Access to Clean Water in Bolivia: Global Perspectives and Citizenship and Working with Others - Term Paper Example

Access to Clean Water in Bolivia: Global Perspectives and Citizenship and Working with Others For years, most Bolivians have taken the availability of clean water for granted (Peet, 2003). However, Alkon (2011) asserts that recent outbreaks of water-borne diseases, increased lakes and river pollution and depletion of ground water in some areas of the country has increased the concern of many Bolivians bringing home the point that the clean water issue cannot and should not be taken lightly. Many countries around the globe have been preoccupied by the issue of availability of clean water. Some may boost having ample supplies of clean water but in most of these instances, the quality and safety of the water remains an issue of concern. It is estimated that over 1 billion people have no access to clean water and another in the regions of 2.4 billion having access to poor sanitation (United Nations, 2002). This paper explores the issues from global perspectives and citizenship and working with others; faced by Bolivia and other developing nations regarding the access to clean water as well as exploring possible courses of action or approaches. Access to Clean Water in Bolivia: Global Perspectives and Citizenship and Working with Others In Bolivia, importation of irrigated products from other countries with poor water conditions resulted in outbreaks of a host of illnesses (Peet, 2003; Alkon , 2011). As we all know, water is life and thus for life, for production of food, for health, for environmental cycles and economic activity; adequate fresh water is vital (Anguelovsky & Roberts, 2011). But the question is how much is “adequate?” How can we ensure that the people of Bolivia and the rest of the world have access to clean water, present and in the future? What principles should the Government of Bolivia implement to guide both domestic and international policy making that affect water? This paper helps the reader to become more involved in a dialogue publicly on issues regarding access to clean water. As a result, the dialogue will adopt a public deliberation approach (Finnegan, 2002): a way in which important issues of concern are discussed and tackled with tough decisions. It is not a debate nor is it a casual discussion; rather, it is a way in which citizens can talk together working through choices regarding the basic directions of the country. Deliberation not only helps one express his/her views or try and change the view of others, but it is also a way to find out the action that serves best the interests of the public wholly (Finnegan, 2002). The major deliverable of this approach is improved understanding of choices as well as their consequences so as the eventual decisions made are sound. In a deliberation, Finnegan (2002) affirms that there are no restrictions as to who speaks and who listens, people reflect on their personal beliefs as well as what others have said without coming to conclusions, but they ponder the consequences of the available choices depending on what is to them and to others, valuable. Withdrawing water for various uses makes it unavailable for other uses. This is inline with the belief that ‘to get one thing, one other will have to be foregone’. This means that water that has been used for a variety of reasons, mostly industrial will not be suitable for other uses since it is usually contaminated, or rather consumed. Background Information Global Distribution of Fresh Water i. About 2.5% of earth water is fresh water, most which is found in permanent snow or ice or in groundwater aquifers. Humans get their water from rivers, lakes, shallow basins and soil moisture. Furthermore, these freshwater bodies are unevenly distributed across various parts of the country, and around the world. ii. Increased water consumption at all levels – water consumption; domestically, agricultural and industrial; has increased globally due to increment in economic development in the country and other parts of the world (Leichenko & Solecki, 2008). iii. In mid 1990s, 40% of the world’s population in close to eighty countries was suffering from serious issues of water shortages. Since water shortages are vast in developing countries, and that developing countries have a rapid growing population; estimates show that close to two thirds of the total world population will be suffering from clean water related issues in the next 25 years (United Nations, 2003). Human Uses of Clean/Freshwater Instream use – refers to the use of water in its natural form. Humans’, for instance, instream uses of freshwater may include shipping, hydrological power generation and recreational activities like swimming. In essence, humans’ uses for water usually involve withdrawals where water is channeled or piped to different users and locations. Upon using it, the used water may be partially or wholly treated before allowing it back to nature. In some cases, usually depending on the uses, Leichenko and Solecki (2008) report that the used water might be consumed rendering it unsuitable for the environment and human consumption. Stephenson and Schweitzer (2011) argue that categories like agriculture consume large volumes of withdrawn water as compared to others like generation of thermal power which consume small amounts of withdrawn water and releasing it back to the original sources in a lower quality that before. Furthermore, the quality of water required for a variety of tasks varies; for instance suitable water for human drinking has less concentration of minerals and chemicals as compared to suitable water for irrigation. For this reason, in Bolivia, the water treatment plants have been designed to supply water that meets the drinking water standards to homes. United Nations (2003) reports show that there was an increasing trend in rural population that has access to clean water, rising from 65% in 2006 to 71% in 2010 (Lewis, 2011), but concerns are still high regarding the sanitation matters of the water points. In Bolivia, the withdrawal of fresh water for domestic uses accounts for around 13% of the fresh water, agricultural use accounts for the largest portion, 81% while the other sector, industry, accounts for 7% consumption of fresh water in the country (Lewis, 2011; Leichenko & Solecki, 2008). Globally, irrigated products account for about 60% of the world’s food production, with a 20% increase in irrigated lands projected by 2030 (Winston, 2011). According to Alkon (2011), the years between 2000 and 2004 saw Bolivia’s irrigated products/agriculture contribute 14% of the country’s GDP. Lastly, increased industrial development will have a subsequent effect on the global industrial use of water in the coming years, with analysts estimating it at above 60% in 2025. Approaches Below follows three possible approaches for dealing with matters regarding clean water access. Since this is a deliberation, none of these approaches is a specific answer to the water issues. I. Respect the Environment as a Water Source The major issue here is that the environment is constantly threatened by unsustainable use of water as human withdrawal activities and pollution of water are too much; raising an eyebrow regarding climate changes, levels of worldwide water tables, and contamination of ground and surface water as well as dramatic reduction in wetlands (Leichenko & Solecki, 2008). A number of actions can be taken to contain this situation in Bolivia and other parts of the world and ensure that people acknowledge the environment’s importance as a water source and emphasize sustainable use of water. In Bolivia: Implement integrated approaches to management of water resources involving the local community, the businesses and the government (Lewis, 2011). Both parties should take into account the environmental impacts of water uses and discharges when establishing the correct code of water use. In addition, demands on resources of water can be reduced through creation of training programs to the public, industry incentives, harvesting of rainwater etc. that promote conservation of water. Finally, there should be strict controls placed on industrial and agricultural undertakings that pose a threat to quality of water, e.g., the use of pesticides and treatment of industrial sewage (Wermeylen & Walker, 2011). Globally: assisting developing nations come up with suitable data on their sources of water and implement measures of management of water resources that are considerate to the environment (Wermeylen & Walker, 2011). In addition, there should be control of withdrawing large volumes of water from fresh water bodies and instead encourage far-sighted water use to enable industries, farms and households live within their ecosystem’s limits (Stephenson & Schweitzer, 2011). This approach where the environment is to be respected may be positive to some people but to others, it is not a brilliant approach. In support of the implementation of this approach to solving issues with access to clean water, the below arguments are listed. i. All ecosystems demand a given level of clean water for conduction of their critical functions, for instance, to support the lives aquatic species as well as terrestrial species. The natural capacity of the environment to adjust has been exceeded in Bolivia and most parts of the world, which is calling for action to ensure a sustainable environment. ii. The environment as a source of all productivity and life. Ecosystems that are functioning properly produce quality food while at the same time forests helping to control floods and erosion. For this to happen, there is need for a clean water source to be maintained in every part of the world. In opposition of the approach, the arguments below are presented: i. The approach economically burdens farmers, consumers and the industry. In essence, approaches that emphasize on managing water resources in an economic sense should be developed rather than advocating for expensive measures of conserving water. ii. The approach overemphasizes the environmental impacts of the activities as compared to people. Ensuring people have access to clean water is should be the topmost goal and not spending scarce funds on promoting conservation of water. II. Ensuring all have access to clean water Clean water is essential to the health and general life of humans and its access is a human right and thus should not be conditional based on economic positions. It is time Bolivia and the rest of the world realize that water is a public good that should be easily accessible to all and prioritize provision of clean water to all in a publicly accountable manner (Lewis, 2011). There should not be a repeat of the Cochabamba water war and other privatization of water resources in different areas around the globe (Finnegan, 2002). Course of Action Bolivia: Prioritize access to clean water by all via adequate public investment, strong legislations and provision of training to water systems operators (Winston, 2011). Furthermore, the government of Bolivia should prioritize access to clean water in areas with poor water quality. Globally: An increase in the aid provided to fund water projects and prioritize provision of sanitation services to the less capable in the society before handling the higher income earners will help curb the situation (Winston, 2011). In addition, projects funded by development aid should put emphasis on the public, women in particular, overseeing the projects and ensure that all are provided with an indispensable amount of clean water for their use. Women are considered in this case since they are the most affected in developing countries with the duties of fetching water (Caniglia, 2011). In support for this approach, the below arguments are presented (Caniglia, 2011): i. Clean water is vital for health and life. Dirty water or contaminated water causes many illnesses in Bolivia, including typhoid and diarrhea. Access to clean water would mean these illnesses are reduced or eradicated in the country and women/girls who spend time in search of clean water can use that time and energy for other productive activities, like education. ii. UN’s recognition of access to clean water for consumption as a human right spills out all that needs to be known about the essentiality of clean water to life development of people. This means that governments should do whatever it takes to ensure that nobody lacks access to clean water for consumption. In opposition of the approach, the below arguments are presented: i. High costs of providing clean water to all. Estimates show that it will cost the world close to US$ 180 billion in ensuring all are provided with clean water and suitable sanitation by 2025, which is estimated to be 2 to 3 times the size of the current investments (United Nations, 2002). For this reason, Haluza-Delay (2007) believes it is inevitably hard for governments to continue providing homes with free or low priced clean water. Besides, pricing the water reasonably could spur more efficient and responsible use of clean water knowing its scarce availability. ii. No guarantee that the public will be better managers of the supplies of water than the private sector or account for more of those who need clean water. The Cochabamba water war in Bolivia was spurred by the fact that water was privatized (Finnegan, 2002). Local communities complained of high prices but the change in power that saw Evo Morales become president led to inclusion of community in making decisions but little has been achieved since sanitation in most areas is still low. But with creation of the Water Ministry in Bolivia, resolutions to this issue could be arrived at (Finnegan, 2002). III. Recognition of the economic value of water Many are treating water as a free commodity and hence the misuse of the commodity (Wermeylen & Walker, 2011). The world should note that water is an economically valuable and should employ market policies to efficiently and effectively manage it (Pellow, 2011). In essence, this approach ensures that the user recognizes the real economic value of clean water as well as ensuring they account for the costs of supplying the water. Course of Action Bolivia: the government through the Water Ministry should ensure that all municipal water users (domestic, industrial and commercial) pay for the water services they get adequately to help maintain constant supply of clean water (Caniglia, 2011). In addition, Hicks (2011) affirms that it should also encourage private sectors to collaborate with the public to provide clean water at low costs. Globally: In projects that are funded by aid, Haluza-Delay (2007) believes that suitable pricing systems that are gradually increasing that will not overburden the water users should be implemented to account for infrastructure, treatment of water and expanding the services to other areas. In support of this approach, the arguments below are presented: i. Assigning an economic value to water that is realistic will ensure water is well managed and conserved (Haluza-Delay, 2007). Massive wastage of clean water due to the fact that it is not paid for will reduce and as a result conserve water. Clean water should not be limited to those who can pay as it is essential in the lives and for health of humans. ii. Levying the ideal charges will help fund water treatment and distribution. Taxes and global aid cannot on its own provide enough capital to improve water supplies in Bolivia; hence, charging the costs of water realistically can help fund these improvements. In opposition of the approach, the below argument is presented (Leichenko & Solecki, 2008): i. The major reason behind lending institutions and international water companies advocating for water privatization is because of making profits. Clean water provided to citizens should be inform of a service and not sold to them as a commodity for profit. Developing countries, where people can hardly afford to pay for water, the service should be provided at very low costs or even free of charge. ii. Assigning an economic value to water will mean it goes to the highest bidder rather than other environmentally and socially preferable uses. For instance, a large company can easily buy clean water as compared to a farmer. This means that the farmer cannot access the water due to the financial constraint they possess. Clean water is vital for survival and thus should not be available to those only with the capability to pay for. Conclusion Despite all this activities towards ensuring a world with clean water for consumption, many regions of developing countries, like Bolivia, still experience poor sanitation in terms of clean water (Alkon, 2011). It is the duty of the government to commence community learning with respect to sanitation so as to improve the quality and safety of water for consumption United Nations, 2002; 2003). The issues of water security and clean water access are expected therefore to be among the major global concerns of the 21st century. As part of a worldwide policy, the International community should step up its efforts towards promoting the issues of clean water access and security. References Alkon, A. H. (2011). Resisting environmental injustice through sustainable agriculture: Examples from Latin America and their implications for US food politics. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Anguelovsky, I., & Roberts, D. (2011). Spatial justice and climate change: Multiscale impacts on local development in Durban, South Africa. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Caniglia, B. S. (2011). Global environmental governance and pathways for the achievement of environmental justice. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Finnegan, W. (2002). Leasing the rain. The New Yorker. Haluza-Delay, R. (2007). Environmental justice in Canada. Local Environment, 12(6), 557-564. Hicks, B. (2011). Going beyond the state to strengthen the rule of law: local activists, transnational networks, and gold mining in Bulgaria. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Leichenko, R. M., & Solecki, W. D. (2008). Consumption, inequity, and environmental justice: The making of new metropolitan landscapes in developing countries. Society& Natural Resources, 21(7), 611-624. Lewis, T. L. (2011). Global civil society and the distribution of environmental goods: Funding for environmental NGOs in Ecuador. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Peet, J. (2003). Irrigate and die. The Economist. Pellow, D. N. (2011). Politics by other Greens: the importance of transnational environmental justice movement networks. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stephenson, M., & Schweitzer, L. A. (2011). Learning from the quest for environmental justice in the Niger River Delta. In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. United Nations Development Programme. (2003) Human Development Report 2003. United Nations Environment Programme. (2002). State of the Environment and Policy Retrospective: 1972-2002. Wermeylen, S., & Walker, G. (2011). Environmental justice, values, and biological diversity: the San and the Hoodia benefit-sharing agreement.In Carmin, J., &Agyeman, J. Eds. Environmental inequalities beyond borders: Local perspectives on global injustices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Winston, M. (2011). Sustainability and social justice. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2:33. Read More