by Afsar Jafri(1)
Unlike the World Water Forums in Marrakech (1997), The Hague (2000),
Kyoto (2003) and Mexico (2006), the Istanbul forum was unique in the
sense that for the first time, some of the governments questioned the
legitimacy of this international forum on water. Many government
delegates even raised the basic question that since the declaration of
the World Water Forum is not binding, why would they participate in the
Forum. Governments concern about the legitimacy of the World Water
Forum was quite valid since the WWF is organised by a ‘private’
authority, the World Water Council, which is created and controlled by
giant water corporations, to further their agenda for water
commodification, commercialisation and privatisation. Taking advantage
of the fact that there is no UN body or international institution with
the mandate to facilitate intergovernmental discussion on water policy,
the Forum has become a pseudo official meeting on the issue.
The World Water Forum is organised every three years as a joint venture
between the World Water Council (WWC) and the government of the host
country. The WWC is a non-profit organisation with members mainly from
multinational water companies and international financial institutions.
The corporate domination of the WWC is evident from the fact that M.
Loïc Fauchon, the President of the WWC is also the President of Groupe
des Eaux de Marseille, a company owned jointly by Veolia and a
subsidiary of Suez. Even its alternate President, Charles-Louis de
Maud'huy, has been working at Compagnie Générale des Eaux, a subsidiary
of Veolia, since 1978. The main funding of the WWC also comes from
water industries.
The discontent among the participating nations against the WWF was
quite visible at the Istanbul Forum. Some of the government delegations
were quite upset with the ‘lack of policy space’ vis-a-vis to their
official Ministerial Statement. They were quite outraged with the
exclusion of an expression to recognise access to safe drinking water
and sanitation as "a basic human right," and not just a "basic human
need," which was in the draft Ministerial statement. Since the
beginning of the Istanbul Forum, the government delegations from
Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela with the support of some of the
Northern and African government delegations tried their best to open
the discussion on the ‘access to safe drinking water and sanitation’,
especially “point 15” which says that “We recognise that access to safe
drinking water and sanitation is a basic human need”. But they were
rebuffed by the WWC and their proposal was blocked by Brazil, US and
Egypt. The Turkish Minister is believed to have said at the government
officials meeting that Board of Governors of the WWC is supposed to
give the green signal whether the “access” issue will be opened for
discussion or not. The Environment Minister of Bolivia, Mr. Renee
Orellana, at a strategy session by the Global Water Justice Movement(2)
in Istanbul disclosed that “at least 10 countries delegations (Ecuador,
Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Cuba, Switzerland, Lebanon, Germany, Spain
and Chezk Republic) were angry with this process”. The governments were
expected to take the consent of the Board of Governors (a bunch of CEOs
of the water corporations) of the WWC what they should put in their
declaration. This indicated that the governments had nothing much to
say even on a non-binding commitment “the Ministerial statement” at the
World Water Forum.
This was not surprising then that 25 countries had officially
challenged the Ministerial declaration released on 22nd March 2009 at
the World Water Forum, by affirming the “Right to Water” through a
counter-declaration called the Complementary Declaration(3) on mainly
‘right to water’. The new Declaration which was primarily moved by
Latin American delegations recognizes access to water and sanitation as
a human right and commits to all necessary action for the progressive
implementation of this right. The countries who signed on to this
declaration include 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. Even Switzerland, which
has not yet signed, has declared its support for the new Declaration on
“Right to Water”. The President of the UN General Assembly, Father
Miguel d'Escoto, in his statement to the 5th World Water Forum
delivered in Istanbul by his Senior Advisor on Water, Maude Barlow,
have said “We must work quickly to guarantee that access to drinking
water constitutes a fundamental right of all peoples and is included
among the goals of the United Nations Decade”.
Another blow to ‘Bridge the Divide” move at the World Water Forum was
noticed when a similar set of enraged government delegations set on a
task to move the Forum from the control of the unaccountable and
elitist body like the WWC to a more democratically accountable process
under the United Nations. On last day of the Forum, around 16
governments finally signed on to a statement that calls 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. In fact the President of the UN
General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto, has also called upon UN
Member States “to work together to promote policies for a Forum that
meets our well-developed methodologies for such events”. He said that
“it is clear that the present World Water Forum does not share the
widely held views against water privatization and on preventing water
from becoming a commodity. I must agree that future Forums should adopt
international norms and conduct their deliberations under the auspices
of the United Nations.” The Global Water Justice Movement supported
this initiative by a group of Latin American governments because we
also believe in and demand for “Wold Water Forum out of water”. Since
water is such a fundamental issue, like the climate, it should be
covered under a much wider forum such as the United Nations. It is the
only international body which can work to stop the commercialisation
and privatisation of water. It is therefore the duty of the civil
society groups to influence their respective national governments to
disengage with the World Water Council and extend support for holding
global water forum under UN process.
The World Water Council stand on “right to water” in the Ministerial
Statement was also opposed by the local and regional authorities who
signed the Istanbul Water Consensus (IWC). Though more than 250 mayors
and representatives of local and regional authorities from 43
countries, invited by United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the World Water
Council, debated the various water issues on 18 and 19 March in
Istanbul but only 52 mayors finally signed the Istanbul Water
Consensus. The low number of signatories to the Consensus document also
indicates a visible defiance of the World Water Council which moved the
Istanbul Water Consensus, a key document of the 5th Forum which tried
to secure the commitment of local and regional authorities to policies
that put water services under private ownership such as Public Private
Partnership (PPP’s).
However the Istanbul Water Consensus reaffirms that “access to clean
water and sanitation is a basic right for all human beings”. On the
20th March 2009, in a joint statement the UCLG, the ICLEI and the
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe,
expressed their dissatisfaction because access to water has not been
acknowledged as a ‘right’ in the final Ministerial declaration and that
the local and regional authorities were practically not taken into
account in this text, which is a base minimum level of consensus(4).
Local and regional authorities demanded an amendment to the Ministerial
Statement which they believe constitutes a significant retreat in
comparison to the Mexico Declaration where Ministers expressly
recognized the important role played by local authorities in the
development of access to water and sanitation services.
The World Water Council driven World Water Forum in Istanbul has yet
another dubious distinction compared to its previous versions because
this was quite violent, repressive and intolerant against the water
activists and civil society groups. On 16th March when the World Water
Forum was being inaugurated, a few of us from Global Water Justice
Movement along with the 300 or so Turkish activists from ‘No to the
Commercialization of Water Platform’ peacefully marched towards the
main gate of the Forum at Sutluce Congress Centre to express our
concerns about the political agenda of the Forum and prevent the
delegates getting inside. Within few minutes of the protest, several
hundred Turkish police in riot gear suddenly charged the protesters,
separating the Turkish activists from international activists and used
pepper sprays and rubber bullets on the Turkish protestors and arrested
17 of them. The Turkish water activists were voicing their agitation on
the Turkish governments plan to build 600 dams on the country's rivers,
besides privatizing drinking water supplies, and putting on sale the
total water resource of the country.
At the same time when the bullets were being fired outside the Forum,
two international activists of the organisation International Rivers
were arrested by the Turkish police from inside the Inauguration Hall
for unfurling a banner reading “No Risky Dams” at the opening ceremony
of the World Water Forum (WWF). Within 24 hours both of them were
deported out of Turkey on the charge of “manipulating the public
opinion”.
According to those who had attended all five World Water Forums, the
Istanbul edition was extremely repressive and intolerant towards the
water activists created a wider divide between the official delegates
and the activists. Turkish police and intelligence officers were
keeping a close watch on those raising dissenting voices in the session
and their movement was constantly watched. Some were even barred for
raising dissenting questions. This meant that the WWC didn’t welcome
those in the WWF at Istanbul who didn’t support their views and
ideology about water and water policies. The strict, non-transparent,
autocratic nature of the World Water Council was out to crush any
peoples’ opposition challenging its ideology whether inside or outside
the Forum. Reacting to the way the WWF and Turkish authorities treated
activists, Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor to the President of the UN
General Assembly, said “the World Water Forum and its mentors are now
bankrupt not only financially but also ideologically and morally”.
Rajendra Singh, the Magsaysay Award winner from India for his work on
river rejuvenation in Rajasthan, said that in Morocco (1997), the
official delegates and water activists were having equal status, and
there was an equal respect for those who raised the issue of ‘right to
water’. In Istanbul, he said, the water corporations viewed delegates
as consumers and producers which was not a comfortable feeling for him.
In Istanbul, the official delegates, bureaucrats and the state of
Turkey were openly facilitating the interest of corporations.
However, one positive development in Istanbul was that the
Public-Public Partnership (PuPs) was debated as an alternative to the
Pubic Private Partnership (PPP) model. In one of the side events at the
Forum in Istanbul, organised by Transnational Institute and Public
Service International, the PuPs were discussed as an potential
alternative to the PPPs and a effective tool for improving access to
water and sanitation for the poorest. For public water operators, PUPs
are proving to be cost-effective, low-risk, geared towards lasting
capacity-building, based on local control, and enable transparency,
accountability and involvement of workers and civil society. They are
offering solutions to deal with the water crisis within the public
control and management, therefore this model of water management are
fast-growing trend and more and more countries are opting for PUPs
world over. The PuPs are also being supported by a new mechanism, the
Global Water Operators Partnerships Alliance (GWOPAs), which is a
UN-Habitat programme for cooperation and mutual support among water
operators, on a not-for-profit basis. The GWOPAs is offering a
significant value addition to the PuPs as an effective alternative
water management system. It is an important mechanism for exchange of
knowledge and expertise between the Northern and Southern water
utilities and weaker and champion water utilities. According to Jaime
Morell of Consorcio Provincial de Aguas de Sevilla in Spain, the PPP
model is no more valid and today is the time for PuPs. Their Consorcio
is effectively implementing the PuPs model in Spain and creating a
collaboration of public utilities with an objective to defend the
public utilities from the onslaught of privatisation and design
projects for public management which are sustainable and for long term.
According to him, the PuPs are going on in Peru, Malawi, Kenya, El
Salvador, Nicaragua and their Consorcio is likely to start work very
soon in Lebanon, in the refugee camps of Palestinians. In India too,
“the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chennai has taken an
initiative to make PuPs a reality and making these PuPs work and work
effectively and efficiently” said Ms. Santha Sheela Nair, Secretary to
the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development,
the Government of India.
The Istanbul Forum was also different from its previous forums with
respect to the key role played by the Global Water Justice Movement, of
which Focus on the Global South is a active partner, in attacking the
World Water Forum as a “corporate driven fraud”. The pressure from the
Global Water Justice Movement was also reflected in the Ministerial
Statement of the Forum which forced them to shift in their terminology,
e.g. ‘full cost recovery’ to ‘sustainable cost recovery’; ‘no
subsidies’ to ‘government support’. In Istanbul, the Global Water
Justice Movement played an strategic role to oppose the industry
dominated World Water Forum and held counter events, press conferences,
workshops to denounce the forum as a sham. It was interesting to see
the official delegates and Ministers from Latin American countries like
Bolivia, Venezuela attending the daily strategy meeting of the
Movement. Some of these official delegates as well as parliamentarians
from EU and Turkey also participated in the Peoples Water Forum held
Movement in Istanbul. Speaking at the Peoples Water Forum, the EU
parliamentarian Roberto Musacclio said “World Water Forum is far from
being a official forum. It is one being driven by private companies”.
At the Peoples Water Forum, the Movement came out with a declaration
which demanded that “the United Nations General Assembly organize the
next global forum on water”. It calls upon 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”. It also gave a call to all organizations and
governments participating at the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul 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”.
Maude Barlow, a key ally of the Movement has rightly said, “We have
been fighting World Water Forum and have discredited them as a wrong
institution with wrong purpose and wrong ideas. The United Nations is
the only global forum that can guide policy on water”. The Movement
have three years time to work towards this goal and to make this
happen. And we hope, when we meet for the 6th World Water Forum in
2012, it will be called by the United Nations sans corporate agenda,
corporate politics and corporate greed.
End Notes:
1. In Istanbul, Focus on the Global South was represented by Mary Ann Manahan from Philippines and Afsar Jafri from India
2. The Global Water Justice Movement is a coalition of organisations,
movements, ngos, who came together in Istanbul to oppose the world
water forum and to hold counter events “the People’s Water Forum”, and
to denounce the forum as a sham.
3. In Mexico (2006) 5 of the Latin American countries had put together the Complementary Declaration on Human Rights to water.
4. http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/uclg/index.asp?pag=newsD.asp&L=EN&ID=286
