Can anyone really own water? And more importantly, should they? This is the central question of the documentary film Flow (For Love of Water). The film begins with a quote from W.H. Auden, "Thousands have lived without love, not one without water". It sets up a central tenant of the film and FLOW's call to action; access to clean water should be a human right and the 31st article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Directed by Irena Salina, the film looks at the world water crisis through the lens of politics, environment, pollution, disease, human rights and powerful private water interests, building a strong case against the growing privatization of the world's dwindling fresh water supply.
FLOW also examines those trying to find solutions to the water crisis, from new technologies to ancient practices, with a focus on community water supplies. The film also points out that as water privatization spreads, some of these successful community solutions may be shut down, and all access to water handed over to large corporate interests like Thames Water and Suez. As Jeanne Roberts recently covered on Celsias and is pointed out in the film, these companies have hardly been dependable to provide clean water in the communities where they operate. FLOW places the blame not just on those corporations and the governments that invite them in, but also on institutions like the World Bank that encourage and even demand privatization of water.
And it's not just developing countries that are caught in the squeeze of water privatization. FLOW also looks at Mecosta County, Michigan and the devastation that Nestle Waters of North America has brought to their rivers with its water extraction and bottling plants that feeds America's ridiculous bottled water habit.
Despite FLOW's persuasive arguments, there is still a good deal of debate on the topic of water privatization. The Economist takes up the issue in its latest online debate on the value of water, running through October 10th. The proposition: "This house believes that water, as a scarce resource, should be priced according to its market value." Speaking for commoditization of water, Stephen J. Hoffmann, Managing Director of WaterTech Capital and co-founder of Palisades Water Index Associates argues, "The severe spatial and temporal imbalances in the supply of and demand for water-and safe drinking water in particular-dictate that water be priced at the true market value in order to resolve our global water challenges." Hoffman goes on to talk about sustainability issues, stating that "Efficiency is critical in achieving sustainability and a market-driven price is paramount to the efficient allocation of water resources. The sustainability criterion suggests that, at a minimum, an allocation must leave future generations no worse off than current generations. Economics has much to say about the efficiency of the allocation."
Taking the contrary position, Dr. Vandana Shiva, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Natural Resource Policy points out that "Between last year and this the market value of Lehman Brothers dropped from $38.4 billion to $5 billion, Merrill Lynch from $71.9 billion to $33.1 billion, and Morgan Stanley from $70.2 to $43 billion. Since then Lehman Brothers has collapsed. There is clearly no reliable "market price" in a volatile world driven by greed and profits, with no social regulation. The idea that the management and distribution of and access to a scarce and vital resource like water can be left to the market-and that the market can assign a reliable price reflecting the real value of water-is both absurd and irresponsible.
All cultures have viewed water as the basis of life. Marketisation, however, allows water to be perceived as no different from any other commodity in the global market place-to be owned and bought and sold at arbitrary, unreliable prices."
Readers can read the ongoing dialogue, comment and determine the winner of the debate on the Economist website where the moderator, Economist writer Edward McBride uses a quote from John F. Kennedy as his opening statement: "Anyone who can solve the problems of water, will be worthy of two Nobel prizes-one for peace and one for science."
And it is exactly the idea of water and peace that The Woodrow Wilson Center recently examined. In their video, Water Management as Conflict Management, they look at the high level of global interdependency around water resources and its relationship to conflict management.
FLOW shows a different side of the water/conflict issue, looking at places like Bolivia and South Africa where violence has broken out over privatization and the lack of access to clean water. Bolivia had some success kicking out Bechtel Corporation (yes, THAT Bechtel) whereas in South Africa, locals have developed illegal work-arounds to get access to water which has become unaffordable.
The question remains, should anyone need to create a work-around to have access to a basic human need? And if water does not have a price, how do we insure its conservation when it is becoming a scarce resource?
Further Reading:
