Presentation of the Conflict

| View | Upload your own

Water Privatization in Asunción would primarily effect the portion of the population that cannot afford to pay utilization fees for water and sanitation. Although this is where the primary effects would be felt, the privatization of water would effect the entire 1.8 million people of Asunción and the surrounding metropolitan area. The question of whether or not the quality of delivery and access to potable water would be improved by privatization is also an important one to consider. In the past, Corposana for example, has not been efficient in providing privatized water and sanitation services. Along with questioning their promises, placing water in the commodities category denies the population of Asunción basic access to a human right and resource.

Some of the poor would also be completely without water if it were only provided to those who can pay the fees of privatization. For others, the money for water would have to be taken from other expenditures, such as education, adequate food, and medical care. Water Privatization would deny all the people of Asunción basic and free access to water.

Through the conflict over Water Privatization and the hardships that come with having a lack of sufficient access to water the people of Asunción are socially and morally united. The people have acted together to discourage and combat the implementation of privatized water.

Yellow fever, dengue fever, malaria, excessive childhood and poverty related illnesses are extensive hardships that continually connect and unify the people of Asunción. This is a collaborative South American city tied by their similarities, differences, and ultimately the hardships and difficulties of their lifestyle.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" At this time, over half of Paraguayans are without access to potable water . With privatization, water would be limited to those who could afford to pay for it, those that the corporations provide water to, and ultimately, as in the market place for all commodities, water may end only in the hands of the highest bidder. Where does the emphasis on economic goods trample human rights and access to environmental resources??? Water Privatization is example A, and in Asunción, Paraguay, the people are fighting for their human rights and still do not have sufficient access to water.

-N

Volatile Paraguay

The conflict is one that involves basic human rights, and therefore includes fairness. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs shows us that we must have our most basic needs in order to survive and flourish. By taking away a cities right to have public water, we are denying the people of their most basic needs. If one person can not afford to pay a large corporation for their family to use water, what are they to do? True, they will be paying a water bill even without a private company controlling water, but with a privately controlled corporation they are looking to turn a profit. This profit is at the expense of the people. It is completely unethical to charge someone for something that is essential to the human body.

Through what we have found about Asuncion, I feel that volatile emotions are directed toward both people, and social structure. The people have bad feelings toward the private companies trying to make money off of them, as well as the social structure for considering giving up the right to run the water and sewage facilities. Since the deal to stop the privatization of water, people have less volatile emotions toward the social structure.

In any conflict, it is easy to get people mobilized by stirring up emotions. This situation is no different. In order to fight for their rights, the people of Asuncion spread the word about how bad these private companies were, and what negative ramifications the water privatization laws would have. This creates awareness, and awareness leads people to action.

-R

Picking Apart Privatization

The issue of privatization of water in Asuncion is very much a debate about what should and what should not be. Although there are facts about water accessibility and quality, and both sides of the conflict of privatization, facts only discuss what is. This issue is primarily about what should be.

-Should water be a free human right or a commodity?

-If a commodity, is there a line on what can be sold and by and to whom?

-Does this depend on the place (i.e. developed vs. developing)?

-What is the effect of the level of corruption or loyalty of the government to its people?

-Where does this “need to be modernized” arise and what is its validity?

Essentially the basis for judgment of these issues exists within this moral frame, and has no final authority for what is right and what is wrong, yet a decision must be reached and a course of action taken, making this a very difficult conflict to resolve.

The people of Asuncion have been active participants in this conflict, and their position on fairness in this issue, is that privatizing water denies them of their basic human rights, and ability to sustain themselves. As with many water privatization conflicts, the people are aware of the effects of being denied their free right to water, mostly because they suffer from poor accessibility already.

Water Justice for All

“In country after country in recent years, the World Bank has been quietly imposing a for-profit system of water delivery, leaving millions of people without access to water.”

Those in support of privatization in Asuncion feel that they are being fair by increasing accessibility to water and sanitation—for a price. The IMF and World Bank feel that they are being fair by denying the funds they have been providing because it encourages the acceptance of privatization.

Everyone involved in the conflict feels that they are being fair.

And everyone feels that a sacrifice made by the other side will be justified.

“Fairness is rarely as simple as distributing a common good in equal measures.”

-N

The Pros and Cons of Privatization

Now some people argue that the privatization of water is a necessary evil. It may not be positive for the people of Paraguay in the short, financial term, but in the long run-it's effective and will help stave off disease and poverty.

Privatization Pros:

- While most countries are committed to increasing access to safe water and thereby reducing child mortality

- Water will reach more people in a more efficient manner

Privatization Cons:

* As a basic human need, water service should be a responsibility of governments. Transfer of control to a private entity that seeks to maximize profits reduces public accountability and can adversely affect the quality and equity of service.

* Water privatization can negatively impact low-income and underserved communities by unfair rate increases and poor service to these communities.

* Water privatization may lead to lower quality service and higher rates. In cases where communities have tried to reclaim their water systems from private entities, poor water quality, unresponsiveness to customer complaints, and rate hikes have been the most frequent complaints.

* Private multinational companies don't have a stake in the community in which they operate. This can have negative effects on small communities when it results in firing city employees and hiring new staff or significantly cutting benefits to long-time employees.

* Many privatization agreements fail to include adequate public participation. In addition, many of these contracts do not include enough provisions for contract monitoring and accountability.

* Many privatization efforts ignore the impact on local ecosystems and downstream water users, and may have long-term negative effects on the environment.

* Private companies, which stand to make more money for the sale of more water, may neglect the potential for water use efficiency and conservation improvements.

For more information.

Let's look at the victims here: the PEOPLE and the ENVIRONMENT! Both voices are lost in the grand conflict that is raging around the privatization of water.

Now, according to Parlimentary reports much of the aid that grassroots campaigners against the privatization of water has been given by the Parliament. This is hardly surprising when considering that Paraguay has a fairly new democracy (still with a few kinks of course) as its governmental institution. Representatives from all over the country spoke for their people and voted 32 to 7 against the privatization of water in 1994. It was a victory, and assured the Paraguayan people that their political system did speak for them, even in the face of not reaching IMF targets. Privatization by ESSAP was again shelved, but barely, in 2004-an indicator of the battle that Paraguay is losing ground on with every successive year.

Paraguayans have had their fair share of unfair treatments. Recall the era of tyranny of three successive dictators, the reliance on the World Bank and IMF for aid, and of course: being a third world country and dealing with poverty, disease and lack of development. The government, while attempting to be representative is plagued with corruption, and the once self-sufficient agricultural sector is moving toward mass production of products like soybeans and corn, which will not sustain the population. This is just another hurdle that the country must overcome in the pursuit of some sort of stability.

The people in Paraguay have never really had to PAY for such a fundamental thing as water, and if all of a sudden, they are made to spend a portion of what little they have on water-it takes away from things like education and the exact types of opportunities that would pull Paraguay towards modernization.

Look at this conflict: It's not quite a true zero-sum conflict, (where whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other) because both the corporations and people get something. It is unjust and unfair in many ways because the people of Asuncion are losing money, but getting safe water-but this money goes directly into the corporations. It's like paying for water and basic sanitation: the rich people have to pay, and they can, while the poor people have to pay and oftentimes can't.

In the interest of "preventing death" by charging for water that will decrease disease and infant mortality, what about the people in Asuncion that can't afford the high prices of water and end up dying of thirst? Where's the social justice in that?

Think about it...

-L

Paraguay and the Big Corporations

Since the struggle for water and sewage has begun, experts have talked about how it has been a good idea to let the people give up their right to water, and pay for it because service would improve, having a positive effect on the way of life. Since they have been saying this, the people of Asuncion have been opposed to the idea. From our previous posts, and media we have put up it is clearly evident that the people of Asuncion have been opposed to big corporations controlling their water. People in the city have taken it upon themselves to put in the time, and learn what exactly is needed to fight these companies. Since they have put in the effort, and have gained knowledge about how to fight big conglomerates, they have not allowed themselves to be dominated, and have brought control of water back to the state.

Experts go both ways, depending on whether or not they are receiving mucho dinero from big companies or not. Some will say that service will be better and cleaner with private companies, while some experts say a private system will hurt more than help. Opinions, even of experts, can be swayed very easily.

Epidemiologically, despite an outbreak of yellow fever, there is not a whole lot of investigations occurring in the area at this particular time. Yellow fever is transferred through mosquitoes,
and is a nasty disease.

-R

Uncertainty in Public Health-- Major Threats

Yellow Fever

In February 2008, the first outbreak of yellow fever since 1974 of the area erupted in Paraguay in San Lorenzo, about 12 miles from the capital city of Asuncion. Because of the close proximity to the city, where such an illness could spread particularly quickly, vaccinations are necessary.

Vaccinations however, are in short supply. France, Brazil, other bordering nations, and the WHO have had to send vaccinations in hopes of halting the spread of the potentially fatal disease. There are no treatments for yellow fever (although rest and drinking plenty of WATER is suggested...), vaccinations are necessary to limit infection once the disease has been detected.

Urban yellow fever is spead by mosquitos. There has been a dramatic re-emergence of yello fever in poor (and water deprived) areas of Africa and South America since the 1980's. With vaccination, the disease is preventable. But it is important to note the further preventable measures if truely combatting the infection of yellow fever is to occur.

Officials of the Pan American Health Organization have stated that the key to preventing outbreaks is to reduce the breeding grounds for mosquitos who cause the spread of yellow fever.

As stated by Dr. William Perea, the yellow fever chief for the UN Health Agency: "Mosquitos thrive in built-up areas with poor hygiene and sanitation."

An estimated 30,000 people worldwide die annually from yellow fever--a disease preventable by better and more accessible water and sanitation systems and vaccinations.

Dengue Fever

In Asuncion Paraguay, in the first few months of 2007, Dengue Fever hit Paraguay. Dengue Fever has many similarities to yellow fever,including the spread due to mosquitos. However, there is no vaccination for Dengue Fever.

15,000 infected in the first 2 months.

State of Emergency declared for Paraguay on March 1, 2007.

"Uncontrolled urbanization has also produced deterioration of drinking water, severe water and waste-management systems, which has also increased mosquito breeding" --Lyle Petersen, (MD/MPH/Director of the CDC's division of Vector-Borne infectious diseases).

The health problems facing the people of Paraguay clearly extend beyond mosquitos alone.

Check out more on this issue: Video.

-N