 5000 childrenunder the age of five die every day forthis reason, mostly within poor com-munities and poor countries: five timesgreater than the number of those that diefrom AIDS3.

The massive and generalised use ofchemicals and pesticides is generating a non-point source pollution, which isvery difficult to control. In fact, in manyplaces, agriculture has become the pri-mary source of pollution and, togetherwith urban waste, lead to eutrophicationprocesses, which end up destroyingaquatic life, due to nutrients excess.

The liberalisation and increasingderegulation of agricultural markets isharming the economic viability of tra-ditional methods of food productionwhich, from an environmental andsocial point of view, deserve to be con-sidered as practices that need to be

protected. This situation is instead de-stroying the rural way of life and caus-ing increasingly large-scale migrationtowards the poverty belts of big cities.

In the majority of impoverished anddeveloping countries, waste dischargeand obsolete production methods,which are toxic and a danger to publichealth, are still permitted. The absenceof international regulatory measures,specially in the mining and industrialsector, combined with the lack oflegislation, the failure to enforce it,when it does exist, and even problemsof corruption, have led to this situation.These production methods remainnevertheless “profitable” for the compa-nies which, in many cases, try to projecta public image of corporate social res-ponsibility and respect for the environ-ment in the developed countries fromwhich they originate.

The proliferation of open-pit miningactivities is particularly worrying, sincethese contaminate headwaters withleachate and waste with heavy metals,cyanide and other toxins.

– In the Cajamarca region (Peru) forexample, the indigenous communi-ties that are suffering from seriousillnesses caused by the open-pitmining of gold, are continuing theirprotests, in spite of the fact that thishas led to the murder of several oftheir leaders. – In the Pilcomayo River (Bolivia),fish have disappeared and plant lifeis languishing following the strongsuspicion that irrigation waters werecontaminated by mining activities inPotosí.

7

– The aggressive expansion of thistype of business has led to cases likethat of the Pascua Lama glacier(Chile), where one of the big multi-nationals in the sector, the Canadiancompany Barrick, was awarded sig-nificant contracts from the Chileanand Argentinean governments inorder to reach a gold deposit under-neath a glacier. In this case, neitherthe public alarm caused by climatechange nor the importance of theseglaciers as regulators of the riversthat flow from them, provided suf-ficient reasons to stop the project. – In Mexico, the San Javier mine(operated by a subsidiary of theCanadian company New Gold), hasignored strong court rulings, withthe connivance of the authorities, inorder to continue to ravage the town

of San Pedro, near to San LuísPotosí. – In the Argentinean provinces ofSan Juan and Mendoza, citizens pro-tests are asking for new laws againstopen pit mining in order to protectnot only public health, but also theeconomy of the region, which hasgained international renown for itswines.

In summary, rivers, lakes and wet-lands are suffering the most serious cri-sis in biodiversity of the planet. As theEuropean Declaration for a New WaterCulture underlines, which was signedby one hundred scientists from the dif-ferent countries of the European Unionin 2005, both issues are aspects of thesame crisis: the crisis of the unsustain-ability of aquatic ecosystems and thecrisis of the continental water cycle4.

8

2. IN FOOD

The direct and indirect impact on thesources of food production in the world,caused by the crisis of unsustainabilityof the rivers, lakes and wetlands, are asdevastating as they are hidden.

2.1. Fish: source of proteinamong the poor

Although fish is not usually the mainsource of protein in the diet of devel-oped countries, (10% in Europe and theUSA), it is of huge importance in

impoverished and developing countries.In Africa, it represents more than 20%of animal protein and in Asia it standsat 30%5. It is not surprising then that fishis often called the protein of the poor.

During the twentieth century, theconstruction of large dams harmed riverfish and caused the extinction of manyspecies. Among the more well-knowncases, we could name the Urrá River in Colombia, Singkarak in Sumatra,Lingjintan in China, Theun Hiboun inLaos or Pak Mun in Thailand. In these

cases, as in many others, the problemsof food supply affected and continue toaffect hundreds of thousands of poorfamilies in river-side communities.

– In the large Mekong basin6, theTonle Sap Lake, more commonlyknown as the Great Lake of Cambo-dia, is not simply a source of flowregulation, but also the heart ofcommunity life. With a surface areathat fluctuates between 3000 km2 inthe dry months, and 13,000 km2

during monsoon season7, the lake isone of the most fertile fish stocks inthe world, providing around100,000 tonnes of fish every year. Infact, this has traditionally been themain source of protein for 9.5million Cambodians. Approximate-ly 400 species of fish live in thelake. The periodic flooding of over10,000 km2 of fields and woodlandsnourishes an ecological cycle ofmonumental importance. On theone hand, it fertilises the fields itfloods as part of a natural cycle thatallows the growth of approximately50% of the rice produced inCambodia; and on the other hand,the fish spawn and feed in theflooded areas of the forests, takingadvantage of the wealth of nutrientsthat is found there.

Similar cycles take place overthousands of kilometres in the flood-plains of Mekong and its tributaries,as far as the Delta, which is one ofthe most fertile areas in the world. Itis estimated that 52 million peopledepend on the river as a source oftheir basic food.

In the present day, the acceler-ated industrial growth of Thailand is leading to the construction of largedams and water transfers. Theseprojects are threatening to causeserious ecological damage in theBasin and particularly in the Delta8.– In the Amazon, where more than3000 species of fish live, 200,000tonnes of fish are caught every year, which mostly destined for self-consuming and local markets. However, the advent of industrial-scale fishing, deforestation, wastedischarged from mines, the con-struction of dams and the drainageof wetlands are resulting in the de-struction of this source of protein-enriched food, and are causingspecies as well known as thetambaqui to become endangered.

During the last decade, ecologicaldamage caused in large lake systems isthreatening to cause major humanitar-ian disasters, through ruining fisheries.

– In the Lake Chad, the weakening ,the weakening of the monsoon rainsand the emergence of long dry pe-riods, as a result of the climatechange that is occurring, have re-duced the surface of the lake by80%, transforming the fourth largestlake in Africa into a mere wetlandthat can practically be crossed onfoot. – In the case of the Aral Sea, bysourcing 90% of the flow from theAmu Daria and Syr Daria Rivers inorder to irrigate the cotton fields, thewater area has been reduced to less

9

than half (going from 64,500 km2 to30.000 km2), while its saline contenthas tripled. For this reason, thefisheries that were producing 44,000tonnes of fish per year and generated60,000 jobs have disappeared9. – In Lake Victoria, the introductionof exotic species (such as the Nileperch) and the development ofindustrial-scale fishing for export,have resulted in a humanitariancrisis and led to the disappearance oftraditional fishing methods thatprovided the main source of food forthe local communities.– In Bangladesh, in the space of onlytwo decades, industrial fishing andits international commercialisationhave dramatically increased the sizeof catches, but have also led toproblems of over fishing. Now theamount of fish per capita in the areahas been reduced by one third10.

The development of huge hydroe-lectric infrastructures has not just af-fected fish in rivers and lakes, but alsofish in the sea.

– In the case of the Nile, the largeAswan Dam, has not only seriouslyaffected the river fish (from the 47species that were fished, 30 havedisappeared), but it has also led tothe disappearance of 90% of thesardine and anchovy catches in thewhole of the Eastern Mediterra-nean11, causing ruin for thousands offishing families. Today we knowthat these species, like many others,spawn at the mouths of large rivers,where they can take advantage of the

wealth of continental nutrientsfound there, brought by the periodicfloods. This natural phenomenonfertilises the coastal platforms inseas that are enclosed, or partiallyenclosed, and that have less plank-ton, such as the Mediterranean. – Asimilar effect was seen in the Seaof Cortez (Gulf of California), as aresult of the water transfer from theColorado River in order to supplyirrigation in Imperial Valley andfeed into the urban development ofLos Angeles and San Diego in theUnited States12.

2.2. Damage to agriculture andlivestock

It is important to add that the profounddisruption of river flows, in bothquantity and quality, taking place inmany of the great rivers of the world, iscausing a crisis in traditional forms ofagricultural production that are linked tothe cycles of river flooding.

– In Nigeria, the construction of theBakalori Dam accounted for the lossof 53% of the traditional crops,linked to flooding cycles in thefloodplains; at the same time, itruined the pastures that served thelivestock and severely affected theaquifers, which had been vital re-sources during periods of drought13. – Similar cases have also beennoted, as is documented in the finalreport made by the World Commis-sion on Dams, such as in the SenegalRiver, which impacted traditional

10

downstream production systemsused by 800,000 people; in the So-bradinho Reservoir (Brazil), wherealmost 11,000 rural families wereseriously affected; and the case ofthe Tarbela and Kotri Dams, inPakistan14.

In all these cases, as in many others,the transition to production methodsthat were supposed to be more efficient(changing to modern irrigation meth-ods, instead of taking advantage of theseasonal cycles of river flooding), led toserious problems in relation to foodsupply. This was because no attentionwas given to the means and the timenecessary for these transitional stages tomature and be adopted by the communi-ties themselves.

2.3. From productivity to eco-social efficiency

In spite of their seriousness, theseconsequences are not usually reflectedin the official economic statistics, be-cause most of this food is sold in localmarkets or self-consumed by the fishersfamilies, without entering the maincommercial markets.

Furthermore, it is often argued thatthese methods of production that arelinked to river cycles and traditionalriver fishing techniques, are inefficient.Nevertheless, if the environmental and

social value is taken into account, aswell as criteria of sustainability, fairdistribution and easy access to food bythe most poor and vulnerable sectors of society, this supposed inefficiencyactually results in higher levels of eco-social efficiency.

Without a doubt, it is necessary tochange the focus of international food-related organisations in relation to watermanagement. The myth promoted bythose concerned with productivity re-lating to irrigation has on the one handled to people ignoring the impacts ofwater policies on fish stocks, and on theother hand, has tended to focus itssolution for hunger on an increase inirrigation methods. The emphasis is stillplaced on the idea that the solution liesin increasing food production, ignoringthe fact that the problem often lies inaccess to the available food among thepoorest people... Fortunately, these dayspeople are open to listening to othersolutions. Such as the approach of ViaCampesina, for years, which places anemphasis on denouncing poverty aswell as the need of protecting thetraditional ways of life, that underpinthe rural fabric, face to the neo-liberalaggressiveness, specially in impover-ished and developing countries. Newpoints of view which identify, as a keyproblem, the failure of the natural cycleswhich regenerate the fertility of soil,seas and inland aquatic ecosystems...

11

The crisis affecting aquatic ecosystemsand other related ecosystems, such asforests, brings with it major socioeco-nomic impacts, as far as it affects a com-plex set of values, functions and envi-ronmental services of great importance.

3.1. Large-scale logging anddeforestationOne of the key reasons for the deterio-ration of freshwater sites is deforesta-tion and the uncontrolled expansion ofthe so-called “agricultural frontier”. Thechopping of millions of hectares ofprimary woodland, often with the sup-port of governments, usually occursfollowing combined pressure fromthose with financial interests in timber,farmers, and those with companies re-lated to agricultural exports. Such de-forestation projects usually lead to arapid deterioration in soil quality, fol-lowed by episodes of erosion, a de-crease in the filtration of the aquifersand an increase in runoff. This growingrate of drainage and the decrease ofwater retention capacity of the landresult in weakening reserves andincreasing vulnerability of communitiesface to drought cycles. As well as this,massive silting of rivers occurs, due tothe sediments coming from the erosion,which increases the risk of overflow andflooding downstream.

One of the most fragile and valuableenvironmental services provided by thecontinental aquatic ecosystems, is that

of water regeneration and purification.Rivers and, in a very specific way,wetlands, are like massive naturalpurifying systems that regenerate thequality of the water. When we damagetheir pyramid of life, we damage theircapacity to digest and biodegrade waste,thus making the quality of these waterseven more fragile. One of the mostcommon types of damage caused iscalled eutrophication (because of anexcess of nutrients), which comes to lifecollapse in the aquatic environment,while facilitating the growth of toxiccyanobacteria and algae.

3.2. Negative impacts of large-scale hydraulic works

The cyclical rise of river flows, ac-companied by flood events, have beenand continue to be vital to feeding thealluvial aquifers and fertilising thefloodplains. In this regard, people haveforgotten that the fertile orchards theyvalue so highly are the result of thou-sands of flooding episodes. Moreover,these floodplain areas, along with thewetlands, effectively carry out the func-tion of softening the floods, reducingthe energy of the peak flows.

Wetlands and aquifers are vital to thenatural regulation of the continentalwater cycle. For some years now, thecontroversial Hidrovia project betweenBrazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Bo-livia, has been threatening the largestwetland in the world, the Pantanal,

12

3. IN THE ECONOMY

which with its 200,000 km2 expanse,feeds into and regulates the La PlataBasin at its head. In order to improvenavigability and facilitate the export ofminerals and raw materials, the projectaims to dredge the river and drain thewetlands. Studies prepared by the Inter-american Development Bank estimatethat this would bring about the ex-tinction of 600 species of fish, 650 birdsand 80 mammals, as well as increasingthe risk of flooding and the effects ofdrought throughout the entire basin15.

The construction of large dams inthe world has not only broken thecontinuity of the natural river habitat,bringing about the extinction of variousspecies and the deterioration of fishstocks, but it has also drastically alteredthe natural cycle of flow and sedimentflow. The sediments, which would haveshaped the deltas over millions of yearsand which compensate for the naturalprocess of subsidence that usually af-fects these areas, are silting the reser-voirs (often very rapidly), while coastalareas are becoming salinated and arebeing progressively covered by the sea.These phenomenon, accelerated by theraise of the sea levels due to globalwarming, shed light in the space of afew decades, on the serious socio-economic consequences facing tens ofmillions of people.

The collapse of silt and sand in largedams, particularly when they are lo-

cated in the middle or the lower riverbasins, is causing serious problems onbeaches. Today we know that most ofthe sand on beaches comes not so muchfrom the erosion effects caused bywaves, but rather from the flows fromrivers that carry solids, which are thendistributed along the coast by coastalcurrents.

The case of the large Aswan Dam on the Nile, with its impact on theAlexandria Delta and on the beaches ofnorthern Africa, is perhaps one of themost significant examples. Woods HoleOceanographic Institution in Massa-chusetts estimated that, over the courseof six decades, Egypt could graduallylose under the sea 19% of its territoryhabitable, which would force the dis-placement of 16% of its population.

Another worrying case is that of the Mekong Basin. The accelerated deforestation at river headwaters isleading to major processes of erosion,which will increase runoff, strengthenthe current of the river and thereforeincrease the risk of catastrophic flood-ing. The subsequent collapse of thesesediments at the large dams that havebeen recently built or the dams that are under construction, along with themassive transfer projects that areplanned for Thailand, will lead to hugeproblems in the Delta, paradoxicallythrough a lack of sediments.

13

1.1. The ecosystem approach Almost ten years ago, suggesting thatwater should be viewed as an eco-socialasset (where the term “eco” would ex-press both economical and ecologicalvalues), rather than as a productiveinput, would have been the source ofmuch debate and controversy. Today,the need for this conceptual change setsbefore us the challenge of shifting fromthe traditional “resource management”approach towards a new “ecosystem”approach. For example, almost every-body has heard of the need to move

from the management of timber supply(resource approach), towards a morecomplex management of the whole for-est (ecosystem approach). This changeis gradually becoming more necessaryin relation to water resources too.

In fact, the Water Framework Direc-tive (WFD), in force in the EuropeanUnion since late 2000 promotes thisnew approach, establishing as its centraldirective the aim of restoring andpreserving the good ecological state ofrivers, lakes and wetlands. It is not sim-ply a matter of maintaining the phys-

14

2. A NEW ETHICAL APPROACH

As has already been explained, the issues of unsustainability, povertyand lack of democracy are at the roots of the global water crisis in theworld. In this context, the widespread inefficiency of traditional modelsof water management compels us to re-examine them. However, first ofall it will be necessary to reflect upon the values at stake, and on theethical issues which should lead our priorities and management criteria.

1. COMPLEX VALUES AT STAKE

icochemical properties of the water,viewing it as just another resource, butinstead aims to restore and maintain thehealth of aquatic and riparian habitats.In this way, and beyond the physical and chemical pointers, new biologicalpointers are required. Biodiversity is infact the best witness, not just of waterquality, but also of the good functioningof the ecosystem.

1.2. Privatisation pressuresNotwithstanding the consistency of theecosystem approach and its legalimplementation in the most developedcountries, the traditional approach toproductivity under the vision of water asa simple resource still holds a notableinfluence. The lobbies linked to theconstruction of large-scale hydraulicinfrastructures, along with culturalinertia and electoralist interests hinderthe right enforcement of the WaterFramework Directive, along with cul-tural inertia and the electoral persua-sions of the people have been an issuein the EU, particularly in our own coun-try, and this has hindered the full ap-plication and development of the WaterFramework Directive.

On a global scale, the neoliberalismthat dominates the current model ofglobalisation tends to encourage thisresource vision of water, but incorpo-rating new criteria of market rationality.Considering water as a mere productiveresource results in managing it as aneconomic asset, that can be divided up,appropriated and exchanged using thelogic of market. The conceptual logic ofneoliberal commercialism is framed by

the consideration that urban water sup-plies and sanitation services are simplyeconomic services. The undeniableproblems that exist relating to lack oftransparency, bureaucracy and evencorruption which often affect the publicmanagement of water supplies in theworld, have been presented by theWorld Bank as sufficient reason forjustifying its policies of privatisation.People's dependence on these servicesand the correspondent willingness topay to them, along with in relation tothese services and our correspondingwillingness to pay for them, along withthe growing scarcity of good qualitywater, have succeeded in making thesector into an attractive and profitablesource of business.

In this context, it seems paradoxicalthat the EU, which is largely responsiblefor the design and implementation ofthis neoliberal model of globalisation,should promote and adopt the WaterFramework Directive, which hardly fitsin with the privatisation approach, as itsbasic model of water management.Taking the principle of sustainability asthe basis for water management from anecosystem perspective actually impliesreinforcing public accountability on thismatter. Furthermore, the complex set of values and rights at stake here,pertaining to both the present and thefuture, coupled with the impossibility ofdividing or appropriating them, provethe markets to be too simplistic andineffective.

In this environment however, theneoliberal model moves its focus on tourban water and sanitation serviceswhich, as we have explained, offer more

15

favourable business conditions, but atthe cost of commercialising the mostbasic needs of the population. Thus,citizens become clients.

1.3. Equity and social cohesionvalues

Under this Light the ethical considera-tion and its political projection becomeunavoidable. The values of equity andsocial cohesion linked to basic services,such as domestic water and sanitationservices (along with health, education,social security…) remain beyond thesensitivities of market logic. Therefore,asking the market to bear these types ofconsiderations in mind is unfeasible. Itwould not be reasonable to expect themarkets to solve issues of social equityand cohesion, to guarantee basic humanor social rights, which by nature must beuniversally accessible, nor to considerthe rights of future generations.

In summary then, and going beyondthe challenge of sustainability, majorethical issues arise, requiring a deepreflection on the functions, values andrights at stake.

Having reached this stage, it wouldbe useful to again return to the contrast

between water and wood, as natural,rrenewable resources. Let us supposethat we were able to make peace withNature. Then we would use wood andwater without damaging the health offorests and rivers. In that case, thechallenge facing us would be limited toorganising the management of waterand wood as natural resources. I believethat once we have conquered the chal-lenge of ensuring the sustainability ofecosystems, there would be no sig-nificant problems encountered in man-aging wood as a resource. Nevertheless,we would continue to encounter seriousethical, social and political problems inthe domain of water management. Thereason for this, in my opinion, is thatwood provides us utilities consistentlyexchangeable for money, which allowsto entrust it management to the market,under a suitable legal regulation. Forthis reason, we consider it legitimatethat the lumberjack should sell timberlogs to the sawmill to be cut; and thento sell them to the carpenter to buildfurniture, that would be in turn sold tothe people.

However, the values at stake in thecase of water are not only more com-plex, but are also unable to be substi-tuted by financial assets.

16

2.1. A new economic visionFor Aristotle, “economia” was “the artof good housekeeping”; while he qual-

ified another concept using the wordcrematistica for dealing with anythingthat could be valued in terms of money;

2. FUNCTIONS AND RIGHTS

or, in other words, goods that could bebought and sold in the market. If wesubstitute, in the Aristotelian definitionof “economia”, the term “house” by“planet” we would arrive at a gooddefinition of the modern “ecologicaleconomics”.

Forcing intangible assets (whetherenvironmental or social) to be valued in monetary terms, in order to try andmanage everything from a marketperspective, usually leads to seriouserrors. Not all assets are, nor should they be, commercialised, and this isparticularly relevant in the case ofenvironmental assets. As Daly argues,some people think that man-made andnatural capital are such good substitutesthat the very idea of a limiting factor,which requires that the factors becomplementary, is irrelevant. ... I thinkit is sufficiently clear to common sensethat natural and man-made capital arefundamentally compliments and onlymarginally substitutable.

Water is certainly a clearly definedelement: H2O. But what is more impor-tant in relation to water is not itscomposition, but rather its functions.Unlike wood or other natural resources,in the case of water we find a multi-plicity of uses and functions that arelinked to different ethical levels. Itbrings with it the need to prioritisecertain uses of water over others, whileat the same time, in each ethicalcategory, functions emerge which inmany cases cannot be exchanged formoney. For this reason, water manage-ment, like environment management orlife management, goes beyond the sim-plicity of market logic and demands

specific and adequate managementcriteria to deal with the diverse moralcategories at stake16.

As proposed by the European Decla-ration for a New Water Culture (FNWC,2004), we need to identify four differentethical categories. In each category, thenature of the objectives, and the rightsand duties that are at stake, implydifferent priority levels and demanddifferent approaches to management:

– Water-life category: this deals withits basic survival functions, both forhuman beings, as well as everyliving creature. This should hold the highest priority, in such a waythat it guarantees the sustainabilityof ecosystems and access to aminimum quota of quality water asa human right.– Water-citizenship category: relat-ing to activities of general interest,such as drinking water supply andsanitation domestic services. Thisshould be given the second highestpriority level, falling into the area ofcitizens rights, linked to the respec-tive citizens duties.– Water-economy category: thisrelates to its productive uses, whichgo beyond what could be consideredas the basic quota needed to providea decent quality of life. This shouldbe at a third level of priority, and isrelated to the right of each person toaim for a better quality of life. Thisis the area in which most water isused and where emerge the mostsignificant problems of scarcity andcontamination.

17

– Water-crime category: this dealswith illegitimate practices (pollutingeffluents, over-exploitation), whichharm the general interest. Theseshould be avoided and rigorouslyprosecuted by law.

2.2. Water-life Recently the General Assembly of UNrecognised formally, at the initiative of the Bolivian Government, the accessto basic services of water and sanitationas a human right. On the other hand, following an initiative by Spain andGermany, the Human Rights Council ofthe UN has begun a process to look atthe possibility of coming up with aclearer and more forceful statement onthe matter.

In any case, it seems clear thataccess to this basic quota of water-lifeshould be effectively guaranteed anddealt with at the highest priority level.In this case, the criteria should not be tomaximise efficiency, which is thefundamental guide of economic ration-ality, but should instead guarantee itseffectiveness. We are faced with valuesthen similar to the “true love” of thesong, which “can neither be bought norsold”, but simply should be guaranteedwith top priority. The responsibility forit is borne by the community as a whole;that is, it falls upon national govern-ments and international institutions.

We should not forget that 30-40litres of drinking water per person perday, which has been suggested as areference point for what could beconsidered as the necessary minimumfor each person to live with dignity, is

only 1.2 % of the water that is used insociety today. There is no justifiablereason why 1.2 billion people do nothave guaranteed access to this amountof drinking water. The supposed lack offinancial resources is unacceptable,even for governments in poor countries;and more so, for governments in richercountries, as well as internationalorganisations like the World Bank. Weshould also remember that the “publicfountain of free drinking water, on thesquare, close to home for everyone” wasguaranteed in many countries in thepast, like ours, when they were poor andwhen the World Bank didn’t even exist.The challenge back then was notproperly financial, but political, but alsoa political one, in the Aristotelian andnoble sense of the term. In short, therewas a sense of public responsibility ofguaranteeing a free source of drinkingwater as a priority, before even streetswere lit or roads and motorways werebuilt and before the days of extravagantexpenditure or military budgets.

On the other hand, in the water-lifecategory we should also include thewater that is necessary for the survivalof poorer and more vulnerable com-munities. In many cases, we are dealingwith ancestral rights over territories andaquatic ecosystems on which fishingand agricultural activities, vital to thesurvival of these communities. Obvi-ously these rights over water and rivers,linked to the basic right to food, shouldfall into the water-life category and berecognised as human rights.

Finally, it is necessary to include inthis area of high priority the preser-vation of aquatic ecosystems, in relation

18

to the flow regime (quantitative condi-tions), the quality of the water and thehealth of the habitats (qualitative condi-tions), in such a way that their sustain-ability is guaranteed. In this case, we areagain faced with an ethical challengelinked to the principle of intergenera-tional equity. We must understand thatwe are only users and not owners ofnature. We have no more rights over itthan our children, our grandchildren andthe generations we will never evenmeet. Now we are not talking about the1.2% of water used by society, but ratherenvironmental flows that are of a muchgreater magnitude. We are talking aboutnotable efforts to avoid spills, preservewater quality and preserve aquatichabitats. Viewing these environmentalwater flow systems in the same water-life category as basic human rights mayraise some questions. Nevertheless, aswe have explained, the main reason why1.2 billion people do not have guaran-teed access to drinking water liesprecisely in the failure to support thesustainability of these ecosystems.

At the same time, the UN is debatingon the so-called third generation ofhuman rights: the collective rights ofnations, as the right to peace, to land,and to a healthy environment… It is amatter of asking ourselves from anethical perspective, whether it is rightthat as a condition of achieving thedream of the developed world, only richpeople should enjoy clean rivers, whilepoor people should only have access tosewage-polluted rivers. The answer isclear.

In the EU, the Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) looks at the basic

environmental functions of water as alevel of high priority. In fact, the flowsnecessary to preserve the health ofrivers, lakes and wetlands are consid-ered as a restriction to the differentproductive uses of water. This approachprevents the term “environmental de-mands”, in order to avoid possiblecompetition with other “demands”.Only drinking water is given a higherpriority, since this necessity rarelyaffects the sustainability of aquaticecosystems.

2.3. Water-citizenship

Offering domestic water supply andsanitation services is a leap forwardfrom guarantying basic quotas ofdrinking water: 30-40 litres/person/ day,as a quantitative reference of the humanright to drinking water. In an averagehome in any city, we use between 100and 120 litres/person/day. Today, accessto such services in our society isconsidered as a right that should beavailable to all, rich and poor. This viewof universal access could lead us toinclude this in the domain of humanrights. Nevertheless, I believe it wouldbe more appropriate to place this in thecategory of citizens' rights. As withhuman rights, citizens’ rights should beaccessible to all, but while human rightsare not linked to any sense of duty, (andonly to the fact of being alive, andwanting to remain so), citizens’ rightsare linked to corresponding duties ofcitizenship. We find ourselves thenfaced with the challenge of articulatinga set of rights and duties that are

19

undoubtedly complex, and in somecases, conflicting.

It essentially comes down to man-aging values, such as equity and socialcohesion, that market has no regard for.These values, linked to the traditionalnotion of citizenship, must be placed inthe “res publica” (in Latin terms) do-main; in other words, “they affect eve-rything and everybody”. This is thereason why they should be managedthrough community or public responsi-bility.

Public institutions, while they guar-antee everybody’s rights as citizens,should establish corresponding duties ofcitizenship. In this sense, if qualitywater supply and sanitation services areto be guaranteed for everybody, it isvital to develop tariff models that ensureadequate funding, thereby strengthen-ing citizens responsibility from a senseof social awareness.

In a society as complex as our own,guaranteeing universal access to qualityservices, and minimising the ecologicalimpact on aquatic ecosystems, repre-sents a major challenge. A tariff systemwith increasing prices for growingconsumption segments, could guaranteethe recovery of service costs, based onredistributive social criteria, whileintroducing incentives for efficiencyand individual and collective responsi-bility. The first quantity of 30 or 40litres/person/day could even be free ofcharge, or at least free to those who livebelow the poverty line. The next quan-tity of 100 litres should be paid at a pricethat is closer to the real service cost. Ona third scale, the price for cubic metresshould be increased in a very clear way;

in order to finally reach the highest tarifffor the fourth scale, applicable to luxuryuses (gardens, swimming pools...). Itwould essentially be a matter of discour-aging high levels of consumption andintroducing a cross-subsidy scheme,where those who consume most watercontribute to the costs of those whowould have difficulty in paying for thebasic.

In this instance, unlike the water-lifecategory where economic logic hasnothing to do, we are applying criteriarelevant to economic and financialreasoning, even though such criteriadon't still correspond to market ration-ality. In fact, if the price of apples is€1.50/ kg, we will often receive the offerof buying them at less than €3.00 for2kg. These financial strategies usuallyencourage consumption (based on theso-called economies of scale), and seekto increase business profitability. How-ever, the proposed tariff model is basedon criteria opposed to the usual businessmodel. The key issue is that the aim isnot to make a profit, but instead hope tooffer a good public service with univer-sal access, from the vision of the publicinterest.

2.4. Water-economyMost of the water that is taken fromrivers and aquifers is not used toguarantee such human rights, nor is itused to sustain services that are in thepublic interest. Instead, it is used inproductivist activities that generatewealth, and that go way beyond thebasic amount of water needed to live lifewith dignity. In fact, the surplus goods

20

they produce, which are then sold on themarkets, usually only improve theliving conditions of their producers.

The agricultural sector uses over70% of the water resources that aretaken from rivers and aquifers, while theindustrial and services sector uses about15%. In short, these activities are abouteveryone's legitimate right to try toimprove their quality of life beyond thebasic level of sufficiency mentionedbefore. In this category we could eveninclude the right of richest to becomericher. But, while this right is legitimate,within reasonable limits, it cannot belinked with the area of human rights orcitizens’ rights. Even less so, whenthose who are hoping to make theprofits are already very wealthy.

From an ethical point of view, itbecomes clear that such uses should betreated as the third priority level afterwater-life and water-citizenship. In thisway, polluting rivers or risking thequality of the water’s flow beneath, inthe name of economic development,constitutes a serious moral crime.

These types of uses, which areguided by profitable aims, should be, atthe very least, guided by principles ofresponsibility and economic rationality.Each consumer would be responsiblefor the costs involved in providing thewater they use. Moreover, in caseswhere there is scarcity, the so-calledopportunity cost would also have to betaken on. This is simply the cost ofwater scarcity. In the water-economycategory, the need to apply the principleof recovering the integral costs goeswithout saying, and those include:

financial costs (depreciation of invest-ments as well as maintenance and man-agement costs), environmental costsand the intrinsic value of the resourceitself, in other words, the opportunitycost, if availability does not meetdemand. In this instance, there are noreasons to justify direct or cross sub-sidies; in the same way that the woodthe carpenter buys is not subsidised, northe petrol used by the taxi driver.

The increasing scarcity of waterused to supply an unlimited rise inproductive activities can no longer beviewed as a “tragedy to be avoided”,leaving the responsibility with the pu-blic finances; instead it is an unavoid-able reality to be managed using criteriaof responsibility and economic ration-ality. Due to our insatiable ambition, wehave made and are continuing to makescarce what was once abundant; we aremaking smaller our planet; and particu-larly, we are causing a shortage of fresh-water in rivers, lakes, wetlands andaquifers. In any event, we should notforget that scarcity is an inherentcharacteristic of all economic assets,which are by definition “useful andscarce”. It is therefore a question of ap-plying the criteria of economic logic(not necessarily market logic) to the useof water. A use which, let us not forget,hopes to generate benefits for the user,through its relationship with the marketwhich governs productivist activities inthe water-economy category.

Ultimately, as we mentioned earlier,water that is necessary for non-profita-ble uses which poorer communitiesdepend on for survival, should fall intothe water-life category.

21

Economic activities also existwhich, though they are profitable, couldbe considered as being economicactivities in the public interest, in thatthey generate social or environmentalbenefits that are not valued by themarkets. However, in countries likeSpain, the “public interest” argumenthas been twisted so much in relation towater that it is necessary to revise whatwe understand by the notion. Tradi-tionally, the “public interest” label hasbeen used to justify huge publicinvestments into hydraulic works, usingthe traditional “supply side” strategies.Although such strategies are todaybecoming obsolete, the powerfuleconomic groups that have beencontrolling water policies continue tomanipulate this notion from a biasedperspective that does not represent thepublic interest of modern society. Forthis reason it is necessary to redefine the concept of the public interest, usingmodern priorities. This redefinition of the term is particularly urgent inrelation to irrigation, since the reality of how it is carried out in the modernrural environment has been severelydistorted.

The growth of agri-business in thedomain of irrigation is increasingrapidly today, in relation to large-scalemechanised farms and modern inten-sive farms, such as polytunnels. At thesame time, the proportion of farmsoperated on a part-time basis has alsoincreased, in cases where farms aretaken on as a second income. For thesereasons, the traditional family farm isnow far from being representative of thewhole agricultural sector.

By looking at just these three typesof farming, we can identify socialvalues that are of a very different nature.For example, it would be very difficultto justify describing the irrigation agri-business as an area that is in the publicinterest. In the same way, it would bedifficult to justify the public interestfactor in irrigation on farms that aremanaged by their owners as sources ofsecondary income, since many of theseowners often do not even live in therural environment at all.

Ultimately, it is the serious pollutingeffects of the dominant models ofagriculture and livestock (nitrates,pesticides, slurry…) that calls intoquestion the public interest argumentfor such models. If we add to these the serious social and environmentalimpacts of large dams and transfers onaquatic ecosystems and coastal com-munities (including the flooding oftowns and inhabited valley areas inmountainous regions), we see a clearneed to have another look at thesupposed public interest label which has been indiscriminately awarded toprojects such as large hydraulic workslinked to new irrigation systems (or tohydroelectric production).

It is therefore necessary to establishnew social and environmental criteriathat allow us to identify whichagricultural projects have the right to beconsidered as economic activities thatgenuinely are in the public interest.Strengthening the rural fabric, with itssocial, cultural and natural values, orsupporting the pursuit of specificenvironmental objectives, would un-doubtedly be in the public interest in our

22

society. In this sense, it is reasonable toargue that it is in the public interest to protect the family farm, particularlyin relation to irrigation. It would benecessary to develop this social argu-ment, but ensuring that good environ-mental farming practices be followed.

The EU has begun, albeit timidly, topromote environmental farming prac-tices and criteria for eco-conditionalityin order to obtain grants. This approachneeds to re-emphasise the value of thetraditional un-irrigated crops as anenvironmental farming practice, par-ticularly in Mediterranean areas, wherethe limits of sustainability of rivers andaquifers have been exceeded. In thisinstance, due to the current conditionsof climate change, it would also be

necessary to provide a National Plan for Traditional Un-irrigated Lands toestablish concrete policies in thisregard, as well as revising the currentNational Irrigation Plan in a realisticand prudent way.

While accepting the need to supportcertain agricultural practices of irriga-tion, it is also important to reflect onhow such support could be offered, insuch a way that it encourages good prac-tice and responsible attitudes. Morespecifically, it would be preferabledirect subsidies to these activities,instead of instead of offering subsidisedwater, as was usually the case. In thisway, and at the same cost to publicfinances, it would encourage a moreefficient and responsible use of water.

23

1.1. Policies of deregulation andprivatisation From this perspective, guaranteeinguniversal access to basic services thatare in the public interest, such as water,sanitation, health or education, tradi-tionally understood as rights of citizen-

ship now becomes understood as inter-ference from the State in the freemarket.

It is implied that the State shouldstep back and allow such services to bemanaged as mere economic activities ina free market and competitive environ-

24

3. THE CHALLENGE OF “PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE”

The neoliberal strategy of the World Bank and the WTO has graduallysucceeded in reducing the sphere of influence of public authorities onall levels, so as to leave more space for private entities. Under thisinfluence, the traditional role of the State as a promoter of the values ofjustice and social cohesion has been lessened and deactivated. We aretherefore observing a process of gradual “weakening” of our publicinstitutions, driven by the idea that the most money is to be found in theprivate purse. Every electoral campaign that hopes to obtain victoryalways promises a reduction in taxes. It promotes a lack of trust inpublic services, presenting them as inefficient, opaque andbureaucratic, all the while promoting the unregulated policies ofprivatisation as the new form of modernity, flexibility, efficiency andlogic, thus glorifying the virtues of the free market.

1. PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE MANAGEMENT

ment. Citizens therefore become cus-tomers; and the services in question areno longer services for universal access,but instead become accessible to thosewho can and wish to pay for them. Thisderegulatory influence, exercised by theWorld Bank in a systematic way overpoor and developing countries, hassucceeded in dismantling, or at least hasweakened the already fragile publicservices and policies of social protec-tion that existed in these countries. Yeteven in the developed world, the so-called welfare state has been seriouslyaffected. Under these conditions, publicinstitutions whose financial capacitiesare weakened tend to “sell the furniture”,and this can lead to the privatisation ofbasic services that were formerly underpublic responsibility as a way of alle-viating the financial situation.

The processes of privatisation in thebig cities of poor and developingcountries (big corporations are neverinterested in small towns or rural areas),under the influence of the World Bank,have led to the rebellion of the poorestpeople. In this context, the multinationalcompanies in question have had tochange their strategy. For nearly twodecades, these large corporations (ofmainly European origin) favoured theso-called “unregulated markets”, wherethe lack of guidelines and public controlallowed greater room for business toprofit. However, these corporations aretoday arguing that the lack of regulation,as well as the social and politicalinstability, has led to even greaterrisks… For this reason, the strategy overthe last few years has turned its focusinstead to so-called “reliable markets”,

such as the emerging markets of EasternEurope, including Russia.

International financial institutionsand large private corporations have used three main arguments, in order tojustify policies of deregulation andprivatisation:

– With the financial crisis facinggovernments, it is assumed that theprivate sector can make the neces-sary investments so as to allow theirservice to be made available to thepoorest people.– Faced with problems of ineffi-ciency and corruption in govern-ments, free competition encouragesefficiency and gives greater controlto the consumers through theirconsumers’ rights.– Faced with the increasing tech-nical complexity of water andsanitation services in large cities,privatisation offers the necessarytechnology and organisational ca-pacity.

However, it is clear that large privatecompanies have invested very little oftheir own resources in building upnetworks or basic infrastructure indeveloping countries, as was demon-strated in an empirical way by thePRINWASS17 project, funded by theEU. This research project studied a wideselection of cases and the conclusionsreached in the case of Argentina wereparticularly clear, since this was the firstcountry in Latin America to introducethe privatisation of water services.While these contracts were given tolarge European companies, most in-vestments made were usually from the

25

public, while only a small proportion ofinvestments were made by these privateoperators. These companies alwaysconsidered it risky and unprofitable tomake major investments in basic infra-structures. In the majority of cases, theprivatisation process only succeeded inunlocking loans from the World Bank,which were then managed by theoperating company, even though theseloans were subsequently added to thepublic debt of the country.

Today, in the middle of the globaleconomic crisis, this argument has beensilenced, in that it is the large com-panies that now require public capitalin order to survive. What is scandalousin this context is that billions of eurohave miraculously appeared to savethese large financial institutions, whichhad previously promoted and en-couraged deregulatory policies andprivatisation.

1.2. The myth of “freecompetition”The second argument, relating to theadvantages of free competition, whichcould be valid in other services, is notapplicable to water. Above all, it isimportant to underline that these supplywater services necessarily are what iscalled a “natural monopoly”. The priva-tisation process, in this instance, mayprovide the opportunity to compete “forthe market” but not competition “in themarket”. In other words, the most wecan hope for is short-lived competitionin order to achieve the contract that is inthe public domain, if the contract is notawarded directly to a company. In any

event, once the contract has beenawarded, the service becomes managedas a private monopoly for many dec-ades, with conditions that are difficult torevise and clauses that are hard toreverse.

Although it may seem paradoxical,what usually happens in practice is thatthe level of real competition in themarkets is reduced. In cases whenmanagement is municipal, or is givenfrom a local or regional public com-pany, the acquisition of new technology,maintenance work and modernisation,as well as many other specific works,are usually contracted out through themarket, where many small and mediumhighly specialised enterprises competefor the work. This is known as themarket of “secondary inputs”, whichuse to generate a greater volume ofbusiness than the actual management ofthe service itself. Nevertheless, whenthe service is contracted out to some ofthe larger multinational operators, the“secondary inputs” are usually blockedand closed to competition, becausethese companies avail of their own re-sources to cover such needs. The finalresult then, paradoxically, is that there isless competition in the market.

As we have explained then, we aredealing with a “natural monopoly”. Inthat context, the control of citizens overthe private company, through individualconsumers' rights, does not work. Thisis because these rights are usually onlyvalid when consumers have the optionto change service providers, an optionwhich in this case, is not possible.

As publicly stated by the director of the World Bank in Brazil, Vinod

26

Thomas: «When there is a risk of a pri-vate monopoly being created, it is better

to leave the services in the hands of theState» (Folha de Sao Paulo, 21-9-2003).

27

2. PROMOTING PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE

Furthermore, the supposed transparen-cy of the market compared to the opaci-ty of the public sector is more of a myththan a reality. The fact that in manycases public services are bureaucraticand opaque does not mean that theyhave to be like this. In fact, public serv-ices require transparency, because thepublic institutions owe it to their citi-zens; while private ownership, which islegally protected by the right to privateinformation, actually leads to a lack oftransparency, which use to be restrictedto the major share-holders of thecompany.

In any event, the problems of opaci-ty, bureaucracy and even corruption, arenot resolved by privatising the publicsector, but rather by democratising it.Nobody would ever think of proposingprivatisation as a solution in the case ofpolice corruption for example. In fact,in countries where these issues nega-tively affect public life, the advent ofprivate companies has only aggravatedthese problems instead of resolvingthem, by feeding into the logic of thesystem that adopted them.

Today, even in advanced economies,the challenge of bringing about reformin the public sector is ongoing, with theultimate ideal aim of introducing a

participatory system of managementthat would guarantee transparency.Since “competition in the market” is notpossible for this kind of services under“natural monopoly”, efficiency must beenhanced promoting the “competitionthrough information” by means ofpublicly comparing similar services, apractice known as “benchmarking”,which is currently driving new modelsof participatory governance.

Lastly, arguing that the complexityof some modern water and sanitationservices is too much for the capacity ofthe public sector is a little inaccurate. Infact, the most efficient water andsanitation services are to be found incountries like Holland, Switzerland,Sweden or Germany. These services aremanaged by the public through smallerlocal or regional operators, which inrecent times have begun to clustertogether on a regional level in order toimprove their efficiency, operating asbroader economies of scale. The key of good management is not so muchdemonstrated through technology,which can always be obtained on themarket, but rather in good governanceon a local and regional level, whichallows these services to be offered tocitizens and to the local businesses thatdepend on them in an effective way.

In any event, in this fiery debate, itis necessary to clearly define conceptsand terms. Often deregulation andprivatisation are confused. Even ac-cepting public responsibility for thesetypes of services, it is still often moreappropriate, alongside other options, to hand over their management to aprivate operator, with sufficient contractclauses and regulation to ensure ulti-mate control of the licensee by thegovernment. However, controlling themanagement of these large companiesin an effective way is not only difficult,but in practice, is almost impossible. Onthe one hand, in the majority of cases,the same public sector, once it hashanded over a service, literally ceases toworry about it entirely. But even incases where there is a sincere desire tomanage the contract company, thedisproportion of means and influencebetween the local authorities (in chargeof services) and the multinationalcorporations (operating the services),makes effective regulation unviable. Infact, it usually leads sooner or later, to a phenomenon known as the “regulatorcapture”. Moreover, the World Bankand its policies of supporting priva-tisation, has not been known forpromoting conditions of strict publicregulation that would ensure transpar-ency, citizens participation and guaran-tee human and social rights of the mostvulnerable.

The deregulatory influences that areat work on a global scale as well as ona European scale, deserve a muchbroader public debate. In the case of the countries that signed the AarhusConvention, among them Spain and the

EU, such a debate is unavoidable in theapplication of the principle of pro-activeparticipation, which the Convention setup. The decision to privatise these typesof services should not be looked uponas being simply an administrativematter, limited to the local authorityoffices or the offices of the President of the regional or state government.Even debates in local governments orparliaments are not enough. Since theseare decisions that affect citizens’ rightsand human rights over several decades,it is instead necessary to introduce a broad public debate that would, in this case, culminate in a referendum, as recommended by the EuropeanDeclaration for a New Water Culture(FNWC, 2005).

2.1. Conclusion Together with the formal recognition ofthe public control over water and waterecosystems, we are now faced with aneed to reflect upon the challengeimposed by the new model of sus-tainability and the obligation to guaran-tee access to drinking water and sani-tation services as a basic human right.

In relation to water management,accepting the principles of inter andintra-generational equity reinforces theneed to rethink the ownership andpublic/community management of wa-ter ecosystems and aquifers from a newapproach, which would give priority toensuring it functions in a sustainableway, as well as ensuring the humanrights of present and future generations.Going beyond this, we need to confrontthe challenge of identifying and man-

28

aging citizens’ rights from a globalperspective. Access to quality domesticwater and sanitation services must betackled from this global perspective,and treated as a right which shouldbecome an issue of universal access,following models of governance whichencourage social responsibility throughparticipation and transparency. Ulti-mately the whole area requires us todesign and develop new models ofpublic participatory management.

The serious conflicts that havearisen against privatisation processeshave set the ball rolling somewhat, butthis does not mean that the problem ofhow to adequately manage these basic

services has been resolved. Even in theheart of the movement for publicparticipatory management under socialcontrol, the debate rages on how toorganise the necessary balance betweensocial rights and duties, particularly inrelation to the financial management ofthese services. The decision on whichpricing policy to apply remains a subjectof controversy. Understanding andtaking on all these reforms cannot bedone by decree, but instead requiresnew models of participatory govern-ance from local, regional and nationalbodies within a global framework thatsafeguards human rights and develops anew framework for global citizenship.

29

CyanobacteriaSingle-celled organism belonging tothe kingdom Monera, which lacks a membrane-bound nucleus, carriesout photosynthesis and containschlorophyll and other pigments thatgive it a greenish-blue colour. Itlives in an aquatic environment,isolated or grouped with others incolonies or filaments. It also has thename cyanophyceae algae or bluealgae.

CloggingAccumulation of sediment fromriverbeds.

DumpingThe commercial practice of sellingthings below cost price, in order to seize the market, with seriousconsequences.

EffluentWaste liquid from industrial plants.

RunoffRainwater that runs along theground’s surface.

DroughtLow or minimum water flow whichat certain times of the year is foundin rivers, streams, ponds, etc., due todrought.

EutrophicationAn increase of nutrients in fresh-water lakes that produces an excessof phytoplankton (Sea or freshwaterplankton, predominantly made upof plant organisms such as certainmicroscopic algae).

LeachateIs the liquid produced when water is filtered through permeable matter.It may contain as much material insuspension as in dissolved form,and both are usually found together.The dangers of leachates are due tothe high concentrations of organicpollutants and ammoniacal nitro-gen.

SubsidenceGradual subsidence due to thecompaction of sediments.

30

BRIEF GLOSSARY

1. C. MAGALLÓN, Pioneras españolas en las cien-cias, Madrid, CSIC, 2004 (tr. Spanish scien-tific pioneers).

2. At the end of the booklet we have added a briefglossary of the technical terms that we feltneeded an explanation (Note from CJ).

3. UNDP, Human Development Report 2006 –Beyond scarcity: power, poverty and theglobal water crisis.

4. FNWC, European Declaration for a New WaterCulture, Zaragoza, Foundation for a NewWater Culture (Edt.), 2005.

5. ICLARM, From Hunting to Farming Fish,Washington DC, Consultative Group on Inter-national Agricultural Research (CGIAR),World Bank, 1995.

6. M.T. HILL, «Summary of fisheries resources and Projects in the Mekong River»; studypresented at the seminar Mekong: InternationalSeminar on Sustainable Development throughCooperation, Washington DC, Nov.-Dec. 1995.

7. M. MORETH, «Environmental Concerns FacingCambodia»; study presented at the seminarMekong: International Seminar on Sustaina-ble Development through Cooperation; heldin Washington DC in Nov.-Dec. 1995.

8. P. ARROJO, Agua, Ríos y Pueblos. Exhibitioncatalogue «Water, rivers and peoples»,Málaga, Diputación Provincial, 1999.

9. P. MCCULLY, Silenced Rivers: the Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, Argentina,

Proteger Ediciones, 2004, (Sp. translation). J.N. ABRAMOVITZ, Imperilled waters, impover-ished future: the decline of freshwaterecosystems, Bilbao, Bakeaz (Ed.), CuadernosWorldwatch, 1996 (Sp. translation).

10. ABRAMOVITZ, Imperilled waters...11. MCCULLY, Silenced Rivers...12. S. POSTEL, Dividing the waters: food security,

ecosystem health and the new politics ofscarcity; Bilbao, Bakeaz (Edt), 1996,Worldwatch Booklets (Sp. translation).

13. MCCULLY, Silenced Rivers...14. WCD, Dams and Development a new frame-

work for decision-making: the report of theWorld Commission on Dams, London,Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2000.

15. CEBRAC-WWF, «Paraná-Paraguay Water-way: Who Pays the Bill?» ExecutiveSummary by the Fundaçao Centro Brasileirode Referencia e Apoio Cultural (CEBRAC)and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Brazil,September-1994.

16. P. ARROJO, El reto ético de la nueva cultura delagua: funciones, valores y derechos en juego.Barcelona, Edt. Paidós, 2005. (An ethicalchallenge of the new culture of water:functions, values and rights at play).

17. E. CASTRO, PRINWASS, 2004, Researchproject funded by the EU; http://www.ox.ac.uk/-prinwass/es/argentina.shtml.

31

NOTES

32

QUESTIONS

This booklet, through information and case studies from around the world,outlines the global crisis that is affecting water. A crisis that is described thus:

«The current neoliberal model of globalisation, far from slowing down theeffects of environmental damage, eliminating injustices and guaranteeingbasic rights to the poorest people, has instead brought about the com-mercialisation of the water market, and turned it into a new opportunity forbusiness, accelerating the pillaging of water resources and increasing thevulnerability of the weakest sectors of society».

As well as criticising the status quo, the author develops an argument in favourof promoting a “New Culture of Water” which returns to the wisdom of ourancestral cultures and is based on prudence and respect for Nature.

We could then focus our debate on the functions and rights related to water thatare identified in the booklet:

1. How do we feel about the fact that this water-life, which is a basic human right,is not available to millions of people around the world?

2. What would cause us to consider water as a citizen’s right (water-citizenship)?What duties are associated with this right?

3. What limits or conditions should be placed on water as a source of wealth(water-economy)?

4. Do you believe a real social conscience exists which reacts against spills ofpollutants or the illegal behaviour described in the water-crime category?

5. Which argument(s) developed by the author in this booklet to move towardsa New Culture of Water seem most decisive to you? Which points touch on yourway of life or affect people you share a house, neighbourhood or city with?