Water Privatization

In a world where access to clean water is increasingly scarce, we can expect to see a fundamental shift in how water is managed, and by whom.

There exist different forms of water privatization: management contracts (private operators are responsible for running a system), lease contacts (assets are leased to a private operator), concessions (private operators are responsible for running an entire system often for several decades), and full privatization (the private operator also owns the assets).

Privatization of water, in many cases, has led to far more efficient distribution systems, by which peoples have been less likely to go without water. Public water or state-run water systems are often ignored, or the water supply is heavily subsidized for industry and agriculture, leading to excessive consumption. This, however, is a problem with government, and not the concept of publicly managed water systems.

Privatization must not be confused with commercialization. Privatization suggests a shift in management from public to private. Commercialization, on the other hand, introduces new management institutions, the most prevalent of which being free market competition.

Free market competition is an institution with immense driving power, capable of maneuvering and dictating who can have access to water based on economic incentives. It is often argued that a free market is by far the best model for efficiency in resource management. It is believed that, like any commodity, the price of water will reduce and the quality will remain sufficient; that consumer demand will create enough competition. It is also believed that the assignment of a monetary value to water will make people less likely to waste it, thereby leading to greater conservation.

As nice as this sounds, free market enterprise is not an inevitable result of privatization. Because most water is publicly managed, a single government may sell water rights to a single corporate entity, very often a multinational. Ownership of water is a conceded to corporations; these corporations, secure under long-term contracts, have little to fear and little incentive to offer “competitive” prices for water.

The commercialization of water does not guarantee a healthy competitive market and efficient use of resources; it is possible, but it is not certain. What is certain, on the other hand, is the focus of the enterprise: profit. Profit supercedes all other interests, even what is best for a people. To illustrate this point, Aguas de Tunari in 2000, after gaining control of water in Cochabamba, was quick to raise the price of water to the point where many people were unable to afford it. The result was the declaration of martial law in Bolvia, and widespread protestation until the company was forced to abandon its operations.

Without privatization, what should nations do to prepare against future water crises? Education regarding responsible management of water is foremost on the list of priorities. For underdeveloped geographic locations, The International Water Management Institute recommends each community to work together to address its unique demand for water, and engage in many small-scale water storage projects.

Proponents of water privatization argue that efficient developments in water infrastructure will never occur without the impetus of privatization. Intelligent governmental involvement in water management projects will be imperative; successful governments must also have mechanisms built into them by which they can be held accountable by their peoples.

The only way to effect real change is to organize and educate at the civil level, and then demand it. The free market, up to this point, has done nothing to prevent the putrification of global freshwater supplies. While free market Pollyanna capitalists believe firmly that the market, given the right incentives, will eventually unveil a solution, those most in need of freshwater know realistically that such a change will not occur in a penniless environment. The demand for water is obvious and dire, as is the demand for oil; we do not see oil companies attempting to curb demand for petroleum with schemes for fuel-efficiency.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Water_privatization

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Water/Corp_Control_Water_LAmer.html

War Is Responsible For An Obese America

War has been linked to just about everything.  The title of this article isn’t my thesis.  In fact, it came from an article by Shea Dean, “Children of the Corn Syrup: America’s Penchant For War Has Thrown Our Country Into An Orwellian Obesity Dystopia, And Fructose Is Big Brother.” (The Believer, October 2003).

The title itself was laugh-out-loud funny. Well, it is if you’re a geek like I am.  There are two things I love: dystopic stories and anything written about food policy.  And here Mr. Dean combined the two!  I had to read it.

The following is my summary of Mr. Dean’s article:

It is believed that we enter into wars with an eye toward oil, markets, or profits, but these reasons are too vague.  Wars are entered into for bodies–physical bodies that produce and consume products provided by a handful of umbrella companies.  Without health, there is no need for products; without food, there is no health.  Hence, when aid is provided to avert starvation, it is often a pretext to expand the market share of U.S. business.

Before World War II, farms used to be small.  Fields were sowed and reaped by people, or by small-scale machines.  Farmers were caretakers of the earth.  During the War, all that changed, and five million American farmers left to serve, leaving those remaining to pick up the slack.  Productivity was a must, as wars are fought with food.  Along with this incentive came revolutionary inventions from the military.

DDT, a chemical insecticide used to combat malaria overseas, made its way into the fields from cheap military surpluses.  Gunpowder and nitrate fertilizer share many of the same ingredients.  Aircraft was more available for crop-dusting.  After the war, few farmers returned to their land, enabling the others who had since based their business around these inputs to swipe it up and increase their holdings.  The bigger, the better.  The more inputs, the greater yield.

Then the issue of diminishing returns reared its head.  Suddenly a 500 percent increase in fertilizer only yielded 28 percent more corn.  Worse yet, the extra product on the market drove prices down, and smaller farmers were less and less able to afford their inputs with their tiny profit margins.

By 1971, as farmers were reaching their breaking point, Earl Butz was appointed Secretary of Agriculture.  Butz is infamous for his slogan, “Get big, or get out,” meaning, if a smaller farmer couldn’t handle it, then let the bigger guys take over.  Butz pressured foreign countries to lower tariffs, to allow American agricultural surpluses to flood their markets.  American farmers were told to plant “fencerow to fencerow,” convinced that sheer volume of product would open new markets.

Butz’ policies led to the worst soil erosion problems seen since the Dust Bowl.  By the end, only a tiny number of giant corporations that controlled most of the farmland were able to afford the machinery, the pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer to continue turning a profit.  But even they were at risk–and so the government stepped in with subsidies, that is, “corporate welfare.”  Suddenly, Americans could sell products cheaper than it cost to grow them!

Something still needed to be done with all that cheap corn, as opening foreign markets wasn’t enough.  It became feed for livestock, thereby driving down the price of a hamburger.  It became high fructose corn syrup, a miracle additive, which could be pumped into just about anything to make it sweeter, glossier, fresher-looking, longer-lasting. It also packs hidden calories, which makes for a fatter nation.  It gets shunted toward the liver for break-down.  The liver uses fructose to build triglycerides, which is associated with insulin resistance, that is, diabetes.

The problem?  Not self-control.  No.  It is sheer abundance.  Food is everywhere, laden with additives derived from cash crops.  It makes for a toxic food environment.  Everywhere you go, from your local grocery store to the vending machine, to the a gas station, to the doctor (free candy!), you find junk food.  As the food supply grew, so did American permissiveness.  The American College of Sports Medicine lowered its recommended exercise prescriptions; physical education programs in schools were waived or removed.  While pro-health and smart-diet campaigns are abundant enough, they pale in comparison to what food companies spend promoting their products.  Worse, the government does little to reverse the course of American health, lobbied by corporations ready to complain or cease funding the moment a policy cuts into their profits.

It’s a woeful situation.  Thanks to Earl Butz’ effect on international tariffs, other countries are no longer able to refuse American products.  It is impossible to compete with a country who can sell food cheaper than it costs to grow it.  Farmers can no longer support their families through their land, and are migrating to factory work (a whole new arena of exploitation).  When a nation can no longer afford to grow its own food, it loses its food sovereignty.  Today, agricultural workers enjoy debt to their companies, and high rates of cancer from overexposure to agricultural inputs; pickers do not enjoy even the most rudimentary labor rights or compensation plans.  Just as conflict diamonds garnered international attention, so should conventional food production.  It’s conflict food.  War food.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 48 other followers