The European Commission published its
proposals for a Recast of the Drinking Water Directive, 1 February 2018. They
include amendments to guarantee vulnerable groups access to safe and affordable
water. The European Federation of Public
Service Unions (EPSU) has welcomed these suggestions as a step towards
realizing the Human Right to Water in the EU regretting that the
Commission stopped short of recognizing the UN right in EU legislation. This
guest post summarises the findings of a new study commissioned by EPSU,
which goes into more detail on what the European Commission can do to build
the frame in which the Human Right2Water can be realized (see PSIRU
2018). The main recommendation is that the Commission should cease all
actions that endanger this right.
EPSU’s study was commissioned in
response to a study by the European Commission. The Commission has started to
evaluate the exclusion of water services from the concessions
directive (article 12 of 2014/23/EU). The exclusion of water services from
that directive was the result of the first ever successful European
Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water and the growing concerns that it could
lead to the privatization of water services and undermine the demands
of the ECI. EU Commissioner for the internal market at the time Mr. Barnier
made clear that he considered water services a “bien commune”. The
proponents of market forces and opening water concessions, however, inserted
text into the directive stating “the Commission shall also assess the economic
effects on the internal market of the exclusions set out in Article 12 taking
into account the specific structures of the water sector, and report thereon to
the European Parliament and the Council by 18 April 2019.” The
Commission’s “Study on water services in selected Member States” was
commissioned to the consultancy Ramboll. The Commission is seeking proof that
there are negative economic effects on the internal market of the exclusion of
water/wastewater concessions from the directive. The policy implications of the
Ramboll study therefore deserve full attention. The results of the study must
have been a disappointment to the Commission. It found hardly any correlations.
Private providers do not do better. There is no proof that market processes
result in extra benefits for consumers.
EPSU asked the Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU),
the globally recognized critical experts on public contracts, water services
and privatization to have a look. A number of limitations to the study were
found. Some of these include: the failure of the Ramboll study to discuss
characteristics of the water sector (e.g. high transaction costs); the limited
scope of the literature reviewed which leaves out important and more critical
contributions to the debate; the selective range of stakeholders interviewed
for certain countries; the categorical errors made in defining the social
factors discussed including factors as diverse as corruption, irregularities,
service quality and re-municipalisation; the narrow view on the ultimate
goal of water service provision, that neglects the significance of social
factors beyond the technical indicators used in benchmarking exercises.
PSIRU’s researcher Emanuele Lobina
identifies a number of policy implications that the Commission and others
should take into account. These are:
* the transaction costs of water
liberalisation and privatisation which represent a social deadweight loss;
* underestimation of the social costs of
water liberalisation and privatisation and which must be tackled in any serious
evaluation;
* the demand of people for public water
and the human right to water. These do not seek liberalisation, privatisation
or technocratic regulation.
The EPSU study ends by emphasising that
it is time for the European Commission to abandon its obsession with water
liberalisation, privatisation and technocratic regulation. It should instead
create an institutional environment where the human right to water can prosper.
Such an institutional environment could be created by adopting a legislation
that promotes meaningful public participation in decision making on water
service provision, combats excessive costs to water users and fosters
intra-European Public-Public Partnerships (PUPs) for capacity development in
the water sector, in addition to international, North-South and South-South
PUPs. According to the study the comparative advantage of the public sector can
be used to promote the human right to water.
Four recommendations are made to the
European Commission:
1. The European Commission must avoid
creating an institutional environment that undermines the human right to water.
In particular, the European Parliament resolution of September 2015 calls on
the Commission to “permanently exclude water and sanitation and wastewater
disposal from internal market rules and from any trade agreement”. It is
therefore important that the European Commission should cease considering (as
suggested by the rationale for the Ramboll study), the hypothesis of extending
the application of the Concessions Directive to the water sector. The European
Parliament resolution calls on the Commission to refrain from promoting “the
privatisation of water undertakings in the context of an economic adjustment
programme or any other EU procedure of economic policy coordination”. The
European Commission should therefore avoid acting on a recently commissioned
study that - as revealed by Corporate Europe Observatory – focuses on the
operational and fiscal challenges that state-owned enterprises place on the
public purse. We add that there needs to be policy coherence in the European
Commission. An example is that the Commission services have issued this large
and expensive study on mapping state-owned assets in the EU. It has been
ordered from KPMG. It is a good example of lack of coherence in the Commission
for at least two reasons. First, this company has been mentioned as assisting
corporations to avoid paying their taxes in EU member states. It has audited
companies that have avoided paying taxes, a practice widely recognized as
hurting public finances that underpin our social protection and public
services. The European Commission is fighting such tax dodgers. It is not
coherent to continue rewarding the industry that supports this behavior.
Second, the study focuses on asset-management models in the light of public
finance. The study however does not appear to take account of how public
companies deliver on contributing to the rights of people in the EU such as the
Human Right2Water or other targets of the Sustainable Development Goals. While
the Commission denies that the study is part of a privatization push, it cannot
be seen in another light and which could threaten the human right to water.
2. The European Commission should create
an institutional environment where the human right to water can prosper, by
adopting legislation that promotes meaningful public participation in the water
sector. Such legislation should promote advanced forms of public participation
in decision making on water service provision, and robust mechanisms to
strengthen accountability. The proposal to promote benchmarking - contained in
the European Commission’s 2014 response to the European Citizens’ Initiative -
is inadequate to fulfil the human right to water because, albeit necessary,
access to information is a rudimentary and insufficient form of
participation. Such legislation would heed the calls of the European
Parliament’s 2015 resolution for “active participation” in the water sector and
for “the Commission to develop transparency, accountability and participation
criteria as a means to improving the performance, sustainability and
cost-effectiveness of water services”.
3. The European Commission should
promote the human to right to water by adopting legislation against excessive
costs to water users. Such legislation should promote financial transparency
and deter excess profits. The European Commission’s proposal of February 2018
for a recast Drinking Water Directive – adopted in response to the European
Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water - contains an obligation for all EU Member
States to “take all necessary measures to improve access for all to water
intended for human consumption”, but no specific provision on ensuring
financial affordability. The proposal thus ignores important lessons on
fighting water poverty and promoting the human right to water. One such lesson
is that reducing the overall cost of water provision is more equitable than
providing social welfare to the water poor while allowing excessive costs to be
imposed on all users. Another lesson is that because excess profits and prices
have a negative impact on affordability, failing to tackle them risks fuelling
water poverty and undermining the human right to water.
4. The European Commission should
promote the human right to water by enabling and supporting intra-European
Public-Public Partnerships (PUPs). Thanks to their not-for-profit character
which enables trust and facilitates knowledge transfer, Public-Public
Partnerships (PUPs) have been instrumental to the successful institutional
reform and capacity development of public water operators in Baltic countries
prior to EU accession. A facilitating environment could support the
mobilisation of PUPs for the fulfilment of the human right to water in EU
Member Countries. This should not exclude the possibility of supporting
international, North-South and South-South PUPs for the fulfilment of the human
right to water in ACP countries in view of their track record in promoting
capacity development in the global South.
What the European Commission has been
trying to do in the water sector is a near perfect example of how neo-liberal
ideologues fired on by corporate interests seek to take hold of the European
institutions and abuse the powers of the state and of the European Union to
create and sustain markets. Alternatives like the public provision of water
services are considered as deviations.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!