It is unfortunate, as water is quickly becoming a source that currently and will continue to operate a vehicle political and economic interests throughout the globe. More concerning, the finite resources of freshwater (less than half of one per cent of the world’s total water stock) are being depleted at a fast rate – it’s projected by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will be surviving in a situation of serious water deprivation. The problem of water management and conservation has received special attention this month since the South-East of England is experiencing one of its worst droughts considering that the 1920s. After 15 months of unhealthy rainfall some parts of the country will be suffering water supply controls during the summertime – which raises the question of who manages water supplies.

The marketplace of water management is dominated by French trans-national Suez (formerly Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux) and German conglomerate RWE. Ranked 79th and 78th among Fortune’s Global 100 List, both of these water companies capture nearly 40 percent of the prevailing water market share. These multinationals are now gaining a foothold in the United States, where they operate through a number of subsidiaries. Suez operates in 130 countries and Vivendi in over 100; their combined annual revenues are near $70 billion. RWE revenues are now over $50 billion (energy included), having acquired water company Thames Water in the United Kingdom.

The companies been employed by closely with the World Bank and other international financial institutions and lobby aggressively for legislation and trade laws to require countries to privatise their water (as a condition for receiving major loans and aid). Across major cities across the world-such as Buenos Aires- the World Bank has flexed its financial muscle to persuade local governments to sign long-term contracts with the major private water companies.

An ideal exemplory instance of this case could be the privatisation of the Buenos Aires water utility by the Argentinean government in 1993. The Argentinean government in those days experiencing a serious economic crisis, characterised by hyperinflation, granted a 30-year concession to perform the water system to Aguas Argentinas, a consortium controlled by two French water giants, Compagnie Gnrale des Eaux (now Vivendi) and Lyonnaise des Eaux (now Suez). The consortium did not pay any money for the concession, promising to reduce water bills for local citizens. At the time, it said that private firms would do better at bringing water and sewage connections to poor aspects of the city. The sell-off of the water company was section of a wholesale auction of state assets to foreign and Argentine businesses. This is the perfect exemplory instance of how, in some cases, privatisation deals, while making fast cash for the us government – money usually used to pay for debts to the IMF, World Bank and other foreign creditors – are often a bad deal for people and filled with secrecy and corruption.

Soon thereafter, the World Bank declared the Buenos Aires privatisation an overwhelming success and made it a design for privatisations of water that followed in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Australia. and South Africa. In the spring of 2002, the business defaulted on about $700 million in loans and threatened to reduce water services unless the us government guaranteed the loans in U.S. dollars. The us government refused, instead suggesting that Aguas Argentinas could save $6.3 million annually by reducing its executive salaries. agricultural water tank The International Monetary Fund then insisted that President Eduardo Duhalde authorise a rate hike as a condition for renegotiating Argentina’s foreign debt. President Duhalde had no choice in the summertime of 2002 but to grant Aguas Argentinas a 10 percent increase.

In France, Suez attended under scrutiny in a number of criminal and civil cases, with accusations offering bribery of public officials, illegal political contributions, kickbacks, price fixing, operating cartels and fraudulent accounting. Suez have close ties to the French government; the water companies are claimed to be strong resources of income for the political parties, particularly Chirac’s RPR. In 2000, Jrme Monod, CEO of Suez from 1987 to 2000 left the business learning to be a senior adviser to Chirac. Interestingly enough, the French government has taken a protectionist approach to the water business – no foreign companies have water concessions in France.

There is undoubtedly large water companies including Suez, Vivendi and RWE have a responsibility with their shareholders to generate returns, however their biggest corporate responsibility should be on the fair and equitable management of their host countries waters. Unfortunately, these companies have demonstrated a ruthless approach to the management of waters in foreign counties being plagued by corruption and price increase scandals. Government organisations are equally responsible for issues of corruption and misappropriation of resources inside their countries. The right exemplory instance of weak government controls, could be the role the Argentinean Water Management Agency, ETOSS played in the disastrous privatisation of Buenos Aires waters. ETOSS subordinated to corporate and government pressures and constantly altered the contracts between the us government, municipalities and the water conglomerates.

Thankfully, alternative resources of water management and collection are being developed. Much like the Namib fog beetle (in Africa) which collects moisture for sustenance of its body, fog collection is a growing program for the development of affordable water supplies. Fog collection is pretty simple and affordable – large vertical shade nets are erected in high-lying areas near water-short communities. As fog passes through these shades, water droplets are deposited onto the net. Because the droplets become larger, they run down the web into gutters attached at floor level. From there, water is channelled into reservoirs, and then to individual homes. Lets hope the distribution and development of fog collector technology, unlike water concessions, is performed in an equitable and transparent manner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *