Jimmy Orogobeni, now 25, has been waiting all his life for safe clean water in his Lagos home.
In 1999, the World Bank’s International Finance Corp (IFC) proposed a vast expansion of the city’s water supply, raising real hope that a British or French company would lay pipes to the sprawling Ajegunle slum.
The IFC plan was rejected as being “messianic,” unworkable and too expensive for Lagos. However, in the following years, donor governments, banks and a succession of European and US business consortia all went to Africa’s largest metropolis with plans to take water to people such as Orogobeni.
Illustration: Mountain people
Like the IFC, most proposed awarding a single giant water company a long concession in return for providing technical expertise and millions of water connections.
However, the companies, banks and donors all left, unable to agree with the federal Nigerian or local authorities on how to satisfy corporate demands, raise the billions of US dollars inevitably needed and persuade the Nigerian public that international companies would fulfill their contracts and not make unreasonable profits from the sale of what was widely seen as a public resource.
For Orogobeni, his family, and more than 15 million other Lagosians, the impasse means continuing to pay local water suppliers a hefty premium for unsafe water.
About 80 percent of Lagos’ piped water supplies are thought to be stolen; just 5 percent of residents receive it in their houses; taps are often dry; sanitation is nonexistent across much of the metropolis and hospitals are full of people suffering from diarrhea and other waterborne diseases. All that has changed since the IFC’s abortive 1999 plan is that the demand for water has grown, due to the arrival of millions more people in the city.
The latest organization to have failed to negotiate a Lagos water agreement is the IFC — again. The private arm of the World Bank, which has lent more than US$75 billion for water and sanitation projects around the world since 1995, has been in secret talks for more than a year with the city’s private water company about funding another possible private-public partnership (PPP) program. However, it categorically stated recently that negotiations had broken down and were unlikely to resume for years.
Where near-universal access to water has been achieved, it has virtually always been through a public commitment.
“Contrary to recent reports, IFC has not signed any agreement with the Lagos Water Corporation [LWC],” said an IFC statement. “LWC expressed interest in working with IFC, and we had a number of discussions on how we might be able to assist the company. In the end, IFC decided not to advise LWC. We continue to support the government and people of Nigeria in achieving their development goals.”
“It is unequivocal. We did talk to Lagos for about 18 months and we have now decided not to continue these discussions,” an IFC spokesman added.
The rebuff is a blow to the IFC, which has long been the world’s largest funder of global water projects, providing advice for governments and loans for companies to take over and invest in under-resourced water and sanitation systems in developing nations, often as part of a broader set of privatization policies.
According to the IFC’s data, it completed 847 water projects between 1993 and 2013, nearly half of which were in Latin America.
However, water privatization has been politically hot since Britain became the first and only nation to sell off its entire water industry in the 1980s. Many IFC projects have been opposed by coalitions of political and environmental groups amid fears that market water prices would increase far beyond what the poorest affected residents could pay.
Since the early 2000s, political anger has mounted with the result that far fewer water projects have been proposed, and many fewer people have been connected to clean water than the World Bank and G8 countries might have expected when the Millennium Development Goals were signed in 2000.
According to the latest IFC figures , about 768 million people still lack access to clean drinking water, 2.5 billion people are without safe sanitation and an estimated 3.5 million people die annually from water-related diseases.
Research shows that the tide of water privatization has now turned. Many cities that rushed to sign 20-year or longer concessions with water companies in expectation of clean water at a socially acceptable cost have chosen to terminate agreements and return urban water provision to public control.
A report by the Transnational Institute, Public Services International Research Unit and the Multinational Observatory suggests that 180 cities and communities in 35 nations — including Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Paris, Accra, Berlin, La Paz, Maputo and Kuala Lumpur — have all “re-municipalized” their water systems in the past decade. More than 100 of the “returnees” were in the US and France, 15 in Africa and 12 in Latin America. Those in developing nations tended to be bigger cities than those in richer countries.
“Direct experience with common problems of private water management — from lack of infrastructure investments, to tariff hikes to environmental hazards — has persuaded communities and policymakers that the public sector is better placed to provide quality services to citizens and promote the human right to water,” said Satoko Kishimoto, the report’s author and water coordinator with the Transnational Institute in Brussels.
“A growing number of utilities that have gone through a re-municipalization process are increasingly ready, along with other institutions, to share experiences and provide practical support. Cooperation between public services is the most efficient way to improve water services and promote the human right to water,” she said.
Last month, the IFC said that it had no ongoing water concession projects in Africa and was working on very few in developing nations in general. From a high of 85 major projects in 2007, just 22 were recorded as starting in 2013. Moreover, 63 projects — representing 28 percent of the IFC’s total water investments over the past 20 years — have failed or are in difficulty, the bank said.
The World Bank can still fund major projects like Lagos, but it must drop its ideological commitment to privatization.
“In the past five years the failure rate of water and sewerage privatizations has increased to 34 percent, compared with a failure rate of just 6 percent for energy, 3 percent for telecommunications and 7 percent for transportation, during the same period,” Small Planet Institute director Anna Lappe said.
With the IFC also reporting that nearly 40 percent of all its complaints in 2013 were about water, even though water projects are a small fraction of what it funds, the organization has been put on the back foot. However, it insists that cities and governments are learning from one another’s experiences, and that failure happens mostly when water projects are not set up properly.
“Properly structured PPPs can play a key role in addressing the global water issues of today. Long-term evaluations of its projects prove that concessions can have a positive impact on levels of access and quality of services for the population,” an IFC spokesman said.
This is disputed by some water activists.
“It is clear that PPPs in the water sector boost corporate profits at the expense of people. Privatization, including PPPs, just does not work. Where near-universal access to water has been achieved, it has virtually always been through a public commitment to build and maintain infrastructure, which represents 75 percent of the cost of delivering water to residents. It invariably results in raised prices, water shutoffs for those unable to pay and drastic workforce reductions,” Corporate Accountability International’s senior international water organizer Nathaniel Meyer said.
“Public officials often claim that due to government budget constraints they are being forced to pursue ‘partnerships’ with the private sector, but this justification is dangerously misleading, since the private sector consistently relies on the government or taxpayers to fund infrastructure, while extracting a profit, the margin of which can even be guaranteed in concession contracts,” he said.
The jury is out on whether privatization is a worldwide failure, with academics citing cities like Guayaquil in Ecuador, Bucharest in Romania, and some in Colombia, Morocco and Senegal as successes. Opponents say privatization in Bolivia, Tanzania, Indonesia and in parts of Europe has failed.
Both “sides” point to cities like Manila, where the IFC designed a 25-year, US$2.7 billion concession in 1997, giving it part-ownership alongside other companies. The IFC said that the project is a success story because it has provided an extra 1.7 million people with clean water, reduced cases of diarrhea by 51 percent, and offered customers significant savings: 20 times less than per-cubic-meter rates previously charged by water vendors.
However, others claim that Manila’s water privatization has led to continual price hikes, legal challenges, investigations and failures to provide certain districts with water, while giving the companies unfair returns for their work. During one week last month, the price of water was set to rise nearly 10 percent in many districts, Bloomberg Business reported.
Several recent PPP projects are also hotly contested. A massive private water project in central India’s largest city, Nagpur, has raised concerns among local residents. Worries range from high prices and project delays to unequal water distribution and service shutdowns. Allegations of corruption and illegal activity have led residents to protest, while city officials have called for investigations of contract violations.
Back in Lagos, the IFC’s second failure to negotiate a PPP project with the city could finally persuade the local government to explore alternatives known as “public-public partnerships.” These involve cities partnering with non-profit organizations to keep prices low by taking advantage of the economies of scale and sidestepping many of the legal and corporate hurdles that accompany public-private partnerships. That way, public water projects can be much cheaper, much more accountable and just as efficient as anything promised by privatization, Kishimoto said.
Kishimoto also proposed that cities like Lagos partner with others to exchange technologies and experiences. Amsterdam works with many cities in Morocco, Indonesia and southern Africa to increase water accessibility, she added.
“It is easier and cheaper for partnerships to develop, compared with the costly and cumbersome takeover processes used by the private sector,” she said. “It is quite common in Europe for towns and cities to merge their water operations through inter-municipal associations. There is no reason why rich cities should not link with cities in developing countries to provide advice and expertise where needed.”
Public-public partnerships have often been seen as threatening by financial markets, but their numbers are growing and they have been found to work well in more than 130 cities in 70 countries, including Yokohama.
“The goal must be to improve cities’ water supplies. The World Bank can still fund major projects like Lagos, but it must drop its ideological commitment to privatization. Investment in water supplies is desperately needed and governments must now seek new ways to pay for the improvements needed,” Kishimoto said.
Orogobeni, still without water in Ajegunle, would probably agree.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95
RSS