Water as a Human Right: Towards Civil Society Globalization

Abstract

This paper aims to shed some light on the meaning and implications of the notion of water as a human right. The transformations of how water was viewed and acknowledged in the 20th century are addressed in light of globalization and the emergence of the concept of water as a social good with an economic value. The relevance of ‘water as a human right’ to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will be discussed. Water governance and its implications on human rights are discussed to demonstrate the necessity for strengthening water governance models and set-ups to ensure the appropriate implementation of water as a human right. Conclusions and recommendations are outlined with an emphasis on the value of seeing the synergies in the three-global visions which are water for people, food and nature.

Background

After the Rio Earth Summit, it was observed that the implementation of the international commitments with respect to environment and water was limited. This was attributed to the fact that the breadth of the challenge was not matched by strengthening of governance systems, investment and political commitment. The notion of sustainable development was challenged as a means to reconcile the interdependence between conservation and development. The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set specific targets to achieve in terms of poverty alleviation, health, education, water and environmental sustainability.

The 1992 Dublin Water Conference, Principle 4 stated that “water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good”. This was recently confirmed in the World Water Vision, which calls for full-cost pricing to encourage water conservation, to ensure more water is available to go around, and to pay for the proper operation and maintenance of infrastructure, including sewage treatment to prevent water pollution (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000). Civil society movements argue that because water is a vital social need, governments should provide water free or greatly discounted to the poor. Furthermore, they see an inherent contradiction between the idea that water is a fundamental human right and social good and that potentially it could be allocated like any other commodity—only to those who can afford it.

The introduction of water as a human right brings new perspectives (and dimensions) to the notion of sustainable development. In the early perception of sustainable development, it only encompasses social, economic and ecological dimensions. This paper argues for the need to broaden the concept to include governance and human right. Governance refers, in general, to the economic, social and political relationships between a society and its government, or between an organization and its governing entity. Governance is often referred to as the ‘art of steering societies and organizations’.

In this paper, governance will be adopted as the process by which stakeholders or civil society articulate their interests, influence policy decisions and voice their concerns on development models. It is also a process in which decision makers are held accountable.

A governance model usually describes a set of structures, functions and practices that define ‘who does what’, and ‘how they do it’. Good governance will guide and, in some cases, constrain choices about business models. Together, governance and business models determine the distribution of risks and responsibility for all aspects of water supply management. Three models of water governance exist which include: the state planning model, the market model, and the community model.

In Jordan, for example, public-private participation in water management of Amman city via a limited term management contract was examined. However, municipal governments are forbidden by law to sell their infrastructure, and in many cases, they retain control over long-term strategic planning, which is characterized by features of the planning approach. In Egypt, the government planning model is practised.

There are importance differences between the planning, market and community governance models. Consumers are represented differently: as citizen-voters, customer ratepayers, or as users and community members. Accountability is structured differently in each model.

The rationale for the emergence of the notion of water as a human right stems from the need to secure water for the poor and marginalized and to urge governments to address the water agenda as a national priority as outlined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, the MDGs addressed poverty, health, gender, education and environmental sustainability, but it overlooked that fact that these goals are interconnected and that environmental sustainability underpins other goals and all of these goals are critical for human right approach to water and environment.

There is now a growing sense that the MDGs will only be achieved with the full participation of local people, and the scaling-up of the many individual initiatives that have managed to link conservation and development successfully in one area where it is hoped that progress towards the MDGs might make great headway.

For both water resources development and biodiversity conservation to contribute fully to poverty reduction, health and the realization of MDGs, a fundamental shift is needed to more systemic and people-centred approaches that build on poor people's priorities and capabilities; that effectively engage all stakeholders in addressing the underlying policy and institutional drivers of environmental degradation; and that empower poor and vulnerable groups with the assets, rights, and entitlements they need to improve their lives through sound water/environmental management.

In a globalized world, there is a concern that water will be commercialized. When the institutions of money rule the world, it is inevitable that the interests of money will take precedence over the interests of people. Hence, the global water agenda (on how the world should be) is determined to a large extent by the global financial institutions and donor agencies. As a result of market globalization represented by the economic forum, social and conservation fora are emerging to present a new discourse which is referred to as civil society globalization as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The role of civil society in realizing sustainable development

The notion of water as a human right represents the civil-society globalization (CSG) which aims to balance the market-based globalization (MBG). The CSG refers to the discourse and mission of civil society to address human rights and to inform policy decision making and enlighten the policy makers to spillover effects and externalities of policy options on the marginalized and the poor (as articulated in the World Social Forum and IUCN conservation forum), while the MBG is viewed to be driven by market or economic rationality as adopted in the IMF and World Bank policies (as promoted by the World Economic Forum). This paper argues that the adoption of the concept of water as a human right will help control the marginalization of the poor in the South and it will in turn create a balance among the three competing forces of markets, society and government.

Water as a Human Right: Rationale and Value

Access to sufficient, safe and affordable water is vital for human development. At present more than 1.2 billion people lack access to an adequate supply of water and more than 2.4 billion lack access to adequate sanitation. More than 2.4 million people die annually from water related diseases due to an absence of a qualitatively safe water supply; most of them are children (UN, 2003; WHO, 2003; Howard & Bartram, 2003; Scanlon et al., 2004).

The term ‘human rights’ refers to those rights that have been recognized by the global community in the Universal Declaration of human rights, adopted by the United Nations (UN) member states in 1948, and in subsequent international legal instruments binding on states. The human rights approach is especially used to challenge the economic and social injustice. The consensus on human rights reflects a global moral conscience (Water Aid, 2003; IUCN, 2004). The intent of the adoption and operationalizing the notion of the human right approach to water is to put the peoples' need first regarding water use and to promote human-centred water recourses development based on a coherent framework of binding legal norms and accountability.

Although legal instruments at the international and national levels have recognized and confirmed human rights, the law is not the source of these rights. Human rights are not granted by any human authority or government, but are derived from the essential dignity and nature of humankind. The list of internationally recognized human rights covers all those rights essential for human survival, physical security and development in dignity. It is argued that there is no hierarchy of rights and all rights should be regarded as being of equal priority. Denial of one right invariably impedes the enjoyment of others, leading to the recognition by UN member states that human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated (UN, 1993; Hausermann, 1997; Water Aid, 2003; IUCN, 2004; Scanlon et al., 2004; UNHCHR, 2003).

The human rights approach to development is one which promotes human-centred development and recognizes the inherent dignity of every human being without distinction. From a legal perspective, the human right treaties and conventions that are contracts signed by states are legally binding and impose mutual obligations on the states.

On the other hand, the General Comment also stresses the fundamental importance of ensuring access to adequate sanitation and states' parties obligation to progressively extend safe sanitation services, particularly to rural and deprived urban areas, taking into account the needs of women and children.

The role of civil society organizations is seen in the incorporation of human rights law and principles into both policy and actions, i.e. lending policies, structural adjustment programmes or development projects. Moreover, their role is to address the needs of the most vulnerable or marginalized groups of the population in the provision of aid and the distribution and management of water and water facilities.

Convergence of Water Vision: People, Food and Nature

The Water Vision 21 recognizes that water management requires the involvement of government, civil society and the private sector, and the principle of subsidiarity must be respected (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000). A framework of action for the World Water Vision was developed by the Global Water Partnership (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000). However, the challenge is to operationalize the concepts and principles at the global level to get them implemented at the local level.

It is interesting to re-visit the three visions for Water 21, i.e. water for people, food and nature, in order to examine how water for the human right approach underpins the three visions as illustrated in Figure 2. In the vision for ‘water for all’ (or for people), human right is the core of the underlying thinking. Equity, affordability and access to water are key to this vision. Moreover, food security and securing sufficient and safe food is an evident component in the vision for ‘water for food’. Efficiency, users' participation and pricing are the fundamental parts of this vision that are all correlated to the human right in the UN declaration. The challenge is how to present sufficient evidence on how the vision for ‘water for nature’ can be viewed as part of human rights. Conceptually, it can be argued that the concept of ecosystem services that are critical for the human livelihood and well-being which presents sound evidence on how ‘water for nature’ (and even clean and functioning environment) is simply a human right. All this reaffirms that human rights are interdependent and inseparable and that the nucleus for all the three visions is ‘human right’. The same articulation and argument can be stated that the human right approach underpins all MDGs. Such synergies or ‘hidden connections’ are useful to illuminate a unity within diverse visions and schools of thoughts.

Figure 2 The role of the human right approach for water as unifying water vision

Reconciling the proper trade-off between the three visions (people, food and nature) requires a regional approach for addressing the concept of water, energy and food security. This in turn requires an integration of regional policies in the sectors of water, trade and energy. To assess the level of governmental commitment to the concept of water for human right, indicators are needed as a tool to set benchmarks.

Indications and an Assessment of the Human Right Approach to Water

The UN concept for water as a human right was used as a tool for analysis of the quality of water delivery systems and the human/legal dimension of water. The following indicators were devised to measure the extent of abidance of countries to the water for human right approach. Such indicators present a description of the condition of a water sector as well as the sector configuration and conditions.

Availability

With regard to physical access the Comment states that “a water supply is sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses, such as drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene” if it follows at least the basic access defined in the WHO Guidelines. It needs to be taken into account that some individuals and groups may also require additional water due to health, climate and work conditions (UN, 2002b). For example, in the case of Egypt the per capita availability of fresh water resources is assumed to decrease with time from 815 m³ per capita to 500 m³ per capita in 2025. While in the case of Jordan the water availability is about 120 litres per capita per day for domestic purposes.

Water Quality

The water supplied must be safe with regard to water quality for domestic use aspects as well.

The Committee refers to the WHO Guidelines for drinking water (WHO, 1993), which are meant to guide governments to develop national water quality standards to be sufficient to fulfill the needs of all human beings. The water quality in Egypt is characterized by a high rate of pollutants in canals and to a lesser degree in the Nile. In the case of Jordan, 50% of spring water is biologically contaminated and with high levels of salinity. In addition, surface water is not adequate for drinking.

Accessibility

With regard to the Comment, water and water facilities and services must be accessible to every human being. It identifies three overlapping dimensions of accessibility, defined as follows (UN, 2002a, 2002b):

•	Physical accessibility:

Water, and adequate water facilities and services, must be within safe physical reach for all sections of the population. Sufficient, safe and acceptable water must be accessible within, or in the immediate vicinity, of each household, educational institution and workplace. All water facilities and services must be of sufficient quality, culturally appropriate and sensitive to gender, life-cycle and privacy requirements. Physical security should not be threatened during access to water facilities and services.

The WHO Guidelines for water availability mentioned above also serve as the guiding document in assessing those criteria. In the case of Egypt, there is high rate of population increase (2%) with low efficiency of water distribution. 97% of the urban population is served with piped water. The rural poor suffer from poor maintenance of water facilities. In the case of Jordan, 100% of the urban population is served by piped water. There are no significant geographical discrepancies between rural and urban.

•	Economic accessibility:

Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The direct and indirect costs and charges associated with securing water must be affordable, and must not compromise or threaten the realization of other Covenant rights.

In general, water services are considered to be affordable when they cost no more than 2% of the average family income (AWWA, 2000). In the case of Egypt, the operation and maintenance costs of municipal and sanitary systems are high. Moreover, the rural population is characterized as low-income. In the case of Jordan, domestic water prices are affordable. The water supply is not continuous (2 days a week in urban areas) and the price for bottled water is 8–10 times more than piped water.

Access to Information

The public right to have access to water data and information is critical for planning and the sound management of water resources. Information and data availability varies from country to country. Most concerns exist with regard to data accuracy, reliability, consistency and deficiencies. In the case of Egypt, information is difficult to obtain due to low investment in the information industry. In the case of Jordan, reasonable information systems are in place and access to water data is feasible.

Water Governance and Human Right Approach

Water governance refers to a range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to regulate the development and management of water resources and provision of water services at different levels of society. Effective water governance is a prerequisite to fulfill the human right approach for water. The term ‘governance’ refers, in general, to the relationship (economic, social and political) between a society and its government. The term adopted for governance refers to the process by which the input by stakeholders is considered in the decision-making process and decision makers are held accountable.

With regard to the governmental commitment to the human right concept, it can be stated that there is no single legal norm in any of the countries evaluated which serves as a binding instrument for the human right on water, although national governments are obliged to fulfill international commitments on human rights. Governmental obligation to fulfill international law concerning water in general depends on political interests and economic viability.

In general, people are not aware of their right to a sufficient water supply in quality and quantity. People often simply do not know about their right. Education and empowerment could serve to help in this and act as a starting point for political engagement.

Stakeholders such as NGOs play an important role in encouraging dialogue among people towards their awareness of the right to water. In all countries a growing awareness of water as a finite resource was identified, but work still needs to be done. Often water is seen as a political issue rather than a basic need for life.

Civil society and organizations aiming to improve governance are often asked to consider adopting a governance model. A governance model is a functional description of the principles of good governance, and the allocation of responsibilities and relationships between stakeholders for tasks and practices required.

Some water utilities have become trapped in a cycle of ‘three lows’: low investment, low quality of service and low revenue (and/or cost recovery) levels. Water authorities that receive low levels of revenue relative to costs typically under-invest; the resulting low quality of service makes it politically difficult, in many cases, to justify raising water rates. This is particularly acute when water entities do not set water rates to recover all of their costs over the full lifecycle of infrastructure, in other words, for long-term capital expenditure on renewals, rehabilitation and replacement as well as for short-term operations and maintenance of the water supply system.

Although information on best practices in governance has increased over the past decade, it is generally acknowledged that there is no ‘one size fits all’ model. Governance models and business models are closely interrelated. Preferred models of good governance will guide and, in some cases, constrain choices about business models, and vice versa. Together, governance and business models determine the distribution of risks and responsibility for all aspects of water supply management.

The debate over water supply governance and how control should be shared among citizens, the state and the private sector centres around three idealized models of resource management: the state planning model, the market model and the community model. These three stakeholder governance models also apply to public services more generally. In practice, of course, many public services have elements of more than one model.

In practice, there is a great deal of variation in the stakeholder governance models associated with different business models. There are also hybrid models: municipal services boards or commissions, delegated management contracts, and private utilities adopt elements of both the planning and market models.

Good governance is about achieving desired results, and achieving them in the right way. Organizations usually develop in-house governance models. The importance of good governance is widely accepted, yet the question of the usefulness of governance models is debated.

Whether or not a formal model is adopted, organizations will find it useful to define principles of good governance, and to articulate responsibilities of and relationships between stakeholders to serve the human needs. Despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of governance, definitions and models of good governance vary considerably. The fine-grained structure of a governance model will, however, vary from one country to another.

Good governance is characterized by a set of ranked principles that guide decision-making processes and management practices. For example, in making recommendations on the role of governments in water supply management, four principles were devised. These include: (1) public accountability for decisions relating to the water system; (2) effective exercise of owners' oversight responsibilities; (3) competence and effectiveness in the management and operation of the system; and (4) full transparency in decision making.

Principles of good governance and the prioritization accorded to each principle vary between organizations and jurisdictions. This variation is due in part to the fact that water governance and human rights are embedded in broader frameworks of political governance.

Also implicit in different definitions of good governance are assumptions about the legitimacy of different stakeholders and decision makers, robust decision-making structures, and accepted processes of decision making. Good governance is thus to some degree dependent upon how a society interprets the practice of deliberative democracy which is a pre-requisite for applying the human right approach to water.

Specifically, there has been an emergence of relatively strong civil society discourse in water governance in the MENA region, for example, in Lebanon and Jordan. However, in many countries the voice of civil society is low or does not exist. There is a strong relationship between the notion of water as a human right and governance. This is linked to real participation of a civil society in decision making and also to access to information.

Towards a Civil Society Globalization: New Discourse

The UN concept for water as a human right is characterized as a people-centred approach to development, not recognizing the ‘water rights’ of an environment (or natural capital) in an equal manner. A people-centred approach is preferable to a top-down approach which was traditionally in place with water systems imposed on the people by governmental and professional sectors. It is more effective, efficient and less costly, but water is also needed to maintain and recreate nature and the environment. The amount of water for use by people needs to be balanced with the needs of the environment.

In terms of contextualizing the notions and concepts of the natural capital, sustainability and ecosystems services in the water as a human right, it will be valuable to incorporate the concept of ecosystem services1 as outlined in the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment

Our natural capital represented by ecosystem services could be the new initiative that provides the link between conservation and development (as stated in MDG1 and MDG7). The dependence of human livelihoods on ecosystem services can be demonstrated to both civil society and the private sector in terms of quantified benefits and costs. Additionally, there is an increasing realization of the vulnerability of large groups of poor people to natural disasters that may be mitigated or even prevented by improved ecosystem management. Hence, the link between human security and environmental security is evident to demonstrate the need and value for broadening the concept of water as a human right to ‘environment or ecosystem services as a human right’.

Civil society and knowledge-based organizations (such as IUCN) can contribute to provide evidence and action research on the value of ecosystem services. This can be achieved through improving and disseminating knowledge, empowering key actors and improving governance at national level and international policy. Specifically, the eco-dimension of water as a human right can utilize the notion of ecosystem services to achieve a number of outputs. These include: (1) assessment of the metrics of different ecosystem services, e.g. through modelling of the contribution of different forest restoration interventions to carbon sequestration and water yield, as well as the economic valuation of the results; (2) assessment of the trade-offs (and synergies) between optimizing various ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation; and (3) linking up national-level networks on ecosystem services to promote international learning.

In the MENA region during the last two decades, civil societies such as the Jordan Environment Society and the Royal Society for Conservation of Nature and many NGOs in Lebanon such as Green Line, contributed to provide the enabling environment to conduct policy analysis and to review the regulatory and governance models. These include: (1) demonstrations at both field and policy level on how ecosystem services-related interventions can contribute to climate change adaptation; (2) practical guidance on different institutional and incentive mechanisms allowing smallholders and small enterprises to benefit from ecosystem services markets; (3) standards for Green/Fair Carbon and Green/Fair Water developed in partnership with private sector companies and governments; (4) catchments restoration methods for delivering improved ecosystem services, as a direct contribution to poor people's livelihood; and (5) demonstrations of how changes in the management of dams and reservoirs can have net benefits for people as well as for biodiversity. However, the new discourse of civil society is linked to the evolution of democratic transformations in the MENA countries. The current political situation in many countries in the MENA region constrains the positive role for nurturing the new role and discourse of civil society.

In case the democratic processes in MENA regions are enhanced to ensure accountability and transparency, civil society could contribute in several ways to the realization of the right to water and water as a human right. The identified possible fields of activity are as follows:

1.	Promoting concepts of human rights by raising awareness and informing about aspects of the right to water and ecosystem services and on how citizens can claim that right and assist others in fulfilling it.
2.	Building capacities among local groups and civil society to monitor the commitment and work of local government and therefore contributing to ensuring that an adequate policy is in place, and that the policy is implemented.
3.	Supporting local service provision by raising awareness of water and environment as a limited resource, e.g. awareness campaigns, informing and training, especially in schools for instance in the management of community water supplies and ecosystem services.
4.	Contributing to the development and promotion of international standards, benchmarks and indicators on the right to water and environment.
5.	Documentation and highlighting violations of the right to water and the environment.
6.	Advocating in international and regional forums on behalf on those who have had their right to water threatened or violated.

In many developing countries the political situation is affecting much work and engagement of civil society in water issues. The fact that several NGOs are running regional offices in different countries is seen as a great advantage in contributing to the realization of the human right concept of water.

Conclusions

Defining water as a human right leads to a broader basis for advocacy work for the water needs of human beings. Utilizing the right to water means: (1) paving the way for translating the right to water into specific national and international legal obligations and responsibilities; (2) raising attention towards water management throughout the world; (3) identification of minimum water requirements and allocations of all; (4) setting priorities for water policies centres around the water needs of humans; (5) catalyzing international agreements on water issues and, thus contributing to resolutions of watershed disputes and conflicts between different users; (6) emphasizing the governmental obligation to ensure sufficient access to water, ecosystem services and sanitation; and (7) providing a basis for lobbying towards water need on the basis of political commitments.

Through seeing the linkages in three water visions and MDGs, it was evident that all human rights are indivisible are interrelated. A lack of water and sanitation clearly has an impact on the enjoyment of other human rights, such as the rights to education, health and work, which form an essential basis for poverty elimination and human development as well. Recognizing water as a human right creates the political will to solve the water and ecological crisis, lowering poverty and raising health by establishing a partnership between the human rights and the water/ environment sector community.

The key to success in embodying and realizing water as a human right lies within country-led mechanisms to set, measure and achieve country-specific environmental sustainability targets that draw on existing development frameworks and strategies, including poverty reduction strategies, macroeconomic and sectoral policies. This integration will make it possible to forge a more coordinated response to poverty-environment challenges, to achieve synergies between drivers' interventions across many sectors and levels of action, and to ensure that adequate domestic and external resources are being allocated and effectively targeted.

Notes

1. The term ‘Ecosystem Services’ is used here as it is by the Millennium Assessment, i.e. to include both goods and services. The latter include, for example, carbon sequestration, water purification, the securing of water supplies, physical protection against soil erosion and natural disasters such as flooding, pollination, genetic information for agricultural, pharmaceutical and industrial use.