Water Wars - Suddenly It Is So Clear: The World Is Running out of Fresh Water

The right to water has become a contentious issue in the global politics of development. How and why has this occurred?  Discuss, drawing on examples

“Suddenly it is so clear: the world is running out of fresh water.”

(Blue Gold, M. Barlow & T. Clarke)

Introduction

Water is an essential element to life. It constitutes more than 71 percent of the earth’s surface including lakes, seas, rivers, groundwater, and oceans (Perlman, 2016). Despite the fact that water occupies most of the earth’s surface, freshwater occupies only less than one half of all the water on earth. Access to this freshwater is even more restricted to most countries, given that 7.442 billion people depend on it.  According to the United Nations report, 31 countries in the world suffer from water scarcity and stress. The impacts of water scarcity have led to social, political and economic impacts, which have as well escalated to an increased conflict around the world.  The global water crisis has led to a division among countries that are developed and those that are developing. Due to the limited resource, water has now become commodity that is sold and traded on the open free market, with major companies and corporations like The World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), The World Water Council and the United Nations (UN) facilitating the sale of fresh water (United Nations, 2016).

Water has always been regarded as a public resource. Freshwater supplies, however, have been increasingly privatised, resulting in an economic shift of both the public and private centres. Given that water ultimately affects the production of food, the advancement in agriculture and the progression of education, it is not a wonder that some companies and governments would want to keep control of the supply and distribution of fresh water. The provision of the basic needs of a human is made possible from water, and a hindrance to these basic needs leads to a hindrance to development. According to World Bank and the United Nations, water is a human need and not a human right. To justify the sale and resale of water, these companies hold that a human need can be supplied by well-equipped companies and governments. A human right is the only thing that cannot be sold, and water is not a human right.

This essay, hence, provides evidence that access to water is a right and not an economic good, and the privatisation of water sources hinders development in most parts of the world. The essay will first show the effect of water on the global development agenda, including plans by the UN of universal and equitable distribution of safe drinking water by 2030 (United Nations, 2016). The next objective within the essay will be to prove the need for access to water through an ongoing case study in Bolivia where an international water war broke out. This case study will explicitly prove the effects that the privatisation and owning of water sources for resale has done within the country.  The conclusion will then show the results if, hypothetically, water was freely and readily available to everyone.

Water as a Right

There has been an increasing driving force within which water is being sold by private companies, for-profit companies, government institutions, and organisations. This driving force is profit, with the realization that a cartel can be built from ‘water-producing’ companies, and this cartel could even be greater than that of the energy industry. Some of the ways that the developments that have popped up over the last three decades include bottling of water, controlled sales of water to the mining, agricultural, automotive and energy industries, the buying of groundwater rights, and new technology in water purification and distribution (Barlow, 2009, p. 34).  The price of water increases as a result of these developments, coupled with the fact that the demand for freshwater is extremely high while supply is scarce. Unlike oil, there is no alternative to water, which makes it even more valuable.

Companies argue, however, that their main objective is to make profits and not to fulfill societal obligations. The first thing that companies did was to buy water resources from third world countries, arguing that they would provide the infrastructure to supply water at an affordable price (Marlow & Clarke, 2011, p. 28) . Within years, there was a high level of corruption in the privatisation of water resources, together with reduced water quality, pollution and cut-offs of water to millions of people (Barlow, 2009, p. 58).  

According to UN report, about 884 million people across the world lack access to clean and safe drinking water. This results to lack of sanitation, which in turn affects about 2.6 billion people in the world. According to a 2009 WHO and UNICEF study, 24,000 children in developing countries die each day from diseases that could have been prevented if the safe water was accessible to developing countries (Scientific American, 2011). This has led to resources being directed to treat easily preventable diseases, which could have been prevented if the proper deployment of water was effected at a reasonable or free price. The involvement of companies holding the privatization of water as an economic outlook has stripped human entitlement from billions of people around the world, a right that should not be deprived nor sold

The unfair distribution of water to people has also led to some economic impacts in the world over the years. Following the privatisation of water, there was anticipation that the private sector would be investing hugely in the projects. First world country donors, World Bank included, reduced the funding of water services since the private sectors were expected to bring in huge investments. Between 1998 and 2002, investments in water infrastructure in developing counties fell from $15 billion to $ 8 billion (Barlow, 2009, p. 59). To make matters worse, developing countries were discouraged from investing in water infrastructure as well. Countries that resisted the privatisation of their water infrastructure from international organizations were held at ransom by World Bank through reduced funding. Coupling this charade with corruption and reduced water quality, development essentially stalled in developing countries. The countries that were affected by this barely recovered, since the measures that have been taken by organizations are minimal, including Bolivia.  

The Water War in Bolivia

In 1997, The World Bank struck a deal with the Bolivian company without consulting the public. For a loan to improve water systems in Cochabamba, a city in Bolivia, the World Bank required that it owns the water systems.  In September 1999, the Bolivian government handed over Cochabamba’s water to Bechtel Corporation (Fuente, 2003, p. 99). Within a short period of time, water prices shot up at a high rate, leading to protests across the country. Each protest led to the government promising to revise water prices, which it did not. On April 2000, the military imposed a siege on the city, and Bechtel Corporation was forced to leave Bolivia (Fuente, 2003, p. 100).

For many residents of Cochabamba, the rebellion against water prices and unfair distribution was meant to reclaim their natural resource, along with their dignity, confidence, and capacity of shaping their own futures. The Water War in Bolivia also unmasked the global corporate strategy of water privatisation. This was the beginning of a movement that believed that water is a human right, and should not be privatised (Lopez, 2015). Most citizens and corporations began questioning the economic models around water corporations in their countries.

If Water was a Free Commodity

In 2010, The United Nations declared access to water and sanitation as a human right. Companies, however, hold that water is both a human right and an economic good. They also claim that since water is a scarcity resource, it should be used wisely. The monetization of water ensures the correct usage since providing it freely and in plenty would lead to misuse of water (Bozzo, 2008).  Under the line of the agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – agree that water is a “good” and, as such is subjected to the rule that privatization and economic business trade is good. This approach towards water shows that companies believe in marginalizing water, investing in infrastructure, and through this, they truly believe that they can provide safe drinking water to the population as well as cash in on their investments. Companies also believe that monetizing water would lead to the development of third world countries, since monetization of water ensures that everyone is held accountable, including the proper disposal of waste around water resources, responsible consumption of water from mining and industrial companies, and the proper regard for conversation of water in domestic homes.  What would happen, then, if the water was treated as a free commodity, or if water prices were significantly reduced? Would these development deteriorate or improve?

Climate Change

The effects of privatisation of water resources have adversely affected the development of the world in a negative manner. Most anti-privatisation companies believe that if these companies were to put their minds to it and focus on the survival of human beings rather than profits, there would be strides of improvement in terms of water prices and access to water. Eliminating the privatisation of water would allow humans to maintain the right to fresh and clean drinkable water. Allowing this access could significantly reduce any diseases caused by water-borne infections, which could have been easily preventable. This step would help in increasing the global life expectancy in developing counties, as well as improve the health of humanity.