NESTLÉ CEO: WATER IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, SHOULD BE
PRIVATIZED

Nestlé CEO: Water Is Not a Human Right, Should Be Privatized

Introduction

Water is a human right as every individual has the right to safe and clean water for drinking and sanitation. As the Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe argues, the planet has enough water for seven billion people, but it is unevenly distributed. This leads to water wastage, unsustainably managed and polluted water supplies.  As illustrated by Bel and Warner (2008) more than 1 billion people across the world do not have access to improved drinking, and more than two billion people globally experience poor sanitation.  The statistics contradict countries where people enjoy the excess and clean water- which is an increasingly precious, but scarce resource. Therefore, for an individual to access water, there should be distributive justice through privatization.  

Argument

Water is essential for life. Even though some localities due to nature, receive an endless supply of water, there is a need for human intervention on delivering water to civil society. For more than a century Bakker (2007) mentions that water has been viewed as an economic commodity, polluted and over-used. The earth is referred to as a blue planet, but only 2.5% of water is fresh. Among the 2.5% fresh water, 70% of it is locked in icecaps and glaciers (Bel &Warner, 2008). However, instead of the equal distribution of the 30%, there is an unequal distribution of water throughout the world.  This calls, for action due to the waste and overuse of fresh water. The action will ensure equal distribution of water especially to those living in areas with water scarcity. 

Unfortunately, as argued by Bel and Warner (2008), underdeveloped infrastructures all over the world form an estimated 80% of unaccounted for water, which is lost between the point production and distribution, as a result of leaks. Creating new delivery methods and repairing these infrastructures require a lot of funds for the government which is making even the government privatize water. Privatizing water will increase water supply to water scarcity areas as it decreases the costs on the government. Privatization of water is not inherently rooted in evil or profit, but, it’s the will of private companies to provide a solution to the global crisis and repair existing water distribution systems due to their effects on billions of people. Majority of municipal works according to Swyngedouw (2005) are quite in disrepair and old. 

Additionally, the majority of developing countries are still using colonial water systems. For example, in the United States, 85% sources their water from public utilities, while, in developing countries, 97% relies on public utilities (Bel &Warner, 2008). Water infrastructure is essential during the provision of clean, safe water around the globe. However, the public works do not have the financial ability to initiate water distribution or make such repairs to regions without water or where water is a scarce commodity. The only solution for such an issue is privatization, which will allow free functioning markets, which should be regulated by the government. These actions will have the private companies to fund water projects and get people to access water mains, repair the water infrastructure and effectively manage and deliver the water sector.

Counterarguments

However, number of legal, ethical and criminal issues has been raised due to privatization. Water as a commodity is not affected by technologies, innovations and market pricing. Hence, the private sector does not create an effective, efficient and equal distribution of water. Swyngedouw (2005) illustrates that privatization has raised issues especially with the social welfare who views it as unjust as it reduces the role of the government in ensuring its delivery. According to critics of privatization, they argue that water privatization favors an environment for state-corporate crime. In criminology, State-corporate crime, are crimes which benefit the private and public sectors while injuring civil society. They argue that the PWC and the State use their power for their self-interest and gains. 

The social welfare continues to argue that argue that the market alone is not a solution. Social justice should be established where the government control and delivers all the basic and important infrastructures to ensure that individuals access them without the cost and if at cost, as least as possible. According to Huiteman & Meijerink (2007), social welfare view is against the private ownership of public goods, but it focuses on the state’s social contract to be a good steward in supplying these commodities to its people. According to their arguments, departments like water should ensure adherence to international standards by increasing the level of oversight by the civil society and public sector. The international standards will ensure that the socially disadvantaged receive water irrespective of their inability to pay for the commodity.

Refuting Counterargument

However, why should the government continue with water distribution if it is not delivering an equitable commodity? Will some groups, communities or regions continue to lack water or access unclean water due to public policies? Water is a human right, and all human beings are entitled to it. It would be better to pay a cost but be assured of the availability of water all through. Additionally, paying the cost for water also reduces water usage, which saves many tones of water in the long-run. This is more applicable in developing countries where water is cheap, accessible and plentiful.  To cumber the issue of skyrocketing to unaffordable levels, the pricing will be competitive. These actions will ensure that water will be available to the poor and would foster sustainable development among developing regions.

Evidence 

However, critics argue that privatizing water supply does not improve its availability or delivery. This is because it does not allow a fair market price, and PWC fails to provide innovation and expertise. One of their arguments is grounded in the fact that the government outsources water department which is a fiscal nightmare, to reduce the responsibility of addressing a non-existing and crumbling infrastructure.  Huiteman & Meijerink (2007) argue that the market will have little influence on the fair price of water. Lastly, sovereignty and self-determination of the state and the people threatened due to their reliance on PWC in delivering an essential public commodity. Hence, privatization of water forms social injury due to loss of life, health and self-determination.

Conclusion

With all said, there is need of cheap water that is scarce in some communities where more than a billion lacks access to water. Also, some people have access to water, but it is not clean and safe to drink. What should be more important, increasing access of water to areas where there was no water, reducing leakages, ensuring water is treated, or waiting on the government where the water infrastructure is old and deteriorating. Therefore, privatization is a solution  where they can use technology and innovations to facilitate the supply of clean and safe supply of water. This will result to the equal supply of water to all people globally, reducing leakages due to the new and maintained infrastructures and the cost of water will ensure less wastage of water especially in developed countries. However, due to the fact that water is a public good, the government should control the distribution to ensure the people are not supplied with a commodity that is unaffordable. Hence, distributive justice will be the core in privatization of water department in ensuring accessibility of safe, clean water. 

Reference 

Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter‐globalization, anti‐privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430-455.

Bel, G., & Warner, M. (2008). Does privatization of solid waste and water services reduce costs? A review of empirical studies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(12), 1337-1348.

Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2007, May). Understanding and managing water transitions: a policy science perspective. In Amsterdam Conference on Earth System Governance, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (pp. 24-26). Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Dispossessing H2O: The contested terrain of water privatization. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(1), 81-98.