Report of the Table of controversy on Water

January 23, 2007 – Safari park Hotel – Nairobi WSF

Context : Following our work to facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue on water for the last two years, Bridge initiative was asked to organize a debate at the World Social Forum (WSF) between the private sector and civil society on the Right to water. In order to respect the civil society space within the Forum, CSOs agreed to do it outside and it was scheduled to be held at the Safari Park Hotel on the 23rd January. The day before the debate, however, the CSOs within the water justice movement couldn’t reach consensus on whether to hold the debate at that time, due to a lack of opportunity to do proper internal consultations within the movement and the sensitive nature of debating the topic with corporate representatives in what was considered the World Social Forum space. They decided to postpone it and to consider other opportunities such as during another international event, possibly Water Week 2007 to be held in Stockholm. Bridge Initiative felt that since invitations had already been sent out, and in respect of those who might want to participate decided to hold a session to explain why the proposed debate would not occur and focus the discussion on the process followed by Bridge Initiative and the challenges surrounding a dialogue on the right to water.

Panelists : Pierre Victoria, Veolia environment, France John Garrison, World Bank, USA Alain Mathys, Suez Environment, France Gerard Payen, Aquafed, World federation of private water companies Anil Naidoo, Council of Canadians, Blue Planet project, Canada

Moderator : Patrice Barrat, Bridge Initiative International, France

Debate 

Anil Naidoo : Thanks to Bridge Initiative for the work they have done. We are together here to explain why we are postponing the debate, but we are looking at two opportunities to hold it in the future. Different factors explained this decision: the main reason is that some in the water movement held a discussion yesterday about the best interest to have this debate and decided this was not the place to do it and that we should choose another time for this particular dialogue. But debate in different forms is engaged and so we look forward to considering other opportunities, maybe during the World Week of Water in Stockholm this year. Respecting the principles of our movement, this must be done in a way that broadly consults and understands the various views even though any debaters would only be representing their own organizations and cannot represent the movement.

Patrice Barrat : Bridge Initiative wants to be transparent in a way that everybody knows how the initiative of the debate was taken, why it couldn’t take place and what is proposed for the future. Bridge Initiative started its work after a satellite dialogue between Davos and Porto Alegre in 2001. It initiated the Table of Controversy and Dialogue format in 2002 with other NGOs members of the WSF. After their endorsement by the International Council of the World Social Forum, the « Tables of Controversy and Dialogue » have revealed to be a unique political space through which organizations in the movement could discuss publicly with key stakeholders of the globalization conflict during Social Forum events. In 2003, 2004 and 2005 Bridge initiative invited the representatives of International Institutions to debate publicly in Mumbai and Porto Alegre. Bridge initiative started a multi-stakeholders dialogue on water, 2 years ago to discuss about access to water for all and its financing. 2 closed-door meetings happened in 2005 and 2006. This debate would have been the result of this process.

Gerard Payen : this debate on the right to water was a good idea. The private sector is involved in the right to water. We’re giving access to millions of people in the world. This would have been an opportunity to see ways and means to implement the right of water. I am disappointed on not having a dialogue today. Some sectors of civil society want the dialogue, others no. Please read our documents available here to see how we propose to implement the right to water.

John Garrison : We, at the World Bank, focus today on the affordability, quality, coverage, and sustainability of water services rather than on who the provider. The Bank has traditionally supported the public sector throughout the world and only more recently has tried to attracked private sector financing to the water sector. In this light, the Bank does not include privatization as a pre-condition to its investments in the water sector. It also funds civil society managed water systems at the community level through its social funds in many developing countries. While were ready to come and dialogue with CSOs and the private sector the issue of ‘right to water’, we understand the sensitivity of the issue and the hesitancy of CSOs to undertake this dialogue during the WSF which is considered a space for civil society networking and self-reflection. We look forward to participating in the future when CSOs are ready to promote. We also recognize the role the Bridge Initiative has had in fostering multi-sector dialogue at the WSF, particulary between the World Bank and the WSF.

Pierre Victoria : I am very disappointed. It was a good opportunity to discuss pro-poor policies for access to water. We are still open to dialogue. UNDP report says that water is more an opportunity of cooperation between men then of conflicts. Alain Mathys: Every man has the right to water. It is interesting to discuss the point of view of each party. In the last years, Suez Environment has provided water to 10 millions people, and sanitation to more than 5 millions.

Patrice Barrat : To create the conditions for dialogue , usually we need to establish rules of respect. There might be anger of some people who are affected by the issue at stake and this should be accepted by all parties. Anger could be only a phase. One of the difficulties is to underline the result of dialogue. But there are results.

Anil Naidoo : I and many others from civil society are disappointed as well. While I cannot speak for all the different positions within our movement, I was looking forward to discussing the different visions of the right to water with the corporations and challenging their position that they are agents of achieving the human right to water. I am willing to wait a little bit, talk more within the movement about these issues and look for the next opportunity, because I think it will be interesting and there is a definite need to counter some of the statements put forward publicly and even here by the private sector representatives and the World Bank. The Stockholm Water Week (August) is possibly a good opportunity.

Gérard Payen : Unfortunately the civil society is not so present in the Stockholm week.

Anil Naidoo: I am interested to work with Bridges to see if civil society and water movement representatives are willing to come to Sweden. There has been interest in the past because this is a space dominated by the corporations and with few alternative viewpoints expressed.

Questions from the floor:

Leslie Wirpsa, Professor of International Studies in Chicago, USA : What uses of water are we talking of? Drinking water, but also uses of water. Could the people re-introduce themselves?

BipinKumarRai, Himalayan Policy Campaign, India: I am from India. Campaigner for natural resources and livelihoods. We have many rivers in India: especially in Himalaya and Kashmir. We have constructed dams for electricity and many people were displaced. Water is essential and I am fighting against companies like Coca Cola, which sell their product cheaper than water.

Anil Naidoo: It is striking that even here at the World Social Forum that Coca Cola is cheaper than water. The issues that the gentlemen brought out are not different from the issues we talk about here and I am very interested to hear what the corporate representatives think about the actions of Coca Cola with reference to control of water.

Kathy Mulvey, Corporate Accountability International, USA : Millions of people around the world are concerned about issues related to privatization and commodification. The question is who should decide who has access to water or not. I have another question on dialogue process. It is important to respect where the process has arrived. There is a debate among civil society. Is there a debate in your institutions (organizations)?

Anil Naidoo: I want to be very clear, we are talking of a debate on the right to water, not a dialogue. We don’t actually hold hope that the corporate position can be aligned with our position on the right to water and would not want to give the impression that we believe our role is to work with the companies to achieve consensus… it is definitely not the way we see this engagement.

Patrice Barrat : this difference debate/dialogue is very Anglo-Saxon. For us in France and other Latin countries: debate is dialogue and a sign of democracy.

John Garrison : We feel that these kinds of debate are important to exchange information and identify both areas of disagreement and convergence. The problem is that there is often a lack of trust and not even agreement on the basic data we each have on such issues as how to expand water services to the poor, cost recovery, and the role of the private sector.

Gerard Payen: we could have gone beyond : we all support the right to water, but what do we do to implement it?

Pierre Victoria: we need outside mediation between private sector and population. We need a real dialogue with all stakeholders. It is important to respect the fact that we all have good information.

Humphrey Sipalla Jr, Editor of Faith and Society Story, Kenya: It is true here also that Coca Cola is cheaper than water. I am an editor in a publishing house, committed to social justice. Who are the players? Can we find a compromise, and do you have an authority to change the policy of your organization? How do the local populations participate? Are they Africans in the mediation process?

Patrice Barrat : Bridge Initiative is a small organization, but we deal with important issues, combining informal/ close-door meetings and public events. A year ago we sensed a dialogue fatigue. The general context and other factors create the conditions for change. Creating dialogue will perhaps bring new content to the public sphere.

John Garrison : In response to the question about whether we have the mandate from our institutions to be here, I do have the mandate to come and dialogue and will take back what we heard back to the Bank. While the Bank has not always been willing to dialogue with civil society on these issues in the past and we even have some colleagues who do not see the value of this exchange, the institution is fully committeed to this dialogue and we are learning to listen.

Humphrey Sipalla Jr, Editor of Faith and Society Story, Kenya : Governments would be the real people to talk to.

Patrice Barrat : we deal with global issues, but we don’t have the capacity to bring all governments. We are not a new UN. There is a return of the idea of regulation. Maybe the reference in the future won’t be profit for the corporation, and there will be a shift in values. I hope that the concern about climate change will bring the corporations to have a related agenda.

Gérard Payen: 2 facts regarding governments: The UN Commission for Sustainable Development made a draft declaration that mentioned the right to water. The trade unions, business representatives all supported the right to water, but not the governments. In Mexico, during the World Water Forum, 26 governments from Europe and 4 from Latin America defended the right to water.

Anil Naidoo: Much has to do with how we define the right to water. We don’t define it all the same way. Climate change, for instance, is changing the rules of the game. How do you change the finance structure of Coca Cola? What kind of mandate do you have? Uruguay has decided that all water must be managed by public companies, but not Chile. In Africa, most have decided to delegate management to private companies. Sovereign governments make all these decisions.

Pierre Victoria: Civil society thinks that companies can’t make benefit from water. But they can’t impose their views on governments. Patrice Barrat: What will be the goals of the dialogue in Stockholm?

Alain Mathys: Give precise information on what reality is, what the positions are. John Garrison: There are distinct world views and there is still a large gap in the level of information each side had, thus we to to at the minimum learn to share information and can learn from civil society how to improve our poverty reduction efforts.

Pierre Victoria: we work for the public service, and not out of it. Gérard Payen: for dialogue we have to be 2. When and where the dialogue will take place, I don’t know.

Anil Naidoo: When people talk about the right to water and democracy I think we should ask who’s democracy and who’s right to water. Governments are not moving forward on the right to water or protecting individual rights but are increasing the strength of corporate rights steadily. It is an issue that social movements have to take more seriously. Corporations are, after first ignoring the notion of the right to water have instead seen that they cannot ignore this and are now trying to define the right to water. In some efforts, corporate rights are even elevated to the same level as human rights. The energy you witnessed over the days of the World Social Forum has to be multiplied by millions in order for the world to be truly just and sustainable. There is a movement that does exist on water that has great strength and energy and I can assure you that we will be working on how to actually move forward in this debate and we will not accept a narrow corporate definition of the define the right to water.

From India: We are organizing a meeting in New Delhi in India with our governments and civil society on natural resources. You can come to this meeting and see/think.

Patrice Barrat : Thank you all for your openness. Annick will have an even harder task to prepare a debate on water. This debate about the debate is better than nothing. Thank you all !