#5 - Commodifying Water: Disregarding Rights B
Scanning the literature surrounding privatisations in the water industry in Africa makes for a disheartening read. When looking at the Tanzania case, the failings of privatisation and their asymmetrical impacts on the lives of women, men, and the poor, are catastrophic. With the underpinning philosophy of cost-recovery, whereby the company attempts to recuperate all costs through the setting of tariffs and charges to the members of the service, people were not only excluded but also extorted. The rising costs stimulated rising default rates and late repayments caused tariffs to surge over the period of 2000 to 2003 by 17% per annum. This impacted the livelihoods of the residents within Dar Es Salaam significantly.
City Water and their managerial and profiteering approach marginalised the poorest communities who could not afford to pay for water. As time progressed and water became more expensive, more individuals were forced to alternative sources for their water needs. This occurred while City Water began disconnecting communities in order to try and recover costs. Alongside huge pipeline inefficiencies, wastage, inconsistent flow and disconnection, the poorest individuals were forced to pay twice for their water from alternative sources, such as from street vendors (Chetty and Luiz, 2014). While not only being economically disadvantaged by this, women found the burdens on their time poverty expanding. Burdened with the responsibility of care and the household overhead, a lack of access to clean water lead to prolonged collection times, inappropriate sanitary practices and impinged on women's agricultural production used to supplement their income (Thompson,2000). With all of these failings, it was no surprise that City Water's management were reprimanded and their contract terminated at the turn of the year in 2005. This occurred to such an extent that three British expatriates Cliff Stone, Michael Livermore and Roger Harrington, senior managers at City Water, were deported from Tanzania after being described as "undesirable immigrants" (Guardian WWW).
As this example shows, privatisation in some circumstances drastically exacerbates what is already a delicate issue. With the aim of advancing capabilities and reducing time poverty, the actions of City Water and the chronic lack of investment in water infrastructures works to the severe detriment of both the women and men in this region and this has caused an uproar in responses. Numerous lobbyists and action groups have picked up the gauntlet on this issue and have begun partitioning for change. Notably, the work by the Tanzanian Gender Networking Programme (TGNP) resonates particularly with this study. The TGNP's report on this water crisis illuminated a number of failings of privatisation. It was found that the structural impediments on the livelihoods and temporal commitments of women engendered them as those who suffered the most. With the burden of care for children, the family and the sick, women were worked harder in order to provide sustenance for their dependents. The TGNP and other women's organisations, including Action Aid, have begun partitioning for the inclusion of women and their consultation in the design and implementation of privatisation schemes. They found that often the most vulnerable were excluded and unaccounted for when formulating water management schemes and they assert that it maintains the obligation of the state to provide accountability in the worst case scenario that private water companies begin to fail (Brown, 2010). Above all else, they conclude in critiquing the Tanzanian water privatisation scheme for it's propensity to seriously limit and nullify the option for public deliberation and inclusion whilst also marginalising the voices of those who stand to be most effected. It is work done by these sort of groups which is beginning to effect change. More information on this can be found out here at Women For Water.
Now, looking at the case from Namibia, alongside the one just discussed, some concerning relationships regarding the formation of society and an individuals rights are brought to light. In order to not retread the ground which has already been discussed, the multifarious case of Namwater exhibits very similar characteristics to that of Tanzania, but on a completely different scale. Both corporations impose the principle of cost-recovery and we have seen the long term effects of this on the marginalised already. What is most pertinent here is the flippant nature at which Namwater showed such a disregard for the welfare of the citizens of Namibia when going about shutting off water supplies to certain regions who fell into arrears. The list of communities disenfranchised by this company is eye-opening. To give a taste of this, by July 2003 the municipalities of: Rundu, Opuwo, Usakos, Mulido, Kalkrand, Katutura and Khomasdal all experienced water cut-offs or water pressure reductions, drastically influencing the socio-economic activity of these regions (Donald and Ruiters, 2005). In Opuwo there is a hospital which had to deal with the consequences of having no running water and in Kalkrand the schools were forced to shut due to students protesting at the stench which accumulated due to malfunctioning of sanitation and cleaning facilities! Clearly, the consequences of water privatisation, in the events that it goes wrong, are a matter of humanitarian concern.
From this we see clearly that when the state shoulders the burden of an inherently public good to a private party, they can abdicate their social service responsibilities and the reigns are not widely taken up by the private party themselves. It appears that the profit motive exceeds that of the motive to be humanitarian, philanthropic and altruistic and it is here where the problem may lie. When determining privatisations, as has been learned from this case, their needs to be an indelibly focus on corporate social responsibility. Clearly, what has been lacking from these case studies is a focus on human rights and integrity and it is arguments surrounding this which will form the basis of the next and blog post in this section.
City Water and their managerial and profiteering approach marginalised the poorest communities who could not afford to pay for water. As time progressed and water became more expensive, more individuals were forced to alternative sources for their water needs. This occurred while City Water began disconnecting communities in order to try and recover costs. Alongside huge pipeline inefficiencies, wastage, inconsistent flow and disconnection, the poorest individuals were forced to pay twice for their water from alternative sources, such as from street vendors (Chetty and Luiz, 2014). While not only being economically disadvantaged by this, women found the burdens on their time poverty expanding. Burdened with the responsibility of care and the household overhead, a lack of access to clean water lead to prolonged collection times, inappropriate sanitary practices and impinged on women's agricultural production used to supplement their income (Thompson,2000). With all of these failings, it was no surprise that City Water's management were reprimanded and their contract terminated at the turn of the year in 2005. This occurred to such an extent that three British expatriates Cliff Stone, Michael Livermore and Roger Harrington, senior managers at City Water, were deported from Tanzania after being described as "undesirable immigrants" (Guardian WWW).
As this example shows, privatisation in some circumstances drastically exacerbates what is already a delicate issue. With the aim of advancing capabilities and reducing time poverty, the actions of City Water and the chronic lack of investment in water infrastructures works to the severe detriment of both the women and men in this region and this has caused an uproar in responses. Numerous lobbyists and action groups have picked up the gauntlet on this issue and have begun partitioning for change. Notably, the work by the Tanzanian Gender Networking Programme (TGNP) resonates particularly with this study. The TGNP's report on this water crisis illuminated a number of failings of privatisation. It was found that the structural impediments on the livelihoods and temporal commitments of women engendered them as those who suffered the most. With the burden of care for children, the family and the sick, women were worked harder in order to provide sustenance for their dependents. The TGNP and other women's organisations, including Action Aid, have begun partitioning for the inclusion of women and their consultation in the design and implementation of privatisation schemes. They found that often the most vulnerable were excluded and unaccounted for when formulating water management schemes and they assert that it maintains the obligation of the state to provide accountability in the worst case scenario that private water companies begin to fail (Brown, 2010). Above all else, they conclude in critiquing the Tanzanian water privatisation scheme for it's propensity to seriously limit and nullify the option for public deliberation and inclusion whilst also marginalising the voices of those who stand to be most effected. It is work done by these sort of groups which is beginning to effect change. More information on this can be found out here at Women For Water.
Now, looking at the case from Namibia, alongside the one just discussed, some concerning relationships regarding the formation of society and an individuals rights are brought to light. In order to not retread the ground which has already been discussed, the multifarious case of Namwater exhibits very similar characteristics to that of Tanzania, but on a completely different scale. Both corporations impose the principle of cost-recovery and we have seen the long term effects of this on the marginalised already. What is most pertinent here is the flippant nature at which Namwater showed such a disregard for the welfare of the citizens of Namibia when going about shutting off water supplies to certain regions who fell into arrears. The list of communities disenfranchised by this company is eye-opening. To give a taste of this, by July 2003 the municipalities of: Rundu, Opuwo, Usakos, Mulido, Kalkrand, Katutura and Khomasdal all experienced water cut-offs or water pressure reductions, drastically influencing the socio-economic activity of these regions (Donald and Ruiters, 2005). In Opuwo there is a hospital which had to deal with the consequences of having no running water and in Kalkrand the schools were forced to shut due to students protesting at the stench which accumulated due to malfunctioning of sanitation and cleaning facilities! Clearly, the consequences of water privatisation, in the events that it goes wrong, are a matter of humanitarian concern.
From this we see clearly that when the state shoulders the burden of an inherently public good to a private party, they can abdicate their social service responsibilities and the reigns are not widely taken up by the private party themselves. It appears that the profit motive exceeds that of the motive to be humanitarian, philanthropic and altruistic and it is here where the problem may lie. When determining privatisations, as has been learned from this case, their needs to be an indelibly focus on corporate social responsibility. Clearly, what has been lacking from these case studies is a focus on human rights and integrity and it is arguments surrounding this which will form the basis of the next and blog post in this section.