 |
|
|
Water is not Merchandise |
|
By Tierramerica *
The profit drive of transnational soft
drink companies keen on dictating the global agenda for water resources
must be curbed, says Maude Barlow, a Canadian activist and author
of the best-seller ‘Blue Gold’.
MEXICO CITY- Canadian activist Maude Barlow
says she began to worry about the question of water when she saw
that it was conceived of as a “good” in the trade agreements
that her country was negotiating with the United States, first,
and later with Mexico.
An activist and the author of more than a dozen
books, Barlow decided to take an in-depth look at the water crisis,
and the result was ‘Blue Gold’. Co-authored by Tony
Clarke, the president of the Polaris Institute in Canada, the book
has been published in 15 countries so far. The Portuguese edition
was presented in Brazil in February, and the Spanish edition is
to be released in October.
‘Blue Gold’ is one of the most
widely-read books on the water issue, especially due to its novel
political approach, and to its focus on the role played by multinational
soft drink companies.
Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a
powerful civil society group with more than 100,000 members, Barlow
has many followers, but many detractors as well. She is an uncomfortable
figure at international meetings. Many label her a “radical”,
and dismiss her work as lacking in “scientific rigour.”
Now that the international community is coming
together again to discuss the issue, in the Third World Water Forum
in Kyoto, Japan, Mar. 16-23, Barlow will once again give people
something to talk about.
The activist spoke with Tierramerica a few
hours before heading to Japan.
- The international community has been
talking a lot about the water issue. Why discuss it again? What
difference can the Third World Water Forum in Japan make?
- That is an important question. I am afraid
that the gathering in Japan has to do with the aim of the Global
Water Council, which is organizing the meeting, to become the main
protagonist in the debate on water resources management. And that
is worrisome, because the Council, with the support of the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund, is pushing for the privatization
of water resources, for a corporate model of water governance. I
don’t think there’s anything new that wasn’t said
or done at the meeting in the Hague (the Second World Water Forum
in 2000) or in Johannesburg (at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002).
- What will you do in Japan?
- I am going to coordinate a seminar on “Type
2” partnerships for water management, which were promoted
in Johannesburg (alliances between the community, non-governmental
organizations, governments and the private sector). Our aim is to
try to convince the nearly 10,000 people who will gather at the
meeting in Japan that this is not an option, that it is based on
a mistaken concept. The public sector takes all the risks, while
the private sector builds, operates and rakes in the profits. The
profit motive is okay if you’re talking about cars or TV sets,
but the forces of the market should not apply to water. The private
sector should play a role as a consultant to governments, it can
build infrastructure, but it must not have control over the management
of water.
- Is the goal of cutting in half the
number of people around the world without access to clean water
by 2015, as agreed in Johannesburg, realistic?
-No, due to a conceptual problem. It seems
to me that it puts an emphasis on access, but not on water shortages
or pollution. Without strict legislation, for example, water sources
will not stop being polluted.
- In its most recent report, the United
Nations predicts that up to seven billion people -- out of a projected
world population of 9.3 billion -- will suffer from water shortages
by 2050 if measures are not taken to address the crisis. Do you
agree with that apocalyptic estimate?
- Yes, absolutely. I believe the evidence
is there, and it is very good that the UN has recognized it. The
water crisis is not a crisis of the future; it has already arrived.
We are seeing the conflicts it generates, from Bolivia and Mexico
to India and Pakistan.
- In that report, the UN also criticizes
politicians’ inertia and lack of political will.
- That’s true. There is no dedication.
States should promote access to water, but where are the politicians?
Only bureaucrats attend these meetings. The commitment to resolve
the water crisis has to come from civil society.
- Who does water belong to?
- I argue that water belongs to the Earth,
to all species. It is a fundamental human right, not a tradable
“good.” It must be preserved for future generations.
If it is privatized, who will take care of nature? Who will care
if animals have access to water? Or whether or not ecosystems receive
adequate nourishment?
- Many argue that if a market price
is not put on water, no one will conserve it.
- I don’t say there is no place for setting
a fair price for water services. What I am arguing is that the corporate
model says: let’s sell the resource to the highest bidder,
and since it will be expensive, demand will be reduced in the market,
and we will thus solve the water crisis.
Let’s first give the needy free access
instead. Only then can we begin to talk about setting a fair price.
- Your book ‘Blue Gold’
was praised for its political analysis of the
water question. But your critics complain that you demonize corporations.
- Since the book was published, scandals over
the corporate management of water have mushroomed. Privatization
processes have been a disaster. I have no doubt that there are good,
honest businesspeople. But the three biggest transnational soft
drink companies are working to seize control over water. I believe
that is immoral, when every eight seconds a child dies of water-borne
diseases. Unfortunately the evidence shows I am right.
- Many see innovation and technology
transfer as the solution to the water crisis. Processes like desalinization,
for example, are gaining attention. What do you think?
- The emphasis on technology is extremely dangerous.
People could think: “no problem, let’s destroy the environment,
technology will help us fix it.” There is evidence that we
are already altering the water cycle. And I assure you that there
is no technological solution for that. Desalinization is a very
costly process, perhaps it can work in specific cases. But the answer
lies in conservation and equity.
- Do you believe there will be wars
over water in the next few decades?
- Definitely. Conflicts have already broken
out, and there will be more. But I hope that water, instead of causing
war, can become an instrument of peace.
Internal Links
|
