Old wine in new bottles, or half a step forward in the right direction? Opinion by Roland Brunner.
Today, WaterAid and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) hold two webinar (see here) to launch what they call “a global consultation process on the co-development of Just Water Partnerships (JWPs) principles”. What sounds exiting and challenging starts with flaws. Let me review the document Just Water Partnerships_Framing note on concept and principles (Draft for discussion purposes) and list what I see as points to look at.
The document starts with a proper statement on the situation: “Ambitious global targets stand in stark contrast to the slow and uneven progress in delivering water and sanitation for all, amid growing threats to water security for communities, countries, and river basins.” That’s (unfortunately) nothing new and yes, there is definitely an urgent need to do more and better. But how and what?
The document goes on: “Chronic underinvestment, fragmented delivery systems, and deeply entrenched inequalities continue to stall progress and lock millions out of progress. Meanwhile, water insecurity is rising, driven by growing demand, climate change, and the mismanagement of both water resources and service delivery systems.” Again, quite true and sober.
And there are critical remarks to the financial side of the water crisis: “The problem is not just the scale of the financing gap –now estimated at up to US$140 billion annually – but how water is financed, prioritised, and governed. Public finance is overstretched, official development assistance (ODA) is declining for the first time in years, and private finance has not materialised at scale, contributing just 1.7% of funding for water. What ODA remains is increasingly directed toward de-risking private investment through blended finance instruments – raising critical questions about the most effective and equitable use of scarce, non-repayable public resources.”
But even on the first page of the paper, I start to feel uneasy and sense what turns out to be the key to this approach: Although the paper talks the language of human rights and ‘water as common’, it is actually focused on the financial side of the story. There is no mention of the financialisation and commodification of water as a major part of the problem. Water should be a public resource, but should money steer this resource? Rather than analysing and explaining why the ‘private sector’ (promoted constantly by the World Bank and other financial institutions in so-called public–private partnerships) is not ‘investing’, it is again called upon to contribute and participate.
This impression is reinforced when examining the mechanisms for developing this ‘Just Water Partnership’. National governments will be in control, with all others as stakeholders (not rights-holders, as the human right to water here seems to have become irrelevant): “Just Water Partnerships allow governments to facilitate new water management paradigms…” Few governments will adopt a rights-based approach, focusing on accountable service delivery and human rights guarantees. Instead, they will follow the money (i.e. the World Bank, etc.), as this is what will bring them big projects, big visibility, big fame – and big money.
Accordingly, on the ‘strategic value for stakeholders’ wheel (page 4), ‘Civil Society Communities’ are just one of six sectors, with rather supportive functions attributed to them. Clearly, the others have more “strategic value”.
On page 5, the document asks “What makes a water partnership ‘just’?”. And it lists good and important points: Water as a common good, as a human right etc.
On page 6, the document offers 7 core principles for Just Water Partnership, “rooted in the UN human rights framework – particularly the rights to water and sanitation – and in the concept of Water System Justice”. Again, they all sound good. However, there is no principle that water should not be treated as a commodity, that water should not be financialised and commodified, traded on stock markets and in futures, or controlled by private companies treating people as customers rather than citizens and prioritising profit over maintenance and service.
Despite my best intentions when reading the document, I did not find much that was new in it. Even though this document and today’s webinars are only the start of the consultation, which will last several months, when you look at proposals being offered and the forces behind the process, I doubt it will add much value or achieve real water justice. Hopefully, though, I’m being too pessimistic. I would love to be proved wrong.
What do you think about this document and the whole process? I’d like to hear other people’s opinions, in the hope that sharing them will make a difference.
