Why the Canadian Government should not Provide Privatization of Water - Essay Example

Canadian Government should not Provide Privatization of Water Water is a fundamental right, and its accessibility has for a long time been a priority to governments of various countries all over the world. Therefore, it has been a duty of the state to deliver this utility to its citizens. The scenario over time has been intolerable as there has not been equal distribution of water at an affordable rate to the public where incompetence and corruption have been cited as the primary causes for this. In Canada, there have been enormous subsidized systems which have resulted in waste, and since the precious commodity has become scarce and not cheap, this has become a perilous illusion. This has led to water privatization seeming like a practical alternative, as there will be a reduction of waste, sensible pricing and improved distribution. Despite the scarcity of water, lure of profits and promise of an improved economy, it would be vital to remember that there is no substitute for water. Canadian government privatisation of water for trading as a commodity like oil would be detrimental to the welfare of the humanity. There are humanitarian concerns relating to danger attributable to privatizing water that will result to closing out of the poor to its access. This is because prices attached to accessibility of water would not be affordable to majority of the people, leading to further disregard for social welfare, as spread of diseases will be more widespread. Privatizing water will liken it to commodities such as natural gas, which are not essential utilities or even a fundamental human right, and there is also the fear that water trading would lead to ecological destruction as it is a heritage of the Earth. Recently, opponents of privatization have stated that reversing this would be difficult once things go wrong. It would create a scenario where water services would be further privatized all over the country. As time passes, focus will shift to shareholders and not consumers, otherwise taxpayers if water delivery were a state-governed service. This implies that profits gained would go to a small number of people, further deepening inequality. If the service remains a responsibility of the state, any profits reaped go to the public implying lower taxes or increased spending in other beneficial activities (Trew). From a corporate perspective, water exportation would be expensive because of shipping costs since water is heavy and returns from it through local selling would not bring back the investment; therefore, financial viability would not be sensible. Looking at the alternative of transporting through canals and pipelines, the same aspect of high costs would come up. This is because it requires considerable amounts of energy to push the water through the pipelines or canals. Additionally, making water a commodity implies it would be subject to the same forces that dictate commodities in a market-driven industry. This means that high prices charged would lead to decrease in demand. Naturally, people would use less of a product that is expensive and find alternative, cheaper sources. Privatization would present the problem of shifting focus from the public, ultimately owners of the water sources to the corporate where the highest bidder will be given priority. Worse still, privatization would call for issuing for water licenses, which would grant power to private corporations to change the use of water to suit their corporate needs, for example, water for agriculture may be allocated to hydrological fracturing. This is because the market would end up completely deregulated, making such changes almost impossible to reverse (Nelson). In addition, privatization results in loss of jobs to the citizens as private, multinational companies will reduce their work force and transfer jobs to people from other countries in a bid to improve efficiencies. Furthermore, such companies are bound to move away from providing services to the poor due to their resistance and protests because of the public relations factor. This would imply that services would be tailored to suit fellow corporate and ignore the poor; this is the same reason that would drive such companies to raising prices for water in order to attract significant and long-term investors (“Privatization of Water”). In the case of India, there have been conflicts with Coca Cola where residents have stated that the company is lowering the water table through water mining. This has frustrated farmers in the area of Kala Dera as ground water is their main source of water for farming, since erratic weather conditions, that is, severe flooding, storms and droughts, have resulted in water shortage. Water trade is ecologically destructive as it would imply exploitation of water areas through drilling of bore holes. This is because companies would want to derive utmost value from the ground water sources. At the same time, local people would want to avoid paying for something they can access themselves. This raises the issue of criminal activities going on the rise (Devraj). In the Fourth World Water Forum, it was reported that a majority of people are not keen on privatization of water. Consequently, people would rather have water delivery remains a public service where any changes to be made would include community members’ participation. This is because companies and non-governmental organizations that have taken up this service have lost respect and large amounts of money. This is because there has been the realization that desalination- turning salt water into freshwater suitable for human consumption and industrial use, is a better option as technologies are coming up to make the process much cheaper than exportation. It would make sense then to divert funds to discovery of such technologies that would in turn lessen the costs involved in water trade (Malkin). Water privatization supporters in Canada claim that there is a ready market developing considering that States like California thrives economically from farming activities that include rice planting and growing of almonds, and with the drying up of Lake Mead, the water supply has become depleted and hence, they would require another source of water and thus would be willing to pay generously for it (“Nor any drop to drink”). However, this outweighs the demerits privatisation would cause to humanity and also considering that this against majority , it would still result to failure, despite the lure for profits and it having no substitute (Macdonald). On the other hand, privatization of water would be seen to increase efficiency, as proper structures and systems would be in place, and under management of competent persons who will reap financial benefits. Nonetheless, this is not valid as rendering a public service such as water delivery does not require a profit incentive, as it is a basic right and important to improved social welfare. This means that those involved in its delivery should seek to offer the same based on its need, whereas privatization is more likely to detract efficiency, as costs would be cut to increase profitability. An additional argument for privatization is that private companies would be more flexible allowing for adopting of new technologies, they can access funding much easier that companies that are run by the state (Macdonald). This implies that they would have more capacity to deal with the threatening of water shortage because of depletion of water sources. However, this state can be achieved by the government where suitable policies that encourage the same can be enacted and their review made frequent and open to include the public. Then the issue of humanitarian concern would be raised where cases of third world countries would be cited to show that people are suffering at the expense of protecting a heritage of Mother Nature. This is illustrated by the amount of money paid for water in some cities whereas the same is ported in canisters to reach deep-rooted people living in slums. This necessitates the Canadian government to become open to public policy trade-offs even though they would not be politically correct (Macdonald). Privatization of water would create awareness and accountability in companies, where their usage would be mapped and thereby promote conservation through sustainable decisions. These would include cleaning of sewers and reusing the water, proper disposal and withdrawal from depleting sources. In essence, allowing private corporations to undertake water delivery would enable informed decisions, as there would be systems that allow for prediction of future situations as databases and water-maps would be set up to generate hydrological data. In conclusion, it would be necessary to shift focus from whether water delivery should be a public or private rendered service to performance, systems and structures in place to ensure accessibility, quality and efficiency. This means that water privatization would fundamentally become unnecessary, as systems that promote accountability and transparency would bring the efficiency, accessibility and quality sought after by proponents of privatization. More explicitly this would entail hiring competent staff in public offices, ensuring adequate funding by garnering public support, proper management of assets and stakeholder participation. Furthermore, the public would need to be enlightened on importance of sparing water and recycling of sewers as it is becoming scarce, this is particularly so for Canada as a wealthy nation in terms of water supply. Governments should also strive to deal with causes of global warming, whereas educating the public is also crucial, this is since global warming is the foremost cause of depleting sources of water. The only investment practical in the water market is technologies that would facilitate conservation either through less consumption or recycling of sewer water. Works Cited Macdonald, Nancy. “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” Macleans. September 2009. Web. 4 April 2013 < http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/> Maich Steve. “America’s Thirsty”. November. Rogers. 2005. Web. 4 April 2013 “Nor any drop to drink”. The Economist. December 2007. Web. 4 April 2013 < http://www.economist.com/node/10259055> Devraj, Ranjit. “Development-India: Farmers vs Coca Cola in Water Wars”. Retrieved 4 April 2013 < http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/10/development-india-farmers-vs-coca-cola-in-water-wars/> Malkin, Elisabeth. “At World Forum, Support Erodes for Private Management of Water”. The New York Times. March 2006. Web. 4 April 2013< http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/international/americas/20water.html?_r=0> Trew, Stuart. “Water privatization, internet restrictions, a trans-Atlantic concern in Canada-EU trade talks”. Rabble.ca. October 2012. Web. 4 April 2013 < http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/council-canadians/2012/10/water-privatization-internet-restrictions-trans-atlantic-co> Nelson, Joyce. “GE and the Privatization of Water”. Watershed Sentinel. February 2012. Web. 4 April 2013 < http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/ge-and-privatization-water> “Privatization of Water”. World Savvy Monitor. November 2009. Web. 4 April 2013 < http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=715&Itemid=1202> Read More