EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Reflections on the Right to Water as We Move Towards Rio+20
Yesterday, even as the world celebrated World Water Day, some countries at the United Nations continued attempts to remove the reference to the “right to water” from a document that will guide the international development path in the coming decade.
(Photo: Creative Commons license from CGIAR Climate.)
It was less than two years ago, in the summer of 2010, that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution recognizing water as a human right. This was followed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) adopting a resolution on “human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation,” which made these rights legally binding. The recognition of the right to water at these U.N. bodies, and the developments since, such as the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on right to water and the resolution by the World Health Assembly recognizing right to water, have helped place water rights on the global agenda.
These successes were partly the result of collective efforts of water justice activists over the last 10 years. IATP's own advocacy on right to water was a direct response to the reference to water as a “need” [instead of a right], in the Ministerial Declaration of the 2nd World Water Forum in 2000.
But these efforts have been met with consistent pushback. The efforts to undermine the recognition of the right to water have been most visible at the triennial World Water Forum. Starting with the second World Water Forum in 2000, it has steadfastly refused to recognize the right to water. This was the case at the third World Water Forum in 2003 (which followed the U.N. General Comment in 2002 on right to water), at the fourth World Water Forum in 2006 (where several governments led by Bolivia asked that the Ministerial recognize water as a human right) and at the fifth World Water Forum (to which the UNGA president sent a letter affirming the need to recognize water as a human right, and at which 24 governments came out with counter-declaration recognizing water as a human right).
And yet again, in the lead up to the sixth World Water Forum earlier this month (March 12–17, 2012), the draft ministerial declaration did not clearly affirm the right to water despite the fact that it has now been recognized by both by the U.N. General Assembly and by the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Expressing her surprise, the Special Rapporteur on right to water warned that “the outcome of the World Water Forum may result in ‘solutions’ built on faulty foundations.” This is surely a pointed reference to the slogan of the sixth forum that "It’s time for solutions and commitments.”
Instead of unequivocally reaffirming the “the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation,” and explicitly committing to the full implementation of the same, the draft ministerial declaration only committed to accelerate the full implementation of “human right obligations relating to access to safe drinking water and sanitation.” The issue of whether access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right was left open for interpretation.
To many groups in civil society it was clear that the draft Ministerial Declaration fell short of commitments that virtually all UN Member States had already made in multiple fora. Over 40 international and national networks and organizations issued a joint call to the 6th World Water Forum asking that “human right obligations relating to access to safe drinking water and sanitation” be replaced by “the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation,” or failing that they abstain from endorsing the declaration.
Unfortunately the Ministerial Declaration of the World Water Forum that came out on March 13 neither took account of these suggestions nor paid attention to the warning by civil society groups that “a Ministerial Declaration containing retrogressive language on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation would still set a negative precedent, which a small number of States will use to try to undermine progress on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation at the United Nations level and in other international processes.”
While the Ministerial Declaration of the 6th World Water Forum is neither legally binding, nor does it carry the political and moral authority of a UN resolution adopted in accordance with UN rules and procedures, it appears that the warning by civil society was spot on. This week in New York a handful of governments have been trying to remove the reference to right to water from the draft outcome statement being prepared for Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the first earth summit held in Rio in 1992. The current draft was formulated on the basis of extensive consultation with governments, private sector and civil society. Despite many shortcomings this draft outcome document affirms a rights based approach to sustainable development and clearly refers to the right to water.
What is at stake in keeping this reaffirmation of the right to water?
To begin with, this language weakens the clear affirmation that governments need to determine how to realize the right to water and leaves room open for States to individually determine whether their human rights obligations require them to realize the right to water and sanitation for all.
The right to water is also recognized as a useful tool by communities who are hurt by developments that reduce their access to safe water. A clear affirmation of these legally binding rights (as per HRC resolution and/or national constitutions) in national and international rules, regulations and policy documents become extremely important for pursuit of decisions that are advantageous to vulnerable communities.
An important corollary to the recognition of this right is the attention it draws to the large number of people for whom these rights are not a reality yet. A case in point is the way the Special Rapporteur on right to water has been able to highlight violations of right to water in countries she visits.
Finally, as I have said elsewhere, globally there is an increasing attempt to promote policies that will treat water primarily as an economic good at the cost of water as a fundamental right. Several Rio+20 initiatives on the green economy also follow an approach that narrowly focuses on resource use efficiency and economic growth. In the absence of effective regulatory frameworks, safeguards and the clear recognition of water as a fundamental human right, corporate interests will continue to supersede marginalized, low-income communities and smallholder farmers. The stakes of reaffirming right to water is especially high this World Water Day, as we move towards Rio+20.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


10 Comments so far
Show Allright to water?
and if the well is dry, or toxic?
I cannot fathom one-issue thinking, anymore...
how does human industry relate to right to water?
how does human economic theory and practice influence industry?
how does violence drive human economic theory and practice?
how does one enjoy right to water without confronting said violence?
Coca-Cola will hire your own kids to kill you for your water to put in their poison, which they will then sell your kids in lieu of the water they stole...
How bad do you want the water?
Bad enough to fight for the land?
Bad enough to give up electricity?
Bad enough to give up Coca-Cola?
there is a misperception being floated, lately...
the violent do not fear the non-violent...nor do they look after them...
water is one concern of many resulting from violent oppression and industry...
Fukushima is another, and the Rise of the Drones...
From Collapsenet.com:
The Compass Points
NORTH – A NEW, SUSTAINABLE HUMAN PARADIGM MUST BE ROOTED IN LOCAL, CHEMICAL-FREE FOOD PRODUCTION, EXTENDED FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
The two primary and most visible points of contact between humans and the earth are where one sleeps and where one’s food originates. Our future relations with each other and the planet will be governed by distance and a return to ways of life that allowed our species to survive in a pre-industrial world, and preserving and adapting technology to a new set of priorities. Local food production will become the foundation of human experience, art and culture.
Chemical-free agriculture and Permaculture are the most effective, direct and unfiltered forms of exchange with the planet. They will enable the largest numbers of people to survive the transition between old and new paradigms. Since everything that we eat and wear was once alive and since all life originates from the earth, it follows that our relationship with our ecosystem is of primary importance.
There will be bigger risks, pain, suffering and loss throughout the transition. Yet there will also be a rediscovery of infinitely greater possibilities for joy and the fullest-possible expression of the human soul.
SOUTH – UNTIL THE WAY MONEY WORKS CHANGES, OUR SPECIES IS TRAPPED IN AN INFINITE-GROWTH PARADIGM WHICH THREATENS ALL LIFE
There is a 96% correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. – The current economic paradigm centered around the “personhood” of corporations and founded upon fractional reserve banking, compound interest and fiat currency is, by definition, a pyramid scheme and unsustainable. – It is more profitable to destroy life under this paradigm than it is to save it.
This dying monetary paradigm is for now the dominant factor governing relationships with the planet. There are but two options for those wishing to survive: Change that paradigm or disengage from it to the maximum extent possible and allow the old paradigm to wither and pass. It is not possible to change the monetary paradigm. Therefore, disengagement is essential as the old paradigm collapses.
Disengagement to whatever degree possible will become a matter of life and death, and perhaps the survival of our species.
Money will be completely redefined. Establishment of local and regional currencies or mediums of exchange outside the control or influence of the current paradigm is an essential step in disengagement.
(From Collapsenet.com con't)
EAST – INFINITE GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET IS NOT POSSIBLE
- Everything humans eat, breathe, drink, wear and consume is taken from the earth. There is an inherently sustainable balance point for human population – influenced by its lifestyle – and the earth.
- Cheap and easy-to-obtain fossil-fuel energies (coal, oil and natural gas) are depleting rapidly. Energy that has allowed for the extraction, manufacture and transportation of everything consumed by humans is disappearing. Oil and natural gas are not just energy sources. All plastics, fertilizers, pesticides and most pharmaceuticals, lotions, paints, resins, cosmetics and many other products depend on chemical input from oil and natural gas. These chemical inputs cannot be replaced by alternative energies.
– There are ten calories of fossil-fuel energy in every calorie of food consumed in the industrialized world. Food production, with fossil-fuel input, has enabled the earth’s population to grow by more than five billion people in the last 150 years. If the fossil fuels go away, the food goes away, leaving depleted, chemically-dependent topsoil behind. – All other life-essential resources, especially fresh water, are under severe stress.
- It is not possible to change the energy infrastructure to an unknown combination of alternatives because we have waited too long and there is no combination of alternative energies capable of supporting the edifice built by fossil fuels.
- Population and ecological balance will be restored whether humans participate or not. Active, conscious participation can mitigate consequences. Destroying the ecosystem we live in and failing to adjust and reprioritize our use of resources is, therefore, suicidal behavior. Change must happen from the bottom up and individually from the inside out before it can happen from community and cultural levels with increased effectiveness.
WEST – HUMAN POPULATION WILL INEVITABLY REDUCE BY BILLIONS OF PEOPLE AMIDST GREAT SUFFERING AS THE SUN SETS ON INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION
- The Die Off, as it is called, is an integral part of the irreversible collapse of human industrial civilization. It cannot be avoided. It can only be mitigated. It may be that from this Die Off and transition, a new consciousness will arise among humans or in fact, a new kind of human species: Post-Petroleum Man.
Thank you once again, AMMA. These posts, in my view, reflect the most significant information--and perspective-- of, on, and about our times. You truly get it!
HOMEOSTASIS: If you visit this thread, I'd ask that you take this data to heart. Its witness reinforces what I was trying to convey in yesterday's thread... where I passed off the optimism of Marianne Williamson, along with her "it's all about the individual" (and his/her positive attitude) projection as too late for this "take no prisoners" ecological implosion.
Siouxrose,
I don't know if I "truly get it" about what's happening in our world. I just like to share what seems true at the moment.
Regarding the heartbreaking suffering of our world (and I am guessing we "ain't seen nothin' yet") .....:
At the deepest level I see this as a vast melodrama of illusion. Since the separate ego (our sense of being "this person") is an illusion, the whole business is really like a play of forms, forms, forms..... that are actually empty. The whole drama is a very mysterious expression of Infinite Formless Awareness or Divinity.
And yet and yet: somehow, it seems to be an eternal and abiding truth that - "out of emptiness arises compassion."
Our species as a whole is still very young and inexperienced; we all have much learning and growing to do before we can be described as mature.
Still in all - as far as our world goes - I absolutely resonate with these words of The Dalai Lama, who said:
"Love and compassion are not necessities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive. With them, we can make a joint effort to solve the problems of the whole of humankind."
From Shiney Varghese's article:
*****>>The right to water is also recognized as a useful tool by communities who are hurt by developments that reduce their access to safe water. A clear affirmation of these legally binding rights (as per HRC resolution and/or national constitutions) in national and international rules, regulations and policy documents become extremely important for pursuit of decisions that are advantageous to vulnerable communities.
An important corollary to the recognition of this right is the attention it draws to the large number of people for whom these rights are not a reality yet.<<*****
______________________________________________________
There is a reason why communities around the world want a legal recognition of water as a human right. They need a tool to fight their own governments. And that is all it is -- for now: a legal "tool". Although it may not look like much, the reality is that many communities did NOT have even this tool to fight for their right.
And keep in mind that big corporations and the governments that do their bidding were dead set against a recognition of water as a right, because they fear the legal implications. That alone shows that it is NOT a worthless achievement altogether.
Such "fights" remind me of a few wildlife videos I have seen where the prey animals gang together and fight off or scare off the predators. That is their only protection, given that nature has made them with certain characteristics.
This attempt by activists also seems like an attempt to come together to take on the predators, which the activists and the communities cannot do on their own, alone. And it looks like they don't want to or cannot become like the predators even in their fight for survival.
So I would not dismiss these attempts as worthless or a "one-issue thinking" as "dubet" has done above. All kinds of battles -- small and big -- are being fought and more need to be fought.
People need to live and survive while waiting for that one big, grand, glorious revolution that would make all such "one issue thinking" and "specialist causes" (as another poster put it, on another article about water as a right) unnecessary. Hopefully!
And there's no guarantee either, that this one big revolution would make all such little things as "right to water" unnecessary. As the Chinese people must have found out by now. They have had their one big glorious revolution, and yet, people can still be uprooted from their traditional place and dumped elsewhere in pursuit of yet more glory for the "nation". And their rivers can still be poisoned. That doesn't mean people should stop thinking about big change -- but only to make sure they watch out for usurpers of people's energy and yearning for change.
Siouxrose,
Thank you for your encouragement, and I hope you are feeling better.
If access to claen water is a fundamental human right, as I had thought the case for much longer than the recent discussions in the UN seem to imply, how can we tolerate the privatisation of our water supplies?
Siouxrose,
Thank you once again for your supportive words.
Whatever wisdom I have gained about life (and perhaps this is true about wisdom in general) has come through hard work and openness.
From my point of view true wisdom is identical with compassion. And at the deepest level, this can be described via a metaphorical story. While climbing a very formidable mountain - say in the Himalayas - we need to use one eye to look up and the other to look down
Nearing the peak, the eye which is looking down suddenly recognizes untold gallons of blood (and the suffering that preceded its spilling) permeating the pristine snow for as far as the eye can see. And it knocks the wind out of us and breaks our heart.
The eye looking up, however, glimpses the mountain peak, which is now visible though still partially obscured. In contemplating the peak as we approach it, we realize with a sense of breath-taking awe - that All of this - is perfect.
Not nearly perfect, but "perfectly perfect."
We behold the balance and essential "rightness" of the unfolding law of karma..... and the profound love ("a Love beyond love") expressed through its design. It begins to dawn on us: this Love is the beginning, middle, and ultimate end of everything we can perceive, experience, or even imagine.
Duplicate.