Sir, – Una Mullally's argument in favour of water charges does not present a compelling case for imposing water charges nor for the privatisation of services ("It may be hard to swallow but we should pay for water", Opinion & Analysis, May 12th).
It is true that we are facing a global water crisis; primarily as a result of climate change. However, comparing Ireland’s situation to that of California, a desert region, does not enable our wider understanding of the issues. Ireland and California’s water challenges may both be borne out of mismanagement of public services but both regions face incomparable challenges in terms of climate and population.
Ms Mullally fails to address the fact that water is considered a fundamental human right, protected by international law. States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right of access to safe drinking water. While this does not exclude imposing water charges nor privatising services, the State must ensure that water is accessible and affordable to all, particularly the least well-off in society.
In many instances of water privatisation, particularly in the developing world, neither access to nor the quality of water has improved. In fact the opposite often occurs. In 1999 the public water company in Cochabamba, Bolivia, was privatised. The price of water increased by nearly 50 per cent over a number of weeks but there was no corresponding improvement in either access to or the quality of the local water supply. The multinational company Bechtel was focused solely on making a profit rather than maintaining infrastructure or improving the supply and quality of water. This led to a series of protests in 2000 during which the local citizens reclaimed the public water company.
Finally, Ms Mullally’s use of the 2030 Water Resources Group as an example of progress towards sustainable water governance is baffling. Each of the companies participating in this group, with the exception perhaps of the World Bank, represent some of the principle suppliers of bottled water worldwide, and have deeply vested interests in promoting further the privatisation of water.
Yes, a debate on global water governance is urgently needed. However, this debate should be based on human rights principles rather than economic imperatives. – Yours, etc,
AISLING WALSH,
Willowbank,
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Further to John McManus’s claims about the implications for the public finances arising from the €240 average domestic water charge (Business Opinion, May 12th), in order to ensure Irish Water’s borrowings are excluded from the general government balance (ie State debt), certain Eurostat rules must be met. The decisions taken by the Government last week have been framed by our understanding of the Eurostat requirements and I am satisfied that these requirements will be met. The budgetary framework is based on Irish Water being classified as a market corporation from inception.
The introduction of domestic water charges is another difficult measure for the public, but is a vital part of reforming the water sector. It will ensure sustainable funding of water services and bring essential improvements to our public water and waste water systems. Sustainable funding will secure water supply in the coming years and decades. This will become increasingly important as demand increases through a growing population and a recovering economy, and new challenges emerge from a changing climate. – Yours, etc,
PHIL HOGAN, TD
Minister for the
Environment,
Community
and Local Government,
Custom House, Dublin 1.