Financial Times

World Bank denies pushing for water privatisation
The World Bank has denied accusations that it had persuaded the government to resort to privatisation of water services under the proposed Water Services Reform Bill.

The bank's Country Director Peter Harrold told a delegation from the Alliance for Protection of National Resources and Human Rights at a meeting on December 3 that the bank had not influenced the government on this issue, although there had been detailed discussions about the water resources policy in general.

The Alliance, in a press statement last week, quoted Harrold as saying there were no conditions imposed on making water a "commodity". The delegation however said they didn't believe the World Bank hadn't exerted pressure on the government about the privatization of water services. "The pressures of the World Bank on water privatisation cannot be taken in isolation from the pressures on other economic policies," delegation members told the country director.

The statement said:
The delegation from the Alliance comprising Ven Mahamankadawala Piyaratana Nayake Thero, convener, Ven. Keeranthidiye Pannasekara Thero, committee member, Prof. H. Sriyananda, Prof of Electrical Enggineering, Moratuwa University, committee member,

Linus Jayatillake, President, United Federation of Labour, Ms. Padma Pushpakanthi , Convener of Women's Network on PRSP and Coordinator, Savisthri Women's Organisation and Sarath Fernando, Co- Secretary, Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform Representatives said the people of Sri Lanka have not given a mandate to any government to formulate the present type of policies for water privatisation.

"These have been planned by the government quite secretly and in a great hurry. There is no reason that we see for these rushed processes other than the agreements and time targets set at the Tokyo Donors meeting ( in June 2003) Therefore, we see the pressures imposed upon the government by the WB/IMF and other lending countries and institutions as a violation of a basic human right. These plans may be implemented and we see the danger of such measures leading to another rebellion of the type we have seen earlier," the statement quoted a representative as saying.

It said a majority of the people in Sri Lanka are too poor to meet even their minimum requirements of food. Therefore they simply cannot afford to pay for water.
World Bank's Harrold said the Bank's main concerns relating to water were to provide financial assistance to the government, regional councils etc.to develop rural water supplies in areas where people do not have safe drinking water
He said these are given as grants and are not recovered. The Bank doesn't give much as grants but in this case the amount given is about Rs. 4 billion. This is the biggest grant that the Bank gives to Sri Lanka.

Harrold said the next important concern was irrigation where the farmers should be the controllers and not the government. The third area is urban water supplies. The Bank's experience regarding urban water supply systems is that the government or public institutions have failed. It has been found that in Sri Lanka 51 percent of the water is wasted.

This wastage was due to two reasons - there was wastage due to technical reasons, and there is economic wastage (due to non revenue water supply). Due to these wastages water supply is limited, the poor receive only a limited quantity of water and the rich people receive more than they require. This happens due to the government not having proper plans.

The WB country director said urban water supply was more complex and expensive and there was no reason why the rich who can pay for these expenses should be given free water. The World Bank's experience in other countries shows that the private sector can handle water services more efficiently than governments.

Padma Pushpakanthi, representing the Women's network explained that although the Bank claims to be involved in empowering the poor and in reducing poverty what has happened with its plans and advice is that only the rich and the big companies have received all the subsidies and facilities and the position of the poor - the farmers, the fish workers, the women have worsened over the years.
It has become almost impossible for them to live.

Back to Business