Human Rights in Development - Essay Example

?Running head: HUMAN RIGHTS TO WATER Human Rights in Development: Water as a Right or a Commodity (school) Human Rights in Development Introduction Water is one of the most essential resources to human survival. Without it, human survival is compromised and all human activities would not be efficiently carried out. Water in some parts of the world is considered a priced commodity as many people have to pay or travel many miles to avail of it. Others however opine that water as a priced commodity is not consistent with the right to water. There is also an inconsistency to these concepts which are considered by other theorists. This paper shall now discuss the thesis: To what extent might water as a priced commodity be consistent with the human right to water? The political economic foundations of this thesis will also be discussed. This study is being undertaken in order to come up with a clear understanding of the subject matter, including its essential points of discussion. Body The world’s natural supply of underground water which is relied on by about two billion people is being depleted, according to a report by the United Nations (BBC, 2003). This report further revealed that the water tables are falling by about three metres with each year throughout many developing nations. The increase in populations, the rapid rate of industrialization, and intensive farming are just some of the reasons for this dramatic decrease in water supplies. In the US in Arizona, the report further revealed that the amount of water being extracted from the ground is twice what is actually being naturally replaced (BBC, 2003). In the Arabian gulf, their underground water is being contaminated by the salty water which is gathered from the coast to supplement the city’s water supply (BBC, 2003). Developing nations are the countries mainly utilizing underground water sources and their rates of use are increasing significantly. Dhaka in Bangladesh has also been using underground water sources to an extent where in many regions, the water table has fallen to about 40 metres. The issue of limited water supply is one which does not appear to have a clear resolution in the immediate future. And many more issues shall be borne from it before a satisfactory solution can be established. Millions of people in the world do not have regular access to clean water. In some regions of the world, getting water for daily use calls for a significant expenditure of time and effort. The issue is also not singularly based on access to water, but access to clean drinking water (Okonski, 2009). Dirty water is a source of bacteria and viruses. The UN also expressed that the world shortage of water supply has caused the deaths of more people through disease, than deaths through wars. In effect, shortage of water supply is one of the major problems of the world. Various researches have been carried out on water and on the issue of water scarcity. These studies have focused on establishing a better understanding of the causes of this shortage and the impact of this issue (Okonski, 2009). In the same manner however, the issue has also been the target of varying opinions and points of contention on water being a human right. Theorists advocating the contention that ‘water is a right’ argue that since water is a natural resource which is essential to our survival as humans, the access to clean water must also be considered a basic human right (Okonski, 2009). The government must therefore do whatever it can to provide clean water, and its access must not be secured with profit considerations. These theorists raise crucial points in this discussion. If credence is to be given to the argument that water is a human right, does every person then have the right to imbibe as much water as he wants, without making any considerations as to time and place? If the answer is no, what quantity then of water is each individual entitled to? And how are arguments among users of water to be resolved? How then would the efficient use of water be secured? (Okonski, 2009) These water-is-a-right advocates further argue that water is a global common which should not be owned, traded, or be enclosed as a private commodity. Due to these advocates, many followers from developing nations have expressed their strong agreement to the ‘water is a right argument’. Many citizens from these nations have even risen up in arms and protest against international companies who they seem as companies controlling their rights to water (Okonski, 2009). These advocates however have not considered the argument that because waters are un-owned and un-traded, watersheds and water delivery systems have been depleted and endangered. As a result, there is a major underinvestment in the establishment of new technologies in water management. Moreover, although advocates to water rights point out that water must be provided by the government, these advocates have not considered that the governing authorities for poor countries have not been able to provide adequate water supply to millions of their people (Okonski, 2009). The usage of water is not a simple matter of science because the amount of water and its uses do not blend geographically with customers (Wood, 2006). Water is not available in a medium which, by nature, makes it fit for human consumption. Other processes are needed in order to secure and establish its safety. Water is also difficult to control and it calls for infrastructures to store and transport it via pipes and reservoirs (Wood, 2006). In effect, potable water which can be used by many people cannot be considered free or natural. Although advocates admit to the fact that processes are needed in order to produce drinkable and usable water, they however argue that since water is a global common, only the government can be its lawful manager (Okonski, 2009). And yet, it is already a well known fact that the government has had shortcomings on its water management processes. With the increase of human population, and their increase in water needs and demands, there is also a need to seek effective solutions to the issues of managing and delivering water. This is a heavy and significant task which is so complicated that only the private sector has the necessary resources to manage it (Brookshire, et.al., 2004). The alternative proposed by advocates would lead to restrictions on the owning and trading of water; and this would, in turn cause the increase of corruption in water management among poor nations. These nations usually have government-owned piping systems, however these systems usually have leakages and defects, making it easy for people to steal the water (Okonski, 2009). In most areas, sewerage systems are also non-existent. Some of the governments also operate under semi-socialistic systems and so they see the increase of population as a significant burden to resources (Okonski, 2009). As a result, these governments usually excuse their incompetence in securing state-owned services, like water and electricity into the rural areas by denying the existence of people in these areas, or even by denying that these people exist as formal citizens (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 2009). In instances when governments fail to perform their duties, the informal entrepreneurs often find opportunities for themselves. These entrepreneurs see growth in population as an additional source of business. These people fulfil water gaps in the poorest areas. They also deliver water through donkey carts, diesel trucks, and tankers. In Africa, vendors also sell water to tourists and passersby via transparent plastic bags. Still, other entrepreneurs also run small-scale water systems (Okonski, 2009). The more informal businessmen also carry out the difficult work of digging out latrines and later hauling the sewage. Furthermore, they have also established private systems. In different countries, these businessmen, as well as NGOs manage the privately-operated toilets (Okonski, 2009). The negotiations between the informal businessmen and their customers are usually voluntary and are based on the premise that the latter would supply water and sewerage, and the consumers would then pay for it (Okonski, 2009). This process is very much reliable and sometimes most costly than if they it were to be provided by the government. The private businessmen make it possible for customers to establish other uses for their efforts and resources. Most of the above entrepreneurs as well as their consumers belong to the poor population. And yet, they have managed to establish an effective means to eliminate water problems which the government itself has not been successful at resolving (The World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2011). The impact of these water services in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia show the success of these entrepreneurs, and even importantly on the failure of the government to establish water provisions. Demands to eliminate profit gained from water would immediately eliminate these entrepreneurs. Since these entrepreneurs’ businesses came about as a response to government incompetence, it therefore does not seem possible that governments would replace these businesses with a better system (Okonski, 2009). It is even important to note that the governments have already established that the operations of these entrepreneurs are not legal. Hence, their functions are being carried out in the informal system. Eliminating this black market for water may indeed serve to benefit the governments of the affected countries, however, for affected citizens, their water supply would be reduced and be difficult to access. Despite favourable conditions for the existence of informal water entrepreneurs, these systems also have issues (The World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2011). Since most of these systems are not legal, the businessmen and their consumers always bear constant risks. These informal businessmen are usually unable to built contracts which can be legally formalized. They also cannot own property and therefore cannot seek bank loans and other legal processes which can help them improve on their business. They always live in constant fear of the legal authorities and sometimes have to resort to bribery in order to secure their illegal trade (Okonski, 2009). In the hope of reforming the underground water market which provides a useful trade, the formalization and legalization of these services must be established. This solution would provide power and legitimacy to entrepreneurs who can build their businesses within the local communities (Bakker, 2007). In legal and competitive markets, these businessmen would have better initiatives to seek business, which would then reduce unit costs and improve their technologies. In the end, the customers benefit through such improvements and initiatives (Okonski, 2009). The formalization process would also reduce the stigma against local vendors on the quality of the water. Providing them legitimate access to more capital resources would help arm them with the necessary resources to improve the quality of their water (Okonski, 2009). Informal water entrepreneurs undermine the contention that the governing authorities can be exclusively used in order to successfully resolve the water issue which markets cannot. Water entrepreneurs and their consumers are using human creativity to resolve issues and to utilize resources well, and later to improve health conditions. Among the poorest people in the world, they consider the government a major source of problem, not the source of solutions (Okonski, 2009). Advocates for the ‘water is a right’ argument point out that private establishments often charge more than the public establishments do (The World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2011). This is not an accurate argument because in cases when the government establishes the price for water less than the market level, the public system’s cost can only be determined by considering tax payments. The price of replacing the municipal water infrastructure in the US would likely register at costs over billions of dollars (Okonski, 2009). Various local officials then have to face the fact that by enjoying under-priced water for many years, they would actually pass on the costs to the future generations. In the future, they would have to increase taxes, increase water rates, and apply other remedies, including private water sources of private maintenance of water infrastructures (Okonski, 2009). This may work well in the developed areas where water sources may be abundant, but for areas with scarce water sources, deferring these costs would endanger the future availability of their water. Advocates for the ‘water-is-a-right’ argument argue that water is a natural monopoly which can only be successfully administered by one entity—the government, not the private institutions (Okonski, 2009). In so doing, these resources are not subjected to private competitive interests. However, this is not exactly the case for the poor developing nations and in some other parts of the world as well. Furthermore, municipal authorities can establish opportunities for competition within the water supply chain – from infrastructure to wastewater treatment (The World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2011). In effect, the customers can experience advantages based on competitive processes without having to bear the burden of which may be seen from having sole providers. If water would not be managed or would be poorly managed as commodity and when demand for water increases from the growing population, the pressure on already depleted water resources would increase as well. However, this is a manageable problem (The World Economic Forum Water Initiative, 2011). Water can be effectively managed and distributed efficiently and various advancements can be used for treating and monitoring water, and for the handling of waste water. In these instances, graywater from household processes like bathing and washing can effectively be treated and returned into the system (Okonski, 2009). The tools which can make this happen are easy enough to foresee. However, these technologies might not be attempted, or be marketed at affordable prices, unless the water supplies become subjects of market competition. Although the advocates do point out the environmental issues related to water sources, they treat these issues with an alarmist approach, but they ignore the policies which would have led to improved management and improved use of water (Bakker, 2007). There is also a rejection in these advocates of the fact that allowing the private management of water helps promote water conservation. They also argue that water is being made to establish profits for shareholders. However, such an argument cannot be accepted in the face of a system where water supplies are ruled by government-controlled entities which only charge less than the market prices (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 2009). Moreover, it is important to note that water users would likely use their water and sewer systems with less caution and more wastage if they do not have to worry about the costs attached to these utilities. Conclusion Water as a priced commodity is inconsistent in so many regards with the human right to water. Water is not a drinkable in its natural form, there are processes needed in order to make if fit for human consumption. Although, most people indeed have the right to water because water can be available naturally, in the current context and society where there are different processes attached to water consumption, water has to reach a commodity status over and above people’s right to water. Moreover, with the short supply of water the world over, the right to water cannot be made to dominate its commodity status. Blaming corporations for the commoditization of water will not help resolve this water shortage. And insisting on water being a human right will further exacerbate the water crisis. There is instead another alternative for rights, the right to property and for those who seek to enforce such right to then set aside their selfish goals in creativity and instead redirect these towards the management, delivery, and the preservation of the world’s water. Reference Bakker, K. (2007). The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-globalization, Anti- privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South. Antipode, volume 39, number 3, pp. 430–455. BBC News (2003). World's water supply 'running low. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966322.stm Brookshire, D., Colby, B., Ewers, M. & Ganderton, P. (2003). Market prices for water in the semiarid West of the United States. Water Resour. Res., volume 40, W09S04. Institute for Human Rights and Business (2009). Business, human rights, and the right to water: challenges, dilemmas and opportunities. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.ihrb.org/pdf/Draft_Report-Business_Human_Rights_and_Water.pdf Okonski, K. (2009). Is Water a Human Right? The New Atlantis. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/is-water-a-human-right The World Economic Forum Water Initiative (2011). Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy- Climate Nexus. New York: Island Press. Wood, C. (2006). Is Water a Commodity or a Right? The Tyee. Retrieved 15 October 2011 from http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/03/22/WaterRight/ Read More