160 likes | 261 Views
Why democratic outcomes have not delivered for the poor: The case of the right to water. Dr Lyla Mehta Institute of Development Studies, UK Visiting Professor, Norwegian University of Life Science . Outline. Politics and contestations of water Unresolved issues around the right to water
E N D
Why democratic outcomes have not delivered for the poor: The case of the right to water Dr Lyla Mehta Institute of Development Studies, UK Visiting Professor, Norwegian University of Life Science
Outline • Politics and contestations of water • Unresolved issues around the right to water • Unequal citizenship / elite biases of the State • Rights talk and rights practice (South Africa; Bolivia) • Despite problems, rights still matter
Contestations around water • Water as a contested resource • Water policies – Benthamian logic / utilitarian • Aggregate and technocentric notions of scarcity/ crises • Recently rights based (e.g. South Africa, Bolivia) • Exclusions, conflicts, rights violations • Sustainability - beyond supply/ quality • Silo-driven discourses – WSS; WRM; sanitation; waste
The human right to water • The right to water is implicitly mentioned in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human rights and is explicitly mentioned only in the Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989). • Recent endorsements : General Comment No. 15 2002; UN 2010 General Assembly Resolution and UN Human Rights Council Resolution • Right to water still controversial on many fronts. ‘Indivisibility’ of rights not recognised in practice. • In the water debate, dominant narratives are happier to see water as an economic good rather than as a human right.
Why Rights Matter • Justiciable and legally binding • Markets cannot guarantee the provision of all goods on a fair basis to all citizens • Key element of citizenship • Counterveiling force against commodification • Powerful tool of mobilisation to local struggles and claims
Unresolved issues of the human right to water • What does legally binding really mean in local, national and international contexts? • Individualistic , anthropocentric and state centric • Regulatory frameworks v. weak in the case of non state and private actors • Not incompatible with ‘private sector provision – ‘neutral as to economic models’ (OHCHR 2010)
Unresolved environmental dimensions to RTW • Tensions between access/ social justice and environmental quality/ nature • RTW as balancing environmental risks and benefits between poor and rich • Ecosystem sustainability – environmental flows of water need to be protected by law (e.g ecological reserve )
Unequal citizenship • Modern state created distinctions between rights bearers and those who are targets of government interventions • Distinction between civil/ political society (Chatterjee ) • Vast populations need to fend for themselves or opt out of the formal system (e.g. in peri urban areas)
Denial of rights • Sins of omission: Poor states may not prioritise the imperative to provide basic services for all due to lack of resources or political will • Sins of commission: States/ powerful actors knowingly put poor people’s rights at risk State as arbiter of rights and justice
South Africa : Dancing to two tunes? • South Africa was the first country to endorse the constitutional right to water and endorse the rights of nature (reserve) • 2001: Free Basic Water Policy • Implementation rests with local authorities who interpret it according to the resources and capacity available • Since 1997, controversial cut offs and hikes in water tariffs • High profile judgements and struggles
The case of Bolivia Water Wars of 2000/ 2001 The Right to Water for Life – 2006 Right to mother earth Contradictions (economic policies that violate basic rights and destroy natural resources; lack of awareness and capacity; communitarian notions of rights; mistrust of state)
Rights talk/ Rights Practice • Inadequate information about rights • Fuzziness around responsibilities/ duty bearers • How define what is sufficient and what determines the human right to water? • Resistance of powerful players – weak commitment to rights – poor state/ citizen relations • Elite biases/ indifference to poor
Conclusions • Lots of unresolved issues around RTW • States continue to be very contradictory towards poor and marginalised peoples • Despite contradictions in implementation, the fight is worth it! • Use rights to hold powerful players to account/ justiciability • Rights are realised through struggle – more and more people are demanding their rights to water and sanitation