pollution

What public-private-partnership scandals can tell us about wrongdoing in the water industry

Spread the love
Jory Mundy/Shutterstock.com

Daniel Fisher, University of Sussex

Water bills are going up in England and Wales, even after the series of scandals around water companies. Last year water firms paid £158 million in fines following a record-breaking number of sewage dumps in rivers and seas.

Severn Trent Water and United Utilities alone reportedly made 1,374 illegal sewage spills over two years. (Both companies took issue with the analysis that led to this figure but acknowledged concerns about sewage discharges.)

There have been other notable incidents. Whistleblowers have told of water companies that fail to treat legally required amounts of sewage and divert that sewage to public waterways. To add to the disgrace, water companies have generally failed to invest enough in the UK’s water infrastructure.

Research suggests that governments have been pressured to become more “business-like”. This has given rise to the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to run important public services, such as water, transport and even prisons. Water companies in England and Wales are private companies that bid for their contracts, while in Scotland, the water provider is a public organisation.

While other findings show that PPPs can support important public service needs, such as public health, research by my colleagues and I examines a consistent pattern in UK PPP scandals and wrongdoing. Over the past decade and a half, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ funds are unaccounted for. This appears to be largely because private interests have been prioritised over public needs.

As a researcher of PPP wrongdoing, the reasons for many of the scandals seem obvious. My colleagues and I studied parliamentary inquiries and reports that have scrutinised PPP wrongdoing. This research can tell us a great deal about the UK’s predicament with regard to the failings in the water industry.

The first lesson is that, in general, many PPPs are motivated actually to reduce the quality of the services they deliver. One parliamentary inquiry found that contracting services out from the public to the private sector had become a “transactional process” where cost-cutting is favoured and the “knock-on cost” to users results in a lower-quality public service.

Other findings showed that companies regularly reduced the quality of a service to maximise profits. One way was to bid for a public service at a low price. A Public Accounts Committee member observed that companies coming in with low quotes for contracts can end up damaging services by under-investing in them.

Another example is Sodexo – a private prison management provider. It cut employee numbers by around 200 and a subsequent BBC Panorama documentary detailed escapes and widespread drug use in the prisons they managed and also criticised a lack of safety for both prisoners and prison officers. Sodexo acknowledged the programme had highlighted problems and said it would investigate, but added that there had been “positive actions and improvements” already.

Similar practices were observed at a children’s prison run by security firm G4S, where an officer was left with brain damage after an attack by inmates. G4S admitted liability for the officer’s injuries and agreed a settlement with him.

Pay the fine, it’s cheaper

The second lesson is it can be cost-effective to breach contracts and pay fines. Companies sometimes breach the terms of their public-private contracts because it’s in their economic interest. This even has a name – economists call it “efficiency breach”.

For instance, a parliamentary report found that between 2010 and 2016 G4S was fined 100 times for breaching contracts – paying out roughly £3 million. As one MP suggested, these fines compared to its profits are a “slap on the wrist”. The same has been said of water companies.

When observing the fines in comparison to the profitable contracts, it’s easy to posit what the motivations of many in the UK’s public service system are. In 2017, despite previous indictments of wrongdoing, G4S won £25 million of government contracts.

In 2020 the firm won another £300 million contract to run Wellingborough “mega-prison” in England. Despite some raised eyebrows, G4S said at the time it aimed to make the site a blueprint for “innovation, rehabilitation and modernisation” in the prison service.

Pay the shareholders, invest later

The third lesson is that shareholders are more important than long-term investments in a service. This is perhaps the most notable feature of the UK’s public service system, where a vast array of shareholders benefit from the profits made by PPPs. In one of the parliamentary reports we analysed, which details the collapse of the facilities management firm Carillion, it was clear that shareholders’ interests trumped good management and long-term investment.

As was noted in the report, despite Carillion’s collapse, the firm paid out £333 million more to shareholders than it generated in cash between 2012 and 2017. Often, this shareholder primacy can even go against a firm’s own employees rather than just the state and taxpayers. One MP noted that despite its pension scheme being in deficit, shareholders were still receiving dividends.

Often, shareholders are prioritised because of short-term thinking. These processes can lead to firms passing these bad practices down their supply chains.

The behaviour of water companies is suggestive of these dynamics. Since water companies have been privatised, they have loaded themselves up with debt (£64 billion) but paid out £78 billion to shareholders. Some 70% of these shareholders are “foreign investment firms, private equity, pension funds and businesses lodged in tax havens”.

aerial shot of Bantham beach and estuary, Devon
Water companies could give the UK’s rivers, estuaries and seas representation at board level. jimcatlinphotography.com/Shutterstock

So what should be done? There are plenty of ways to enhance and improve the UK’s PPP problems. The most obvious may be to renationalise public services and renew the quality of public services through New Deal-style investments. After all, this is what what most of the UK electorate wants.

There are other options. An innovative and exciting frontier is opening for businesses to recognise their environmental responsibilities – initiatives in New Zealand, India and Ecuador are giving the status of personhood to rivers and ecosystems, for example.

Outdoor fashion brand Patagonia has “the Earth” as its only shareholder, and hair and skincare brand Faith in Nature has appointed nature to its board. Imagine if the UK’s water companies had the rivers and seas represented.

In the end, only time will tell how water companies will be held accountable. But for the moment it’s the UK taxpayer and consumer paying the price.

G4S was approached about this article but declined to comment.

Daniel Fisher, Assistant Professor in Management, University of Sussex

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingWhat public-private-partnership scandals can tell us about wrongdoing in the water industry

A quarter of freshwater animals threatened with extinction, finds major new study

Spread the love

Iwan Jones, Queen Mary University of London

For far too long, the decline in the biodiversity of our rivers and lakes has been out of sight and out of mind. As a freshwater ecologist I have long felt frustrated as conservation and research is dominated by land and sea species, even though our rivers, lakes, ponds and other wetlands host a hugely disproportionate amount of the world’s biodiversity in their relatively small area.

The first comprehensive assessment of the risk of extinction of freshwater species, now published in the journal Nature, is set to change this. The scientists involved in the new study used the recently completed “red list” for freshwater fishes, and the one for dragonflies and damselflies.

Red lists are official inventories of conservation status compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). They combined this with data from the previously published red list for freshwater crabs, crayfishes and shrimps. In total, they assessed more than 23,000 species.

The authors conclude that close to a quarter (24%) of freshwater species are threatened with extinction. That is, they have been officially assessed as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered or extinct in the wild.

These include the critically endangered European eel, and the endangered white-clawed crayfish, both of which were abundant in the streams of my childhood.

small crayfish on river weed
Once abundant, now endangered: a juvenile white clawed crayfish. valda butterworth / shutterstock

There is some uncertainty in the estimates, especially as there is insufficient data to establish the extinction risk for some species. The authors use an accepted and robust method to address this uncertainty but note that this lack of data affects a substantially larger proportion of freshwater species than those that live on land.

In fact, despite indications that a greater proportion of freshwater mollusc species are at risk of extinction, the authors could not include molluscs in their analysis as so many species are data deficient.

Furthermore, we have only the most rudimentary understanding of the status of the wide array other freshwater species, particularly invertebrates such as mayflies, stoneflies, or various beetles, many of which are highly sensitive to pollution. Although this new study represents an important step forward in our understanding, it should also act as a clarion call to galvanise efforts to fill these critical data gaps.

Freshwater species overlooked

While shocking, this figure of 24% of freshwater species threatened with extinction is comparable with the estimate for predominantly land-based amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, of which 23% are threatened. Comprehensive assessments of birds, amphibians and mammals have been available for over 20 years, with repeat assessments now available.

Rivers and lakes support whole ecosystems with all sorts of species. Martine Liu 58 / shutterstock

As the IUCN’s red lists are used to document trends in biodiversity and therefore to inform national and global strategy, data on terrestrial vertebrates has dominated conservation science and policy. Hence, to date, global environmental governance has focused on land and sea ecosystems, despite evidence that freshwaters require distinct management needs.

With this assessment, it is now clear that policy will have to be developed that protects and delivers improvements for freshwater species. That means thinking about entire river basins as a whole, rather than the immediate area occupied by the species.

It also means considering things like how rivers and lakes are connected and how the water available varies from season to season. Bodies of freshwater are like islands in a sea of land. Facilitating movement between these islands can help preserve species, particularly where they disappear seasonally.

Most species face multiple threats

In the new study, pollution, dams, water abstraction, land-use change, over-exploitation, invasive species and disease feature prominently as threats, with most species impacted by more than one. Freshwaters in areas of limestone and other porous calcium-rich rocks host consistently more threatened species than would be expected, highlighting the importance of chalk streams for example, where pressure due to exploitation of water resources and pollution is pronounced.

Chalk streams are valuable habitats for salmon, trout, otters, kingfishers and many other species. Tony Martin Long / shutterstock

While current efforts to hold UK water companies responsible for reducing inputs of sewage to rivers and lakes are commendable, water use efficiency and run-off should be considered throughout the decision-making process, from building design and town planning though to our individual daily use of water. Nature-based solutions such as tree planting or wetland protection offer a way forward that simultaneously benefit biodiversity and human well-being.

A lack of understanding can no longer be used as an excuse for inaction. As the authors of the new study point out, freshwaters support more than 10% of all known species, including about a third of vertebrates and half of fishes, while covering less than 1% of the surface of the Earth.

Many of the freshwater species considered in this study are socially and economically important. Freshwater fish provide an important source of protein for many human societies, and species such as Atlantic salmon support a fishing-tourism industry critical to many areas with limited opportunities to generate income.

Other species, while superficially unimportant to human society, thrive in clean water. The widespread decline in these species reflects increasing pollution and other pressures, which does not bode well for our society in the face of climate change and diminishing water availability.

Iwan Jones, Freshwater Ecologist and Head of the River Communities Group, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingA quarter of freshwater animals threatened with extinction, finds major new study

Revealed: Thames Water diverted ‘cash for clean-ups’ to help pay bonuses

Spread the love

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/23/revealed-thames-water-diverted-cash-for-clean-ups-to-help-pay-bonuses

Thames Water, the UK’s largest such firm, is fighting for its survival after years of poor performance, fines and hefty dividend payouts Photograph: Gill Allen/REX/Shutterstock

Guardian Exclusive: UK’s biggest water company assessed risks before cutting back on cost of environmental work, investigation shows

Thames Water intentionally diverted millions of pounds pledged for environmental clean-ups towards other costs including bonuses and dividends, the Guardian can reveal.

The company, which serves more than 16 million customers, cut the funds after senior managers assessed the potential risks of such a move.

Discussions – held in secret – considered the risk of a public and regulatory backlash if it emerged that cash set aside for work such as cutting river pollution had been spent elsewhere.

This could be seen as a breach of the company’s licence commitments and leave it vulnerable to accusations it had broken the law, according to sources and material seen by the Guardian.

Thames Water continued to pay staff bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, and also paid tens of millions in dividends as recently as March this year, while cutting back on its spending promises. The company did so despite public claims from its leaders that improvements to its environmental performance, including on pollution, were a priority.

Wildlife presenter Liz Bonnin and naturalist and TV presenter Chris Packham join thousands of environmental campaigners from more than 130 organisations in a March for Clean Water on 3 November 2024 in London. Photograph: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures/Getty Images

…

Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/23/revealed-thames-water-diverted-cash-for-clean-ups-to-help-pay-bonuses

Continue ReadingRevealed: Thames Water diverted ‘cash for clean-ups’ to help pay bonuses

Time is running out for a treaty to end plastic pollution – here’s why it matters

Spread the love
Drpixel/Shutterstock

Steve Fletcher, University of Portsmouth

On March 2 2022, delegates to the UN environment assembly adopted an ambitious resolution to develop the text of a new treaty by the end of 2024 to end plastic pollution. With 24 days of formal negotiation between almost 200 countries completed, spread over meetings in Peru, France, Kenya and Canada, the fifth and final negotiation meeting is about to take place in Busan, South Korea. This is crunch time. Agreement must be found or the opportunity to take global action to tackle plastic pollution might be lost.

I have studied international action to tackle plastic pollution for the past decade. During this time, I have witnessed remarkable growth in plastic waste – an estimated 400 million tonnes is thrown away every year. Plastic pollution is now ubiquitous.

The issue of plastic pollution has moved up the public and political agenda in a way few could have predicted. Global action has always been the missing piece of the picture, as the plastics economy transcends national boundaries, and actions in one jurisdiction, while locally beneficial, tend not to address global pollution patterns.

To tackle plastic pollution, a shift in the entire plastics economy is needed. This should focus on reuse and refill schemes, which reduce the need for new plastic products and the substitution of plastics with other materials that are less polluting or harmful.

close up of woman's hands refilling bottle in zero waste shop
Refill schemes need to be scaled up to phase out single-use plastic. Daisy Daisy/Shutterstock

With my team of policy researchers, I have attended the last three plastics treaty negotiation meetings as an observer to gauge progress towards a global treaty. For the most part, progress has been slow, largely because of delaying and blocking tactics by a few countries that depend on fossil fuel industries. Lobbying from the petrochemical industry frustrates progress further. Given the tight timescale to agree the treaty, I worry that no agreement will be reached.

Three priorities

Final negotiations must include three things.

An immediate priority is to agree on the rules governing how decisions are taken in the negotiations between member states, known as the “rules of procedure”. At present, decisions are taken by consensus, meaning all delegations must agree before a decision is reached.

Given the entrenched positions of some countries, consensus-based decision-making is unlikely to yield rapid agreement because the positions of some nations are so far apart. The rules of procedure needs to include a voting mechanism so that when there is decisive agreement between most nations a decisions can be taken and progress can be made, when consensus cannot be reached.

The second critical issue is finance. Plastic pollution is a challenge most acutely faced by low- and middle-income countries. The plastics treaty is only likely to be effective if there’s adequate funding for countries most affected by plastic pollution to take action.

As witnessed in the climate debate, finance is incredibly contentious and raises critical questions. That includes who will pay for the problems plastic pollution has already caused and the new measures to tackle plastic pollution, plus how supporting countries can best provide necessary technology and training.

The role of the private sector is also significant in the plastics economy, and discussions are underway about innovative options for private finance to support treaty implementation. For the treaty to be credible, agreement on the broad terms of a finance mechanism for treaty implementation is essential.

The treaty must also focus on actions most likely to reduce plastic pollution. There is clear evidence that reducing the production of primary plastic polymers reduces plastic pollution most efficiently and effectively.

Plastic is made at such a rate that it is impossible for waste management systems to keep up. So a treaty that focuses on waste management will not reduce plastic pollution significantly enough. Only putting the brake on plastic production will stop the inundation of plastic waste.

There are, of course, many other important elements to agree on during negotiations. Criteria must be set to identify problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastics that companies should stop making. Problematic plastics have harmful effects on human health or the environment, so any chemicals of concern must be removed from plastic materials and products. Unnecessary plastics are those with a function that is deemed non-essential, while avoidable plastics have an essential function but could be replaced by a non-plastic alternative.

Subsidies on virgin plastics that make single-use products so financially attractive need to be stripped away. Any changes in the plastics economy that this treaty create need to benefit workers in the informal waste sector too.

This week is critical for the world’s relationship with plastics. People and planet depend on it.

Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Steve Fletcher, Professor of Ocean Policy and Economy, University of Portsmouth

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingTime is running out for a treaty to end plastic pollution – here’s why it matters

Record levels of pollution endanger millions of lives in Pakistan

Spread the love

Original article by Abdul Rahman republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Pollution in Lahore last year. Photo: Xinhua

Left activists in the country blame the government’s reluctance to act against big polluters despite its impact on the most of the people who are risking their health to pursue their livelihoods.

A thick layer of toxic smog has covered the atmosphere of Pakistan’s Punjab province for the last two weeks, making its air hazardous for millions of people in cities such as Lahore and Multan.

Lahore, the capital of Punjab and the second largest city of Pakistan has emerged as the world’s most polluted city with its AQI hitting above 1,000 for several days this week. The AQI on Wednesday was recorded at 815. Other cities in the Punjab province, such as Multan, Bahawalpur and Faisalabad too recorded an average AQI above 400 in the same period.

An AQI above 300 is considered hazardous for human living.

The high level of pollutants (PM 2.5) in the air has forced the Pakistani authorities to shut down schools and colleges until November 17 and public parks until November 18. It has also issued orders to shut the shops and commercial activities early asking citizens to minimize venturing out and to wear masks.

The number of people reporting respiratory issues have reached nearly 70,000 daily in the province according to the Associated Press.

Prolonged exposure to smog leads to a large number of health problems such as irritation in the eyes, respiratory issues among others. Every year millions of people die due to air pollution.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) “fine particles matter (PM 2.5) can penetrate [the human body] through the lungs” and blood streams causing major damages to human organs and can cause lung cancer, asthma, stroke and other diseases. Such exposure among children can affect their growth both physically and psychologically and can have lifelong effects.

Smog has become a regular feature in Pakistan’s Punjab province in recent years due to rising pollution caused by the high number of vehicles, increasing urbanization with a high density population, and an increase in polluting industries and agricultural activities.

According to Marriyum Aurangzeb, a senior minister in the Punjab government, Lahore endured 275 days of unhealthy AQI levels over the past one year with average temperature rising by 2.3 degree celsius.

Failure of the state

Punjab is Pakistan’s largest province with over 117 million people. The government led by Mariyum Nawaz of Pakistan Muslim League (PML) has been accused of taking inadequate measures to control the situation. In the name of fighting against polluters it has only targeted farmers and brick kilns and has been reluctant to hold larger and more powerful polluters such as big industries and the transport sector, Dawn reported.

According to the Punjab government’s own study, unfit vehicles apparently are the primary polluters (around 43%) in the province but the government has failed to curb their movement.

Ammar Ali Jan, head of the Haqooq-e-Khalq Party (HKP) has been consistently raising the issue of smog which makes the atmosphere “unfit for human survival.” Noting that in this inhuman condition only the rich who can afford to buy air purifiers can survive terming the government’s inactivity to provide relief to the people as a “criminal and insane” policy of “privatization of clean air.”

High pollution disrupts normal life for all sections of the population. However, it disproportionately affects the working class population as they are unable to follow the protection measures such as staying at home and wearing masks given the nature of their livelihoods.

In a recent tweet he also said that “climate catastrophe in Punjab is a result of a development model that turned our cities into concrete jungles.” He accused the Maryum Nawaz government for remaining “hopelessly non serious about confronting the challenge” and instead favoring big polluters such as “land mafia,” and “car/oil companies” in the state.

In light of the government’s lack of response, various left and progressive student organizations in the country called for a protest in front of the Punjab provincial assembly on Thursday, November 14. They demanded urgent action to fight climate change and the smog problem in the country.

Original article by Abdul Rahman republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingRecord levels of pollution endanger millions of lives in Pakistan