A PIRN Report on the meeting held to discuss water issues in Europe at Scotland House, Brussels, 7^th to 8^th January 2008.

Jim Cuthbert, Margaret Cuthbert, February 2008

At the beginning of the year around fifty people from sixteen countries took part in a seminar in Brussels, organised by Strathclyde University, on water issues in Europe, and, in particular, on the re-municipalisation of water. The meeting was largely organised by Scots, (through the Public Interest Research Network at Strathclyde University), and was held in Scotland House, Brussels. Scotland House is run by Scotland Europa, an alliance which presents Scotland’s interests in Europe: (Strathclyde University is a member of Scotland Europa).

The main theme of the conference was “Alternatives to Privatisation and Commercialisation of Water Delivery in Europe”, and the common thread was that all those present, who 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, had an interest in protecting the public ownership of water - and in reversing the movement towards water privatisation.

The movement towards water privatisation in Europe and elsewhere became 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 6^th January, which points out that big chunks of Scottish Water are already in private hands: one of the private partners is part of Dick Cheney’s 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 public’s right to control exploitation of its own water resources in the public’s interests.

The very full programme at the Conference covered a variety of topics. These included new trends in privatisation and commercialisation of water delivery in Europe: the role of the EU institutions: a variety of initiatives to replace privatisation both in Europe and elsewhere: and examples of successful progressive water management reforms in Europe. There was a well received session largely devoted to Scotland. At this Tommy Kane and Shona Russell of Strathclyde University talked of their research covering Scottish Water Solutions and the danger of privatisation by the back door: and we ourselves reported 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.

All of this was very positive: and the group are now progressing an Action Plan, of which, no doubt, more in due course.