Home | About us | Activities | Contact | Countries and Issues | Newsletter-Enlace | Get involved | Links | Notices | Resource Centre
 |
II. Water: the privatisation experience
V. LASC events on Water
VI. Educational resources on Water
Water is a resource only comparable to air in the sense that it is absolutely fundamental for life to exist. Yet, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, over 1 billion people in the world lack safe access to clean water and 25 million people in the world die every year as a result of contaminated waters, of which 5,000 deaths per day are of children.
Latin America has vast freshwater resources:it is estimated that 55% of the world's total renewable water resources are concentrated in Latin America and the Caribbean. Yet, around 30% of the Latin American and Caribbean urban population (120 million people) lack access to adequate water services. Furthermore, 219 million people with house connection of drinking water are suffering from an intermittent service. As a result, around 77,600 children die annually of diarrhoea, and water related diseases such as typhoid and cholera.
Against this tragic record is that discussion on what ways to guarantee universal access to water have moved around. And while many would see the “public v/s private water” debate as a logjam, we think that we need to pay better attention to the experience of the last 20 years in order to draw some lessons from it. It is from this experience that LASC sees the need to reclaim public water.
2.1- The impact of Water Privatisation.
During the '80s came the first international recognition of the seriousness of the problem of water and sanitation in the developing world. This was called the “Water Decade” and the target was that by 1990 everyone in the world should have guaranteed safe access to water and sanitation.
A number of factors during that decade colluded to frustrate the achievement of the target. At the start of the '90s, the problem was still massive and was far from solved. So in the early '90s there was a single-minded shift to pushing privatisation plans as the only solution to improve access to water both in terms of quality and quantity, instead of considering public participation, increased funding and support to publicly owned water services or institutional reform.
The main actors in this shift were the International Financial Institutions (such as the IMF, WB and the IDB), while Trade Liberalisation and Multinational Treaties also had a role to play in advancing this process, that was well anchored in the growing influence of Neoliberalism in international politics which viewed Public Services as expensive, badly managed, unsustainable and wasteful. When it came to water, this view was backed by the Dublin Conference in 1992 which stated water to be primarily an “economic good”.
The most frequent way to privatise access to water is the privatisation of distribution networks and purifying facilities,in the form of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). The privatisation of management and PPPs, however, are not often openly referred to as privatisation. The global effects of the Privatisation wave has been far from impressive: after 15 years of privatisation of water services, less than 1% of the people worldwide in need of water have gained access to water. On contrast, from 1980 to 1990, during the “Water Decade”, the public sector reduced the amount of people worldwide living with no access to water from 56% to 31%. At the same time, there does not seem to be much evidence that water privatisation has helped in any sensitive way to enhance management performance or efficiency. Nor there is any evidence to assume that Public Services on water are in any way less efficient than the private sector, as derived from compared studies of the performance of both private and public water utilities.
2.2 - Experience of Water Privatisation in Latin America
The privatisation wave did not leave Latin America untouched, and since the mid Ô90s many water Trans-National companies participated in the privatisation of water services, with rather grim results. Chile is the single success story on water privatisation in Latin America and even this label is misleading, for the only reason why it was “successful” is because there was previously a healthy public funded water supply infrastructure, but in reality, it failed to improve it in any way the service. However, some worrying effects of water privatisation have manifested: increase in charges and lack of investment in maintenance.
Most other experiences not only show there has not been an improvement in the delivery of water, but that disaster usually follows after privatisation. This has been the case in Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Puerto Rico and notably in Bolivia. The common problems faced by the Latin American population when water has been privatised are:
2.3 - The Latin American people reclaim Public Water
Due to the appalling record of water privatisation in Latin America, the people have reclaimed water to remain public and for the contracts with private companies to be terminated. The single most dramatic event have been the water wars in Bolivia, in Cochabamba and El Alto, which were determinant for governments to fall and which were met with overwhelming violence, which resulted in injuries and even death of protestors. Through this struggle, however, water was returned to public hands.
In Uruguay a referendum was held on October 31st, 2004, to amend the Constitution, to turn it into a fundamental human right. 64.7% of the Uruguayan voters approved that safe access to piped water and sanitation were human rights to be guaranteed by the government. This means also that privatisation of water in any form is outlawed in Uruguay.
Following this example, in Colombia, many civil society organisations have come together to collect signatures in order to push for a referendum to turn water into a Constitutional right. Similarly, in Ecuador, the undergoing process of the Constituent Assembly has taken steps to turn public water into a right of every citizen.
2.4 - Water and Trade Agreements
At present, the bi-regional trade agreements negotiated between the EU and some Latin American blocks (the Andean Community of Nations and Central America) have put forward the issue of water privatisation. This should not come as a surprise since some European TNCs, such as Veolia, Suez, Aguas de Bilbao and RWE-Thames, have been in the forefront of water privatisation in Latin America. On the WTO GATS negotiations the European Union is known to be demanding that 72 countries open up their water supply systems to foreign providers.
The EU-Andean Community (CAN) Association Agreement's first draft reads “The Parties shall agree on measures aimed at the progressive liberalisation of their respective procurement markets at all levels of public authorities and public entities in the water, energy and transport sectors as well as for information and communication networks”.
LASC believes that this is not a positive development as it fails to understand the record left behind by water privatisation and thus it fails to understand the degree of opposition of privatisations in this sector in the region. We also believe that considering the experience this demand would be in open contradiction with other stated objectives of the Association Agreement (good governance, strengthening of democracy, sustainable development, etc.)
3.1 - The human right to water
At present, water is only tacitly accepted as a human right by globally binding legal instruments. This right can be derived from a number of conventions, declarations and global instruments of international law, both binding and not binding, such as the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Human Rights Covenants of 1966. They do not explicitly refer to water, but in order to achieve some of their goals regarding to human rights, water is a pre-requisite in sufficient quality and quantity.
For instance, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “(e)veryone has the right to a standard of life adequate to for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. Although the list quoted does not mention water, it is not an all-inclusive list, judging by the wording employed (“including”). Therefore, there is ground to affirm that although water is not mentioned explicitly that it is tacitly derived from the spirit of the article, for the realization of each and all of those above mentioned rights require sufficient water both in quality and quantity.
The only two human rights treaties to refer explicitly to water as a human right are the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The former recognizes the right to water as a fundamental pre-requisite for having adequate living conditions and the latter recognizes the right of children to clean drinking-water. A positive step in the direction of acknowledging water as a human right is stated in the General Comment adopted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to water - which refers to article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - states that: “The human right to drinking water is fundamental for life and health. Sufficient and safe drinking water is a precondition for the realization of all human rights.”
Taking a step further and stating clearly that water is a fundamental human right will put pressure to governments in order to take every step necessary to make sure that its citizens are granted this right according to their basic requirements Ðand make sure that they do not take steps that will prevent its citizens from enjoying this right. It will mean that governments will have to design sound policies to manage it and accept public surveillance around this service; and it means that water is no commodity and therefore should not be managed with an eye to profiteering. But inasmuch as there is a need to acknowledge a right to water we are certain that this right should not be defined in such broad and ambiguous terms as to be rendered meaningless.
3.2 - Public and Participatory Water system
Given the relative results of public and private services of water, we believe that it is necessary that water remains in public hands. Not only is absolutely necessary for life to exist; not only does it not respond to market laws as it has no equivalent replacement; privatisation experiments have failed systematically over the last two decades.
We believe that stating that water should be left in public hands is not good enough: we need to look for mechanisms that increase people's participation in water management. This we believe is the main way to make sure that the water service responds to the best interests of local population. Experiences as such have been attempted in different parts of the world, with varying degrees of success. The most successful experiences have taken place in Latin America, particularly in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and in Argentina. The key to success is real participation in the decision making process. Usual problems in water delivery are corrupt and clientelistic practices. The more democracy and the more participation of civil society in public water management, the better result achieved.
Latin America Spanish Version + Brazilian Portuguese Version
4.1 Our Vision
LASC believes in a Latin America and an Ireland based on equality, social justice and an equal expression of cultural, social, political and economic rights for all human beings.
LASC believes that water in all its forms is a common good and that access to water of good quality and in quantity sufficient for basic needs and sustainable development, is a fundamental and inalienable human right.
Water is the basic element of all forms of life on our planet. Therefore it should not be treated as a commodity as it is the patrimony of all humanity and of all living creatures.
The General Comment adopted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to water - which refers to article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - states that: “The human right to drinking water is fundamental for life and health. Sufficient and safe drinking water is a precondition for the realization of all human rights”.
4.3 Threats to the Right to Water
LASC believes that the trend towards privatisation of public services and natural resources poses a threat to the right to water for the following reasons:LASC further believes that this trend is taking place in the very specific context of extreme inequalities of wealth and power that have made many countries vulnerable to undue pressures to privatise.
These pressures are being exerted by different actors, which in turn can be Governments, International Financial and Trade Institutions and Transnational Corporations. These pressures can take the form of conditions attached to multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements, development aid programmes and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) loans.
Specific free trade agreements linked to World Trade Organisation (WTO) policies have pushed this trend forward and have worsened the huge inequalities already existing in Latin America.
In addition, LASC promotes:
- General Comment of the UN Economic and Social Council on the Right to Water, E/C.12/2002/11, November 2002, Download document
- Water as a Human Right, World Health Organisation Download document
- Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water, Third World Water Forum, Kyoto, Japan, March 2003 Download document
- Joint Declaration of the Movements in Defense of Water, Mexico City, March 19, 2006 Click here
- Statement on the right to water, in advance of the Second Summit of Heads of States of the Community of South American Nations, taking place in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Dec. 8-9, 2006 waterstrategyamsterdam@yahoogroups.com
- Summary and conclusions from the International seminar on "Public Models of Drinking Water Supply and sanitation in Rural Areas" Click here
4.6 Progressio comments on LASC policy
Progressio welcomes LASC's most recent policy paper on water. We are particularly struck by the LASC's emphasis on the right to water and the need for national legislation and international legal frameworks to adopt this basic right.Progressio also welcomes LASC's critical analysis of the experience of privatisation of water supply services in Latin America.
If space and time would have allowed it, we feel that the policy paper would have been further strengthened if an analysis of the role of Government was included. Globally, public providers dominate formal water provision. They account for 90 percent of the water delivered through networks in developing countries. Unfortunately too many publicly-owned water utilities are failing the poor. In many countries, including in Latin America, their performance has been lamentable in terms of quality of service-for instance, hours of supply and water quality-and extension into urban poor areas.
Progressio believes that the first step must be to strengthen and reform public water utilities. This requires identifying the sources of weakness, which include poor governance, infrastructure that is not fit for purpose and poor revenue collection. Failing to enforce bill payment, setting tariffs too low to recover even operation and maintenance costs, and loss of water from leaking pipes, lead to large deficits which cause public utilities to struggle to provide regular supplies to those with existing access, let alone to extend services.
The UNDP's Human Development Report states, “The criterion for assessing policy should not be public or private but performance or non-performance for the poor”. Seeking out pragmatic responses to meet the needs of the poorest, what most NGOs nowadays adopt as their modus operandi, is simply a reflection of what is happening in communities around the world. Indeed for most of the world's poor it is not the private sector or national government that provides water and sanitation. For the world's poor, community organisations are much more important than national governments or large private companies and international agencies, especially in Africa. A poor households' own investment is more important than investments by governments and international agencies, whose large scale projects often by-pass those most in need. The small scale private sector-water vendors, water kiosksÑare far more important than big multinationals, while local governments are usually far more important than national government agencies.
An analysis of what works suggests that while public provision of water may indeed be better than water in private hands, too many public utilities are failing the world's poor and in their present form many of them need to be radically reformed before they can be held up as mechanisms to extend access to water and sanitation services.
7. ISTAMBUL, 5th WORLD WATER FORUM
Water forum declaration
Istanbul, March 22, 2009
After Mexico City 2006, which was an important milestone of the continuous work of the global movement for water justice, we have now gathered in Istanbul to mobilize against the 5th World Water Forum. We are here to delegitimize this false, corporate driven World Water Forum and to give voice to the positive agenda of the global water justice movements!
Given that we are in Turkey, we cannot ignore that this country provides a powerful example of the devastating impacts of destructive water management policies. The Turkish government has pushed for the privatization of both water services, watersheds and has plans to dam every river in the country. Four specific cases of destructive and risky dams in Turkey, include the Ilisu, Yusufeli, Munzur and Yortanli dams. For ten years, affected people have intensively opposed these projects, in particular, the Ilisu dam which is part of a larger irrigation and energy production project known as the South East Anatolia Projects, or GAP. The Ilisu dam Ð one of the most criticized dam projects worldwide Ð is particularly complex and troubling because of its implications on international policy in the Middle East. The dam is situated in the Kurdish-settled region where there are ongoing human rights violations related to the unsolved Kurdish question. The Turkish government is using GAP to negatively impact the livelihood of the Kurdish people and to suppress their cultural and political rights.
We, as a movement, are here to offer solutions to the water crisis, and to demand that the UN General Assembly organises the next global forum on water. The participation of important United Nations officials and representatives in our meeting is evidence that something has changed. There is a tangible and symbolic shift of legitimacy: from the official Forum organized by private interests and by the World Water Council to the Peoples Water Forum, organized by global civil society including, farmers, indigenous peoples, activists, social movements, trade unions, non-governmental organizations and networks that struggle throughout the world in the defense of water and territory and for the commons.
We call on the United Nations and its member states to accept its obligation, as the legitimate global convener of multilateral forums, and to formally commit to hosting a forum on water that is linked to state obligations and is accountable to the global community.
We call upon all organizations and governments at this 5th World Water Forum, to commit to making it the last corporate-controlled water forum. The world needs the launch of a legitimate, accountable, transparent, democratic forum on water emerging from within the UN processes supported by its member states.
Confirming once again the illegitimacy of the World Water Forum, we denounce the Ministerial Statement because it does not recognize water as a universal human right nor exclude it from global trade agreements. In addition the draft resolution ignores the failure of privatization to guarantee the access to water for all, and does not take into account those positive recommendations proposed by the insufficient European Parliamentary Resolution. Finally, the statement promotes the use of water to produce energy from hydroelectric dams and the increased production of fuel from crops, both of which lead to further inequity and injustice.
We reaffirm and strengthen all the principles and commitments expressed in the 2006 Mexico City declaration: we uphold water as the basic element of all life on the planet, as a fundamental and inalienable human right; we insist that solidarity between present and future generations should be guaranteed; we reject all forms of privatization and declare that the management and control of water must be public, social, cooperative, participatory, equitable, and not for profit; we call for the democratic and sustainable management of ecosystems and to preserve the integrity of the water cycle through the protection and proper management of watersheds and environment.
We oppose the dominant economic and financial model that prescribes the privatization, commercialization and corporatization of public water and sanitation services. We will counter this type of destructive and non-participatory public sector reform, having seen the outcomes for poor people as a result of rigid cost-recovery practices and the use of pre-paid meters. Since 2006, in Mexico, the global water justice movement has continued to challenge corporate control of water for profit. Some of our achievements include: reclaiming public utilities that had been privatized; fostering and implementing public Ð public partnerships; forcing the bottled water industry into a loss of revenue; and coming together in collective simultaneous activities during Blue October and the Global Action Week. We celebrate our achievements highlighted by the recognition of the human right to water in several constitutions and laws.
At the same time we need to address the economic and ecological crises. We will not pay for your crisis! We will not rescue this flawed and unsustainable model, which has transformed: unaccountable private spending into enormous public debt, which has transformed water and the commons into merchandise, which has transformed the whole of Nature into a preserve of raw materials and into an open-air dump.
The basic interdependence between water and climate change is recognized by the scientific community and is underlined also by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Therefore, we must not accept responses to climate chaos in the energy sector that follow the same logic that caused the crisis in the first place. This is a logic that jeopardizes the quantity and quality of water and of life that is based on dams, nuclear power plants, and agro-fuel plantations. In December 2009, we will bring our concerns and proposals to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Further, the dominant model of intensive industrial agriculture, contaminates and destroys water resources, impoverishes agricultural soils, and devastates food sovereignty. This has enormous impact on lives and public health. From the fruitful experience of the Belem World Social Forum, we are committed to strengthening the strategic alliance between water movements and those for land, food and climate.
We also commit to continue building networks and new social alliances, and to involve both local authorities and Parliamentarians who are determined to defend water as a common good and to reaffirm the right to fresh water for all human beings and nature. We are also encouraging all public water utilities to get together, establishing national associations and regional networks. We celebrate our achievements and we look forward for our continued collaboration across countries and continents!
Water is more than a human need: it is a human right
Report on the 5th World Water Forum (Istanbul, Turkey)
The 5th World Water Forum (WWF) was held in Istanbul from the 16th to the 22nd of March, with over 20,000 attendants from 150 countries. As in previous versions of the WWF the election of the housing country was not a coincidence: Turkey is a country that is pursuing privatisation policies in water, largely in line with the EUÕs powerful water lobby and its view of water merely as an economic good. So the event is seen as a way both to reward Turkish water Neoliberal policies and to strengthen this privatisation agenda.
The WWF insists once again on a failed Neoliberal “solution”
This Forum, however, took place in the middle of a growing understanding of the graveness of the current crisis of water: entire regions of the planet are running out of water, what is leading to conflicts such as that of Darfur. Over 1 billion people in the world lack safe access to clean water and 25 million people in the world die every year as a result of contaminated water, including the deaths of 5,000 children per day. According to the World Health Organisation, 80% of diseases in the world can be ultimately linked to the lack of access to safe water or sanitation. In Latin America alone, around 30% of the urban population (120 million people) lack access to adequate water services and 219 million of those with household drinking water connections suffer from intermittent service. As a result, around 77,600 children die annually of diarrhoea, and water related diseases such as typhoid and cholera.
Privatisation of water services and facilities advocated since the 's as a magic solution to this problem, not only have failed to meet the enormous challenge posed by this crisis, but indeed has made matters worse. Wherever privatization of water services has been implemented, the result has been disaster. This is mainly because water cannot be treated as a commodity and any attempt to let the “market” and unaccountable corporations' drive to profit regulate water has ended up with millions being neglected their fundamental right to a common as essential as air in order to live.
Yet, in spite of this record, the WWF, as expected, once again have insisted on water privatisation. Why is this?
The WWF exposed for what it is: an illegitimate and undemocratic talk shop for big business
This is so because the WWF is just a talk shop for big business that profit on water and that look for the implementation of Neoliberal policies that speed up water privatisation. In the WWF the UN and government representatives come together with representatives of the big Multinational water companies and business lobby organisations such as the World Water Council (which ultimately controls the WWF), the Global Water Partnership and the WB, as if they were on exactly the same footing.
This is why in this last WWF more than ever, so many people were vocal on the illegitimate nature of this Council that took over the UN the saying on water issues. They actually pretend to have the same legitimacy as the UN, the even imitate their language and formalities, but as Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor to the UN General Assembly President on Water issues and water activist, pointed out they are not and that we “should not give them a single iota of legitimacy”.
But the WWF is also not democratic and elitist Ðfrom the register fee of � to the VIP arrangements, everything is designed to keep the majority of those concerned on water issues out, and even those who are in are divided into VIP people and the “riff raff”.
During the Istanbul WWF Police was present even in the toilets, and repression marked any attempt of pacific demonstrations against the WWF and what it represents, including the deportation of two demonstrators who unfurled a banner that read “No Risky Dams” during the inauguration of the Forum. Also on the inauguration day, hundreds of activists that have gathered out of the WWF to protest were dispersed by the Turkish police with plenty of teargas, riot sticks and water cannons. Inside the Forum there were people being censored if they were going to state that water was a human right. Why all of this repression? Because the WWF cannot take criticism for it is just not legitimate and is undemocratic beyond any possibility of reform.
This view is no longer a view just held by water activists, but is a view shared by an increasing number of government representatives and UN officials. The very UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escotto, in an address of March 19th intended to be read in the WWF, stated that “We must work quickly to guarantee that access to drinking water constitutes a fundamental right of all peoples” () Those who are committed to the privatization of water, making it a commodity like oil, are denying people a human right as basic as the air we breathe () The forum's orientation is profoundly influenced by private water companies. This is evident by the fact that both the president of the World Water Council and the alternate president are deeply involved with provision of private, for-profit, water services. Unsurprisingly, the reading of this statement was blocked by the World Water Council and it was read by Maude Barlow in the People's Water Forum that day, the full letter can be found at Click here
The Alternative Water Forum: going beyond the WWF
From the 20th to the 22nd of March, numerous water activists gathered for the Alternative Water Forum in Istanbul that became a wonderful meeting point for people from all over the world to learn about the local water struggles and the international water struggles, as well as to exchange ideas in a comradely environment. If there was any clear agreement between the diverse people participating in the Alternative Forum was on:
1. The need to acknowledge water as a human right and for governments to have a clear commitment to implement whatever policies are necessary in order to guarantee that this right is not just dead letter but an actual reality.
2. The understanding of water as a common, what's more than just State control of it, but actually, it implies community control of it and de-centralised community based governance structures.
3. The need to understand the deep link that binds the water problem to the environmental crisis and to the food crisis; that any change in water policies require an actual change in culture and in the way we relate not only to other people but also to nature. The struggle for water is at the same time the struggle for achieving a sustainable society.
Addressing the assistants, Maude Barlow called for this to be the last WWF under the auspices of the World Water Council. She urged the UN to call for a new public water forum, with civil society participation and which does not shun from stating clearly that water is a human right and not a simple human need, as the WWF did. But this is not to say that all countries are in favour of water as a human right Ðamong the most vocal opponents to water being considered as a human right during the WWF, we had the governments of the US, Egypt and Brazil, what proves that thereÕs still a long way for civil society to go in order to defeat a Neoliberal frame of mind still prevalent among top officers.
Renato Di Nicola, of the Italian Forum of Water Movements also stated that “the fundamental issue here is that the UN takes on its hand the right to talk of water”. And he added “this is quite a radical movement, in the sense that it goes to the root of the matter and demands for radical solutions, but at the same time, because it does not confuses partial victories for the need to struggle for the ultimate goal which is water as a common in public hands with a participatory ethos. But we have also learnt to communicate radical ideas in a language that without losing urgency looks for a broad consensus and concrete reforms”.
Water: public and participatory
During the Alternative Water Forum, many voices demanded that water, in order to become an effective human right, was in public hands with effective community control. This view was put forward in a very articulate form by Anil Naidoo, from the Council of Canadians, who explained that understanding water as a “Common” refers to the central role of communities Ðcommunities need to have control of their water services, because it is they that will be affected by decisions in relation to water and not people sitting in decision-making bodies miles away. Communities, he said, can be better managers than governments and corporations. So when we talk about ÔpublicÕ water we are referring to more than State control, but we are referring to the community taking an active and creating role in finding solutions to the water crisis (that respect local cultures, environment and use local technologies on a necessarily de-centralized model) and taking control of its structures of governance. As Anil Naidoo reminded us, this is not something new, but something communities have always done and that has been shattered by a system that only see commons as a source to extract profit while it destroys whole communities.
Veteran Bolivian water activist Oscar Olivera put the record straight that ordinary people need to stop waiting for a change to happen from above, and should become active part of the solution: “We cannot remain subordinated to demand from governments that they give us rights; on the contrary, we need to learn to conquer them, we need to learn to gain them through our struggle and self-organisation”.
Towards a new Water Forum that acknowledges water as a human right In the end, thanks to the work of so many activists who have become a powerful pressure group representing many communities alienated from the decision making bodies that have currently the ultimate say on such a sensitive issue as water, the group of government representatives and ministers that agreed on the need to declare water a human right and to call for a new World Water Forum under the auspices of the UN expanded considerably from the bunch of countries that supported these views back in the previous WWF in Mexico.
The statement reading that “We recognize that access to water and sanitation is a human right and we are committed to all necessary actions for the progressive implementation of this right” was agreed by representatives of Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Venezuela. And the one reading that “We call on States to develop a global water forum within the framework of the United Nations, based on the principles of democracy, full participation, equity, transparency and social inclusion” was agreed by representatives of Benin, Bolivia, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela
And this list is likely to expand. Representatives of countries such as Switzerland and Norway expressed their agreement with these statements but said that the process for adhering to them is a bit longer in their case and could not be done right there, and the African Union is considering its own adherence to these statements.
The most important thing is that the illegitimacy of the WWF and its sponsor, the world Water Council, has been exposed in a way much clearer than ever before. And it is not at all naïve to expect that, hopefully, this will be the last WWF of its type.
After this week of success, the water activists can be well satisfied. But we still need to remember that the struggle for making the UN take a definite stand on water as a human right is still a hard one and that from there to implementing this right and turn it into a reality, will be an even harder one. But the results of this conference prove that we are on the right track and that giant steps have been taken by a movement that has grown to a stage in which it can be a constructive force to build an alternative world around the respect to water and life.
José Antonio Gutiérrez Latin American Solidarity Centre