[mobglob-discuss] A World without water!??

[martin william fournier]

A World Without Water
by Ginger Adams Otis
Village Voice. August 21 - 27, 2002

In 1995 World Bank vice president Ismail Serageldin made a much quoted 
prediction for the new millennium: "If the wars of this century were fought 
over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water." 
Serageldin has been proven correct much faster than he or anyone else 
thought. Two years into the 21st century, the global water wars are upon us. 
The very bleak details about water security may finally seep out during the 
10-day United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 
starting Monday in Johannesburg, South Africa. While heads of state and 
corporate bigwigs converge in Sandton (rumored to be Africa's wealthiest 
suburb), thousands of anti-globalization activists and environmentalists 
will be attending shadow summits just down the street. They'll be trying to 
call attention to the dangers of privatizing the world's water supplies, and 
pointing to places like Nelspruit, 125 miles to the north, where residents 
now buy their drinking water from the Biwater corporation, and are all but 
dying of dehydration. The problem isn't water flow but cash flow: Poor 
residents can't pay privatized rates. It's a scenario that's beginning to 
play out all over South Africa. "That's exactly what's wrong with 
privatization," says Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, 
Canada's largest public advocacy group. "These companies completely reject 
the idea that water is a common property belonging to all living creatures. 
Their only goal is to commodify the earth's most precious resource."

The concept of privatizing water service has been around since Napoléon III, 
but only 5 percent of the world population currently receives water from 
corporations. Activists want to stop the process before it goes any further; 
the world's water lords want rapid expansion. In 1998, when the private 
sector began angling for the water market in earnest, the World Bank 
predicted the global trade in water would soon generate revenues of up to 
$800 billion a year. Two years later, at a World Water Forum in the Hague, a 
triumvirate of multinational water companies backed by the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) successfully strong-armed the UN into defining water as a 
human need (which can be sold for profit by private companies) instead of a 
human right (which means people are ensured equal access on a nonprofit 
basis).

Faster than you can say Evian, revenue projections jacked into the multiple 
trillions. Private companies had a green light to approach cities and states 
around the globe (usually cash-strapped ones) and offer to lease, buy, or 
enter into a consortium agreement for the existing municipal water systems. 
After privatization is complete, the companies make a profit by charging 
residents every time they turn on a tap or flush a toilet. Some also offer 
wastewater services, such as sewage disposal, and implement water treatment 
plants. Many of these companies get profit guarantees written into their 
contracts. For example, if residents use less water than predicted, 
companies can raise rates so profits don't fall below a predetermined 
number. Once in control of a water system, they can also take any surplus 
and sell it off to the highest bidder, usually a neighboring city that's 
experiencing an unexpected shortfall. In some parts of the world, reports 
the trade journal Global Water Intelligence, water commands the same price 
as oil. No wonder Fortune magazine touted the water market as a "safe harbor 
in stocks—a place that promises steady consistent returns well into the next 
century."

The two reigning conglomerates are Vivendi Universal and Suez, both based in 
France, which have amassed 70 percent of the existing world water market. 
Together they deliver water services to more than a hundred million people. 
Suez operates in 130 countries and Vivendi in more than 90. Right behind 
them are Bouygues-SAUR (French), RWE-Thames (German), and Bechtel-United 
Utilities (American). These are the biggest multinationals, but there are 
numerous other companies doing the same thing on a smaller scale.

But what of the world's water crisis? Currently the UN identifies 
approximately six "hot stains," places where water is so scarce that human 
life may not be sustainable and conflict over dwindling resources is an ever 
present threat. Water giants like Vivendi insist privatization and 
conservation aren't mutually exclusive. They say it can actually improve 
water service, because for-profit companies are wealthy enough to invest in 
new technology and infrastructure improvements to aging systems where poor 
governments are not. Activists like Barlow say for-profit companies are not 
set up as sustainable enterprises or to conserve resources. The more water 
sold, the better their bottom line—so why should they try to halt the 
world's parching?

Here's the really hard news Barlow says the water lords don't want known: 
Not only is there the same amount of water on the planet as there was at its 
creation, it is almost all the same water. There is no secret source to 
replace the vast quantities that modern humankind consumes, and technology 
hasn't come up with a magic bullet either. Desalination of seawater has 
proven outrageously expensive and leaves behind brackish water mostly 
uninhabitable for marine life. According to the latest official 
calculations, there are only 8.6 million cubic miles of fresh water left on 
earth, a mere 2.6 percent of the 330 million cubic feet of total water. The 
UN predicts that two-thirds of the world's population will live in 
water-scarce regions by 2025, and many of them in regions previously 
considered water-rich, like the United States.

Environmentalists—and even some heads of state—are frantically trying to 
undo the damage. Much of the problem can be traced to river damming and the 
Green Revolution, both of which were embraced by the American government 
during the last century and exported globally. The Green Revolution was 
supposed to solve the world's hunger problem by introducing high-yield 
miracle seeds to developing nations, especially India and China. Instead it 
created an ongoing irrigation crisis by replacing drought-resistant 
indigenous crops with water-guzzling varieties. Farmers were forced to forgo 
traditional and sustainable irrigation methods; deep wells became the norm, 
pulling precious groundwater out of already water-scarce areas. Then 
developers began trying to solve the irrigation problem by building big 
dams. According to Sandra Postel of the Global Water Policy Project, a water 
conservation advocacy group, there were 5000 large dams (more than 15 meters 
high) worldwide in 1950. There are now 45,000. On average, there have been 
two large dams constructed every day for the past 50 years. "They were built 
with the best of intentions," says Postel, "to supply hydroelectric power, 
irrigation, and public water, and to control floods. But we didn't 
understand the full range of ecological consequences that would unfold."

Now four of the world's greatest rivers (the Ganges, Yellow River, Nile, and 
Colorado) routinely dry up before reaching the ocean, and water that 
normally would roll through the earth and feed aquifers runs off pavements 
and rooftops into sewers, eventually ending up (usually carrying pesticides 
and toxins) in the ocean, but without moisturizing forests and
marshlands on the way. Add relentless human consumption, industrial farming, 
and global warming and you've got the Ogallala Aquifer, which stretches from 
the Texas Panhandle to South Dakota and is believed to have once contained 4 
trillion tons of pristine water. It's now mined continuously by over 200,000 
groundwater wells. They pull out 13 million gallons per minute—which is 14 
times faster than nature's replenishing rate. Each year since 1991 the 
aquifer's water table has dropped three feet—a huge amount when multiplied 
by the area. By some estimates, more than half its water is gone. And that's 
not America's only problem area: one of the heaviest water-using places on 
the planet—California—is in serious trouble. The state's Department of Water 
Resources says that if more supplies aren't found by 2020,
residents will face a shortfall of fresh water nearly as great as the amount 
that all of its towns and cities together are consuming today. And the U.S. 
is still considered water-rich; countries with less abundance are in even 
more danger.

That's one note activists will stress at next week's meeting: danger. Since 
they've had no luck convincing governments to stop making quick profits off 
"the commons"—essential resources that historically belong to one and 
all—they're going to invoke public security. "Water scarcity is now a 
serious source of conflict in many places," says Barlow. "Almost every 
country in the Middle East is facing a water crisis of historic 
proportions." Israel has aggressively mined water wherever possible 
throughout the region, severely taxing water systems in Syria and Jordan 
(not to mention Palestinian townships). And Turkey has caused serious 
tension with plans to dam the Euphrates River, thereby diverting much of its 
life-sustaining flow to Syria and Iraq.

Bangladesh, which depends heavily on rivers that originate in India, is 
suffering terribly now because India has diverted and dammed so many of its 
water sources. In Africa, relations between Botswana and Namibia are 
severely strained by Namibian plans to construct a pipeline to divert water 
from the shared Okavango River. Ethiopia plans to take more water from the 
Nile, although Egypt is heavily dependent on those waters for irrigation and 
power. And as water tables fall steadily in the North China Plain (which 
yields more than half of China's wheat and nearly a third of its corn) as 
well as in northwest India's Punjab region, experts are bracing for a highly 
combustible imbalance between available water supplies and human needs.

Officials attending the upcoming WSSD meeting are certainly aware of these 
problems. They just can't figure out which way to approach a solution. Most 
of the northern governments (essentially the U.S., Canada, and the European 
Union) want the UN to start adopting trade agreements similar to those put 
forth by the WTO. They're pressuring the UN to solve the world's resource 
crisis by implementing "voluntary partnerships" with private companies to 
take over government-run industries devoted to public health, clean air, and 
water. Representatives from the companies will be on hand to reassure 
officials that they can privatize and conserve at the same time.

Delegates from poorer nations, with the possible exception of South Africa, 
aren't buying that idea. They got a taste of WTO justice when northern trade 
partners wanted to export genetically modified seeds. Several developing 
countries declined to buy because they don't want modified food in their 
environments, and they landed in WTO court for trade violations. But under 
previously signed UN accords, nations do have the right to refuse products 
they feel are environmentally unsound. One of the questions poorer nations 
want answered at the WSSD is which entity has ultimate power when agreements 
conflict. They hope it's the UN—otherwise they can all too easily envision 
their natural resources being siphoned off to nurture the golf courses and 
swimming pools of the world's elite.

Realistically and unfortunately, says Barlow, the shadow summits planned for 
next week probably won't have much of an impact on the final WSSD outcome. 
The bigger goal, she says, is to flame public outrage and derail the 
privatization trend at the World Water Forum scheduled for next March in 
Japan.

But Barlow and crew had better hurry: The water crisis is growing so fast 
that even developed nations are swigging from each other. Canada's abundant 
fresh water supply has already whetted the appetite of George Bush. There's 
been talk from his administration about using the existing oil-pipeline 
infrastructure in the Northern Provinces to flow Canadian water to the 
American Midwest, which, under existing the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, is perfectly legitimate. And once Canada opens the taps, it can't 
turn them off again without violating NAFTA accords. "Isn't it great," says 
Barlow, "that while much of the developing world is grappling with extreme 
water deprivation, the U.S. is making contingency plans to keep desert 
mirages like Las Vegas up and running?"


“The economic medicine prescribed by the World Bank and the International 
Monetary Fund for indebted countries is often worse than the disease it is 
supposed to treat."...Forced privatization of water, fees on public schools 
and health clinics, deregulation of business --all this has become part of 
the non-debatable dogma of the reforms Bush alluded to.
--Jubilee USA, 3/14/02


What I don't understand is this: we're willing to sell our fresh water to 
the Americans, but we can't help our own farmers that are struggling with a 
horrible drought?? What's wrong with this picture???




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com