I have two objections to the otherwise compelling article on water by
Rhona Macdonald. She states, "One of the key findings from past
initiatives is that the sustainability of water supplies depends on the
community's sense of ownership, so women (who are often the main water
collectors) need to be involved in decisions about siting sources and
maintenance... Throwing money at the problem or arbitrarily placing
boreholes without any communication with users is always doomed to
failure."
Firstly, "sustainability" is so variable on financial terms, that
even in Africa's wealthiest country -- South Africa -- the past decade of
high failure rates in rural water projects confirms that substantial
subsidies are required to cover operating and maintenance costs.
To cite "community ownership" without recognising the financing
constraints in impoverished communities is, implicitly, to buy into the
neoliberal approach that users should pay 100% of marginal costs for
water. That remains the approach of the World Bank, for example, and it
has done enormous damage. South Africa's attempt to rectify the damage, by
promising 6,000 free liters per household per month, is partial and
uneven, but at least confronts the problem squarely, which I wish the
article had done.
Secondly, the phrase "throwing money at the problem" rehearses the
neoliberal mantra that governments are inadequate and inefficient in
spending, by definition. I hope we can do better than that. If "throwing
money" at huge supply-side initiatives like large dam schemes for
irrigation and water supply is the issue, fine, then let's line up behind
the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams -- which so many
countries like India, China, South Africa (not to mention the World Bank
itself) appear reluctant to do. Then let's consider the power relations
behind the money-throwing, which often leads back to self-interested dam-
industry firms plus repressive states plus generous financial institutions
and development agencies.
So the problem is not state spending, it's the set of actors and
interests who benefit, and the top-down models they prefer so as to retain
maximum control. On a smaller scale, this critique also applies to the
engineering consultancies and construction companies -- and yes, NGOs --
who have made a mess of rural water provision, often (as in South Africa)
by imposing the unsustainable neoliberal model of 100% cost-recovery, such
that the investments in piping and boreholes are soon lost because of
poverty.
What would also be excellent in future journal discussions is
consideration of the popular movements' solutions to these problems. As I
write, in Delhi the Peoples World Water Forum is establishing principles,
strategies, campaigns and international relationships that help address
the most crucial problem Macdonald identifies: lack of willingness in the
rich North to adequately support progressive, democratic initiatives in
the South.
That's why the BMJ should pay *more* attention to the initiatives
from below, and at the least include the websites of the Forum
(http://www.pwwf.org/) and the various partner organisations who are
contesting the neoliberal premises in grassroots settings and Northern
capitals alike: Polaris Institute (Canada), Council of Canadians (Canada),
Public Citizen (US), Sweet Water Alliance (US), Cry of Water (Brazil),
Funsolon (Bolivia), RFSTE (India), Navdanya (India), Water Workers
Alliances (India), DWD (India) and seventy other groups participating in
the Forum.
Rapid Response:
Clarity on financing water
I have two objections to the otherwise compelling article on water by
Rhona Macdonald. She states, "One of the key findings from past
initiatives is that the sustainability of water supplies depends on the
community's sense of ownership, so women (who are often the main water
collectors) need to be involved in decisions about siting sources and
maintenance... Throwing money at the problem or arbitrarily placing
boreholes without any communication with users is always doomed to
failure."
Firstly, "sustainability" is so variable on financial terms, that
even in Africa's wealthiest country -- South Africa -- the past decade of
high failure rates in rural water projects confirms that substantial
subsidies are required to cover operating and maintenance costs.
To cite "community ownership" without recognising the financing
constraints in impoverished communities is, implicitly, to buy into the
neoliberal approach that users should pay 100% of marginal costs for
water. That remains the approach of the World Bank, for example, and it
has done enormous damage. South Africa's attempt to rectify the damage, by
promising 6,000 free liters per household per month, is partial and
uneven, but at least confronts the problem squarely, which I wish the
article had done.
Secondly, the phrase "throwing money at the problem" rehearses the
neoliberal mantra that governments are inadequate and inefficient in
spending, by definition. I hope we can do better than that. If "throwing
money" at huge supply-side initiatives like large dam schemes for
irrigation and water supply is the issue, fine, then let's line up behind
the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams -- which so many
countries like India, China, South Africa (not to mention the World Bank
itself) appear reluctant to do. Then let's consider the power relations
behind the money-throwing, which often leads back to self-interested dam-
industry firms plus repressive states plus generous financial institutions
and development agencies.
So the problem is not state spending, it's the set of actors and
interests who benefit, and the top-down models they prefer so as to retain
maximum control. On a smaller scale, this critique also applies to the
engineering consultancies and construction companies -- and yes, NGOs --
who have made a mess of rural water provision, often (as in South Africa)
by imposing the unsustainable neoliberal model of 100% cost-recovery, such
that the investments in piping and boreholes are soon lost because of
poverty.
What would also be excellent in future journal discussions is
consideration of the popular movements' solutions to these problems. As I
write, in Delhi the Peoples World Water Forum is establishing principles,
strategies, campaigns and international relationships that help address
the most crucial problem Macdonald identifies: lack of willingness in the
rich North to adequately support progressive, democratic initiatives in
the South.
That's why the BMJ should pay *more* attention to the initiatives
from below, and at the least include the websites of the Forum
(http://www.pwwf.org/) and the various partner organisations who are
contesting the neoliberal premises in grassroots settings and Northern
capitals alike: Polaris Institute (Canada), Council of Canadians (Canada),
Public Citizen (US), Sweet Water Alliance (US), Cry of Water (Brazil),
Funsolon (Bolivia), RFSTE (India), Navdanya (India), Water Workers
Alliances (India), DWD (India) and seventy other groups participating in
the Forum.
Thanks,
Patrick Bond
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests