The case you will deal with is real and pertains to the “Water War” in Cochabamba, Bolivia. It reflects one of the highest-profile failures of a public-private partnership in recent history and the equally disappointing outcomes that followed. You will be organized into groups representing the major decision-makers in the case. You should do the following:
You will need to address the changing dynamics of a green economy as they apply to this case. Your group’s recommendations will need to show how sustainability and environmental economics and finance would have impacted those outcomes.
Answer
Recommendation: What Should Be Done Next In Cochabamba
The case of Cochabamba might denote a victory in minds of the local individuals, however, from the viewpoint of the outsider, it appears like a slight hollow victory, and 1 which was accomplished at a huge cost (Shiva, 2016). The areas that require recommendation and consideration will be highlighted in this paper on question-based format. The question one must raise is what was really accomplished via the protest, apart from ideological victory. Who were the beneficiaries as a consequent of SEMAPA re-nationalization, and who has agonized? Will the novel board be capable to undertake the better management of the municipal water, grow the system as well as decrease the widespread inequalities? Were, further protest essential considering rates on water had be reverted by February? Was the seventeen-year old boy’s death justifiable price to pay for winning water wars?
Provided that a great portion of conflict seems to have emerged from inadequate consultation, a critical question is how governments might, corporations together with international financial institutions alter their policies to effectively accommodate the wishes of each stakeholder? Howe might the Cochabamba story be evaded in the coming years? Furthermore, what degree of responsibility do such parties bear for what took place in Cochabamba? Is AdT entitled to compensation from community which could not afford to purchase their water? Should government of Bolivia pay reparations for burdening municipality with Misicuni project? Do the Cochabamba citizens, having propelled out multinationals, still deserve support? Finally, should the IMF and World Bank be held accountable for fallout resulting from their prescribed policies?
The Cochabamba case, in a more general manner, further raises fundamental queries of privatization of necessary (basic) services. Water has been declared by La Coordinadora’s statement (Cochabamba Declaration) as a fundamental human right and the public trust has to be guarded by each level of government following dispute with AdT. Thus, it water must never be commodified, privatized or even traded for commercial purposes. Water must stay a common good, and needs to be managed by the community. Water has also been enshrined by UN committee on Economic, Culture and Social Rights as a basic human right. The critical query is who shall pay for water? Moreover, if there is lack of adequate water to go around, how will water be distributed? And where the community management ever collapses, who will take over the responsibility?
Privatization is absolutely never the sole alternative, and unquestionably never the best option in each case. However, where water is never privatized, how can SEMAPAs of the world enhance their services? Most significantly, should water consumers’ be compelled to pay full cost of water services? Do subsidies adopted merely dissuade conservation, or are they essential to accomplish the equitable system? Conversely, where delivery of water is privatized, how can the management of interests of community alongside corporation be done? Is efficiency the major objective or is equitability more significant in delivering something as fundamental to life as water? How can corporation remain accountable to citizens, and how can community ever trust corporations? Where private water firms do offer a valuable service, what degree of profit should companies be entitled to as their reward?
Naturally getting answers to the above questions forms the recommendations though they are no easy responses. Cochabamba is a typical case of supreme significance of consultation as well as engagement of each stakeholder, however, it leaves service’ privatization as an open question (Assies, 2003). Many have argued that only time shall tell whether the Cochabamba’s citizens will be able to find an option solution to their corresponding problems which satisfies the interest for everyone.
The formation of Water Committees should be given much attention since it will help take up the void left by lack of effective political decision that can guarantee water supply. The Committee will gather important knowledge on management of water resources, climatology as well as emergency response activities. Such knowledge will be effective when then transmitted to community to create a sound awareness as well as promoting water culture. This will continue to permit a novel route for recovery of process to water in both sustainable and participatory means. Such projects as “We Are Water Foundation” in Bolivia needs to be given attention and space to do their work to combat the water crisis and lack of sanitation in Bolivia.
The communitarian water associations can leverage progressive forms of organization to enhance water service delivery and hence the removal of hindrances that lie outdoor their control including lack of government intervention and regulation make private water vendors that exploits the city’s unequal distribution of water resource for profit are required. Also, small-scale water businesses can exploit failures of formal public or state as well as informal communitarians system when allowed to position themselves as the essential operation, in a manner that restraints the ability of state to regulate their activities.
Attention and space should as well be given to the NGOs alongside international cooperation agencies. They have been instrumental in the provision of technical and financial assistance for the domestic water organization in Cochabamba and hence play a critical role in waterscape in the City (Olivera & Lewis, 2004). These NGOs and Agencies will help in the development of technical solutions as well as capacity building and focus on activism and community.
In conclusion, alternatives systems to privatization should be given preferences categorized as market-based or communitarian. The government must never allow the continual of waterscape in the City to be controlled and manipulated by elite who are only concerned with furthering their individual interests (supply and profits), at the poor and water-poor expenses as well as to the detriment of the hydrological resources of the City based on quality and supply to ease the tension between residents, public utility SEMAPA as well as state (Crabtree, 2005). This should be done by having the state engaging in public-oriented regulation of the private extraction as well as sale of water towards the protection of marginalized population from contaminated water supplies, exploitative prices as well as precarious deliver of service.
References
Assies, W. (2003). David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: water rights, neoliberalism, and the revival of social protest in Bolivia. Latin American Perspectives, 30(3), 14-36.
Crabtree, J. (2005). Patterns of Protest: politics and social movements in Bolivia (Vol. 4). Latin America Bureau.
Olivera, O., & Lewis, T. (2004). Cochabamba!: water war in Bolivia. South End Press.
Shiva, V. (2016). Water wars: Privatization, pollution, and profit. North Atlantic Books.
