Challenges in Solving Water Scarcity:

By Steve Beer

     Whether for bathing, washing clothes, cooking or drinking; fresh water running through our spigots is often thought of, if at all, as an expectation rather than an essential natural resource or valuable commodity. Only in rare circumstances, like a water main break, does the unavailability of fresh water enter our conscious but, even then, this is typically a momentary inconvenience soon forgotten. Yet, throughout our increasingly prosperous world, more than 1 billion people are denied the right to clean water while another 2.6 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation which contributes to some 1.8 million adolescent deaths each year.1 The degree to which water scarcity and the unavailability of adequate sanitation is affecting people throughout the world is most keenly felt in developing nations where infrastructure is lacking and funds for proper implementation are often left wanting. For this reason, many studies and initiatives have been implemented with the intention of making this essential substance increasingly available to those in the most dire of circumstances. However, such programs have not typically achieved the results necessary to overcome this growing problem because often times, water resources are viewed as a commodity to be privatized and controlled as opposed to a natural resource for every citizen’s enjoyment and sustainability.

     One such program intended to assist developing nations in addressing and alleviating their people from the troubles associated with water scarcity has been developed and promoted by the World Bank. With the view that the problem of water scarcity is often “one in which the public sector has failed to deliver, and has therefore prevented development from taking off, and the economy from modernizing”, one of the World Bank’s solutions to this problem has come by means of corporate privatization.2 Under this program, developing nations are required to accept water privatization as a conditionality prior to receiving loans from the World Bank which are intended to assist in furthering development and increasing the standard of living within the most needy of nations. The reasoning behind such preconditions is that, due to the indebtedness and failures on part of the nation receiving the loan, the privatization of water would increase supply and access for the people through corporate efficiency and commitment to service quality. Yet, while such reasoning may seem to be a plausible solution in reducing water scarcity in developing nations, the results of water privatization have been mixed with some positive gains seen in nations like Ghana while other ventures have been dismal failures.

     For instance, a largely publicized example of the potentially negative effects of privatization can be seen in the wake of the Cochabamba protests of 2000 in Bolivia. In accordance with World Bank and IMF requirements, the Bolivian government passed Law 2029, or the Drinking Water and Sanitation Law, which allowed for the privatization of the nation’s water and sewage disposal services without subsidies. With promises of 93% efficiency in water delivery and sewage connection after five years, the contract for the privatization of these services was awarded to Aguas del Tunari, a multinational consortium of private investors and a subsidiary of the Bechtel Corporation.3 However, within several months, citizens were informed of a 35% price increase which resulted in peaceful protest at first but quickly turned violent. As demonstrations intensified, the Bolivian government declared a state of emergency which led to several violent incidents between demonstrators and police where many were wounded and a student was killed. In the aftermath of such violence, the Bolivian government removed Aguas del Tunari as a service provider and repealed Law 2029; thereby ending privatization of Bolivian water supplies altogether with the restoration of the state utility company SEMAPA. Yet, even though water prices stabilized to previous levels after SEMAPA was restored as the state service provider, the original problems of clean water access were not resolved which continues to leave citizens in a state of deprivation like that in which they had originally been. Thus, the failure of Bolivia’s venture into water privatization is a valuable example of the challenges facing developing nations and the difficulties in implementing a system that requires large sums of money and the restructuring of infrastructure without overlooking the rights of the individual.

     Perhaps one solution to overcoming the challenges posed by water scarcity is to utilize a collaborative system between both government and private corporations while also applying Thomas Pogge’s proposal for a Global Resource Dividend as a means to fund such projects. For instance, while the water supply in Ghana remains to be lacking, relative improvements have been achieved since the creation of the Urban Water Project which is funded through the World Bank, the Nordic Development Fund and the Ghanian government. Unlike the comprehensive corporate privatization of the water supply in Bolivia, the Urban Water Project utilizes the services of Aqua Vitens Rand Ltd. in a supporting role for Ghana Water Company Ltd. Therefore, rather than acting as a sole distributor, Aqua Vitens Rand Ltd. is contracted to act more as a consultant and overseer to increase the efficiency and capability of GWCL in providing service to the people of Ghana. However, as with most developing nations, the cost of water is often times difficult for the less fortunate to pay which, in turn, results in reduced profits and affects the ability for providers to reinvest into infrastructure for continued growth. As such, the application of Pogge’s proposal for a Global Resource Dividend could be utilized in this instance as a means to assist the poor in paying for the use of water which would then increase the profitability necessary for continued growth and efficiency. The basis for this proposal is “that the global poor own an inalienable stake in all limited natural resources” and, as such would “entitle its holders (all people) to a share of the economic value of the resource in question” which could then be applied to the cost of their use.4

To this end, it is essential to keep in mind that, of all natural resources, water is the most basic necessity for the sustainability and enjoyment of life. As such, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reiterated the importance of realizing the right to water in General Comment 15 of 2003 which states that the human right to water is supported by a legal basis which “entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses” while also being “a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights”.5 For instance, water is necessary to produce food (right to adequate food) and ensure environmental hygiene (right to health). Water is also essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work) and enjoying certain cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life).6 Additionally, with the global population expected to grow by 80 million people per year, leading to an additional 3 billion people by 2050, it is estimated an increase of around 64 billion m3 of freshwater would be required each year in order to sustain such population growth.7 But, of these 3 billion people projected to come into the world, 90% will be found living in developing nations where water scarcity and quality already clearly pose a significant challenge to current populations. Therefore, given the fact that water scarcity will only be exasperated in the coming decades, it is essential a viable solution be found which is not only feasible to implement but one that also extends and supports the right to water for all citizens.
1. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf
2. Goldman, Michael. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. New York: Yale University Press, 2005.
3. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html
4. Pogge, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008.
5. http://www.healthrights.am/eng/more/548/
6. ibid.
7. www.unwater.unu.edu/file/get/135

© 2011, beers812. All rights reserved.

Join the forum discussion on this post

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 12th, 2011 at 12:17 PM and is filed under Front Page Queue. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.