The Human Right to Water: The Time Has Come

After posting my review of the film Blue Gold: World Water Wars I decided to post a link to a recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle (thanks to Robert Teeter of the Santa Clara Valley Water District) about the right to water. The editorial is balanced, pointing out some of the ramifications, positive and negative, of declaring such a right. 

Here is another perspective from Dennis T. Avery from American Daily (thanks to Waterlover). 

So how much water do we have a right to? Good question. Here is a 1996 paper by Peter Gleick in which he supports a 'lifeline' of 50 liters ( about 13 US gallons) per day per person. Some believe that each person should be guaranteed this amount for free. Gleick believes this amount should be free only in cases of extreme poverty when people are unable to pay (see his comment below). 

Some have questioned the necessity for declaring access to water a basic human right, questioning whether it will really help the more than 1 billion people who do not have access to clean water. Others say that this is just a 'feel good' measure by Westerners to pat themselves on the back for doing something to alleviate suffering. Still others say it will just produce more government intervention and block private enterprise from meeting water needs in developing countries. 

I used to be among the naysayers. Then I met an Irish lawyer at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto almost six years ago. At 3WWF there was hope that the Ministerial Declaration would contain support for such a right. It did not. The lawyer, whose name I cannot recall, explained to me why such a right was necessary. It would essentially put recalcitrant countries on notice that they need to put access to water at the top of their 'to do' lists. Failure to do so could lead to assorted sanctions and other pressures from the international community.

There is also a practical reason for declaring this right and pressuring countries to recognize and support it. Lack of access to clean water means more diseases, which themselves may not always be life-threatening but can lead to compromised immune systems, rendering people more susceptible to fatal diseases. Lack of access to clean water could also lead to civil unrest and pose a threat to internal and international security.      

I do not believe that having water as a basic human right should preclude the entry of private companies into the water sector in developing countries. Small systems can be constructed by locals with help and training from NGOs, but for larger systems, private firms would likely be better. Water would not have to be provided free, except for the amount below a lifeline, such as Gleick's 50 L per day per person. As long as the companies understand this and abide by it, there is no reason whay they should be forbidden to operate in developing countries. Who else is going to develop the large water systems? But oversight and clear ground rules need to be present.  

Maude Barlow and her ilk who decry privatization have it wrong. Without private industry we cannot bring safe water to over 1 billion who lack it nor sanitation to the 2.5 billion or so who  lack access to that. Declaring water to be a human right does not preclude a role for private industry.

The last sentence of the editorial said it best:

"As the United Nations studies making water a human right, it should avoid ideological extremes. Privatization isn't the enemy in making the water flow." -- San Francisco Chronicle editorial (26 December 2008)

Comments

[Peter Gleick]

Michael,
I just saw this post on the right to water, and since you mention a paper I wrote in 1996, I thought I'd offer a slight clarification:

First, the 1996 paper (http://www.pacinst.org/reports/basic_water_needs/) does NOT say that 50 liters per person per day should be given to everyone free. In fact, I argue that in most cases, we should pay for it, because we can. I DO believe it should be provided free when, for reasons of extreme poverty, people are unable to pay. In other words, it should be treated as a minimum human need and subsidized when necessary.

Far more explicitly, however, I wrote a paper in 1999 on the Human Right to Water (published in Water Policy), which explicitly discusses water as a human right (which I believe it is, legally and morally), but also goes over the distinctions between rights, responsibilities, pricing, and so on. This paper is also available free online at:
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/basic_water_needs/human_right_to_water.pdf.

Peter Gleick

[Michael]

Thanks for commenting, David.

I cannot see the world being required to invade a country "reluctant" to supply its citizens with clean water. If we did not invade Sudan over Darfur or Rwanda to stop the genocide we are not going to invade "Absurdistan" to force it to provide clean water to its people. I doubt even Maude Barlow would support such an action.

I would rather use the money spent on an invasion to help the country meet its obligations.

Along with the right comes a responsibility for the rest of us. What will be required is for the world to employ sanctions or other means to ensure the right is honored. I view a "carrot-and- stick" approach, with the emphasis on providing assistance for the transgressors to solve their own problems.

Water has no susbstitute (that I know of) for its role in sustaining life. In that respect, it is different from most (all?) other commodities.

Lack of clean water provision is not only a "rights" issue, but also a health issue and potentially, a security one as well. So even if one is not altruistic, the latter issue should be considered.

[David Zetland]

I agree with your broad sentiment, but I also want to point out that the lawyer's justification ("make it a right and get international sanctions") is hardly the end of the game.

As I said months ago (start here: http://aguanomics.com/2008/12/loving-themselves.html), a "right" implies an obligation to deliver. Governments will either meet that obligation (at what opportunity cost?) or fail. If they fail, do "we" (as in "we are the world") have the right to invade that country to deliver on that obligation?

I'd say that we would, and I'd also say that we'd be fools (cf. Iraq).

Leave water rights out of the UN declaration; worry about things that governments have a larger role in preventing/supporting (e.g., freedom of speech, religion, political affiliation, etc.)