Who decides on scarce resources?

Democracy on dry land

Interview with Katalin Gennburg

[This interview posted in May 2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/demokratie-auf-dem-trockenen/.]

Published in:

1/2024

A future with a plan

How do you see the connection between urban development and water supply?

Climate change is also presenting us with new challenges in Berlin. We are seeing increasingly severe droughts, but also heavy rainfall, so that the soil can no longer absorb the rainwater. Every new building and every sealed surface exacerbates the problem. More and more architects are therefore calling for us to only redevelop the city and no longer build new buildings. For the Left Party, however, it is also crucial to bring together ecological planning with social issues. Because we need more affordable housing – for refugees too. It's actually quite simple: old shopping centers, office buildings, parking garages and the like could be transformed into residential buildings. In other words, we need to focus on conversion rather than new construction. Furthermore, we need to save space by ending speculative vacancy, municipalizing buildings and setting maximum sizes for new apartments. The question of democratic distribution of space is already part of the planning debate. This may seem far removed from the water issue, but in fact it is very close.

It touches on many fundamental conflicts, such as the land issue, but ultimately also the question of which industries and economic sectors should be established.

The question of land is central when it comes to the democratic planning of municipalities and economic settlements, and thus also to the distribution of natural resources. In Berlin, for example, the question of water distribution is very opaque. Two years ago, I asked a small question in the House of Representatives about the water consumption of large industrial consumers. The Senate Administration for the Environment, which was then led by the Greens, said that this was subject to data protection. We kept digging, and the research network Correctiv also looked into the issue nationwide and found that the majority of federal states publish these figures, but not Berlin. Transparency is a key prerequisite if we want to talk about a fair distribution of water. As long as we don't know how much water is used by Vattenfall, Coca Cola and other large corporations, we should not get involved in sham debates.

"Transparency about the use of water is a central prerequisite for a different distribution."

As socialists, we must of course ask the question of the social necessity of production and discuss water waste as a class issue: away from the pool of the allotment gardener to the pools in the large hotels and hotel chains, which are building new buildings in Berlin in droves and wasting an endless amount of water for an industry that is not sustainable at all.

Have you been able to get the industry to disclose its consumption figures?

Unfortunately, we did not find out who the biggest private consumers are. Campact has filed a lawsuit against this, and the process is still ongoing. However, we know from official statistics that in 2019, a quarter of the water from the public supply went to large commercial enterprises. It is unclear to whom exactly. We need transparency and democracy on this issue! As the LEFT Party, we should fully engage in this conflict and put the issue on the national and local agenda, because the question is relevant to everyone's everyday life.

But it is also difficult to discuss. You have to counter the argument that you are destroying jobs.

This is exactly what we need to discuss, because these are fundamental questions for an anti-capitalist party that is fighting for the democratization of the economy and a socialist society. There are enough industries that we need as employers in the region. But why do we need companies like Tesla in Brandenburg, where many resources are wasted on so-called future technology that does not solve any problems but instead produces new bottlenecks and conflicts? What's more, Tesla doesn't give a damn about workers' rights. The question of water distribution is only one element of a social spatial planning and distribution policy that was clearly regulated for a long time. In the FRG, for example, it was defined where the upper and lower centers are and how they relate to each other. This social state, strictly regulated planning, which existed mainly in the GDR, but also in the Federal Republic, has been totally neglected in neoliberalism. We have to get involved because it is about our livelihoods and a good life for all.

One question is who uses how much water, and the other is what does water cost and where does the income from water extraction fees go?

First of all, water is a public good that should not be subject to profitability. But it also requires gigantic infrastructures for water supply, such as retention basins or sewers, which have to be maintained and expanded. And that requires well-paid work. In case of doubt, the water supply is therefore a loss-making business for the state. There are savings to be made elsewhere. But we also need to talk about how we can regulate water charges with more social differentiation, so that large private companies, but also house builders, are held more accountable. We also support the BUND's call for a surface water withdrawal fee for industrial consumers. As for the question of earmarked investments: there are very good reasons for this. Berlin, for example, needs to invest heavily in the renovation of its sewer system.

Where are the political starting points for achieving a fair water management system overall?

In my view, it is important to finally comply with the EU Water Framework Directive. This has a lot to do with water protection and restoration. The restoration of Berlin's waterways after 200 years of industrial metropolis costs a lot of money. The city's growth is due to its industrial wealth. The owners in particular have earned well, while the social and ecological damage has simply been "socialized" over decades. Who will pay for the toxic and deplorable state of the waterways now? Instead of taking on this challenge and dealing with it, millions are already being set aside to finance fines for non-compliance with the directive. That's not the way to do it!

Which actors and approaches do you see as a way to promote socially just and ecological water planning?

Several initiatives have shaped the debate on public services in the city: the Energy Table, the Water Table, which gave rise to the Blue Community, and the Rent Movement, as well as the expropriation of Deutsche Wohnen & Co. All of them have a grassroots democratic claim, that is, they are about the demand for genuine democratization, co-determination and co-management. For example, the initiative Mietenvolksentscheid (Rent Referendum) proposed setting up neighborhood councils for municipal housing stocks. This is something that can be built on: people should not only have a say in the design of their neighborhoods and rents, but also in the question of water supply. The work of the BUND and the Wassernetz-Initiative (Water Network Initiative) can be incorporated into this. To do this, we need to be able to process the specialized knowledge about nature and water protection in such a way that the debates are accessible to many people. As far as public water utilities are concerned, for example, it is a matter of co-determination in the question of limiting managers' salaries or in the decision as to which waterworks receive a larger supply. These are far-reaching questions and tough conflicts!

We already have tough conflicts in Brandenburg, for example, over the water consumption of the Tesla Gigafactory.

I would have liked to discuss the settlement from the point of view of overall social planning. What does it mean for the supply of housing, day care centers and everything that goes with it? Instead, the Brandenburg state government quickly created facts. And there is growing evidence that there were preliminary agreements with members of the government. This is deeply undemocratic. Now we have a situation in which the water supply for the local people is acutely endangered. Environmental organizations have been pointing this out from the very beginning. In Berlin, we have repeatedly urged the Berlin waterworks not to agree to the final expansion stage, because this would also endanger the water supply in Berlin. This question has still not been clearly answered. The whole process reminds me very much of the settlement processes in East Germany after 1990.

In what way?

In the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, a regional association was always founded for the purpose of coordinating large-scale settlements across regions in order to calculate risks, consequences and needs and to ensure comprehensive planning – with the participation of experts from ministries, regional associations, with sufficient finances and personnel. The state government has failed to do this in the case of Tesla. Unfortunately, such failures have become a tradition since the privatization orgies of the Treuhand. The small and already understaffed urban planning office in Hangelsberg was given the tasks and it was apparently calculated that the employees would collapse and capitulate under the burden of planning a gigafactory. The people on the ground have seen through this and clearly see how profits are being put before co-determination and local living conditions. I am pleased that two-thirds of those eligible to vote have voted against Tesla's expansion plans. Now the left must join the people on the ground in this struggle and fight for democracy and a socio-ecological transformation.

The interview was conducted by Harry Adler and Eva Völpel.

Katalin Gennburg

Katalin Gennburg has been a member of the Berlin House of Representatives since 2016. She won her constituency in Treptow-Köpenick three times in a row and is the spokesperson for urban development, construction, the environment and tourism in her parliamentary group.