Global Policy Forum

By Henry Heyneardhi

The global trend in the water industry, predicted Fortune magazine in May 2000, was that "Water promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th: the precious commodity that determines the wealth of nations."

Water, the report said, has become one of the biggest businesses at a global level. The annual revenue of the water industry was estimated at that time by Fortune at some $400 billion, 40 percent of the oil sector and one-third larger than the pharmaceutical sector. The revenue is from only 5 percent of the world's population that receives their water supplies from corporations. Thus the potential for water market growth is very high, estimated in 1998 by the World Bank to grow to $800 billion; last year the bank revised the projection to $1 trillion.

Four transnational corporations (TNC) in the water industry - RWE, Vivendi, Suez-Lyonnaise and Enron - are in the Global Fortune 500, with Vivendi and Suez-Lyonnaise as the market leaders. Vivendi has 110 million customers worldwide, with annual revenues of more than 13 billion euros. Meanwhile, Suez-Lyonnaise, another French-based TNC, generates 10 billion euros in annual revenues from its worldwide customers.

Monsanto, a giant chemical TNC, also sees this emerging market, and intends to expand its business to the water sector starting from India and Mexico, since both face water shortages.

Although these giant water TNCs are competing with one another to create their share in the lucrative market, they are also pursuing the same goal: to establish a global water market where water can be treated as a commodity - sold and traded freely.

"Put water on sale, and let the market determine its future," they seem to say. This goal could be achieved by legitimizing the trade of water through free-trade instruments like GATS/WTO.

In terms of the free market, water supply is put into the same category as education, healthcare, banking, tourism, transportation and waste management, and trade in it is governed in the 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which is part of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

GATS intends to liberalize the trade in services by lifting all trade barriers, of which public ownership is one, and restraining national regulations. The agreement prohibits discrimination against a foreign supplier in all covered areas, notwithstanding the conditions under which services are provided and regardless of the human rights or environmental record of the provider. Parties have also agreed that some rules apply "horizontally," whether or not the area has already been listed under GATS.

One horizontal rule, one writer notes, is "most-favored nation," which says that once corporations from one country are operating in your market, you must allow the corporations from all countries in as well. This rule applies to all services, even those still protected.

In the water sector, GATS thus implies that all countries should open their market for water supply services without reserve and transfer water management to the private sector. As liberalization requires the confinement of the role of the state to mere facilitator, the transfer of public ownership of water services to the private sector is a practical consequence.

Proponents of GATS are very much convinced that water privatization and the institution of the global water market will benefit rich and poor alike. But also, more and more civil society organizations have become aware and voiced criticism and objections to water services being put under legally binding trade agreements like GATS. These criticisms and objections concern two main issues.

First, as stated above, GATS is helping the private sector, especially giant water TNCs, to expand their operations all over the world. But from experience, water privatization creates many new problems. When corporations sell water for profit, the quality, access and safety of water supplies are endangered and the future of water resources is threatened.

The second issue concerns a very fundamental principle. Water is undeniably an essential resource for every living being. Thus, decisions on this resource should be made democratically at the local, national and global level, based on people's fundamental right to safe and affordable water.

We believe the institutions of WTO/GATS are undemocratic, unfair and unaccountable. GATS supporters say that the agreement has been negotiated by governments. But the GATS terms were negotiated between a few powerful governments behind closed doors. And most governments were told to sign up to the done deal or be left out of the trading system.

Any policy on water should be discussed and debated democratically so that ordinary people, indigenous communities, community-based organizations and all global citizens can participate and voice their opinions and ideas.

We should encourage our government not to make any commitments regarding GATS before carrying out a comprehensive assessment of its impact on our shared life. The assessment should then be followed by an extensive public discussion and debate involving all citizens, in order to reach participatory and responsive decisions. Therefore, indirectly, we would make our government accountable for its trade policies, and hopefully in the end it could stand up to powerful governments imposing water privatization in the GATS negotiating process.

The writer is coordinator for the Indonesian Forum on Globalization Research, Business Watch Indonesia in Jakarta. - Ed.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.