Sign up to E-News
Biwater bid to suppress comment criticised
11 December 2006
Manoeuvres by a British water company to suppress public discussion of their legal dispute with a developing country government over a collapsed water privatisation scheme have been criticised by global justice campaigners.
The controversy arose over the stand taken by Biwater Plc after a dispute with the Tanzanian government went to the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a body which arbitrates in investment disputes between governments and countries.
WDM’s Head of Policy, Peter Hardstaff said: "Last year, (a Biwater official) told me that they have 'nothing to hide' and would welcome an open process if the Tanzanian government were to agree. This year, the company's lawyers are going out of their way to ensure as much as possible is kept secret. They have batted away requests from Tanzania for open hearings and now they have called for, and been largely granted, a clamp down on the information that can be publicly released in this case."
"Companies are often the first to complain about a lack of transparency and accountability in developing countries, yet the first to demand secrecy when their own operations are under scrutiny. It is a disgrace that Biwater are resorting to these tactics, setting back the cause of transparency and accountability not only in this case, but in the wider arena of investor-state arbitration."
In a letter to WDM, Biwater boss Larry Magor said: “First and foremost this is a dispute between the two parties to be resolved by impartial adjudication and I believe that, as such, it is best conducted in private.” [Letter 26 September 2006]
WDM’s reply to Biwater says: “We continue to be shocked by both Biwater’s opposition to the transparency measures suggested by the Government of Tanzania and by your counsel’s further attempts to keep the tribunal’s proceedings confidential. Your counsel’s citation of WDM’s campaigning work as a reason to keep this case secret fails to recognise that this is a matter of genuine public interest, involving public money and the provision of public services.”
“It seems extremely odd to us that Biwater argues that allowing tribunal proceedings to be transparent will threaten the quality of debate on these issues, and as such, has actively sought to prevent such disclosure. Surely, allowing more information to be placed within the public domain can only improve the discourse? ”
Notes to editors
[1] Biwater Gauff Tanzania (BGT) submitted its arbitration claim against the Tanzanian government to ICSID in 2005. It later complained to ICSID that the release of documents had stoked media and NGO scrutiny and criticism and asked for a ruling that the parties be barred from disclosing correspondence exchanged between the parties and that the parties refrain from disclosing to third parties copies of pleadings.
[2] The Tanzanian government opposed these moves by BGT and argued for greater transparency in the conduct of this case.
[3] The World Development Movement was founded in 1970. It campaigns to tackle the root causes of poverty. WDM believes that charity is not enough and aims to change the policies that keep the developing world poor. It is a democratic and politically independent organisation with 16,500 supporters and a strong role for its 70 local groups across the UK.
[4] WDM’s Dirty Aid, Dirty Water campaign has been strongly critical of the pressure exerted on developing countries to privatise water and sanitation services. In the case of Tanzania, privatisation of water in Dar es Salaam, was a condition of debt relief. Meanwhile, UK aid money was used to fund consultants to promote privatisation (including water) in Tanzania, adding up to £9.5million between 1998 and 2004. http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/water/
Print this page
