Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights holds discussion on right to water

CESCR
29th session
22 November 2002



High Number of People Lacks Access to
Drinking Water, Speakers Say



The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights carried out a one-day discussion on the right of water, hearing a number of speakers emphasize that water should be considered a public commodity even if delivery services were privatized.

The discussion was held under the Committee's agenda item on substantive issues arising from the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Committee Chairperson Virginia Bonoan-Dandan said the Committee had the intention of adopting a General Comment on the Right to Water -- something it had contemplated for many years. The Committee also had a compelling reason to do so on the eve of the year 2003, which would be the "Year of Water", she said.

Among others, a speaker from the World Health Organization told the Committee that 1.6 billion people lacked access to safe water and 2.4 billion did not have sanitation, a situation which made water-related diseases widespread and deadly.

Some speakers argued that privatization of water supply services had interfered with people's right to water, while one participant in the debate termed privatization "mass salvation against want of water".

Committee Experts who took the floor said there had been a tendency in which privatization had been affecting the right of people to water, making it inaccessible especially to the poor. They also said the Committee should affirm that water should be considered a public good and for that reason States parties to the International Covenant should guarantee the right to water.

Taking part in the debate on a draft General Comment on the Right to Water were Eide Reidel, Committee Expert; El Hadj Guisse, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water of the Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on Food, of the Commission on Human Rights; and Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, of the Commission on Human Rights. A representative of Japan also spoke.

Also participating were representatives of the World Health Organization (WHO); World Bank; Institute of Public Health Engineering (India); SUEZ (United Kingdom); Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE); American Association for the Advancement of Science; World Trade Organization (WTO); World Organization Against Torture (OMCT); and Food First International Action Network (FIAN-International).
The Committee also exchanged views with a representative of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the role of national human rights institutions.

The draft General Comment on the Right to Water will also be discussed on Tuesday, 26 November, and is expected to be adopted the same day.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, 25 November, it will continue its work in private session. Its next public session will be at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 26 November.

Discussion on right to water

EIDE REIDEL, Committee Expert, said the Committee thought water deserved a separate General Comment because water was an essential part of the mandate of the Committee. In the past, water had been dealt with in the General Comments nos. 12 and 4 on the right to food and adequate housing, respectively. The Committee was treating the issue of water in aspects affecting the individual and not in reference to States parties themselves. The role of treaties concerning transnational water resources and the regulations of irrigations had not been dealt with by the Committee.

NASARU WATANABE (Japan) said that without access to clean, potable water, people could not begin to take steps to fulfil the other rights in the Covenant. Regrettably, there were still areas of the world where vast numbers of the population were unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water. Lack of sanitation facilities forced people to use contaminated water for drinking and agriculture, leading to the spread of waterborne infectious diseases, and increasing the burdens on areas whose resources were already taxed to their limits. Japan, in the spirit of international cooperation, had been doing its part to bring clean water to those in need.

JAMES BARTRAM, of the World Health Organization (WHO), said lack of access to clean water had limited the effective achievement of the right to health. Water-related diseases were among the world's high-risk diseases. Some 1.6 billion people lacked access to safe water. Further, 2.4 billion people in the world lacked basic sanitation, which was a prerequisite for clean water.

EL HADJ GUISSE, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water of the Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, said drinking water was a vital resource for all. However, more than 1 billion people had no access to drinking water, and approximately 4 billion lacked basic sanitation. By 2025, some 3 billion individuals would suffer from water shortages. Lack of access to drinking water would place the human life in peril. Although the objectives of the international community were to eliminate famine and malnutrition, the production of adequate food would be a serious challenge given the water situation. The need for water still remained a compelling issue for producing food.

KUMAR JYOTI NATH, of the Institution of Public Health Engineers of India, said water scarcity, surface and ground water contamination, and lack of access to water by the poor were among the main obstacles to full enjoyment of the right to water in the developing countries. People in developed countries for the most part enjoyed the privilege of having adequate quantities of water of acceptable quality, anytime and anywhere. The same was not true for citizens of most developing countries, particularly the poor.

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Housing of the Commission on Human Rights, said due importance must be given to article 1, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, which stipulated that "In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence". That right could not be realized without access to clean water. In many countries, nomads and indigenous peoples were excluded from access to water. Women and children were also affected by a lack of basic sanitation. Without a sanitary environment, it was difficult to realize the right to water. The debt burden suffered by the developing countries had had a direct impact on States' capacities to deliver water to their people. The private sector should be held accountable for ensuring access to water. Water should be a collective good and should not be an exclusive good of private individuals.

ALFREDO SFEIR YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said the bulk of the world's water resources were used for production purposes and not by households. People in the rural areas of developing countries were unable to obtain clean water in some countries, while water was contaminated in other countries. Water was an ingredient for social stability and it was a resource having multiple uses. For that reason, it could not be appropriated. Water should be a public good used to satisfy the needs of millions of people. It was wrong to say that water had no value. Since poor people had no access to formal water supplies, they had to pay for it. In order to implement plans for water supply, some US$180 million had to be invested; but there were no resources to cover that expense.

JACK MOSS, of SUEZ, United Kingdom, said his company subscribed to the Committee's efforts in alleviating poverty. It was essential that the General Comment should be practical in order to achieve the right to water. The right to water was not fully enjoyed by people not because of lack of good management but due to lack of commitment and mismanagement. One could not escape the economic reality of water, whose delivery incurred costs. Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) could help in the realizing the right to water in developing countries. Measures to privatize water services could be considered a "mass salvation against want of water". Water was life-giving but it would be unforgiving if it was not managed well.

SCOTT LECKI, of the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), said the current famine threat in Ethiopia, where 15 million Ethiopians were at high risk, was chiefly due to a lack of irrigation technology for poor commercial and subsistence farmers. Those farmers did not even have simple ponds for conserving rainwater. Further, in many cultures, water priorities were different. For nomadic pastoralists, the critical priorities were drinking water for humans and livestock. Ensuring sufficient water for agriculture and other uses presented difficult policy questions. Fresh water was a scarce resource. COHRE believed that a right to sanitation, like water, was part of the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to health as stipulated in the Covenant. COHRE looked forward to the adoption of a General Comment on the Right to Water.

AUDREY CHAPMAN, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said there was a consensus that the right to drinking water, as now conceived, was too narrow. Although there was logic to limiting the focus of the General Comment, the right should be broadened to encompass other personal and household uses of water, including water for cooking, bathing and sanitation. The current draft did not devote sufficient attention to sanitation. Sanitation was intimately connected with water, both for removing waste and for keeping water clean and uncontaminated. Lack of sanitation was a bigger source of contamination than industrial use of water.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food of the Commission on Human Rights, said that in his initial mandate, the right to water had not been included in the right to food. However, the Commission on Human Rights had extended his mandate to deal with the issue of drinking water as an indispensable element of the right to food. Water was liquid food necessary to human beings. There had been cases in which the right to water had been violated. Since 1987, in a village in Niger, children had been suffering from grave bone deformations because of the water they drank -- water supplied by a public company. A judicial procedure had been initiated against the State for violation of the right to water.

MIREILLE COSSY, of the World Trade Organization (WTO), said the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services did not require the privatization or deregulation of any service. Governments could choose those services they were ready to liberalize. Public services were often not provided on a commercial or competitive basis. Water-related services did not fall under the General Agreements of the WTO. No country had taken commitments on water distribution so far. WTO recognized the right for each country to take measures to protect and manage its natural resources, including water.

SIMON WALKER, of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said flexibility was essential in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Some Governments had a tendency to put pressure on other Governments to privatize some of their public sectors. Such States parties had no obligation to do so.

ANA MARIA SUAREZ FRANCO, of Food First International Action Network (FIAN-International), welcomed the initiative of the Committee to develop and adopt a General Comment on the right to water. In many countries, an important trend with respect to the availability of water was the current privatization of former State-owned water-management systems. Possible problems stemming from the privatization of water reserves should be addressed more comprehensively than had been done so far in the draft General Comment. Any form of privatization should not end in a reduced accessibility or water for any group in need or without adequate income. The access to water should not be limited to those who could afford it.

NATHALIE MIVELAZ, of the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) said that while the relationship between human rights and the General Agreement on Trade in Services was not the focus of the General Comment on the right to water, the issue remained central as it was likely to have an influence on the enjoyment of the right to water, notably with respect to its normative components of affordability and accessibility. OMCT believed that the removal of de facto discrimination explicitly would recognize the concept of affirmative action policies as vital to groups and individuals traditionally facing difficulties in exercising their rights to water.

ANTOINE MEDELIN, of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), said his group had recently investigated the event of pollution of the drinking water in Tibiri-Niger, which had infected approximately 5,000 children with bone diseases. The report compiled by the group analyzed the various responsibilities for the contamination of the water and the handling of the case, which took 15 years to be addressed by the authorities. FIDH was helping victims and their families to obtain redress and compensation through judicial action.

Discussion With UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing

MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Right to Adequate Housing, said he had presented a report to the Commission on the issue of globalization and the effects of privatization of housing and land. The report also emphasized that States should design guidelines to ensure that the process of privatization should not negatively affect individuals. The report had dealt as well with the non-discrimination aspect of the Covenant and the impact of affirmative measures with regard to the poor. The next report to be submitted to the Commission would focus on the "Millennium development goals" relating to the reduction of the number of people living in slum areas. The issue of sanitation would be dealt with in the report, with special stress on "women and housing".

Mr. Kothari expressed concern that following the 11 September event, some States were re-directing money which would have been devoted to the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights to the fight against terrorism.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, recalled that the Food Summit in Rome this summer under the auspices of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had not produced sound results with regard to the right to food. The leaders of the developed nations had failed to be fully represented at the Summit, while those of the developing countries came with full enthusiasm in hopes of engaging in a dialogue. But there was no dialogue. The conceptual debate at the Summit was on "food security" and the "right to food". At the end, the battle was won with recognition of the right to food as part of human rights. However, the situation of famine still remained an issue without response.

Discussion on National Human Rights Institutions

BRIAN BURDEKIN, Special Advisor to the High Commissioner for Human Rights on National Human Rights Institutions, spoke on the role of national institutions, citing examples from the work carried out by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Referring to the Committee's General Comment No. 10 on the role of human rights institutions, he said national institutions could provide significant support to the Committee in certain areas within their respective countries.

Mr. Burdekin said many of Africa's human-rights institutions were "window-dressing" institutions without any effective roles assigned to them. During the last seven years, he had been endeavouring to strengthen weak national human rights institutions in many countries.

Committee Chairperson Virginia Bonoan-Dandan said national human rights institutions could play an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights.

El Hadj Guisse, Sub-Commission Expert, cast doubt on the independence of national human rights institutions in Africa. There was no one independent insitution that was opposing its Government on human rights violations, he said. Many of them were too much on the side of their respective Governments.



* *** *