Privatization Of Water: Why It Matters

Issue that does not make the news headlines often is the global water scarcity. With water being at the very basis of human needs, it may be surprising for some that 1.2 billion people do not have access to clean water.  Every year, 3.5 million children under the age of 5 die of waterborne diseases.

Some believe that the answer to the above issues is water privatization. At the forefront of this thinking is Nestle, the company who has a track record of morally-deficient policies and practices, namely having a cyber  monitor Internet criticism and shape discussions in social media and battling the labeling of GMO-filled products.

The basic idea behind water privatization is to have multinational beverage companies with  water-well privileges over citizens. While this may look like a viable solution due to economic properties of private firms, such as abundance of funds to establish quality control, already developed distribution channels, there are some major fundamental issues with such a policy.

The first and foremost goal of large, multinational organizations is to make profits. There is no reason to think that Nestle or Coca-Cola company are not going to extend their profit-oriented mentality to fresh water markets. One single thing to take away from this is that private companies are economic, and in economics, equality or fairness are not a concern. Distribution water for profit, by definition, cannot solve the shortage of fresh water around the globe.

Secondly, privatization of water implies that access to drinkable water is not a basic human right. As wrong as it sounds, this point of view is not even hidden. For example, the chairman of Nestle has openly said that access to fresh water is not “a public right”. So by Nestle’s definition, not every human being should be able to drink safe, drinkable water because some do not deserve it. If fresh water sources are privatized, it is not us, the people, who will be deciding whether we can drink safe water when we need it. It will be the small number of rich executives.

Lastly, when a specific fresh water source is privatized, it means that no one but the owner of the rights have access to that water. It is up to that owner, whomever that may be, to decide whether they want to share it with the public or not. It just so happens that many villages, towns and in some cases even countries have access to just 1 fresh water source. So if it privatized, the public does not have any alternative. In essence, privatization of water can only worsen the already-existing fresh water scarcity.

What to take out of this reading is that the issue of water privatization needs to gain widespread knowledge before it is too late. In light of so many different events happening around the globe, water privatization is lost somewhere and it is not a part of the biggest debates and narratives. While private companies, like Nestle, are quietly advancing their agenda to privatize fresh water supplies around the world, there needs to be a strong public opposition to make sure it does not happen. Reading and talking about it is the first step towards successful opposition of companies that want to take away some of the most fundamental human rights, access to safe drinkable water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *