Scenario 1: Water is a commodity. If we consider water to be a commodity, then every human being has the right to compete over its control, to remove it from the public realm and privatize it, to place it in the market and then to yield profit from its sales. It is logical from a business perspective to lay hands on a scarce resource such as this, and at times of height in demand (which are sure to come), adjust the prices to generate the highest possible returns. Virtual water falls under this category. Large agroexporters such as those exporting asparagus all-year round in Peru's Inca Valley,[1] drain water reserves of an already dry land, at an astounding rate and export their products mostly to the developed world. Thanks to the current trade policies and SAPs implemented in the recent past, these agrobusinesses pay fewer taxes on water and use it recklessly. This has become what the "right" to access to water means in our hyper-capitalist world. The question remains then: what of the people who cannot afford increasing prices of water? Where in the picture of competition do they fit in?
Scenario 2: Water is a human right. "Absolute or not?" becomes the question. Since this is the more utopian alternative and unfortunately not the current state of reality, it instigates many questions. Should everyone get free access to water, and the costs of servicing the water be subsidized by taxes? Should it be completely in the public sphere and governments be responsible to secure it? How can consumption habits be controlled? Should there be a cap on how much water every individual may consume? Should households pay for the "over"-consumption? Should there be increased taxes for water consumption by businesses (much like a carbon footprint)?
Much ambivalence exists within international institutions and “regimes” on what a "right" to water consists of and where to draw the boundary between its perception as an absolute right, such as the right to life (so that it comes free of cost) or a right to buy it out from the public realm and transform it into a commodity. Ken Conca, in Governing Water, is critical of the legitimacy of these institutions, their exclusivity, and the convergence of similar mindsets within the circles of experts running them. Evidently, the bipolarity here emerges from the competing interests of trade vs. human rights (institutions like the WTO representing an amalgam of powerful state interests and corporations vs. NGOs, human rights activists, states at a threshold with water resources etc).
It wasn't until recently (July 28, 2010) that the UN passed the Human Right to Water and Sanitation resolution, thanks to the efforts of the global water justice movement, to finally acknowledge water as an absolute right.[2] There was an overwhelming support of states (122 in favour). However, this resolution falls short on ensuring a ratification system and challenging the sovereignty of countries and how they choose to privatize their water resources. Not to mention that this resolution still has a handful of powerful opponents who abstained (including Canada). I strongly believe that redefining "water" within epistemic communities involved in global governance as an “absolute right” is crucial if we are to acknowledge the “human-face” of the water crisis with an emphasis on the “human” rather than the “profit”. To end on a positive note for a change, I would like to remind that the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
A comment on water being passed as a human right... I think is a good step forward even if isn't ratified. There are many other UN human rights that aren't observed in different countries, free elementary education for everyone for example, but at least it brings the problem to the forefront.
ReplyDeleteSarah
To wander off on a side trail, and perhaps to a deeper issue...
ReplyDeleteWater as a commodity (or asset, as Matt prefers) is consistent with the basic principles of evolution. I'm not too well-informed about evolutionary theory, but I do know that the weak die and the strong survive. As I understand it, natural selection doesn't play fair, and isn't concerned with justice. Yet people _do_ care about equity and justice. I've only stated very few things, and left out much of the conversation, and I'm waiting for a clever reader to reconcile this dichotomy I've proposed... but something appears to be wrong with evolution, or something appears to be wrong with us.
And I brought this up because again and again the deeper issues revolve around worldviews and presuppositions that inform our decisions (e.g. asset or right? how do we decide?). In an upcoming post, I'm going to comment on another 2 categories that I believe water ought to be understood in: gift (as opposed to right) and responsibility (as opposed to asset).
Thanks for the post.