Sign up to E-News
138 groups urge rich countries to pull the plug on World Bank’s push for water privatisation
15 May 2007
Press Release from the World Development Movement on behalf of Corporate Europe Observatory, FIVAS, Friends of the Earth International, Transnational Institute
Over 130 groups from 48 countries will today [15 May] call on donor governments and agencies to abandon support for the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), a highly controversial element of the World Bank’s water privatisation agenda.
The call comes a week ahead of a crucial meeting of the 13 donors to PPIAF. In an open letter, campaigners argue that aid spent on PPIAF’s water projects could and should be better spent. Earlier this year, the Norwegian government stated that it will not support PPIAF in the future as it no longer believes it is increasing access to water for the poor.
In the letter to PPIAF’s remaining donors, signed by civil society groups and trade unions from around the world, including poor countries where PPIAF has funded water privatisation processes, campaigners say: “The evidence shows that the private sector has shown a great reluctance to commit finance to connecting the poorest people to clean, affordable water…. Our conclusion is that aid could be better spent and we ask donors to withdraw this funding accordingly.”
Afsar Jafri from Mumbai Paani, a citizens’ coalition against water privatisation in India, says, “PPIAF does not believe in democratic governance or public utilities and basically acts as an agent of corporations on behalf of the World Bank. This has been demonstrated in Mumbai where consultants from Castalia - funded by PPIAF and the World Bank to conduct a study on water distribution improvements – have recommended handing over water services to private contractors in their final report.”
Elías Pena of Friends of the Earth in Paraguay says, "In Paraguay, despite public protest and a parliamentary vote against it, water privatisation is still pushed by the PPIAF, the International Monetary Fund and powerful private companies. But opposition remains strong. A new law on water developed by civil society groups and members of Parliament declaring water a property of the state and access to water a fundamental human right, is awaiting its final vote in the Paraguayan chamber of deputies right now.”
Denied permission to observe PPIAF’s annual meeting, campaigners are organising a forum in The Hague on 22 May to discuss PPIAF, its role within the World Bank and progressive alternatives in the area of water.
On PPIAF’s agenda next week is a proposal to extend its remit further and give the controversial agency a stronger role in World Bank water policies. Activists believe that donors should reject this extension and instead create a wholly new fund to support water utilities in the global south based on ‘public-public partnerships’.
They argue that PPIAF undermines the right of poor countries to decide how to run their public services. PPIAF has funded projects in many poor countries where international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have attached water privatisation conditions to loans, debt relief or aid.
Campaigners are particularly critical of PPIAF’s funding for ‘consensus-building’ projects which try to persuade stakeholders in developing countries to accept water privatisation.
On Wednesday 23 May there will be a photo opportunity with activists, banners and a samba band at 10am at the Carlton Beach Hotel, Gevers Deynootweg, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, outside PPIAF’s official annual meeting. ENDS
For more information contact:
Olivier Hoedeman 0031 6 45460007 mobile
Corporate Europe Observatory - tel/fax: +31-20-6127023
Kate Blagojevic
Press officer, World Development Movement
0207 820 4900/4913, 07711 875 345, Email:
Information to editors.
[1] The Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) is housed within the World Bank and it funds “technical assistance on strategies and measures [governments] can use to tap the full potential of public-private partnerships in infrastructure”. It also disseminates information about “best practice” in public-private partnerships. PPIAF works in a range of sectors including transport, telecommunications and water.
[2] In a report published last year, campaigners found that since 1999, PPIAF has funded one or more processes aimed at developing private sector participation and / or privatisation in water and sanitation services in a total of 37 countries. In at least 16 countries, PPIAF has sought to ‘build consensus’ for water privatisation projects. ‘Building consensus’ refers to activities that promote the benefits of privatisation or particular privatisation options and/or attempt to persuade sceptical members of governments, parliaments, business, trade unions, civil society and citizens that privatisation is in their interests. In at least 18 of the countries in which PPIAF has worked on water privatisation, donors have made their support conditional on privatisation. More information can be found at: http://www.wdm.org.uk/resources/briefings/water/ppiafmediabriefing15052007.pdf
[3] PPIAF’s current donors are: Asian Development Bank, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, World Bank. The UK is the largest donor by far contributing over 50 per cent of PPIAF’s funds, an amount which totals £53 million from 1999-2008.
[4] In February 2007, the Norwegian government announced that it would no longer give political or financial support to PPIAF. More information can be found at:
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/norwayabandonswaterprivatisation26022007.htm
[5] The international civil society forum “Stop water privatisation - Alternatives to the PPIAF”
will be held on Tuesday 22 May from 10.30am at Nieuwspoort Perscentrum, room Wandelganger I Lange Poten 10, The Hague, the Netherlands. Speaking will be campaigners from India, Malawi and Paraguay where PPIAF has funded water privatisation consultancy studies. This event will be preceded by a press conference at 09.30am at the same venue which will be an opportunity to discuss these issues. An agenda for this event can be found at
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/events/ppiaf27052007.htm
[6] There follows the text of the letter to the donors. It includes a link to the authoritative WDM/ FIVAS report Down the Drain and a full list of the participating organisations.
Open letter to donors contributing to the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility: Asian Development Bank, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, World Bank
cc: European Investment Bank
15 May 2007
Dear PPIAF donor,
We are part of a coalition of civil society organisations which has been monitoring the work of the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility; this follows the publication of a report in November called Down the Drain which assessed the work of PPIAF (in the area of water) since its creation in 1999. In case you have not seen it, the report can be accessed here: http://www.wdm.org.uk/campaigns/water/ppiaf.htm
The report made many criticisms of PPIAF, and since it was published, the government of Norway has announced that it will not support PPIAF in the future. In particular, the Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs has said that it no longer views PPIAF as a means to solving the problem of access to water for the poor.[i] A further reason given for the withdrawal was PPIAF’s bias towards private sector ‘solutions’.[ii]
We are aware that the Program Council of PPIAF will meet in The Hague on 23-24 May and that you will be asked to re-confirm your political and financial support for PPIAF at this meeting. We ask that you review your support for PPIAF’s water work in the light of its obvious flaws.
PPIAF’s mission is to “help developing countries …tap the full potential of public-private partnerships in infrastructure”.[iii] In particular, PPIAF has told us that because of “tight fiscal constraints and stagnant ODA” developing countries have to look to the private sector to bring investment if they are to meet the MDGs.[iv] We deeply regret this decline in overseas aid, especially as it relates to water and sanitation. Although some donors are now working to reverse this decline, we criticise the extent to which, on a collective basis, donors are seeking to escape this reality by trying to leverage private money into the water sector. Afterall, the evidence shows that the private sector has shown a great reluctance to commit finance to connecting the poorest people to clean, affordable water.
In Down the Drain the authors found 18 developing countries where PPIAF was operating but where international financial institutions or donors previously or subsequently imposed one or more conditions relating to water services and privatisation. As the report makes clear, the relationship between PPIAF and conditionality is complex; we consider it to be disingenuous to ignore these conditions and argue that PPIAF is fully demand-driven.
We consider PPIAF’s ‘consensus building’ work to be amongst the most unpalatable of all its activities as it works to convince stakeholders about the ‘benefits’ of public-private partnership reforms. Genuine, open-minded, independent consultation on all possible options for water utility reform, which includes the wide range of public management options, is clearly appropriate. But, PPIAF’s priority is “to work through a broad range of public-private partnerships, choosing the arrangements that best fits the infrastructure sector and the political and institutional context”.[v]
We also have strong concerns about the way in which PPIAF operates. We note the non-existent developing country membership of the Program Council which governs PPIAF; as PPIAF says it is “owned and directed by its participating donors”.[vi] The Down the Drain report also criticises PPIAF for a lack of transparency regarding its activities.
In the light of these criticisms, there are very serious questions to be asked about whether donor funding for PPIAF’s water projects can be considered to be the most effective and appropriate expenditure of this aid. Our conclusion is that this aid could be better spent and we ask donors to withdraw this funding accordingly.
We are aware that at the May Program Council meeting there will be discussion about “a new window within PPIAF to support sub-national entities and select public enterprises as they access market-based private financing to invest in improved service delivery”.[vii] PPIAF has said that we should be “happy” about this as this addresses another important criticism of PPIAF in Down the Drain, namely the lack of PPIAF support for public-led reforms such as those possible through public-public partnerships.
No information on these proposals is available on PPIAF’s website; however, from the little that we do know, we feel strongly that this proposal is very far removed from the agenda that was put forward for donors in Down the Drain in the area of public sector reform and public-public partnerships. That report said:
“It is clear that a new facility is required to promote public-public partnerships; one which places commitment to the public sector at the heart of its ethos. It would not be desirable to add public-public partnerships into the remit of PPIAF, an organisation which is set up to promote private sector participation. A wholly new organisation is required to address the criticisms of the way in which PPIAF operates and which employs staff with experience of, and commitment to, public provision of water and sanitation services.”
We urge donors to oppose the extension of PPIAF’s remit and instead to collaborate together to create a wholly new mechanism to support public-public partnerships in the water sector. In recent months, several PPIAF donors (UK, Japan, Asian Development Bank, as well as Norway) have indicated support for the UN’s proposal for water operator partnerships; we believe that this agenda should be followed vigorously with strong political and financial support as part of an alternative strategy to funding PPIAF.
A number of us have approached PPIAF for permission to observe the Program Council meeting in The Hague; regrettably our request was rejected.
We look forward to your response to this letter and an indication of how you will scrutinise and review your support for PPIAF.
Yours faithfully,
Coalition of the Flemish North South movement - Belgium
ABVAKABO FNV – Netherlands
Acción Ecológica - Ecuador
Afectados por el Sistema de Represas de la Región Lagunera México
African Water Network
Afrika–Europa Netwerk - Netherlands
AID/WATCH - Australia
Alliance of Government Workers in the Water Sector – the Philippines
Alliance Sud - Switzerland
A SEED Europe
Asienhaus - Germany
Association Camerounaise des juristes de l'environnement - Cameroon
Attac – Finland
Attac Flanders - Belgium
BanglaPraxis - Bangladesh
Bread for the World – Germany
Bretton Woods Project - UK
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. - Germany
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale - Italy
Campaña el Agua un bien Público y un Derecho Fundamental - Colombia
Canadian Union of Public Employees - Canada
CEE Bankwatch Network Europe
Centre for Civil Society Economic Justice Project - South Africa
Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace – India
Centro de Ecologia y Desarrollo - México
Centro de Pesquisa e Assessoria - Brazil
Coalicion de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua - México
Collaborative for Advancement of Studies in Urbanism through Mixed Media - India
Collective Initiative for Research and Action - Nepal
Comisión Nacional en Defensa del Agua y la Vida - Uruguay
CONREHABIT- México
Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua - Bolivia
Corner House - UK
Corporate Accountability International - USA
Corporate Europe Observatory – Netherlands
Council of Canadians + Blue Planet Project - Canada
Ecologistas en Acción - Spain
ECOVIDA - Peru
Educación para la Paz – México
Enginyeria Sense Fronteres - Spain
Environment and Social Development Organization - Bangladesh
European Federation of Public Service Unions
Federación de Funcionarios de OSE – Uruguay
Federación de Trabajadores Fabriles de Cochabamba - Bolivia
Fivas – Norway
Focus on the Global South
Food & Water Watch – USA
Forest Peoples Programme - UK
Forschungs und Dokumentationszentrum Chile-Lateinamerika - Germany
Foundation for Gaia - UK
France Libertés Fondation Danielle Mitterrand - France
Freedom from Debt Coalition - the Philippines
Frente Cearense por uma Nova Cultura de Água - Brazil
Frente Nacional de Saneamento Ambiental - Brazil
Friends of the Earth - Australia
Friends of the Earth - Bolivia
Friends of the Earth / Center for Environment and Development - Cameroon
Friends of the Earth - Canada
Friends of the Earth / CENSAT – Colombia
Friends of the Earth / COECOCeiba - Costa Rica
Friends of the Earth / Limassol - Cyprus
Friends of the Earth - Europe
Friends of the Earth - Finland
Friends of the Earth - France
Friends of the Earth - Guatemala
Friends of the Earth / WALHI - Indonesia
Friends of the Earth / Federation for Environmental Movements - Korea
Friends of the Earth - New Zealand
Friends of the Earth / Environmental Rights Action - Nigeria
Friends of the Earth / CELCOR – Papua New Guinea
Friends of the Earth / Sobrevivencia - Paraguay
Friends of the Earth / Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center – the Philippines
Friends of the Earth / CEPA - Slovakia
Friends of the Earth / Groundwork - South Africa
Friends of the Earth / Pro Natura - Switzerland
Friends of the Earth / Sobrevivencia – Uruguay
Friends of the Earth International
Fundación Abril Escuela del Pueblo Primero de Mayo – Bolivia
Fundación M´Biguá, Ciudadanía y Justicia Ambiental - Argentina
Gamana - India
Globalisation Monitor – China
Globalization Challenge Initiative - USA
Green Alternative - Georgia
Green Policy Institute – Bulgaria
Habitat International Coalition
Indian Social Action Forum – India
Indonesian Indigenous People Alliance - Indonesia
INFID - Belgium
Institute for Community Organisation Research – India
Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario - México
Irrigation Training and Economic Empowerment Organization – Tanzania
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society - Japan
Jubilee South Asia / Pacific Movement on Debt and Development
Koordination Suedliches Afrika e.V. - Germany
Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre - Nigeria
Latin America Solidarity Centre - Ireland
Malawi Economic Justice network – Malawi
Mani Tese - Italy
Manthan Adhyayan Kendra - India
Millennium Solidarity - Switzerland
MISEREOR e.V.- Germany
Mumbai Paani – India
National Civil Society Network for Water and Sanitation - Nigeria
National Coalition Against Privatisation - Ghana
National Rural Women Coalition - the Philippines
NGO Forum on Asian Development Bank
Norwegian Campaign for Debt Cancellation - Norway
Oakland Institute - USA
Otros Mundos - México
Our Water - Germany
Oxfam - Canada
People's Coalition for the Right to Water - Indonesia
People's Union for Civil Liberties (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) - India
Planeta Agua - Colombia
Public Services International
Rede Brasil sobre Instituições Financeiras Multilaterais - Brazil
Rede Brasileira pela Integração dos Povos - Brazil
Right to Food Movement - Bangladesh
Sindicato de la Empresa de Agua Potable y Saneamiento - Uruguay
Solidarity Workshop - Bangladesh
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance - South Africa
Spire, Utviklingsfondet - Norway
Sri Lanka Environmental Journalists Forum – Sri Lanka
Su Politik Grubu – Turkey
Sustainable Obtainable Solutions - USA
Transnational Institute
Umeedenao Citizen Community Board - Pakistan
UNISON - UK
Urban Research Centre Bangalore – India
Urgewald e.V. - Germany
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra – India
War on Want - UK
Water for the People Network Asia
Water Movement - Norway
World Development Movement - UK
World Economy, Ecology & Development - Germany
World Information Service on Energy - Netherlands
XminusY Solidarity Fund - Netherlands
[i] FIVAS. 2007. Norway withdraws support from controversial World Bank fund. 22 February 2007.
[ii] Bistands Akuelt. 2007. Issue nr. 2. The MFA lessened to the organisation FIVAS instead of their own staff advice.
[iii] PPIAF, 2007. 2006 Annual Report. January 2007.
[iv] Letter to the World Development Movement from Jyoti Shukla, Program Manager, PPIAF. 20 March 2007.
[v] PPIAF, 2007. 2006 Annual Report. January 2007.
[vi] PPIAF, 2007. 2006 Annual Report. January 2007.
[vii] Letter to the World Development Movement from Jyoti Shukla, Program Manager, PPIAF. 20 March 2007.
Print this page
