In light of the great debate in Italy on water resources following the initiative referendum, we decided to open a debate on these issues to encourage libertarians to reflect respect to this initiative. Without dogma and with a very pragmatic approach so that everyone can make a more informed decision as to address the issue.
Our collaborator Gastoni talks with Luca Martinelli, a journalist of the magazine Altreconomia (www.altreconomia.it), author of "Water is not a commodity" (Altreconomia, 2011) and member of the referendum "yes" for the 2 ' Water common good. "
MG: The referendum to repeal the law that requires public utilities to privatize the management of water services should be held in June. Can you explain briefly what are the objectives of the referendum?
LM: It is, formally, a referendum against the privatization of water ", since the objective is the abolition of rules that make it not only possible but virtually certain. But it is also, according to the views of the European referendum "2" yes "for the common good water" (www.referendumacqua.it), a proposal referendum. I look at two questions, in fact, to make public integrated water services. That's why by going to vote, and voting "yes", the Italians will help to open up scenarios of radical change toward a participatory management of the service. The two referendums-that between April 25 until early July 2010 were signed by 1.4 million Italian citizens-have a historical significance for this reason that we try to analyze in this dialogue, looking at the economic, political and social aspects.
MG: What is Organising Committee and what is the relationship between the referendum committees and political parties?
LM: In the referendum committee there is no room for political parties. Some parties (in the center-left and left) have chosen to support the referendum committee, starting from the collection of signatures, but they did it from the outside-in any case show off signs of membership (such as flags) at the gazebo.
MG: What kind of people are active in these committees and what is the prevailing view?
LM: The Forum's activities in recent years, has been developed in particular in the territories through the creation of committees. Those who participate in these areas have led to experiences of training and self-important about the arrangements for managing the integrated water service. The employees of the companies that manage the water service are the most knowledgeable of network systems, those in the know on a collective heritage. According to the plan that we imagine, these subjects will have a key role in the new model of integrated water management that is not "statist" but public participated. The difference lies in the idea of "common good": the water is not good in the availability of the state (and the bureaucrats and party) but of the community, with a primary role of the public.
Privatization or liberalization
MG: One of the main arguments put forward to promote the privatization of water management carried out in Italy on the need for more efficient management of water resources. How would you assess this position?
LM: Massimo Giannini, deputy director of the newspaper La Repubblica, wrote in an editorial "There is a practical reality, he wants the public water mishandled, it is true that in the national water supply is lost almost 50% of total resources" (1). To answer, we should ask ourselves a question: is it, really, a waste reduction objectives pursued by the managers of water service in the last sixteen years since the Galli Law (Law 36/1994) was implemented the last major reform in the sector? The answer to this question is no. Reducing waste is not even a subject of "debate" within the Federutility councils, the professional association of managers of our industrial water systems. No one boasts of having "closed the holes."
The words are "confirmed" by the data in the report of the study center Mediobanca corporation controlled by the major Italian cities, which certifies that the worst aqueduct of Italy in terms of network losses, and the Roman. In Rome's Acea, a publicly traded multi-utility (the first private shareholder, after the City of Rome, Francesco Gaetano Caltagirone), who probably considers strategic priority and expand its market, rather than plug the holes into the water in the capital. Not else can you explain a strategy that has led the company to "participate" actively (directly or through subsidiaries) in the management of integrated water services in at least a dozen water distribution, from Tuscany to Campania, Umbria and through - of course-Lazio.
MG: Another myth is that of competition that could lead to an improvement of the service. What happened in practice in the Italian experience of liberalization so far?
LM: The dichotomy between "privatization" and "liberalization" is a myth that worth investigating. Those opposed to the referendum speak of "liberalization" of the sector. And "teaching" there always comes from Acea, and from reading an interesting sentence in which the Antitrust Authority in 2007 for the competition and the market has fined the former municipal Roman and the French Suez (the second largest shareholder of private Acea Today, behind Caltagirone, but the first time) for a cartel agreement (a "non-aggression pact") in which the two companies would substantially eliminated competition in most of the races of the integrated water service were held in Italy in 2002 the initiation of Antitrust (the ruling is available in full on the website agcm.it, and it is instructive to read). In such a situation, when it is certain that the race is made up we're just transferring a natural monopoly to a subject by private persons. We are, in short, privatizing a monopoly, leaving to the operator free will.
From this it follows necessarily considered "bitter" by a trust's no going back. Despite the extensive documentation that accompanies the Authority's decision (which also did not raise the indignation of the policy), Acea e Suez continue to operate the arm, and they will do at least the next twenty years, half of the Tuscany aqueducts. The law does not touch Lease-Ronchi absolutely the crux of "how competitions are held." This is worrying, and is an invitation to vote yes-while-the first of the two referendum questions, that repealing the law making it mandatory this type of competition for the award.
What is public management?
MG: And what about the second question?
LM: The second referendum question, however, focuses on the fees for water service. Frightens many of the politicians and commentators because it discovers an unresolved, never discussed with due care in the media. What are the funding arrangements for integrated water services? May have to be left entirely to the market, and people's pockets? Yet it is so, since 1994. Since it was introduced the model of full cost recovery in the bill also pay all costs of investment (a "hidden tax") and a rate of return on invested capital (or even interest on loans taken out to create their works). But the model does not work: the last sixteen years have revealed an absolute reduction of investment on the network, and - in relative terms - the Supervisory Committee on Water Resources in the Ministry of the Environment certifies that slightly more than half of the planned investments have been actually made. What do faced with this situation? Federutility asks public funding grant in favor of private operators of the service. The Committee calls for a referendum instead of reflecting seriously on the model and the composition of the tariff. It calls, indirectly, to reconsider the need for public finance, the role that institutions that do exist such as the Cassa seem to have abdicated.
MG: Many libertarians are concerned that the formula for managing the "public" is a synonym for "old-fashioned party subdivision". As someone who has never been affiliated to any political party, how do you respond to those concerns? And what are the tools to ensure effective participation?
LM: So far, we have addressed the reasons against the privatization of water service. However, looking at making it public again, action and analysis of the referendum committees have already developed "alternative" management models to return to public management of the twentieth century, divided up from the parties. These are "public management and government participated in the integrated water service" as described in the bill being discussed by the Regional Council of Puglia. As stated in the report accompanying the text of the law, Article 8 provides for the presence, on the Board and three representatives elected by an assembly of mayors of territorial optimal Article 6 also gives citizens , individually and in combination, participation in major decisions, in accordance with the principle of horizontal subsidiarity enshrined in Article. 118 of the Constitution, and the supervision and control, including through mechanisms of supervision and consultation in order to service levels. " This bill is the result of a "table" which was also attended by experts nominated by the Puglia Committee "Water common good," and it is the exemplification of what is described in the text of the law of popular initiative that, since July 2007 lies in the drawers of the Environment Committee of the Chamber.
The arduous process (or, rather, never started) of this "law" for making public again the integrated water services, signed in the first six months to four years ago by Italian citizens 406 thousand is-finally-the most visible expression of the fact that both the Italian Forum of Water Movements (www.acquabenecomune.org) As the referendum committees "2" yes "for the common good water" have no political godfathers. The two companies, the Forum was born in 2006, and referendum committees formed in recent months-are an aggregation of associations, trade unions, environmental groups, and hundreds of spontaneous citizens committees, born from Alto Adige to Sicily. The expression of a basic grassroots and popular movement. Capable of obtaining the most successful referendum in our country of its wealth by exploiting the capillary action, without any support of the mass media. Even so, the challenge of June 12 is of historical significance.
disappointed hopes?
MG: As we try to introduce the concept of "participated in the government" impression also based on similar experiences is that the instruments used (reserved seats in local government representatives on the boards, more popular initiative, etc.) are widely insufficient to achieve the result that the paper chase. The movements for water have somehow tried to introduce the concept of self-management of water services as a real possibility of control by the citizens?
LM: Several experiences that point to self, practiced mostly in mountain communities through the form of cooperation among users, are part of the path of the Italian Forum of Water Movements. From Biella to the mountains of Trentino, in Varzi (Pavia). A look at these experiences as an interesting model, viable in non-complex. It is very difficult to create a model of this kind in urban or metropolitan environment.
MG: Let the two scenarios of victory and defeat of the referendum. What happens next in the two cases? How do you think the referendum committees may retain a role and perhaps grow even after the referendum in order to continue to exert strong pressure on the policy?
LM: In the event of a referendum victory, the goal will certainly be the approval of the law of popular initiative in 2007. In case of defeat, no doubt you will get a period of reflection in the referendum committee and the Forum of the Italian movement for water. What is certain is that no one will stop as abruptly, to curb the activities of the network of committees in the last five years (the Forum was born in Rome in 2006) this movement has been able to articulate and grow exponentially (think of two figures: 406 000 signatures in six months in 2007, at the bottom to the Law of citizens' initiative, 1.4 million in two months and ten days in 2010).
The arrogance of the elect who have not even discussed the law of popular initiative over three years, has not been a deterrent to the growth of the movement. That has, in some way, changed the mentality of politics, given the policy agenda: the word "privatization," a mantra until five years ago, is now whispered softly. Indeed, politicians point out that this law does not privatize the water, but only its management.
MG: I thank Luca for the conversation that I hope will help to inform our readers about the referendum. From my point of view, the referendum initiative as well as more popular instruments are far from sufficient for a change. Only the direct involvement of citizens in exercising increasing pressure with regard to politics and business could allow a real improvement in the situation, not only in this field. But the will of citizens' participation should be adequately supported so that it can grow and the current political context, however, depresses any attempt at autonomous. I believe that the referendum initiative has contributed and can still contribute to building the conditions for more information and awareness of citizens about these issues. If this awareness will lead to a growing commitment and involvement of citizens in the people's committees to supervise the management of water resources, then the referendum will have had a positive impact regardless of victory or defeat at the polls. If, however, citizens delegate to the experts and politicians 'friends' the initiative after the referendum, as hopes of change will be disappointed too many times in the past.
year
41 n. 362
Marco Gastoni / Luca Martinelli