Assessing Water “Privatization” in Cuba

Wikipedia

www.ahabana.co.cu

Water privatization in Cuba began in January 2000 when the socialist government of Cuba created a mixed public-private company to manage the water, sewer and stormwater drainage system in 8 of the 15 municipalities that make up the country's capital Havana. The government avoids the term privatization, despite the involvement of two foreign private companies as key partners in the mixed company. The company operates under a 25-year renewable concession contract. It serves 1.25 million inhabitants in the municipalities of Old Havana, Central Havana, Cerro, Plaza de la Revolución, 10 Octubre, La Lisa, Playa, and Marianao, which together are home to 60 percent of Havana's population. The company, called Aguas de la Habana, has a capital of 8 million USD and is owned by the Cuban state through the National Institute for Water Resources (INRH), the Spanish private company Aguas de Barcelona (Agbar) and the Spanish family firm Grupo Martinon. The contract foresees that ultimately the entire population of Havana will be served by the company.^[1]

The cooperation between the three companies goes back to a project undertaken in the Cuban tourist resort Varadero since 1994, involving Canaragua, the subsidiary of Aguas de Barcelona operating in the Canary Islands, and the firm Martinon whose owners also come from the Canary Islands. After this successful initial experience, Agbar and INRH signed a contract to operate the water services in three municipalities La Lisa, Playa and Marianao in Western Havana in 1997. Following this pilot project, the creation of the mixed company Aguas de la Habana was decided in a framework agreement signed in February 1999 in Barcelona.^[1]

Agbar "facilitated" 24.7 million USD of financing through loans.^{[1] [2]} At least some of these loans are soft loans from the Spanish International Cooperation Agency, which financed the first ever major rehabilitation of the more than one century old Albear aqueduct that provides 12% of the capital's water supply.^[3] In addition to operating and maintaining the systems, Aguas de La Habana also carries out engineering studies and executes works.

The company's annual billing is US$ 9m for about 115 million cubic meters of water it delivers to its customers.^[4] As of 2004, Aguas de Barcelona reported significant progress. According to the company, 95 percent of the city's residents that had to be supplied by tanker trucks before the concession contract relied on tap water as of 2004. The continuity of supply had increased from 7 to 10 hours per day.^[5] However, as of 2010 progress was apparently slow, as water distribution losses are still estimated at 50% in 2010 and more than 100,000 inhabitants suffer from intermittent supply.^[6]

See also

• Water supply and sanitation in Cuba

References

• Aguas de la Habana. "Nuestra empresa". Retrieved 27 December 2011. 
• Grupo Martinon. "Aguas de La Habana". Retrieved 27 December 2011.Aguas de Habana. "Acueductos de la Ciudad". Retrieved 27 December 2011.Agbar (Link broken) 
• Fernando Rayón Martín Xavier Segura Ayala (2004). "LA GESTIÓN PRIVADA DEL AGUA EN ESPAÑA Y AMÉRICA LATINA: EL CASO DE AGBAR.". Sector Agua y Saneamiento del Grupo Agbar. Retrieved 16 February 2014. 
• El Mundo:La Habana y sus aguas perdidas(Havanna and its lost waters), 26 January 2010

Read more at Minding the Undertow >>

Abstract: 

The privatization and commercialization of water has proven to be one of the most controversial policy developments of the past 20 years. Largely associated with the neoliberalization of the world economy, it comes as a surprise to many that the socialist government of Cuba signed a 25-year contract with a Spanish multinational in 2000 to manage the supply of water in Havana. This paper provides an historical context for water reforms in the country and the first comprehensive study of this little-known contract. Based on key interviews and primary documentation we argue that there are no easy explanations for why the contract was signed, or whether it has achieved its objectives. There are, however, interesting lessons to be learned for public–private partnerships elsewhere in the world, and insights into the changing fabric of socialism in Cuba. 

Cocq-McDonald_Antipode_Minding_the_Undertow_Water_Privatization_in_Cuba_2010.pdf

- See more at: http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/publication/minding-undertow-assessing-water-%E2%80%9Cprivatization%E2%80%9D-cuba#sthash.p3V23xtZ.dpuf

Letter from Ernest Hemingway’s widow could solve Cuban farmhouse mystery

Finca Vigía/ en.wikipedia.org

The Guardian

Alison Flood

Ernest and Mary Hemingway at their Cuban farmhouse, Finca Vigía. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images

The mystery of whether Ernest Hemingway’s widow volunteered or was coerced into leaving their Cuban house to the nation has come a step closer to being solved, with the discovery of a letter in which she states that her late husband “would be pleased” that Finca Vigía be “given to the people of Cuba … as a centre for opportunities for wider education and research”.

Hemingway lived on the 19th-century Cuban farm for 21 years, between 1939 and 1961, writing his masterpieces The Old Man and the Sea and For Whom the Bell Tolls there as well as posthumously published works including A Moveable Feast and Islands in the Stream. He committed suicide in Idaho in 1961. The property became a museum in 1962, but it has been unclear whether this was following the wishes of Mary Hemingway, his fourth wife, or at the insistence of the Cuban government, with differing accounts from different parties.

The newly discovered letter, dated 25 August 1961, sees Mary Hemingway specifically donate the Finca Vigía to the Cuban people. “…Whereas – my husband, Ernest Hemingway, was for twenty-five years a friend of the Pueblo of Cuba … he never took part in the politics of Cuba … he never sold any possessions of his, except his words, having given away cars, guns, books and his Nobel prize medal to the Virgen del Cobre,” she wrote to her husband’s friend Roberto Herrera.

“I believe that he would be pleased that his property … in Cuba be given to the people of Cuba … as a center for opportunities for wider education and research, to be maintained in his memory. With this document, as the only heir of Ernest’s estate, I hereby give to the people of Cuba this property, in the hope that they will learn and profit from, and enjoy it, as much as Ernest and I did.”

The letter from Mary Hemingway to to her husband Ernest’s friend Roberto Herrera. Photograph: Alexander Historial Auctions©

Sold this week via Alexander Historical Auctions, the letter was found among the papers of Herrera. “Ernest Hemingway had committed suicide in Ketchum less than two months earlier. However, at some point shortly thereafter, Mary backtracked and stated that after Hemingway’s suicide, the Cuban government contacted her in Idaho and announced that it intended to expropriate the house, along with all real property in Cuba. These documents show that Mary did indeed intend to donate the home to the Cuban people,” said the auction house in its catalogue. The handwritten note was snapped up on Wednesday for $1,100 (£716), a price well below the estimate of $2,000-$3,000.

Valerie Hemingway – who was Ernest’s secretary before marrying his youngest son, whom she met at the author’s funeral – went to Finca Vigía with Mary shortly after Hemingway’s death to sort through his papers. She said via email that “what is being auctioned is a draft of a memo Mary intended to give to [Fidel] Castro that Roberto Herrera was going to translate. As far as I can remember Mary never actually sent the memo; she gave the draft to Roberto afterwards.”

Her own memoir, Running with the Bulls: My Years with the Hemingways, sees Valerie write that Mary “genuinely wanted to see her husband’s memory endure by creating a shrine of the home he loved and dedicating it to the Cuban people, among whom he had lived for more than a third of his life … Mary’s first idea was that the finca would become a learning centre, and to that end she wanted to leave there as complete a record of her husband’s life and most especially of his work as was prudent.”

But Naomi Wood, author of the novel Mrs Hemingway, said that Mary Hemingway’s own memoir suggests the situation was not quite as straightforward. “The question is whether the Hemingway house was ‘donated’ by Mary, or coerced from her, or extracted from her via diplomacy. In all likelihood it was a mixture of all three,” she said.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Ernest and Mary relax on their fishing boat, Filar. Photograph: Popperfoto/CPL

“In her memoir, How It Was, she uses the words ‘acquisition’ and ‘appropriation’, which suggests the takeover of Hemingway’s property was done with some unwillingness on her part, rather than a donation as the auctioned letter suggests. Though the auctioned letter suggests a donation, her memoir suggests bullying, though Castro does it in the most gentlemanly fashion, even asking her: ‘Why don’t you stay here with us in Cuba?’”

Mary Hemingway recounts a telephone conversation from the time in How it Was, in which she says to a Cuban official that “I’m not sure if I wish to give you our finca. [They could appropriate it, of course, as they had done to so much US property there.] Perhaps your government would give me permission to go down to remove our personal papers. Would you find out and call me back tomorrow? This same hour? Muy bien.”

She was advised, she writes, “to take the chance of recovering Ernest’s manuscripts, if nothing more. By this time United States citizens were prohibited journeys to Cuba, but the US immigration authorities in Miami gave me the exit and re-entry permits.”

The author’s widow would bring back crates of papers on a shrimp boat travelling from Havana to Tampa. “Mary also recounts her negotiations with Castro to remove a few paintings back to the US: including a Paul Klee and Juan Gris,” said Wood. “She also manages to remove Hemingway’s wax-sealed manuscripts they’d found at the Banco Nacional. Mary’s cargo left on a shrimp boat back to Tampa, which was the last to have any clearance papers from the US. More importantly for scholars than the nature of the deal for the Finca Vigía donation or appropriation was the fact that she managed to get those manuscripts out.”

Dr Susan Beegel, editor emerita of The Hemingway Review, said the discovery of the letter – first covered in Fine Books & Collections – was “new and interesting”.

“It’s nice to see her thoughts on how she intended the people of Cuba to enjoy the museum – still thriving today,” said Beegal. “It’s well-known that Mary deeded the Finca Vigía to the people of Cuba. After the Castro revolution, the house could have been appropriated, as was the case with other US property in Cuba, but instead the Cuban government approached Mary to request the house as a gift, to be used as a monument to Hemingway. She negotiated with them (and the Kennedy administration as well, because US citizens were not allowed to visit Cuba) to be able to return and remove personal belongings, art, and Hemingway’s manuscripts from the house in exchange for the donation.”

El día que Fidel Castro eliminó las empresas privadas

Analitica.com

Baldomero Vásquez

La “investigación” sobre los bares, indagaba sobre datos como ingresos brutos y ganancias (55% obtenía una insignificante ganancia de 25 pesos diarios), actitud revolucionaria (72% no estaban con la Revolución, de allí el interés de Castro en arruinarlos) y tipo de clientela que frecuenta estos negocios (la cual fue calificada despectivamente como de antisociales

   El 13 de marzo de 1968, en las escalinatas de la Universidad de La Habana, Fidel Castro pronunció un discurso donde anunció la llamada etapa de la “Ofensiva Revolucionaria”, discurso que consideramos –desde el punto de vista ideológico- como el más importante entre su infinidad de alocuciones.   (http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/1968/esp/f130368e.html).

Vista retrospectivamente, aquella fecha representó el despegue definitivo del trágico viaje, sin boleto de retorno, que llevaría al pueblo cubano hacia el totalitarismo socialista, hacia el infierno de miseria y opresión en la que hasta hoy vive. Por décadas, hasta hoy, también se harían sentir las catastróficas consecuencias sobre la economía cubana de las medidas que anunció e implementó Castro y que arrasaron con el tejido productivo de la pequeña propiedad urbana del país.

El Comandante en Jefe comunicó, a dirigentes del Partido Comunista, de los CDR, líderes estudiantiles, sindicales y de la Federación de Mujeres, que había llegado:

“el momento de emprender a fondo una poderosa Ofensiva Revolucionaria”

Dejando a un lado anteriores manipulaciones y engaños, donde juraba que no era comunista, sabía que podía revelar las intenciones que siempre ocultaba tras su frondosa barba porque ya controlaba en su totalidad, aparte de las Fuerzas Armadas, la prensa, radio, televisión, sindicatos, universidades y demás instituciones del país.

El objetivo de la Ofensiva era construir el socialismo, el comunismo en Cuba; y para ello afirmó:

“El capitalismo hay que arrancarlo de raíz”

Lo que el dictador cubano tenía en mente, lo dijo sin medias tintas:

“De todas maneras hay que decir con toda claridad, hay que decir que no tendrán porvenir en este país ni el comercio ni el trabajo por cuenta propia ni la industria privada ni nada” 

Lo que se proponía, entonces, era extirpar toda la pequeña propiedad comercial que quedaba en la isla, puesto que a las grandes y medianas empresas ya las había expropiado. Confiscaría todos los pequeños negocios urbanos y los pasaría a propiedad estatal, con lo cual lograba trocar a los comerciantes en empleados del Estado -o suyos que era lo mismo.

Para desacreditar el oficio de los pequeños comerciantes -y expropiarlos, Castro calificó la actividad comercial como improductiva y parasitaria. Diría:

“Subsiste todavía una verdadera nata de privilegiados, que medra del trabajo de los demás y vive considerablemente mejor que los demás, viendo trabajar a los demás.  Holgazanes que montan un timbiriche, un negocito cualquiera, para ganar 50 pesos todos los días…mucha gente se preguntara qué clase de revolución es esta que permite semejante clase de parásitos”.

La Revolución contra los bares

Dándoselas de moralista, como buen comunista, Fidel Castro justificó la guillotina que aplicaría a los pequeños negocios, basándose en unas encuestas del Partido Comunista sobre los bares de La Habana y sobre los pequeños negocios en general.

Citamos textualmente para los incrédulos:

“Veamos por ejemplo cosas increíbles…en La Habana quedan…ganando dinero a troche y moche, consumiendo de todo, 955 bares privados.

Y la cifra la enfatizó con el histrionismo del que siempre hacia gala:

            “¡Novecientos cincuenta y cinco bares!” 

La “investigación” sobre los bares, indagaba sobre datos como ingresos brutos y ganancias (55% obtenía una insignificante ganancia de 25 pesos diarios), actitud revolucionaria (72% no estaban con la Revolución, de allí el interés de Castro en arruinarlos) y tipo de clientela que frecuenta estos negocios (la cual fue calificada despectivamente como de antisociales). Sobre la base de esa información, el estudio recomendaba que “los bares deben ser intervenidos o cerrados”.

La Revolución contra todos los negocios

La encuesta del Partido Comunista sobre las pequeñas empresas en La Habana arrojó datos sobre la legalidad y condiciones higiénicas de los negocios, pero también de sus propietarios: cuántos tenían solicitud de salida del país y cuántos atendían directamente sus empresas.

Los datos no avalaban la expropiación salvaje que se hizo de todos los negocios: 72% actuaba legalmente, 50% estaba en buenas condiciones higiénicas, sólo 5,8% de los propietarios había solicitado permiso de salida del país y el 88% de los dueños trabajaban en su negocio. Pero, nada de eso importaba porque la decisión del dueño de Cuba estaba tomada. La expresó con la siguiente frase:

“¡Señores, no se hizo una Revolución aquí para establecer el derecho al comercio! ¿Cuándo acabarán de entender que esta es la Revolución de los socialistas, que esta es la Revolución de los comunistas? 

El  fatídico “Marzo cubano” del 68               

Así, para acabar con “privilegiados”, “parásitos” y “holgazanes”, en marzo de 1968 Castro arremetió contra las pequeñas empresas privadas, hasta confiscarlas a todas:

“55.636 pequeños negocios, muchos operados por una o dos personas. Entre ellos 11.878 comercios de víveres (bodegas), 3.130 carnicerías, 3.198 bares, 8.101 establecimientos de comida (restaurantes, friterías, cafeterías, etc.), 6.653 lavanderías, 3.643 barberías, 1.188 reparadoras de calzado, 4.544 talleres de mecánica automotriz, 1.598 artesanías y 3.345 carpinterías”

(http://www.cubaencuentro.com/cuba/articulos/la-ofensiva-revolucionaria-de-1968-44-anos-despues-275328)

Esta razzia comercial ha sido la principal causante de la pauperización que el pueblo cubano vive hasta hoy y no el famoso embargo del imperialismo norteamericano, como manipuladamente denuncia la propaganda castrista en la ONU desde 1992 y de la cual se hace eco la izquierda en todo el mundo.

Guión cubano en Venezuela: guerra a las empresas privadas

Nos recuerda Agnes Heller que “la historia,  para bien o para mal, es un proceso de aprendizaje”. Aprendamos de la infausta experiencia del socialismo cubano y reconozcamos la importancia de la empresa privada para generar empleo, ingresos y bienes y servicios que mejoran el nivel de vida de la población. No cultivemos nuestros prejuicios antimercantiles, producto del estatismo petrolero, porque le hacemos el juego a la guerra del gobierno socialista contra las empresas. Hay que defender abiertamente a la empresa privada para impedir que Venezuela se convierta en un infierno socialista como el que el dinosaurio barbudo instauró en Cuba.

Heller padeció el comunismo en Hungría. Ante nuestras circunstancias, finalizo con unas orientadoras palabras de esta autora:

“Cuando la mayoría de la población elige esas opciones estratégicas (como el socialismo) no han tenido todavía ninguna experiencia personal sobre ellas, y luego ya no tienen  la menor posibilidad de cambiar de parecer”.

No Private Property in Cuba

capitolhillcubans

And there you have it.

Senior Castro regime official, Abel Prieto, explains Raul's economic "reforms":

"We're talking about non-state forms of management; we're not talking about privatization or non-state property. We are leasing land to cooperatives and families, farmers who have an obligation to make those lands productive, but the property is kept by the Cuban state on behalf of all the people. That is the complete opposite of privatization. A key principle is that no natural person, nor entity, that manages non-state production or services can concentrate property. Anyhow, it is the socialist state enterprise, now with more attributes, more freedom to act and greater efficiency, without the administrative obstacles that previously tied its hands, that is going to get us out of this crisis... The concept of privatization is absolutely prohibited as a matter of policy."

Also, make sure to read last week's explanation about "cooperatives" by Grisel Trista Arbesu, a senior Castro regime official in charge of "reforms."

Chavez: Expropiese, expropiese¡

Lo veo en el sitio de Martha Colmenares,

Video Chávez ordena ¡”Exprópiese, exprópiese…”! ¿Expropiaciones o apropiaciones?

El Gorila dando un show de guaperia, en tanto las focas aplauden entusiasmados.

Asalto a la propiedad privada en Venezuela

La denominada ¨Ley para la Defensa de las Personas en el Acceso a los Bienes y Servicios¨ que acaba de ser aprobada por la asamblea foca de Venezuela es de hecho una manera de legitimizar el asalto a la propiedad privada cuando y como quieran. No se andan por las ramas, le mandan a la guardia nacional al establecimiento del cual quieren apoderarse y sanseacabo.

Chávez aprueba las 'expropiaciones exprés'