In 1992, the Sudanese government forced the relocation of hundreds of thousands of squatters in Khartoum to desolate camps without adequate water supplies. A majority of these squatters were Christians and animists who had previously fled the destructive civil war raging in the countries south. Such forced relocations, according to Stephen McCaffrey, amounted to the use of water by a state as a political weapon. In the Philippines, several years later, the privatization of municipal water services in Manila, led to price increases, inadequate services, and poor water quality. Six years after the initial privatization, the World Bank identified Manila as one of the worst major Asian cities in regard to its water and sewer access.
I begin my outline with these two cases in order to illustrate the startling variation which surrounds water access issues. While the government in Sudan had actively denied water to a portion of their population, in the Philippines the poor quantity and quality of water in Manila can be attributed less to active denial, and more to public and private sector mismanagement. However, both case studies are meant to serve as arguments (by their respective authors) in favor of declaring and recognizing an international human right to water. The significant variation in these cases poses fundamental paradoxes to the establishment of such a right. Would a human right to water be implemented simply to protect vulnerable individuals from active state denial, or would it also be used to pressure states towards the fulfillment of positive rights? These questions draw on a lengthy and unresolved historical debate between the relative importance of first and second generation human rights. While a host of state and non-state actors have added to the chorus of ‘soft law’ supporting the elevation of access to water as a fundamental human right, there is relatively little focus on the sheer complexity of water scarcity issues. The central thesis of my paper will argue that water scarcity is not a homogenous phenomena, but rather varies in context; drawing on a host of different issues and actors across regions. It is therefore through this lens of complexity that we must view the current human rights discourse surrounding access to water.
This essay will undertake three broad steps. First, it will assess the complex water scarcity phenomena by focusing on discrete case studies of different forms of water scarcity, from denial and mismanagement, to transboundary and environmental forces. In addition to highlighting the different causes of water scarcity, this analysis will also adopt an actor-agency perspective, looking at the varying roles played by individuals, home states, regional states, and corporations. The second portion of this essay will undertake a broad historical overview of human rights theory, and assess the placement of water rights within this cannon. There continues to be considerable ambiguity as to whether access to water flows more naturally from the right to life in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the right to health in the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Identifying where water rights place within this theoretical debate would have a profound impact on the way such rights are implemented. The third and final portion of this essay will, provided the evidence and conclusions of the first two sections. ask; Is a human rights approach the most appropriate solution to the issue of water scarcity?
Joshua,
In your analysis of water mismanagement, you might want to have a look at the work of Dai Qing, journalist and environmental activist. Her focus is on the Three Gorges Dam in China.
And she's presenting at SFU next week.
Details: http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/seminars/Dai%20Qing%20Vancouver%20Lecture.pdf
Posted by: Tyler Harbottle | 11/01/2010 at 04:23 PM