Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Nations are signing away control of water resources to transnational corporations in trade agreements

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotes

  • Maude Barlow & Tony Clarke. "Who Owns Water?". The Nation. September 2, 2002 - ..."governments are signing away their control over domestic water supplies to trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, its expected successor, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the World Trade Organization. These global trade institutions effectively give transnational corporations unprecedented access to the freshwater resources of signatory countries. Already, corporations have started to sue governments in order to gain access to domestic water sources and, armed with the protection of these international trade agreements, are setting their sights on the commercialization of water.
Water is listed as a 'good' in the WTO and NAFTA, and as an 'investment' in NAFTA. It is to be included as a 'service' in the upcoming WTO services negotiations (the General Agreement on Trade in Services) and in the FTAA. Under the 'National Treatment' provisions of NAFTA and the GATS, signatory governments who privatize municipal water services will be obliged to permit competitive bids from transnational water-service corporations. Similarly, once a permit is granted to a domestic company to export water for commercial purposes, foreign corporations will have the right to set up operations in the host country.
NAFTA contains a provision that requires 'proportional sharing' of energy resources now being traded between the signatory countries. This means that the oil and gas resources no longer belong to the country of extraction, but are a shared resource of the continent. For example, under NAFTA, Canada now exports 57 percent of its natural gas to the United States and is not allowed to cut back on these supplies, even to cut fossil fuel production under the Kyoto accord. Under this same provision, if Canada started selling its water to the United States -- which President Bush has already said he considers to be part of the United States' continental energy program -- the State Department would consider it to be a trade violation if Canada tried to turn off the tap. And under NAFTA's 'investor state' Chapter 11 provision, American corporate investors would be allowed to sue Canada for financial losses [see William Greider, 'The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century,' October 15, 2001]. Already, a California company is suing the Canadian government for $10.5 billion because the province of British Columbia banned the commercial export of bulk water.
The WTO also opens the door to the commercial export of water by prohibiting the use of export controls for any 'good' for any purpose. This means that quotas or bans on the export of water imposed for environmental reasons could be challenged as a form of protectionism. At the December 2001 Qatar ministerial meeting of the WTO, a provision was added to the so-called Doha Text, which requires governments to give up 'tariff' and 'nontariff' barriers -- such as environmental regulations -- to environmental services, which include water."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.