§ Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)I am pleased to have this opportunity to address such an important issue. I knew that clean water access was important when I started researching it, but the more I have looked into it, the more I have become convinced that it is one of the key issues for the century ahead. The debate is not only, I hope. timely, given that 22 March is world water day, but pressing, as I shall outline.
The surface of planet Earth is approximately 70 per cent. water, of which 97.5 per cent. is in the oceans, and therefore salt water, and 2 per cent. is frozen in the polar ice caps. That leaves us with only 0.5 per cent. of the world's water resources on which to live. Water is essential for life. Kofi Annan said:
Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and, therefore, a basic human right. Contaminated water jeopardizes both the physical and social health of all people. It is an affront to human dignity.The impressive document "Hitting the Targets", which a number of charities and pressure groups produced, says:Access to water and sanitation is a right, a basic need for survival, a requirement for reducing poverty, and, a driver of growth. Much of the suffering from a lack of access to water and sanitation is borne by the poor, those who live in degraded environments, and overwhelmingly by women and girls.Human beings are so dependent on water that although they can live for a month or more without food they can live only for less than a week without water. Despite that startling dependence, according to the World Health Organisation, in 2000 more than 1 billion people worldwide did not have access to safe water and 2.5 billion people had improper or no access to sanitation. Worryingly, the situation will get worse unless we take drastic action as a planet.
§ Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD)Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is bitterly disappointing that the Government have cut money from the aid budget that directly targets improvements in the supply of fresh, clean water and sanitation? Does he also deprecate the way in which the Department for International Development has axed its public service agreement in respect of that? Does he support WaterAid's "Flush out poverty" campaign, which urges the Department to increase the aid spent directly on such important things?
§ Norman BakerI certainly support WaterAid's campaign and I am grateful both for my hon. Friend's intervention and for the early-day motion that he has tabled, to which my signature has been appended. The figures on the Department's contribution, which I hope the Minister will recognise as they are from the Department for International Development's water action plan, suggest that the percentage of the budget spent on water has decreased from 2.6 per cent. in 1998–99 to just 1.9 per cent. today, albeit, to be fair to him, within an increasing budget overall. However, that is a small proportion of the budget for such an essential human need.
By 2025 the situation could be even worse. The projection is that every second person on Earth will be suffering from a lack of drinking water and about two 406WH thirds of the world's population will live with water shortages, which is double the current number. Some 31 countries face water shortages and a further 17 are likely to be added to that number by 2025.
The situation is serious and has all sorts of unwelcome consequences. One, of course, is the effect on poverty and the grinding standard of living that so many people in our world, predominantly females, have to endure. There are girls and women in Africa who require on average three hours a day to fetch water from a well. The effort involved in that consumes one third of the daily food energy intake, which is a disgraceful statistic. Some 15,000 cu m of water can be used to irrigate one hectare of rice fields, provide 100 nomads and 450 animals with water for three years or put up 100 guests in a luxury hotel for 55 days. We have a very disparate approach to water in our world, where many people struggle to have even the basic requirement for life while others in the UK, America and elsewhere treat it as if it were endlessly replenishable, which it certainly is not.
This is a matter not simply of grinding poverty, but of disease, because 2.5 billion people have no access to proper sanitation. Every second hospital bed in the world is occupied by somebody who became ill because of polluted water. Every day 6,000 children die because of a lack of sanitary facilities—one every 15 seconds. That is a frightening statistic. The situation is getting worse, not simply because of the profligate use of water in the west, but because of population pressure from other countries. Populations in countries such as China and India are soaring, but there is not the water infrastructure to ensure that they have the water they need.
Even in the UK. in my constituency, a planning application is being submitted for a desalination plant because there is simply not enough water in the aquifer in the south-east to deal with demands. Even in this area, with a proper infrastructure by and large, we still have to have a desalination plant.
Africa, one of the world's most water-stressed regions, has experienced a population increase of 27 per cent. in the last 10 years or so. That figure is nearly double the global increase for the same time. Further pressure is coming from that, which also involves another possible unwelcome complication—sadly, that of war.
If you're short of water, the choices are conservation, technological invention, or the politics of violence".Those are the words of Marq de Villiers, who has written an excellent book, which I commend to everybody, called "Water Wars". A Friends of the Earth report, "Water Justice for All", states:This growing scarcity and demand has led many to believe that water may well have as important a role as oil in the 21st century, with the water market becoming as valuable and politicised as the fossil fuel market.Or, as Mark Twain put it rather more succinctly:Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting".The wars of the 21st century may be over water rather than oil or territory.407WH We are seeing that already in, for example, discussions on the use of the waters in Egypt and, most dramatically perhaps, in Israel, where the so-called security wall is being erected. In my view, that is not about security; it is about stealing Palestinian water.
§ Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD)Does my hon. Friend also realise that the Israelis are planning to extend the wall down the eastern side, thus cutting the Palestinians off from the Jordan valley and the Sea of Galilee? The Israelis take 80 per cent. of the west bank water for their own use; 40 per cent. of Israeli water comes from the west bank.
While the Israeli settlers in the west bank are splashing around in private swimming pools and have access to hot and cold running water whenever they want it, the Palestinians have water sometimes only once a week. The Israelis are wasting water to such an extent that the average Israeli uses 10 times more water than the average Palestinian in the west bank. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a major contributory factor in the conflict between those two peoples?
§ Norman BakerI certainly do, and I think that it is an affront to human decency that the Israelis are behaving in such a way. I recognise that the Government have criticised the construction of that wall, which is right, but I hope that they will apply more pressure than they appear to have done so far to bring about a change in Israeli policy. That means applying pressure on the United States.
The same applies to water resources and the environment in general. For example, the Prime Minister recognises, I believe, the importance of climate change. He says that it is an important issue, yet his friend in the White House, Mr. Bush, is busy increasing carbon emissions as if there were no tomorrow. We do not hear much about that.
Indeed, when Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, says how important climate change is, the result is a memo from 10 Downing street to tell him to keep quiet. The Prime Minister and Departments, including DFID, need to follow through what they honestly believe and put pressure where it has to be applied, rather than trying to indulge in a form of kow-towing to the Americans, who are engaged in a process that pays scant or no attention to the environmental needs of the future.
Environmental change is another consequence of the water shortage and of the increased use of water. It is said that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That is certainly so in the Sahara, for example, where, 4,000 years ago, hippos were playing where now there is only stone and scrub.
Forests are decreasing and deserts are increasing. In the past century, more than half the wetlands on earth have been lost to development and conversion, partly due to pressure on water. The underground aquifer that supplies one third of the water for the continental US is being depleted eight times faster than it is being replenished. About 20 per cent. of freshwater fish species have become extinct or are endangered. The Aral sea in Kazakhstan has halved in depth and lost 90 per cent. of its volume in the last 40 years. The statistics are endless, and if I seem slightly irritated and frustrated that is 408WH because I do not see any action from the Government or the world community to address these issues, which will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences unless they are taken seriously.
I recognise that the Government have signed up to the UN 2000 millennium development goals. The 2002 world summit on sustainable development had a commitment to developing integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005. I have seen the document released last week by the Government to take matters forward. To be fair, they recognise the issue and pay lip service-sometimes more than that—to the actions that need to be taken, but, given the scale of the problem, we must go much further, much faster.
I want to refer briefly to the controversial issue of the general agreement on trade in services and get the Minister's response on that point. I am sure he knows from his postbag, as I know from mine, that many well-meaning pressure groups and individuals up and down the country are concerned about the suggestion that, as a consequence of GATS, we will end up with water privatisation in developing countries and control of that essential resource will move from those countries elsewhere in a one-way process that, effectively, will be irreversible.
There are also concerns that the European Union is applying pressure for developing countries to go down that road. I have seen such statements, which seem to be well sourced, from those pressure groups, and I have also seen categorical denials from the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments. Frankly, I cannot reconcile the two, so I hope that the Minister provides us with more information that will enable us to take the matter forward. This is an important issue that we must get right. If we get it wrong, there will be no way back. My instinct is not to pressurise developing countries: if they come to that conclusion themselves there are sufficient safeguards, but there should be no pressure from the EU or elsewhere.
On environmental violations, we should consider the Environment Agency report for 1999 to 2001, which shows that the top five polluters include Sirius Vivendi, Thames Water and Wessex Water. The water industry does not have a good record of adhering to environmental legislation in this country, where controls are quite strict, let alone in developing countries where controls are sadly much weaker. It is also worth remembering that the global water and waste industry is estimated to be worth as much as $800 billion. That is a lot of money and, potentially for somebody, a lot of profit.
I ask the Minister to amplify his thoughts on the water action plan, pick up the point quite properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in his intervention, set out the Government's response to the question of GATS and assure me and other hon. Members that the Government—although I genuinely believe that they have the right instincts on these issues—are prepared to make the commitments necessary to deliver the changes that are essential if we are to have better water allocation in our world.
It is not sufficient for the Government to think the right thing, nor just to publish documents saying the right thing, nor even to adopt policies and put money in
409WH budgets hoping that it will be all right. The scale of the problem is such that the Government have to go on a crusade to convert countries such as the United States, which are not playing their role properly, to ensure that there is a big turnaround in how the world deals with water.
The UK, with its position in many international organisations such as the Commonwealth, NATO, the UN Security Council and the Bank for International Settlements, is well positioned to take this matter forward. I want to hear a commitment from the Minister that he will do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate. He and I were founder members of the Environmental Audit Committee and I welcome the opportunity to trade blows again on environmental issues. I am also pleased that he has been able to secure the attendance and support of his colleagues, the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge).
As the hon. Member for Lewes said, getting enough clean water—something we in the UK take for Granted—is a daily challenge for far too many poor people around the world. Disposal of water essential for hygiene and sanitation is just as big a challenge. The number of people who lack access to safe drinking water is 1.2 billion, and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. The proportion of Africans with access to safe water and sanitation has hardly changed over the past 10 years. Hundreds of millions of people live in parts of the world where there simply is not enough water to go round. Inevitably, if there is not enough to go round, the poor are the least likely to get access to the water that they need even though their needs are the greatest. Pollution—an issue that the hon. Gentleman also touched on —adds to the problems of access to clean water. When that is combined with poor water management, the health and livelihoods of poor people inevitably suffer.
Water-related diseases are the single largest cause of human sickness and death in the world, and they disproportionately affect poor people. A major issue for children is diarrhoeal disease, which accounts for some 2 million child deaths each year. That number can be reduced through better hygiene practices, safer water supplies, and the provision of basic sanitation. Such measures will also support better maternal health in the home.
If we are going to do more to help poor people to overcome that daily challenge, as the hon. Gentleman and the non-governmental organisations that he quoted made clear, much more must be done by the international community. It is sadly all too clear that the pace of progress for improving access to water, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is not as fast as I would like. To achieve the millennium development goals, approximately 250,000 people need to be provided with safe water supplies a day, and approximately 320,000 people need to be provided with basic sanitation. That 410WH is a considerably greater increase than has ever been achieved. It is unusual for a Minister to be accusing the hon. Gentleman of understating the challenge that faces us, but perhaps he is in danger of doing just that.
Investment must double to meet the millennium development goals on water and sanitation. That investment will have to come from the resources of developing country Governments, the international community, international financial institutions and international donors such as the UK. It will also have to come from the private sector.
It is not as though poor people do not consistently say that clean water is one of their top priorities; they definitely do. We know that through the consultation processes that take place when poverty reduction strategy papers are drawn up in country. However, translating that desire into action requires joined-up action across developing country Governments and better international donor co-operation. Joined-up action across Governments is a challenge at the best times; it is a huge challenge for developing country Governments who are faced with the capacity issues involved in dealing with international donors.
Why is joined-up action such a challenge? Well, responsibility for water resource management, water supplies and sanitation is often spread across many parts of developing country Governments. No single part of government takes the lead, and different parts of government often sadly have conflicting views. Solving those problems demands commitment from the Governments of developing countries. They must ensure that there ate clear lines of responsibility and accountability. They need arrangements for resolving differences about competing demands for water in a country. They need to give water and sanitation appropriate priority, and to allocate appropriate long term funding, so that the relevant authorities, which are often local authorities., have the incentives as well as the money that they need to ensure that investment is being made in better water and sanitation for ordinary people.
Clearly, making progress in many developing countries requires support from donors such as the UK. Our approach involves supporting countries in developing plans to eliminate poverty. The poverty reduction strategy papers that I referred to earlier relate to that. We provide advice and support to ensure that the needs of poor people are included in those plans. We then put our support behind those plans and the priorities in those plans and we encourage other donors to do the same. Our experience, which is, I think, generally borne out in the views of NGOs, is that that is the most effective way to achieve rapid progress towards all the millennium development goals.
Water has featured particularly strongly in our discussions with our partners in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Uganda and Nigeria. Uganda, for example, has made safe access to water one of its first priorities for its poverty reduction strategy. The donor community has responded to that prioritisation of water with financing through water sector support, as well as through budget support and through individual projects in rural and urban areas.
Uganda, I am pleased to say, is almost on track to achieve the water millennium development goal by 2015—unlike many other developing countries, sadly. 411WH As part of our support to the Ugandans in the water sector, we have seconded a water specialist to work in the Ugandan Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Another example concerns Nigeria, where we are working with the federal Government and with UNICEF to focus the federal Ministry of Water Resources on the long-term policy reform necessary to secure the investment and pro-poor reforms needed to ensure good access to water.
Our policy dialogue with the Government in Bangladesh has focused on trying to improve donor collaboration, particularly on the arsenic contamination of ground water—an issue of which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware—as well as on better access generally to water and sanitation. We are also funding a large environmental health programme there, through international and local NGOs, which are working with local government on water supply and sanitation.
Water also forms the basis of a strong partnership with the World Bank in China, where we are promoting reforms across the water sector.
§ Dr. TongeThe Minister may not be able to answer this question now, but perhaps his Department could write to me. What progress has there been on the privatisation of the water supply in Accra in Ghana? I know that DFID was, in that case, sponsoring the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) alluded to in his speech.
Mr. ThomasI will do my best to deal with the hon. Lady's question, but I shall first deal with other comments by the hon. Member for Lewes. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically what position we have reached on GATS. As he rightly said, that is the framework for WTO negotiations between countries on the liberalisation of trade in services, including, crucially, water supply. It is a bottom-up agreement, meaning that countries themselves decide whether and when to open up their service sectors to foreign competition.
The UK does not insist that countries go to the GATS negotiations with a commitment to privatise their water industries. If they decide, of their own volition, to go down that route, we will consider supporting them, if that is a priority for their poverty reduction strategy. I hope that that reassures the hon, Gentleman to some extent.
I now want to comment on specific issues concerning the role of the private sector. Whether we are referring to international companies or to small-scale local service providers, the private sector has a role in supporting Government and civil society. Crucially, it can bring management and technical expertise, efficiency and service delivery to the table. Effective regulation and communication are essential to ensure that water companies' investment is in the interests of the poor.
412WH Our approach to private sector involvement is to focus on what is necessary to ensure that investment in water by the private sector delivers better access to safe water supplies.
§ Mr. FosterThe Minister has rightly been focusing on the important role that the private sector can play, but it is important that he also talks about the Government's role. Does he acknowledge that his Department gives much of its aid through budget support? Will he also acknowledge that it does little to track how much of the budget support is spent on water projects and that the National Audit Office report makes it clear that only a small percentage is spent on them? Given his rightful emphasis on water, surely he should be telling us that it is the Government's intention to increase the proportion of Government aid that is spent on water and sanitation.
Mr. ThomasIf the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal first with the point about private sector engagement in Ghana raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
Late in 2003, the Government of Ghana advised us that they had reached a decision on a revised process for involving the private sector in a five-year management contract for the existing water networks. It now seems unlikely that there will be significant private sector participation in that process, partly because of a decline in interest from water companies operating in that part of the world. The World Bank is in the final stages of developing a $120 million project to support it and we expect to co-finance it. If the hon. Lady has further questions about what we might do in that respect, I shall be happy to speak to her privately or to write to her.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the issue of our bilateral spend on water and sanitation and I shall set out the figures: we spent about £29.8 million directly on water and sanitation in 1998–99; £33.4 million in 1999–2000; £34.5 million in 2000–01; £34 million in 2001–02, and £35 million in 2002–03. However, that understates our expenditure in the water sector. Our analysis shows that our total bilateral expenditure, including that with NGOs and multilateral partners was £82 million in 1999–2000; £91 million in 2000–01; and some £87 million in 2001–02. That spending represents about 6 per cent. of our total bilateral aid budget respectively in each of the years quoted. The criticism made by the Clean Water Fund was unfortunate, as it did not take into account the other spending envisaged, although I recognise that it is still campaigning for higher bilateral spending from the Department for International Development.
I confirm that we have published a water action plan setting out what we are hoping to do to renew our effort to increase access to safe water and, as part of that process, we are hoping to meet NGOs to discuss progress. I am happy to have a further discussion with the hon. Member for Lewes on these issues when he has had the chance to digest the water action plan and to hear NGOs' views on the matter.