Once again, water becomes an important issue at the World Social Forum that is taking place in Porto Alegre. More than 32 events related to water have been registered in this global forum by non-governmental organizations, social movements, unions, peasants and indigenous groups. In spite of the generalised advance of privatisations promoted by international financial institutions, civil society is celebrating a little great victory: in El Alto, Bolivia, a new government contract with a transnational corporation was cancelled due to popular pressure.

Those events related to the issue of water are taking place at the Area E (near the Pôr-do-Sol amphitheatre), under the banner "Assuring and defending Earth and people's common goods as an alternative to commodification and transnational control". One of them, "Social Movement Strategies to Defend Water: Challenging the International Financial Institutions and free trade agreements", was carried out in a room that turned out to be too small on account of the interest it arouse.

It took place on the morning of Friday, January 28, and was organized by Red de Vigilancia Interamericana para la Defensa y Derecho al Agua, Public Citizen, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (United States); Council of Canadians (Canada); Red VIDA (El Salvador); FENTAP (Peru), ASSAMAE (Brazil), FECON (Costa Rica), REDES-Amigos de la Tierra (Uruguay) and ATALC-FoE Latin America and the Caribbean.

A new victory of the people in Bolivia

Attention was mainly focused on the testimony of Abel Mamani, President of the Federación de Juntas Vecinales (FEJUVE) of El Alto, Bolivia, where popular mobilisation once again succeeded in putting an end to the concession of drinking water and sewerage services, which was in the hands of the French multinational Suez. Mamani gave a brief account of the process that led to this.

He referred to former President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada as an accomplice in the privatisation of water and other basic services in El Alto and La Paz since 1997. A 30-year contract had been signed with the company Aguas del Illimani - controlled by the French transnational Suez - to operate and expand the drinking water and sewerage services. Suez' earnings in 2003 amounted to 51,508 million dollars. The World Bank, through the International Finance Corporation (IFC), is one of the partners of the company Aguas del Illimani.

This doubtful concession, which was made in the back of civil society and even altered some legal provisions of the country, resulted in that 200,000 people from El Alto had no access to their right to drinking water and sewerage. While the company and the government kept on saying that everything was all right and that 100 per cent drinking water coverage was provided, the reality was very different. About 70,000 people had no access to water because fees had been increased up to 445 dollars (approximately nine minimum wages) and other 130,000 people were living within the concession area of Aguas del Illimani but had been left without the services provided by the company.

According to the company, 60 million dollars were invested in infrastructure; Mamani maintains that it only invested between 3 and 5 million. And the worst thing was that most of these investments came through soft loans granted by the international cooperation (World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, CAF) or donations from governments such as the Swiss one for the purpose of facilitating the access to water of poor people.

With the antecedent of Cochabamba's protest, where the first private water concession in Bolivia was revoked, the FEJUVE decided in July 2004 to put things into their place and denounce the privatisation fiasco and the responsibility of the World Bank as partner of the company. Five months went by, during which the present government turned a deaf ear to people's denunciations, in spite of the fact that, in Mamani's words, "for us, the government are not the politicians but us, the people".

On December 20, the people from El Alto decided to go on an open-ended and peaceful civic strike, the only measure they could take to force the government to intervene. Some days before the date set to start the action, "they tried to blackmail us": the government announced that the United States was willing to grant 200 million dollars in case Parliament approved the immunity for the entry of US soldiers in Bolivia. This measure was not approved.

Although the government of Carlos Mesa tried twice consecutively to revise the contract with Suez-Aguas del Illimani, the transnational company empathically rejected the authority of the Superintendency of Basic Sanitation, or of any other Bolivian official body, for the purpose of such revision. In view of this, on January 10, 2005, the general strike was launched in El Alto, joined in solidarity by other Bolivian villages and cities, demanding the right to water for all the population. Three days later, the government cancelled the contract with Suez-Aguas del Illimani both in the cities of El Alto and La Paz, since the system was indivisible.

"This explains", says Mamani, "our conviction that it is the people who have to tell the government what it should and should not do, and not all the way round".

For the time being, the former municipal company will be in charge of providing the service until a new social enterprise with the participation of neighbours and under the social control of FEJUVE is incorporated. Suez-Aguas del Illimani has not accepted the termination of the contract and has threatened with suing the Bolivian government for 120 million dollars before ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), dependent on the World Bank. Since the Bank holds 8 per cent of shares of Aguas del Illimani, if this legal action goes forward, the institution will be acting both as judge and interested party.

Mamani states that "we are not willing to pay anything, instead people should be suing the company for all damages caused". "We are here at the World Social Forum because we seek support and solidarity for the purpose of forming a bloc of countries that would be opposed to water transnationals. We are convinced of the fact that the people united will achieve what is being sought and will manage to defeat transnational companies".

The actions as part of a global campaign against Suez and the water transnationals include: sit-ins and demonstrations in front of the Suez offices in France and in all countries where the service has been privatised; letters to the French government condemning Suez for the lawsuits filed against Argentina, Philippines, Indonesia, and the actions it intends to bring against Bolivia and other countries; denunciations from all countries before the United Nations Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights of the abuses committed by Suez and other companies against the human right to water; actions all over the world against the privatisation of water on March 28 (International Day of Water) and on April 10-16, 2005 (People Global Week of Action against Free Trade and Privatisations); to demand that water, whatever its use, should be left out of any type of free trade agreement or bilateral investment treaty; to promote an International Water Convention forbidding the commodification of this vital resource for life.

For a United Nations Treaty on the right to water

Precisely, on the morning of Thursday 27, a meeting to exchange ideas about the need for a specific United Nations treaty on the human right to water was held. Social movements from all over the world got together to discuss how to create a campaign to achieve this objective. Among the inviting organizations were: Public Citizen, Council of Canadians, Centre of Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), FIAN International, Bread for the World Germany, Red VIDA, Both Ends and IBON (Philippines).

There, it was explained that the objective is to form a broad and multinational lobbying coalition for a legal working framework on the right to water. The idea to carry out a campaign for a treaty was one of the objectives supported by the civil society organizations that participated in the People's World Water Forum in Delhi, India, in January 2004. The activists for an international convention on water are convinced that an international law is necessary in order to unequivocally establish the right to water for all people; to ensure the right to water for the next generations; and to prevent water from being privatised and degraded to the category of trade good, among other important reasons.

One of the panellists, Carolina Fairstein (researcher of COHRE's Right to Water Programme) pointed out the advantages that the existence of a specific treaty on the right to water might have from the legal point of view. Fairstein started by saying that there are already international legal instruments that recognise the human right to water (such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), particularly the General Comment 15 of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) adopted in November 2002.

However, in spite of the existence of these legal instruments, they are generally not respected, "a convention will end up with the debate among countries about the interpretation of some of these international texts, which is often used as an excuse in order to avoid the application of the right to water".

All panellists (they were all women) agreed on the fact that achieving a convention on the right to water does not mean to open heaven's doors, but at least it would be a much more precise and specific instrument to guarantee the access to water of millions of people that lack it at the present time. Reference was also made to the time it would take to implement it; an international convention implies an agreement among countries on the text of that convention, which would include rights and duties. Then, a process of signing the convention by states (will of the Executive Power) and a process of ratification (voting in Parliament) should be opened, something that would surely face opposition from countries such as the United States and Japan, which nowadays deny that the access to water is a fundamental human right.

The Canadian Maude Barlow, co-author (together with Tony Clarke) of the book "Blue Gold", addressed the meeting and surely convinced anybody that was doubting about the importance of mobilising around this issue. She stated that this "is not a semantic debate, it is real, because water is not just a need but a right", and she accused the World Bank and the World Water Forum of denying the right to water. She pointed out that privatisations are being revoked in several developing countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Philippines); and that the example of Uruguay should be followed; it is the first country in the world where the national Constitution is reformed by popular vote in order to specify that water is a fundamental human right that should be left in public hands and should be managed with the participation of civil society. She said that this is a good mechanism for people to express by themselves and proclaimed that water should be taken out of the hands of corporations; "water is not for sale", she said. And amid applauses she left for another event of the Forum where her presence was being requested.

The general impression was that there was not enough time for many of those present to express not only their opinion but also to ask questions to the panellists, taking into account the importance of the issue. But, the advantage of an event like the World Social Forum is that discussion never really ends.

In fact, one of the workshops that will follow will try to define the strategies of civil society to defend the right to water towards the World Water Forum to be held in Mexico City in 2006. As in Kyoto three years ago, this meeting is expected to be the scene of many conflicting visions about the future and management of water resources. "The social movements for the right to water will need to plan their strategy to prevent the Fourth World Water Forum from legitimising the privatisation agenda that will only benefit transnational companies and G-7 governments", as it is read in the invitation made by Public Citizen, Polaris Institute, among other organizations, for Sunday, January 30 at 12 p.m.

Water concession in Pacasmayo, Peru, was recovered by users in 2004

The drinking water services and sewerage in the province of Pacasmayo, awarded to Nordwasser SAC in 2002, were handed back to the municipalities in 2004. The concession that had been planned to last for 60 years failed to complete its second year because the government declared its termination on May 5, 2004.

The events that prompted the anticipated termination of the first concession of drinking water services and sewerage in Peru were narrated by Luis Isarra Delgado, Secretary General of the National Federation of Water and Sewerage Workers of Peru (FENTAP), which gathers 42 workers' unions and is part of the Red VIDA. The leader participated in the table on "Social Movement Strategies to Defend Water: Challenging the International Financial Institutions and free trade agreements", that took place on Friday, January 28.

Isarra Delgado identified the origin of the privatisation process with the government of Alberto Fujimori in the 1990s. During his administration, the former President reformed the state in four basic aspects: the role of the state as goods and services provider was eliminated; state companies were privatised; the state role was reduced to that of private undertakings subsidiary; and institutions to regulate public services were created. "A decentralisation of water companies was carried out", explained Isarra. "At the present time, there are 53 municipal companies and a public one, and services can be provided by either public, private or mixed companies".

Following the concession of services in Pacasmayo - the first one to be granted in Peru - different irregularities were verified regarding the selection and contract entered into with the concessionary, the ineffectiveness of the private operator to offer a change in management, the non-existent investment to improve the quality of services, and the lack of capacity of the state regulating institution to take corrective measures.

"The concession of services brought no money, deteriorated the services which were already in a difficult situation, failed to fulfil the stipulated contract and violated essential rules for contracting and providing services". The most important lesson of this first privatisation case, according to FENTAP, is to have evidenced the ineffectiveness of the State regulating bodies, which only acted as a result of the pressure exerted by civil society and local governments.

However, the struggle goes on. Alejandro Toledo's government insists on privatising together with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and other international financial institutions. The new modality is to obtain loans which are destined for the privatisation process. "Loans were previously granted to improve the quality of services", says Isarra. "Nowadays they are used for privatisation purposes". The leader warned about how this flow of money that ends up in the hands of municipal administrators usually gives rise to large corruption cases and recalled that legal action has been brought against several mayors for embezzling public funds.

After all this process, three key points end up being ignored: that water is a common good, that the private enterprise operates in fact as a monopoly, and that the drinking water service is an essential service. Besides, "civil society is not informed, opportunities to find solutions are thus denied by imposing concessions when the real owners of drinking water networks, who have always operated them, are the people".

At the same time, the government launched an awareness campaign which informs about the advantages of private concessions. To carry it out, several media were hired for the purpose of developing campaigns. Notwithstanding this, campaigns are not democratic since they do not allow the participation of those leaders and civil society representatives who would like to express their points of view.

Isarra explained that in Peru a water defence front has been formed, made up of workers, ecologists, members of civil society. "There are alternatives and proposals", he says, "but no attention is paid to them". "We want efficient and modern companies and, above all, we want people to be consulted before any decision is made", Isarra added, reiterating the motto of the national and international campaign that is being carried out: "to defend water is to defend life".


Return to "News and reports from Porto Alegre 2005"