The Pros And Cons Of Water Privatization

How can we bridge the staggering gap between the declaration of water as a human right and the actual achievement of its fulfillment? This is the overarching question for economic, social, and cultural rights in general at the start of the 21st century, and especially so for the right to water. But while there is little disagreement on the question of whether clean water and sanitation need to be expanded to the world’s poor, a heated debate is ongoing about the most appropriate strategy for executing such a task. One trend in this struggle for a solution is that of privatization and commoditization, as there is certainly a powerful push underway to convert the world’s water resources into a private commodity – to put them under the control

The challenge of providing water to vast unserved populations, they note, is a daunting one for poor nations, a complex and extremely expensive task of infrastructure development and financing. In the words of World Bank water officials, “Few countries have the resources, or strong enough public-sector management, to do this alone. Consequently, they look to public-private partnerships to build, maintain, and operate water systems” (Finnegan, 2002). Therefore, privatization advocates argue that putting water into private, profit-seeking hands gives poor countries three desperately needed ingredients for meeting their water needs (Shiva, 2002). First, it gives poor countries access to private sector investment capital, which they argue is essential to financing water system expansion. Second, it brings in skilled private sector managers who will run water operations more honestly and more efficiently than public water systems, so often plagued in poor nations by local corruption. Third, privatization brings with it access to the skilled technical support vital to managing and expanding water

With the collapse of the country’s dominant mining industry and the increasing hardships of life in the countryside, hundreds of thousands of Bolivians have moved to the city’s temperate climates, seeking economic opportunity and creating a sprawl of new neighborhoods that lack basic water and sanitation resources. As a result of this environment, the city’s public water system, SEMAPA, the Servicio de Potable y Alcantarillo de Cochabamba, was incapable of keeping up with the demand for expansion, a problem that was compounded by internal corruption and efforts by local political parties to use the water company to their political advantage (Olivera, 2004). Therefore, in June 1999, the World Bank, which had given various packages of financial aid to the local water company over more than a decade, issued a report declaring that the solution to Cochabamba’s water problems was to make the public water system private. Along with the assertion of this decision, it was also made clear that privatization was a necessary condition for future financial assistance and that no public subsidies should be given to ameliorate the inevitable