The International Human Right to Water; Why Canada Should Care

Group Project (Abstract and Goals):

Based on our findings over the course of our independent research, our group will make an informed argument as to whether or not Canada should recognize the international human right to water. The recognition of this right could imply that governments must ensure access to safe water for drinking, food preparation and sanitation, for their own citizens and potentially for those of other countries; that water sources are protected from contamination and over-use; and that water is declared as a public trust and delivered as a public service on a not-for-profit basis.

Inherent in our recommendation will be a discussion on the implications, both domestically as well as within the international community, of Canada’s recognition of this right and the motivations currently driving the country’s continued opposition to this concept.* This may include potential financial gains from the privatization of Canada’s water resources, the responsibility to provide bulk exports of water to countries in need, the obligations to provide First Nations communities with access to clean water and current water usage in the Alberta Tar Sands project. 

Our academically-supported recommendation could take the shape of a draft private member’s bill, outlining the argument in support of Canada’s recognition of the international human right to water.

*In a recent vote in the UN General Assembly, Canada abstained from a resolution recognizing “the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right”. 

Comments

[Michael Byers]

Why stop with a draft private member's bill? If you get a draft bill done in time, along with the supporting analysis, we could try setting up meetings with the relevant ministers, critics, local MPs, candidates, etc.

You could also try for something at the provincial or municipal level. The privatization of water is a BIG issue in BC, and the city of Vancouver and surrounding municipalities will face fresh water shortages in the future -- if they haven't already.

The key, however, will be to anticipate all possible counter-arguments, and answer them in advance!

[Sam]

Water delivery reminds me of Haiti. When I visited last summer, one of the sounds of the neighborhood was the water truck coming around a couple of times each day, playing a tinny version of Celine Dion's "Titanic" theme song, sort of like an ice cream truck playing some Scott Joplin tune.

There, the infrastructure simply required that trucks, not pipes, bring drinking water. (The water that came to the house through plumbing was unreliable; you showered with your lips pursed.) One argument against your goals, I believe, will be the implied expansion of water delivery beyond what many governments will be able to provide. The first chapter of "Moby Dick" says it wonderfully: People are forever drawn to water. ("There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries—stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region.") Water access isn't just required for civilization -- it has defined the shape and scale of civilization. Should we then expect that water will be a right even for those people who wander off to hinterlands previously separated from water? Or who insist on crowding into ever-thirstier cities? Are you going to tell me that we're going to condone and even endorse the existence of Los Angeles?

I kid, but not by much. Per Prof. Byers' suggestion, I think the counter-arguments might come in a version of this form: Nice thought, but how are you going to pay for it? (Without privatizing?)

[Josh]

Thanks Sam, very interesting question (re: hinterland). Though I think it would be problematic to argue that states have abdicated their right to water security by virtue of a colonial legacy which left them landlocked.

That being said, I agree with you that it becomes very complex to define a "right to water" when the causes of water insecurity in many areas are the result of macro structural or environmental issues; geographic, climate, or demographic. I wonder if there is even a benefit in adopting a human rights approach knowing full well there is no rights-violating actor. In Haiti for example, is there a human rights violator?

[Frank Halderman]

What I find very interesting is that the UN declared on July 29, 2010 that "Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights". In 2007, I spent 2 months in rural Tibet. In the villages, much to my surprise each house had a water tap in their courtyard that provided water for people and animals. For much that is said against the Chinese government, they have made a difference in the infrastructure in rural Tibet and China.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-29-01.html

[Dave Morgan]

In response to Sam’s comment, I don’t think human rights must be necessarily in opposition to privatization. The UN Independent Expert on water and sanitation recently reported on this issue. She stated that even in cases where water management has shifted to non-state service providers (ie. private firms), “the delegation of water and sanitation service delivery does not exempt the State from its human rights obligations.” Rather, at this point, the state becomes responsible for regulating and monitoring these third parties. A human rights perspective would then be beneficial, as it would provide the framework against which standards of water quality and sanitation can be assessed (both in terms of water quality and access to all citizens). In sum, the service delivery of private firms would need to conform to national, legal standards, and do not need to be mutually exclusive of human rights.

The Independent Expert’s report on non-state providers can be found at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/148/31/PDF/G1014831.pdf?OpenElement

[Sam]

Water friends, make note of this event:

UBC Student Seminar: "China's Water Crisis" by Dai Qing, leading
environmental activist and journalist -- Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 2p,
Liu Institute, UBC

Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Time: 2p to 4p
Location: Multi-purpose Room, Liu Institute, UBC

Don't miss this opportunity!
The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions is pleased to offer UBC
students a special meeting with China's leading environmental activist and
author, Dai Qing. The UBC Student Seminar with Dai Qing will allow students
to speak directly with Ms. Dai about her fight against the controversial
Three Gorges Dam, and her ongoing battle to safeguard Beijing's dwindling
water supplies.

This is your chance to ask questions about the key environmental and
political issues shaping the world's second biggest economy, China, from
someone at the forefront of that change.

UBC Student Seminar with Chinese activist and environmentalist, Dai Qing
When: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 from 2pm to 4pm
Where: Multi-purpose Room, Liu Institute for Global Issues, 6476 NW Marine
Drive, UBC

This rare opportunity for a private conversation with Dai Qing comes after
her public lecture in downtown Vancouver on the evening of November 9, 2010.
For more information, please visit the PICS website
at:www.pics.uvic.ca/events.php.

Bio Information: Dai Qing has gained worldwide recognition as a fearless
social and environmental activist in China - most notably fighting against
the world's largest hydroelectric project, the Three Gorges Dam. Ms. Dai's
book criticizing the project, Yangtze! Yangtze!, earned her 10 months in a
maximum-security prison after the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Prior
to her call to activism, she worked as a missile technician and intelligence
agent. Today Ms. Dai resides in Beijing where she continues to write
journals, books and articles in her ongoing fight for fight for human
rights, democracy and environmental causes.

[Sam]

Water friends!

I think I found the remix Byers mentioned:

http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-an-inconvenient-truth-remix-772361.html

[Tyler Harbottle]

In light of our discussion in class regarding a comedic approach to a water video, I thought of this video on protectionism, specifically in the international trade of nuts.

A boring topic, but presented in a really catchy way: The Luckiest Nut in the World.

Here is a teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz57NQl1Eg