The response by
EU institutions
On
17 February 2014, hearings of the ECI took place with the Commission and with
the European Parliament. While the Commission representatives mainly asked
questions during their hearing, the meeting with the EP was deemed more
successful by the campaigners. It was four hours long and 60 MEPs, mainly from
the environmental but also from some other committees, were present with most
of them talking at some stage.
The
response by the Commission, delivered on 19 March 2014, however, was a
disappointment. It argued that it would not introduce water as a human right
into EU legislation, as the Commission was not responsible for this. This was a
matter of national level legislation. Similarly, while the Commission confirmed
that it would not pursue further the liberalisation of water, this too was not
backed up by EU legislation. Instead, it declared that it had to remain neutral
vis-à-vis national decision-making in the water industry. As interviewees
pointed out, however, the Commission had not observed this neutrality in relation
to EU crisis countries, having pushed for further liberalisation and
privatisation in Greece, Portugal and Italy.
The
Commission, moreover, announced that it intended to hold a consultation on
drinking water, something they could have done even without the ECI and which
does not really address the main objectives of the ECI. The Commission did not
promise a general change in foreign policy in relation to pushing water as a
human right in its dealings with other countries around the world either.
Observers also note that there is still an emphasis on market conformity in Commission
statements.
The wider
implications of the ECI
And
yet, some success of the ECI can be noted. Especially in Germany and Austria,
the concessions directive was a crucial point for the mobilisation of
opposition. When the ECI had reached one million signatures in February 2013
and it became clear that it may actually be successful, Commissioner Barnier,
responsible for the concessions directive, went to Berlin and discussed with
the German Chancellor Angela Merkel an exception for the German water economy.
When it then became clear that this would create even more difficulties for the
directive, water was excluded from the concessions directive. ‘In short, the
ECI on water [had] already achieved a significant political result and an
extraordinary victory even before it formally arrive[d] on the Commission’s
desk’ (Fattori
2013). This success is also noticeable considering the heavy lobbying
pressure by the private water industry on the Commission, expressing their
disappointment about the exclusion of water considered to make up for half of
the concessions within the EU and rejecting the link made between the ECI and
the concessions directive (AquaFed
2013).
Moreover,
as one interviewee pointed out, the ECI had changed the public discourse on
water. Arguments about the importance of keeping water in public hands would no
longer be laughed at or belittled. Prior to the 2013 national elections, all
German parties committed themselves to retain water in public hands and this
issue also featured in the coalition negotiations between the Christian
Democrats and the Social Democrats. At the European level, the ECI campaign
lobbied hard the candidates for the new President of the Commission in 2014 and
four out of five committed themselves to implementing the human right to water
if elected (EPSU
2014a).
 |
| commons.wikimedia.org |
Finally,
the ECI has successfully established links of transnational solidarity. While
witnessing the hearing of the ECI in the EP through a video link, activists
from the Thessaloniki citizens’ movement against water privatisation decided to
hold their own, independent referendum about the privatisation of the water
services in their city on 18 May 2014. EPSU, the Italian water movement as well
as others from the European water movement sent monitors in support. After a
large turn-out and significant rejection of privatisation in this unofficial
referendum with 98 per cent of those who voted opposed to privatisation, the
pressure on the Greek government mounted not to privatise. In the end, it
decided to put a stop to the privatisation of water services in both
Thessaloniki and Athens (Macropolis,
02/07/2014).
The future of European
water
Will
this success of the ECI be enough to ensure that water remains permanently
outside the market? As observers point out, a review clause has been included
in the concessions directive, which could imply that the decision to exclude
water is revoked in five years’ time. Moreover, the ‘Commission’s Communication
makes no commitment to explicitly exclude these services from trade
negotiations such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’
(EPSU 2014b). Water privatisation in Greece too is back on the agenda as a result of the imposed terms of the third bailout agreement. Clearly,
further struggles are required to consolidate and protect the gains of the ECI.
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net
18 September 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!