It is very unfortunate that even though water is an essential part of human survival, almost one-sixth of the world’s population lives without having appropriate sources of drinking water. Moreover, almost 25% of those who are privileged to have such access do not have enough quantity to suffice their requirements (Hardberger 2005). The efforts of earlier conferences could not take a legal shape but their intent became clear. It showed that the world community is concerned about the global water problem. Such concern become clear from the proceedings of the renowned ‘1977 Mar del Plata’ conference that recognized water as a right of people, irrespective of their socio-economic status (Gleick 2007).
The concept of human right to water has been the point of contention for over several decades but the issue gained global importance in 2010, when the ‘United Nations General Assembly’ and the ‘United Nations Human Rights Council’ identified access to ‘safe drinking water’ as a human right (Murthy 2013).
Human rights can be categorized into two groups, namely welfare rights and liberty rights. These rights may be related to consequential and non-consequential theories. The utilitarianism theory of ethics (consequential) relates to the welfare rights and the libertarianism theory of ethics (non-consequential) relates to the liberty rights. Both these theories uphold the consideration of water as a human right.
This report would present arguments in favour of the topic, ‘Access to Water Is a Human Right’. The recognition of water as a human right by the international community coincides with the characteristics of various consequential (such as utilitarianism) and non-consequent (such as libertarianism) theories of ethics. The utilitarianism theory of ethics, for instance, suggests that communities should strive to fulfil the utility needs of people in order to make their lives comfortable and healthy.
Here, a special reference to women of the community is eminent. The ‘4th World Water Forum’ suggested that the involvement of women from various communities in ‘water related projects’ would help in eradicating poverty (Brown 2006). This particular conclusion of the ‘4th World Water Forum’ shows that if efforts are made towards providing utility services to people, the resultant could be beneficial (health and prosperity) for the people and the community.
The libertarianism theory of ethics suggests that the freedom of people’s actions should be in consideration of others’ freedom as well. There are communities that are privileged to have sufficient (and even surplus) water. People living in such communities do not have the consideration of those who live without or little water. This might be due to absence of awareness of water problems in various parts of the world. The world community should have the ethical consideration of people facing acute water shortage and spread awareness among the people. This would help in water conservation. After all, water is a natural resource and everyone should have the right to utilize it, irrespective of the availability.
There are basically three themes that are generally considered while discussing about availability of water for the global communities. These themes are ‘financial sustainability, efficiency, and dispute resolution’ (Murthy 2013). Utility services have been largely affected by privatization of such services. Water is a utility that has experienced vast privatization. The main motive behind such a drive is to improve the financial sustainability and efficiency of the global communities. This might seem to be theoretically correct and beneficial but practically, such privatization has jeopardized the complete system (at least for the poor). Privatization means an increase in the standards but at the same time, tariffs are also increased.
This makes the facility out of reach for the poor. Moreover, an increase in tariff does not mean similar increase in the services being rendered. In fact, the services generally remain the same. Another factor that might affect the service and quality of such services is the removal of most of the municipal employees. Computerization of records has decreased the requirement of staff. But while doing this, the concerned private companies forget that services are not rendered by computers. It is the people who have to go to the sites and rectify any problems.
The international law does not prescribe any restrictions on pricing utility services such as water. In fact, the concern of the international communities such as the United Nations about water should be to convince governments of various nations (that face water shortage problems) to bear the costs of supplying drinking water to their citizens. The global industrialization has polluted water to a great extent and water needs to be purified in order to make it potable. Such an exercise involves expenses and since water utilities are privatized, the companies ought to recover such expenses. So, either the governments should not allow privatization or they should provide subsidy to the companies engaged in purifying and distributing drinking water. In spite of the global efforts, it is sad to notice that water is not a public commodity and people have to pay for using it.
References
Brown, E V 2006, Water: a human right for all. Web.
Gleick, P H 2007, ‘The human right to water’, Water Policy, vol. 1. no. 5, pp. 487-503. Web.
Hardberger, A 2005, ‘Life, liberty, and the pursuit of water: evaluating water as a human right and the duties and obligations it creates’, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, vol. 4. no. 2, pp. 331-362. Web.
Murthy, S L 2013, ‘The human right(s) to water and sanitation: history, meaning, and the controversy over-privatization’, Berkley Journal of International Law, vol. 31. no. 1, pp. 89-147. Web.