Vesihuollon yksityistäminen

Vedenjakelun yksityistäminen

• http://www.vapaasana.net/kolumnit/2003/06/vett-k-yhille (Yksityistäminen on parantanut veden saatavuutta ja laatua, julkinen vedenhuolto puolestaan on kiristyskeino oppositiota vastaan)
• http://www.vapaasana.net/artikkelit/2003/09/vesi-on-niukkaa-ilman-markkinahintaa-sit-ei-riit-kaikille

• http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4462

Julkinen sektori hoitaa 97 % vedenjakelusta köyhissä maissa. Se on epäonnistunut pahasti, joten miljardi ihmistä on vailla vettä. On paljon esimerkkejä siitä, miten yksityisten yritysten tuominen vedenjakeluun on parantanut saatavuutta ja veden laatua. Joissain tapauksissa yksityistäminen on johtanut keinotekoisen alhaisiksi tuettujen hintojen nousuun ennestään huollon piirissä olleille mutta saanut aikaan investointeja, jotka ovat tuoneet vesihuollon niillekin, jotka ovat aiemmin joutuneet turvautumaan todella kalliisiin tahoihin. Keskimäärin tilanne on parantunut. Julkinen vedenjakelu on etenkin köyhissä maissa usein melkein yhtä huono ajatus kuin julkinen ruoanjakelu.

• http://blog.hse-econ.fi/?p=1445

Myös professori Pertti Haaparannan mukaan vedenjakelun yksityistäminen on voinut vähentää mm. lapsikuolleisuutta, koska hintojen nousu johtaa jakelun laajentamiseen. Lisäksi ennen yksityistämistä suuri osa kansasta on joutunut jakelun puuttuessa ostamaan kallista vettä yksityisiltä vedenmyyjiltä. Jotkut ovat sanoneet, että yksityistäminen on silti väärin, jos yksikin lapsi kuolee sen vuoksi vaikka paljon useampi muu lapsi pelastuisi kuolemalta. Haaparannan mukaan ratkaisu voisi olla tuki köyhille veden hankkimisesta (esim. yksityistämistulojen tuotosta).

Myös Johan Norberg on todennut, että tarvittaessa yksityistämisen tuottoja voidaan jakaa vesipalveluseteleinä (tai perustulona?) köyhille.

• http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=12&year=2005#1434

"Access to piped drinking water in Chile rose from 27 per cent of the population in the 1970s to 99 per cent today. In Guinea, the number of urban-dwellers with access to clean water tripled from two in ten, to seven in ten by 2001." - Bulletin from Campaign for Fighting Diseases explains what happens when poor countries privatise water.

• http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=9&year=2004#415

THE CASE FOR GLOBALISATION IS WATER-RESISTANT: A reader just told me that I am far too optimistic about the world’s progress. Just look at the lack of access to clean water in the world, he wrote. It’s correct that this is a big problem. More than one billion people drink unsafe water. But that’s a smaller proportion than ever. From 1990-2002, 1.1 billion people have gained access to clean water. And the development has been led by the countries with high growth and private investments in the water industry.

• http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=02&year=2004#178

13:04 - WATER FOR SALE: Anti-globalists claim that privatisation of water in developing countries hurts the poor. On the contrary, state-controlled systems create enormous waste, and makes it profitable for the authorities only to connect the politically connected. Water markets is a way to give the whole population access to clean and safe water, as shown by the examples in Chile, Argentina and other places. Fredrik Segerfeldt explains this in an important new book from Timbro (so far only in Swedish), today I write about the subject together with him in Sydsvenska Dagbladet

Alihinnoittelu

Vesi on usein vahvasti alihinnoiteltua. Maailmalla maatalous maksaa vedestään sadasosan siitä mitä kotitaloudet, ja se parantaa tehokkuuttaan vain prosentin vuosivauhtia. "Hintojen nostosta on hyötyä vesialalle, koska se houkuttelee mukaan yksityistä pääomaa - - yksityisen sektorin toimintatapoja ja" vauhdittaa "hallintokäytäntöjen kehittämistä."

Muuta vedestä

• http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=12&year=2005#1414

11:35 - FREE TRADE FOR BETTER HEALTH: Philip Stevens has just published an IPN report (pdf) about the strong relation between trade/wealth and health. If developing countries had grown by 1.5 percentage points more in the 1980s, half a million infant deaths would have been averted. Stevens´ conclusion is that anybody that fights against free trade also destroy the opportunity for millions to live longer, healthier lives:

"Mortality and morbidity in lower-income countries, for example, are greatly increased by the indoor air pollution that arises from burning primitive biomass fuels such as cow dung. Free trade would make imported, cleaner fuels such as gas and kerosene cheaper and more readily available, and would indirectly pressure governments to reform their energy sectors. Similarly, a large part of the disease burden in the poorest countries is directly attributable to dirty water, so free trade in water purification and related technologies would be also extremely beneficial. Finally, free trade in foodstuffs would allow a far better match between supply and demand than is currently the case in many parts of the world, and would help combat malnutrition – a significant determinant of health. This is particularly true of many African countries, who needlessly erect swingeing tariff barriers between themselves in order to protect their local agricultural sectors. The result is more expensive food, shortages and, on occasion, famine."

• http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displayblog&month=11&year=2006#1978

MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER HAVE SAFE WATER:

The new UNDP report highlights that one billion people around the world lack reliable access to safe water. Since the report does not show the historical trend most who read it or the newspaper reports about it will think that the problem has increased.

That´s the wrong impression. Since 1990, access to safe water in developing countries has increased from 71 to 80 percent, and access to improved sanitation has increased from 35 to 50 percent, according to the UN.

• http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/events/d41d8cd9-Amigo%20Segerfeldt.pdf

(8-sivuinen artikkeli) Milagros Quirino and Fely Griarte live in a poor part of the Philippine capital, Manila. For most of their lives, lack of clean and safe water was a major problem. They had to do with only a few liters of water a day. Usually they bought it from a neighbor family that owns a deep-water well. About 3,000 families in the neighborhood used to share three such wells. “We often had to get up at 3 A.M. to make sure we would get water,” said Fely. “And if there was a power cut and the water pump did not work, we would have to wait another day.” The quality of the water was poor, and it had to be boiled before use. And if there was a power cut, they would not get any water. For decades, as a consequence of the dire water situation, Manila has suffered from various outbreaks of water-related diseases, such as Cholera.

In 1997, water distribution in Manila was privatized and in 2000, in a special project targeting poor neighborhoods, the private firm Manila Water came to Milagro’s and Fely’s neighborhood. Now they have water in their home, 24 hours a day, and the water costs 15 pesos per cubic liter, compared to 100 pesos earlier. They are the poor winners of water privatization.