ࡱ> 796Y ,bjbjWW %:==]TTTT8 TI / $ 4 4 p$<ZNS ?zuTTBNo to Water Privatisation. Jim Cuthbert Margaret Cuthbert January 2008 On 7th and 8th January this year, there was a conference in Brussels, which we attended, on Alternatives to Privatisation and Commercialisation of Water Delivery in Europe. Participants were drawn from sixteen European countries, and included academics, campaigners, researchers, trade unionists, and some of the senior management involved in running very large publicly owned water companies, such as the president of the company that supplies Paris with water. We will say more later about what happened at the meeting. But from a Scottish point of view, what was of particular interest, and also a matter of some pride, was that the meeting was largely organised by Scots, (through the Public Interest Research Network at Strathclyde University), and was held in the excellent surroundings of Scotland House, at the very heart of the EU district in Brussels. Scotland House is run by Scotland Europa, an alliance which presents Scotlands interests in Europe: the reason the conference had access to Scotland House was through Strathclyde Universitys membership of Scotland Europa. The common thread of the meeting was that all those present had an interest in protecting the public ownership of water - and in reversing the movement towards water privatisation. In line with the philosophy of neo-liberalism, (which was the subject of our article in the Scots Independent in December), the movement towards water privatisation in Europe and elsewhere was very active after the late 1980s. In many parts of the world, however, privatised water has not lived up to its promises: and has resulted in high costs and inefficiency. It has also led to restricted access to water supplies in several of the poorer countries in the world, with many having no access to clean water, or having to buy bottled water at excessive prices as their only clean supply. The problems with privatised water have led to an active and successful movement to re-municipalise water around the globe. In France, for example, around 40 municipalities and urban communities have taken water services back into public hands over the past ten years: this includes some very large municipalities, like Paris. The movement has led to a draft water law in Italy, supported by a 400,000 signature petition, which will provide the legal basis for the public supply of water in Italy on a non-profit making basis. More broadly, water multi-nationals have been forced to leave a number of regions in the United States, Africa, and Latin America: including, for example, the whole of Uruguay, and the Buenos Aires and Santa Fe provinces in Argentina. (For those who are interested in more details, these can be found on the web on the water remunicipalisation tracker site.) There is, therefore, a definite tide running against water privatisation in many parts of the world. The opposite, however, is happening in some other places. The most graphic example given at the conference was Turkey - where the rights to exploit all of the countries lakes and rivers have recently been sold off. In Turkey, water resources are being aggressively exploited in the interests of mining and other groups - at the expense of the environment, and of local people. Unfortunately, another country where there are still very strong pressures in favour of privatisation, or some half-way house which would ultimately amount to the same thing, is Scotland itself. Anyone who doubts this would be well advised to read the article by Ian Fraser in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times of 6th January, which points out that big chunks of Scottish Water are already in private hands: one of the private partners is part of Dick Cheneys Halliburton empire. The meeting identified several clear needs, if public ownership of water is to be protected and extended. These included: the public should be provided with very clear and understandable information about the implications of different forms of organisation and pricing policy. campaigns for public ownership require to be organised on the basis of a broad and united front, (as indeed happened in the case of the Strathclyde water referendum). the need to develop a clear legal framework as regards the publics right to control exploitation of its own water resources in the publics interests. At a more personal level, we were able to report to the meeting on our research on the adverse effects of the current cost method for determining water prices, presently used in England and Wales, and in Scotland: (as referred to at the end of our article in the Scots Independent in November). All of this was very positive: although the acid test in the long run will be to convert talk into positive outcomes. There was, however, at least one aspect of the conference which could have been better. While the membership of the conference was broad, two groups were conspicuously absent. The first was any representation of the privatised water industry - probably not surprisingly. But the second omission was any representation from governments or the EU Commission. There may be some lessons here for the organisers. But what seems quite clear is that, if the conference had been organised under the auspices of an official Scottish Embassy of an independent Scottish Government, then the likelihood of attracting representation from other governments would have been very much greater. So let us all continue the push until an independent Scotland is taking the lead in organising international conferences in its own proper embassies in Brussels and elsewhere. PAGE 1 LNTV(*$%&'(,0JmH0J j0JUH*5(:GH J$%LMjk$ & F$$$(:GH J$%LMjk(),       ()*+,$h&`#0P. A!"#$% [(@(NormalCJmH <A@<Default Paragraph Font"@"TOC 1mH , @,Footer  9r &)@& Page Number,:   , ,,,, !  -+0U( ,  U ] JM%K-cuthbert F:\Brussels Sc Indept 200108.doc*Tg`g @ OJQJo(@FaxNe00:winspoolMicrosoft Shared Fax DriverFax`& odLetterDfaxFax`& odLetterDfaxg,@@GzTimes New Roman5Symbol3& zArial"Ah¦j¦2< &$20dE) But Even Better if we Had a Real embassyPreferred CustomercuthbertOh+'0  0< X d p|* But Even Better if we Had a Real embassyrdButPreferred Customer refrefNormale cuthbert Cu3thMicrosoft Word 8.0 @G@Ju@$:zu2<՜.+,D՜.+,d hp  Dell Computer Corporationi& dj * But Even Better if we Had a Real embassy Title* But Even Better if we Had a Real embassy 6> _PID_GUIDAN{9C23B494-8DD1-45AE-8EB8-2EACB158EBD1}  !"#$%'()*+,-/0123458Root Entry FU! Ju?zu:1TableWordDocument%:SummaryInformation(&DocumentSummaryInformation8.CompObjjObjectPool?zu?zu  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q