A historical reminder
On the anti-privatisation struggle
For Bolivia, it was a do-or-die situation. The government had no jobs to offer, and had become completely insensitive to the people's needs. Also, the government's economic policy was incompatible with the Bolivian ethic. Cochabamba needs water for both household consumption and agricultural use. Water is a right that cannot be sold. The new law prohibited us from touching even rainwater. It debarred community organisations from constructing rainwater collection tanks. Even autonomous water systems were handed over to Bechtel, and the people who invested in building those systems got nothing in return. If I had a well in my house, I would have to pay them to use it. If I didn't, they could cap it. It also freed the government from its responsibility to ensure that we have water.
The contract is worse than the law. It guaranteed the company an average 16 per cent rate of return per year on its investment, no matter how management performs. There's a clause in the contract that says that the contact itself supersedes any other contract, law or decree. The superintendent of energy signed the contract on behalf of the government. The superintendent is nominated by the congress for a 10-year term.
We demanded that the government break the contract, and return the water system to the people. And we put in place a new law with a lot of new provisions honouring people's traditional rights.
On lessons learnt
The first lesson is that we can win. And this is true for any country that is fighting privatisation of its water. Water cannot be traded like other commodities. While liberalising, governments must remember that water is basic to prosperity. The Bolivian experience is that despite our bad economy and undemocratic structure, people took up this fight against the government. The success of that struggle is democracy to us.
The second lesson is a historical reminder to our people about our economy. During the struggle, a farmer told me, "Bolivia is based on water, land and seeds.' Hopefully, the government is now convinced of this.
The third lesson is that people must be part of the decision-making process, particularly when the government is deciding on something like water. For five decades, we didn't have proper water supply because we (people) were never consulted. Private companies also fail because people are not part of the process there either. A poor country like Bolivia cannot afford to trade with water.
On alternatives
We are managing a community-based system of water supply as a substitute to government-run or corporate-run models. The government has handed the water supply company to the people. We have a governing body whose members are elected by people through secret ballots, and the union of the water company is also involved in it. The model evolved during our struggle. It is functioning well, and we are very flexible in its evolution.
That is what happens when people manage a crucial resource like water. Social accountability is a must for anything to do with a common property. In the new system, all the problems and issues are discussed in a general body meeting of the company. People propose and plan strategies, and also grant budgets for it. It has lent a certain transparency to the whole system. Clearly, there is an alternative to the conventional public-private set up.
On the future of the Cochabamba water initiative
The alternative system has come from the people, and is inspired by their specific problems and needs. Its future is also, therefore, dependent on the people. If the system is flexible and remains transparent, it will not fail. It will then evolve with people's needs and demands.