B R O A D O V E R V I E W : P R I V A T E S E C T O R P A R T I C I P A T I O N I N W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T

Commons View: Commodity View Basic Idea: Water is a good of the commons or public goodIt is the governments responsibility to provide for its citizensViewpoints within Commons View: United Nations define water as a human right Indigenous world views can see water as life, or a relative to humans life (Nikolakis & Grafton, 2013 ) Management Systems: Public utility principles of subsidized pricing (water is a basic human need)social equity (consumers should pay according to their ability/affordability) (Bakker 2003)

Basic Idea: Water is a commodity that can be bought and soldThe responsibility for obtaining or using the commodity is placed on individualManagement Systems: Private sector participation “processes that increase participation of formal private enterprises in water and sanitation provision (Budds & MacGranahan, 2003)Factors of Privatization: commercialization (applying market principles) to water supplyprinciples of full-cost pricing (prices should reflect the full cost of the service)

19th Century Private companies built and ran the first centralized water systems in industrial age (Europe and North America)supplied to wealthier neighbourhoods with poor reliant on public water from wells and communal taps that were commonly contaminated with diseaseMid-late 19th centuryWhen water borne diseases broke out shift to wider spread government operated water infrastructureWater seen as "public good" 20th CenturyGovernment + community cooperatives/community run systems; Water services considered a pillar to society health and growth and remained a public service in developed world for majority of the century.Key: 1992 Dublin Principles = Water as an “economic good”1970s and 80sGlobal rise of neoliberal outlook with market-based approachesIn developing world, largely influenced by World Bank which, largest lender for infrastructure development that promoted privatization as a method to increase efficiency (Davis, 2005 )1990s Height in PSP infrastructure building (peak 1997) (Prasad, 2007)

What is water? A common good or commodity?

Where did it originate? A brief history

Where does it still exist today? Forms of Privatization

Text placlder

B I B L I O G R A P H Y :

Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid assets. Alternatives Journal, 29(2), 17-21.

Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter‐globalization, anti‐privatizatio and the human

right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430-455.

Bakker, K. J. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world's urban water crisis. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell

University Press.

Bakker, K. (2011). Commons or Commodity? The Debate over Private Sector Involvement in Water Supply. In

Bakker, K. (Ed.), Eau Canada: The future of Canada's water (pp.185-204). UBC Press.

Budds, J. & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the point experiences from

Africa, Asia and Latin America. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2).

Prasad, N. (2007). Privatization of water: A historical perspective. Law, 3(2), 217-233.

Davis, J. (2005). Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Annual Review of Environment

and Resources 30: 145–163.

Nikolakis, W. D., Grafton, R. Q., & To, H. (2013). Indigenous values and water markets: Survey insights from

northern australia. Journal of Hydrology, 500, 12-20.

Ouyahia, M. A. (2006). Public-private partnerships for funding municipal drinking water infrastructure: what are the

challenges. Policy Research Initiative Discussion Paper.

Prasad, N. (2006). Privatisation results: Private sector participation in water services after 15 years. Development

Policy Review, 24(6), 669-692.

Prasad, N. (2007). Privatisation of water: A historical perspective. Law, Environment and Development Journal,

3(2), 217-233.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2006). Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty, and the global water

crisis. Human development report. Retrieved from

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/HDR/2006%20Global%20HDR/H DR-2006-

Beyond%20scarcity-Power-poverty-and-the-global-water-crisis.pdf

ECONOMICS OF WATER PRIVATIZATION

From the vantage of economics, water is understood to have very low demand elasticity with respect to prices, huge fixed capital costs with slow recover over-time and persisting vertical integration (Cavaliere et al., 2017a; Cavaliere et al., 2017b). In other words, changes in the price of water have marginal effects on the quantity demanded. This makes it less profitable to manage than other civic utilities which are less cost-intensive. Therefore water management tends to be monopolized across different scales, by public or private institutions, to minimize revenue risk (Cesar, 2019;Cavaliere et al., 2017a; Hall et al.,2013;Davis, 2005; Budds & McGranahan, 2003).

The public-private binary commonly positioned in these debates obscure the actual nature of private sector participation in the processing and distribution of water (Davis, 2005; Budds & McGranahan, 2003). In reality, only 5% of the world’s population is serviced by the private sector, though the global private industry is dominated by four european firms, where the two largest firms control 70% of the private market (Davis, 2005; Budds & McGranahan, 2003). Common arguments against privatization are based on the misconception that sanctioned for-profit private monopolies, inflate production costs and overcharge for service delivery. These beliefs are based on the common-view in empirical literature which document increases in monthly service fees following privatization (Davis, 2005:166). Though, these increases appear dramatic when viewed in ‘percentage terms’, they fail to acknowledge that public water service prices in many countries, are priced below the cost of service delivery (Davis, 2005:166). The inherent deficit spurred by such practices, is likewise why others believe privatization is more efficient than public utilities (Budds & McGranahan, 2003). In reality both private and public sector efficiency varies and produce mixed results on a case-by-case basis (Wang, et al., 2018; Hall et al.,2013;Bakker, 2003).

in practice, water and sanitation operations are rarely undertaken without some degree of private-sector involvement (Cavaliere et al., 2017b;Davis, 2005). In the majority of cases, private engagements has been limited in terms of decision making responsibilities, facility management, investment, and asset ownership, where the state maintains majority equity over regional water stocks (Davis,2005). In both developing and developed countries, private sector participation varies across jurisdictions (Cesar, 2019; Davis,2005). Their co-management differs based on the extent to which public localities can garner and maintain capital investments for infrastructure and on the differentiated burden of commercial risk by either the public or firms (Cavaliere et al., 2017b;Davis,2005:148). Individual task outsourcing, such as billing and collections, well drilling, water quality testing, through fee-for-service contracts does not transfer investment responsability or revenue risk upon the private sector (Davis, 2005). More comprehensive outsourcing measures, namely concessions or managerial contracts, involve greater transfers of system operations and decision making authority to private entities, thought these tend to be temporary over a predetermined period. In both instances, asset ownership of water and sanitation infrastructure, as well as responsibility for capital investment and commercial risk, remains in the hands of the public sector (Davis, 2005). In both developing and industrialized national contexts, these “light” forms of privatization are utilized as ‘cost-cutting’ measures by governments (Davis,2005:148).

Neoclassical conception of Water

Realities of Water Privatization

Misconceptions of The Public/Private Binary

B I B L I O G R A P H Y :

Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21.

Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003). “Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the

Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87-114.

Cavaliere, A., Maggi, M., & Stroffolini, F. (2017a). Water losses and optimal network

investments: Price regulation effects with municipalization and privatization. Water Resources

and Economics, 18, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.wre.2017.04.001

Cavaliere, A. Maggi, M. Stroffolini, F. (2017b) Investment-driven mixed firms: partial

privatization by local governments.International Tax and Public Finance; New York Vol. 24,

Iss. 3, \459-483.DOI:10.1007/s10797-016-9426-z

Cesar, S. (2019). privatization of water: Evaluating its performance in the developing

world.Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 90(1), 5-23. doi:10.1111/apce.12221

Davis, J. (2005). Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Annual

Review of Environment and Resources 30: 145–163.

Donald B, Glasmeier A, Gray M and Lobao L (2014) Austerity in the city: economic crisis and

urban service decline? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 7(1): 3–15

Fasenfest D (2017) A neoliberal response to an urban crisis: emergency management in Flint,

MI. Critical Sociology advance online

Hall, D, Lobina, E, Terhorst, P, 2013, Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century:

Water in France and energy in Germany, International Review of Applied Economics 27, 2,

193–214

Hudson R (2016) Rising powers and the drivers of uneven global development. Area

Development and Policy 1(3): 279-294

Wang, H., Mu, R. and Liu, S. (2018) The effects of privatisation on the equity of public

services: evidence from China, Policy & Politics, vol 46, no 3, 427–43,DOI:

10.1332/030557317X14938075758967

Warner, M. E., & Clifton, J. (2014). Marketisation, public services and the city: The potential

for polanyian counter movements. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7(1),

45-61. doi:10.1093/cjres/rst028

In sum, the new agricultural method of irrigation in Northern China increasingly contribute to the rural economic development. Local

farmers are benefit from the water privatization which achieves an efficient way of water use. In fact, the consequences of water

privatization in China is that significant state ownership could still be retained after the privatization. It is thus interesting to know if the

benefits of privatization varied with the extent of privatization. The impacts of privatization on social welfare responsibility and economic

growth are evidently significant only for privatization with state ownership reduced to minority position, and that the effects on firm

profitability were more pronounced when state ownership was reduced to minority position as opposed to majority position. So we may say

the different forms of private sector involvement successfully overcome the major problems but there are many risks and uncertainty

surrounding the idea water privatization in China. We need to continue study on this topic for better usage of water and develop a

sustainable green-economy growth.

Water Privatization in Northern China:

Irrigation is crucial to China’s agricultural productivity.

Though less than 40 percent of the cultivated land is

irrigated, those lands yield two-thirds of the nation’s

produce. The Chinese government and farmers have thus

invested heavily in irrigation. The economic reforms that

China began in the 1980s revealed several problems with

its irrigation systems: low system capacity, slow and spotty

water delivery, massive water waste, and low productivity

relative to the water used. These problems stem as much

from poor operation and management as they do from any

lack of funds for maintaining and fixing the systems.

Under the old command economy, irrigation-system

management was dispersed among different levels of

government administration, rather than concentrated in

more efficient hydraulic units. Water was priced below

cost, or not charged at all. As a result, each new irrigation

system became another burden on government

administration, which lacked funds for the operation and

maintenance (O&M) of any of them. Moreover, the water

charges that the farmers actually did pay were calculated

by land area irrigated rather than by volume of water used

(volumetrically); farmers thus had no incentive to use

water efficiently. Therefore, the two new formations of

water privatization aim to help farmers with the problem of

agricultural irrigation, find a better solution water

management and develop a sustainable green-economy

(Graph #2).

Water management, as an example of water privatization in China, is always interconnected with the economic development locally

and nationally. Since the 1990s, China has started experiments with new modes of urban water service management and governance in

which the private sector is involved. It is premature to conclude whether the various forms of private sector involvement will successfully

overcome the major problems (capital shortage, inefficient operation, and service quality) in China’s water sector. But at the same time,

private sector involvement in water provisioning and waste water treatments seems to have become mainstream in transitional China.

Water management has a significant difference between urban and rural area (Graph #1). This case study will focus on evaluating how

does the new formation of China’s water privatization in Northern China influence the agricultural economy development.

Area focus

Economic Case Study: China's Water Privatization? Overview

Conclusion

Shen, D., Yu, X., & Guna, A. (2018). Information transfer and knowledge sharing by

water user associations in China. Handbook of Knowledge Management for

Sustainable Water Systems,35-59. doi:10.1002/9781119271659.ch2

Huang, Q., Rozelle, S., Wang, J., & Huang, J. (2009). Water management institutional

reform: A representative look at northern China. Agricultural Water Management,

96(2), 215-225. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.08.002

Wang, J., Huang, J., Huang, Q., & Rozelle, S. (2005). Privatization of tubewells in

North China: Determinants and impacts on irrigated area, productivity and the water

table. Hydrogeology Journal,14(3), 275-285. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0482-1

Wang, J., Huang, J., & Rozelle, S. (2005). Evolution of tubewell ownership and

production in the North China Plain*. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and

 Resource Economics,49(2), 177-195. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00284.x

Wang, J., Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Huang, Q., & Blanke, A. (2007). Agriculture and

groundwater development in northern China: Trends, institutional responses, and

policy options. Water Policy, 9(S1), 61-74. doi:10.2166/wp.2007.045

Zong-cheng, J. (2003). Water user association development in China : participatory

management practice under Bank-supported projects and beyond (English)Retrieved

from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/431861468259759333/ Water-user-

association-development-in-China-participatory-management-practice-under-Bank-

supported-projects-and-beyond

Bibliography:

Social Implications of Private Sector Participation in Water Management

Private companies tend to prioritize middle to higher income communities when initiating water management, provision, as well as sanitation projects. Budds and McGranahan (2003) describe this process as cherry-picking, whereby private companies secure profitable locations to implement projects. Budds and McGranahan’s research suggests that the majority of large-scheme projects are situated in Latin America and East Asia where private corporations are able to profitPrivatization initiatives in lower income communities incur some of the following financial risks for private companies: The presence of insufficient infrastructure which is unable to carry out projects

The inability of community members to pay for privatized waterInability to meet recovery costs

Where Does Privatization Occur?

Pro Privatization Arguments Anti-Privatization Arguments Privately managed companies are able to provide water for more people due to efficiency The failure of governments in water provision often provides a justification for private companies to take over managementPrivatization is not incompatible with human rights, as other commodities such as food and housing are also considered to be human rights

Privatization only causes a greater divide between those who already had access, and those lacking accessWater Privatization is incompatible United Nations Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights which states: “The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, affordable, physically accessible, safe and acceptable water for personal and domestic use (Budds and McGranahan, 2010 p. 94)

Consequences of Privatization As previously noted, privatization has the ability to further divide wealthy and low-income communities, however, other vulnerable populations can also be further marginalized. According to Rebecca Brown, women in developing countries suffer disproportionately due to water privatization. This is because women are often responsible for the allocation of water within their families and communities (Brown 2010). In addition, women are under-represented in water management policy-making which means that gendered issues are often overlooked. Privatizing water can therefore enforce gender inequality

Private Vs Publicly Managed waterWhile the majority of water in Canada is managed by governments who allocate water to citizens, not everyone in the country has equal access to waterThirty-eight Indigenous reserves in Ontario are under boiled water advisories because the available water is contaminated with viruses such as e-coli (Angus 2015)None of the reserves within James Bay have running waterThe provincial government claims to be unable to mitigate this situation because Indigenous issues are the responsibility of the federal government, which also has not provided a solutionThis example demonstrates how marginalized communities can still lack access to water in publicly managed systems

Bibliography:

Angus, C., & Scholars Portal Books: Canadian University Presses 2015. (2015).

Children of the broken treaty: Canada’s lost promise and one girl’s dream. Regina,

Saskatchewan: University of Regina Press.

Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid Assets. Alternatives Journal 29(2): 17-21

Bakker, K. J. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world’s urban

crisis. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press

Brown, R. (2010). Unequal burden: Water privatisation and women’s human rights in

Tanzania. Gender Development, 18(1), 59-68. doi:10.1080/13552071003600042

Budds, J. and McGranahan, G. (2003). “Are the Debates on Water Privatization

Missing the Point?” Environment and Urbanization 15(2): 87 - 144

Davis, J. (2005). Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation

Sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 145 – 163.

Canales, P. J. (2012). Women and water: Gender, privatization, and water rights in

Latin America.

Lankford, N. A., & Ebooks Corporation. (2013). Water Security: Principles,

perspectives and practices. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

doi:10.4324/9780203113202

Norman, E., Bakker, K., Cook, C., & desLibris – Documents. (2010). Water security:

A Primer. Vancouver: Program on Water Governance

Punjabi, B. (2015). Debate on Karen Bakker’s privatizing water. International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 39(5), 1037-1039. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12281

Social Impacts of Privatization: Metro ManilaIn 1997 Metro Manila privatized their water management, awarding two different companies 25-year concession contracts for two major zones of the metropolis (East and West). The concession contracts were awarded based on which companies offered the lowest price for water. They required the companies to expand water supply and sanitation coverage, but did not specify targets for supplying water to low income groups.

A success?

The concession contract only applies to a certain urban area, leaving the predominantly poor, peri-urban and rural populations unconnected and disadvantaged.Because 97% of network water comes from Angat dam north of Manila, most of the unconnected households are located in the southern urban periphery of Metro Manila.Splitting Metro Manila into two zones led to uneven prices – water is twice as expensive in the west zone. Furthermore, water prices are now higher than when the network was publicly managed.Unconnected households pay over 10 times the network cost for water supply options that are difficult to access, and which may be of poor water quality, leading to low consumption (often below healthy levels).Block tariffs are in place to subsidize poor households which are connected to the network. However, many low-income households are not connected to network and are unable to connect due to high connection fees and issues of land ownership.

Waterscape Fragmentation

Community Water Systems (Micro-networks)

IIt is true that in Manila’s case, service has drastically improved for many residents. However, statistics are misleading; despite its successes in expanding coverage, private water supply in Metro Manila is uneven, fragmented and selective. While private companies report 99% (east zone) and 92.5% (west zone) coverage, this often does not always mean equal service, and they have been shown to pull this data from where their networks are in place, not entire service areas. The government regulatory office estimated only 88% and 86% respectively.

Due to rapid urbanization, informal settlements have popped up in areas with ‘formal’ water supply, creating fragmented ‘archipelagos’ of supply, instead of ubiquitous networks. This indicates access to the network is often based on income, and not always location. Furthermore, the company’s use of community participation to supply these and other low-income settlements demonstrates how the private company’s management decisions are motivated by cost-recovery and meeting contract goals, not increasing access or meeting social needs.

In order to supply these low-income communities while ensuring cost recovery, the concessionaires have developed community water systems. Here, the company will provide bulk water meters outside the community and use a community-based organization (CBO) to handle operations and individual supply inside the community, creating a ‘micro-network’. This distances and depoliticizes the company’s involvement with the poor. By installing bulk meters, the company can treat the community as a single customer, outsourcing the physical and sociopolitical challenges of individual connections, payment enforcement and monitoring to the community operator. Moreover, because the CBO must increase the cost of the water to cover management costs, water prices in community water systems are atound 5 times the regular price, (although still 50% lower than the price paid by those not connected at all). While the company’s argue this empowers the community, these micro-network programs are designed solely by the company without consulting the communities needs, and often entrench local social hierarchies. Thus, metro Manila’s community water system demonstrates how informal and formal water provision overlap due to privatization. ‘Informal', community suppliers working in partnership with the concession company are sanctioned by the government regulators and count as ‘connected’, while ‘informal’ suppliers working outside the network are to be replaced. The same processes that lead to greater coverage and improved water services also reconfigure inequality and informality for the benefit of the concession company.

Bibliography:

Bakker, K. (2010). Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World’s Urban Water Crisis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Print. Budds, J., & McGranahan G. (2003). Are the Debates on Water Privatization Missing the Point? Environment and Urbanization, 15(2), 87-113. Cheng, D. (2015). Contestations at the Last Mile: The corporate–community delivery of water in Manila. Geoforum, 59, 240-247. Cheng, D. (2014). The Persistence of Informality: Small-Scale Water Providers in Manila’s Post-Privatization Era. Water Alternatives, 7(1), 54-71. Cheng, D. (2013). (In)visible Urban Water Networks: The Politics of Non-Payment in Manila’s Low-Income Communities. Environment & Urbanization, 25(1), 249-260. David, C. C. (2001). Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation: Realizing Social and Environmental Objectives in Manila. In N. Johnstone & L. Wood, Private Firms and Public Water: Realizing Social and Environmental Objectives in Developing Countries (117-159). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. Print. Davis, J. (2005). Private-Sector Participation in the Water and Sanitation Sector. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1) 145-183. Matous, P. (2013). Development in Practice: The making and unmaking of community-based water supplies in Manila. Development in Practice, 23(2), 217-231. Salazar, Loraine C. (2012). Lessons from a Mixed Outcome. In L.P. Onn, Water Issues in Southeast Asia: Present Trends and Future Directions (212-242). ISEAS—Yusof Ishak Institute. Torio, P. C. (2016). Water Privatization in Metro Manila: Assessing the State of Equitable Water Provision. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R W A T E R S U P P L Y A N D S A N I T A T I O N

Overview

The privatization of water supply and sanitation has been an issue in many countries, especially for developing ones. Water supply relies not only on nature, through the hydrological cycle, but is also dependant on institutions and practices. The accelerated rate of industrialization and urbanization has led to water scarcity due to increased pressure on water resources in terms of quality (heavy pollution) and quantity (raising demand for water). An approach based on political ecology- political economy of socio-environmental change (Bakker, 2003)- to water privatization contributes to add an analysis of specific resources to provide useful insights to the usual political economic analysis to make water a commodity.

Governments actions to integrate environmental issues into the privatization process:

Measures to facilitate environmental performance after privatization:

Provide environmental information and clarify requirements by obtaining the necessary information.Establish rules and mechanisms for addressing past environmental liabilities based on a cost benefit analysis.Include environmental agreements in sale contracts, especially when environmental issues are significant and past environmental damages need to be addressed.Improve institutional coordination with collaboration between the various environmental authorities.

Monitoring environmental performance and enforcing compliance by helping key stakeholders become involved to ensure accountability by the private firm.Resolving conflicts by establishing reliable conflict resolution mechanisms.Building partnerships as collaboration between private businesses, government, civil society and other stakeholders is key to ensure compliance, effective conflict resolution and addressing environmental issues.

Potential Environmental Improvement with:More efficient use of resources as most forms of privatization introduce more effective corporate governance and management. Increased access to capital and greater investment in cleaner technologies. Increased exposure to advanced environmental management techniques and access to markets for environmentally friendly goods and services.

Building the case for Latin America:

Many municipalities, especially small ones, are engaging in privatization to ensure their infrastructure complies with strict environmental regulations.

Public water companies have traditionally favored connecting the population to the water system. The majority of households not connected to the public sewerage system dispose their sewage by cesspools and septic tanks, which may contaminate potable water supply for a city (groundwater aquifers) and irrigation water for agricultural lands nearby. Privatization may result in environmental improvements if done efficiently. However, privatization does not guarantee the best outcome. A study in Buenos Aires, Argentina describes the environmental situation in the city as the most ignored area by Aguas Argentinas (private business in charge of providing water and sanitation). Uncollected sewage was being disposed of in septic tanks, cesspools or directly into rivers and streams contaminating surface water supplies and posing a major health risk.

The case in Sub-Saharan Africa:Unaccounted water has been used for performance in studies to have a better sense of the success of the privatization of water supply. This issue is key to reduce the amount of leakages to avoid water resources from becoming scarce. After privatization in many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have seen a reduction in unaccounted water and many have recognized that water quality has increased as well. However, in Zambia its citizens feel that the government has given concessions to the new companies. The public is subsidizing the profit-making business. Furthermore, they are not being held accountable for some environmental issues, such as discharging an excessive amount of sulfur dioxide in the air despite its health effects on people living nearby.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y :

Bakker, K. J. (2003). A political ecology of water privatization. Studies in Political Economy,

70(1), 35-58. doi:10.1080/07078552.2003.11827129

Bakker, K. (2003). Liquid assets. Alternatives Journal, 29(2), 17.

Bakker, K. J. (2010). Privatizing water: Governance failure and the world's urban water crisis.

Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Budds, J., & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization missing the

point? experiences from africa, asia and latin america. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2),

87-113. doi:10.1630/095624703101286763

Idelovitch, E., Ringskog, K., & World Bank e-Library. (1995). Private sector participation in

water supply and sanitation in Latin America. Washington, D.C: World Bank. doi:10.1596/0-

8213-3219-8

Loftus, A. J., & McDonald, D. A. (2001). Of liquid dreams: A political ecology of water

privatization in buenos aires. Environment and Urbanization, 13(2), 179-199.

doi:10.1630/095624701101285775

Lovei, M., Gentry, B. S., & Open Knowledge Repository. (2002). The environmental

implications of privatization: Lessons for developing countries. Washington: World Bank

Publications.

MacCuish, D. (n.d). Water, Land and Labour: The Impacts of forced privatization in vulnerable

communities. [online] Halifax Initiative Coalition. Available at:

http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/updir/Water_Land_Labour.pdf [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]

Millsap, A. (2016). Privatizing Water Facilities Can Help Cash-Strapped Municipalities. [online]

Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2016/10/05/privatizing-water-

facilities-can-help-cash-strapped-municipalities/#4757a5ea4b5c [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019].

Owolabi, F. N. (2005). Impacts of water supply utility privatization on urban households and

the environment in Benin

What's Next for Water Privitization? The Internet of things The internet of things is the concept of extending the internet and computing abilities from traditional devices such as computers and mobile phones into objects all around us (Atzori et al, 2010). This will be done by having various things or objects that will have the ability to interact with each other to serve a common purpose (Atzori et al, 2010) . Technology such as tags, sensors, actuators will be incorporated into everyday objects such as fridges, cars, water meters, that are all currently considered “dumb” objects. In relation to water management, this concept can be used in many ways, such as Smart Farming and Smart Meters. Smart FarmingCurrently, irrigation is the largest consumer of freshwater, contributing to 70% of fresh water demand (Kamienski et al, 2018). Automated farming industries use a number of sensors and actuators that collect data on environmental conditions (Ryu et al, 2015). Things like humidity, soil temperature, available light will all be monitored and actuators can use this information to adjust conditions to the crops needs (Ryu et al, 2015). These devices can transmit information within the farm as well as to wireless networks. Eventually, there is potential for farmers to “farm” from miles away.

Smart MetersSimilar to in rural areas, the internet of things can assist water management in urban centers. As with irrigation, water demand in major cities is expected to rise as the human population becomes increasingly urbanized. “Smart Meters” are water meters that collect information and are able to transmit the data. The process is automatic and real time (Stewart et al, 2010). For example, smart meters have the ability to identify leaks within in a household or a distribution system. They can improve cost efficient planning by identifying regions that are under high stress in the systems (Stewart et al, 2010). Smart meters can also be used for managing growing demand in terms of engineering, water pricing, water restrictions and rebate programs (Stewart et al, 2010).

Decentralizing Water ManagementCurrently, data collected through smart farming and smart water meters is transmitted to a central point for analysis or for customer/producer viewing. If this centralized system is intruded upon, hackers could have very useful information. This could be detrimental, especially in terms of smart farming, where the information could be used to to disrupt food security or to adjust market prices, etc. Centralizing the information and the responsibility of water management into one spot, whether it be the state or a third party company allows opportunity for corruption to intrude. This is why using Blockchain technology is gaining traction in the field of water management.

Blockchain

The goal of blockchain is to increase the integrity of data and network transactions without going through a third party. It can be thought of as a global spreadsheet that relies on a network of global users to verify each transaction. The blockchain is public and can be viewed at any time. To be validated, each block must refer to the previous block, making it extremely hard to hack the information embedded in a block.

Smart ContractsThe use of blockchain in water management does not end at increasing security for smart farming and water infrastructure. Of growing interest is the use of smart contracts. Smart contracts are similar to traditional contracts in the way in which they use rewards and penalties to complete a common goal. If conditions are met, the goal is achieved.Smart contracts enable automated action and dismiss subjectivity by using algorithms and sensors to determine if conditions are being met. They largely reduce transaction costs of contracts as well as remove potential for corruption because computerized decision making leaves no room for subjectivity.

BibliographyAtzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A survey.

Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.

Budds, J., & McGranahan, G. (2003). Are the debates on water privatization

missing the point? experiences from africa, asia and latin

america. Environment and Urbanization, 15(2), 87-113.

doi:10.1630/095624703101286763

Chapron, G. (2017). The environment Needs Cryptogovernance. Nature

News, 545(7655), 403.

George, G., Schillebeeckx, S. J., & Liak, T. L. (2015). The management of

natural resources: An overview and research agenda.

Kamienski, C., Kleinschmidt, J., Soininen, J. P., Kolehmainen, K., Roffia, L.,

Visoli, M., ... & Fernandes, S. (2018, June). SWAMP: Smart Water

Management Platform Overview and Security Challenges. In 2018 48th

Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and

Networks Workshops (DSN-W) (pp. 49-50). IEEE.

Kshetri, Nir. "Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?." IT

Professional 19.4 (2017): 68-72.

Lin, J., Shen, Z., Zhang, A., & Chai, Y. (2018). Blockchain and IoT based Food

Traceability System. International Journal of Information Technology, 24(1).

Ryu, M., Yun, J., Miao, T., Ahn, I. Y., Choi, S. C., & Kim, J. (2015, November).

Design and implementation of a connected farm for smart farming system.

In SENSORS, 2015 IEEE (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Stewart, R. A., Willis, R., Giurco, D., Panuwatwanich, K., & Capati, G. (2010).

Web-based knowledge management system: linking smart metering to the

future of urban water planning. Australian Planner, 47(2), 66-74

Tapscott, D & Tapscott, A. (2016) Blockchain Revolution. Toronto, Canada.

Penguin Books Canada