An interesting article from Ching Leong at NUS SPP: “Rights and Price: A Pair of Red
Herrings in Water”. She contends:

If water is perceived as a human right, it should be freely available to one and all. But clean water comes at a cost and unless that cost is paid for, it is difficult to ensure universal access.

Before making any comment, have a look at WWC’s FAQ on the right to water here:

10- Does the human right to water mean that water should  be free?
The right to water does not mean that water has to be delivered for free, but it must be affordable, as well as safe, accessible and sufficient.  However, through the acceptance of a right to water, there is explicit recognition that water is a social and cultural good, as well as an economic good. This point was confirmed in CESCR's General Comment 15. Any payment for water services must be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable to all, including socially disadvantaged groups.

Again, before making any comment, have a look at Ms. Leong’s closing statement on her article:

Water in short should be priced as an economic virtue. At the same time, it should be free to those who cannot pay because of a moral imperative that is sometimes captured by the declaration that it is a human right. There is no reason that public policy cannot fulfill both roles because, in this happy instance at least, the imperatives from economics and morality are not in contradiction.

To me, that sounds like a human right after all. A cross subsidy is in place, those who cannot afford should have it for free. So that’s what human right to water is all about. It seems that we’ve agreed on this all along!

Stockholm, September 09, 2010 (ILR). ACCRA, BothENDS, Swedish Water House, UNESCO Etxea, WaterLex and the UNDP Water Governance Programme convened a seminar at the World Water Week, Stockholm, September 09, 2010. The presenters explains the potentials of Human Rights Based Approach to Integrated Water Resources Management.

On the media statement received by ILR, the conveners stresses the importance of  stakeholders involvement in ensuring the realization of the Human Right to Water.  According to the Press Release:

A key element of the human right to water is the water quality prerequisite that water used for personal or domestic uses should be – among other things - free from micro-organisms and chemical contaminants that constitute a threat to individual health, thus embracing the work of professionals working in the realm of water quality and Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). At the same time, even in the context of conflicting and competing demands on water resources, human rights law is clear in determining that water for personal and domestic uses, i.e. for realising the right to water, has priority in relation to other water uses.

In this side event, we will demonstrate the validity of a number of principles. First of all, the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) provides a useful and comprehensive framework from which to analyse water and sanitation issues and holds the potential to support and strengthen the Millennium Development Goal approach. In other words, while the concept of the ’right to water’ requires a focus on law, it is not just an effort to define normative standards (cf. World Health Organization quality standards), it is also about procedural rights, which ought to be clarified and illustrated so as to demonstrate how the realisation of rights should be managed in practice. Furthermore, the actual realisation of these rights is dependent on the governance structure and the quality of interactions between the state and civil society against the background of each particular social, political and economic setting.

Secondly, it is therefore of key importance to continue to promote national case studies that serve to highlight the key areas in which the implementation of the right to water and sanitation can be improved in each setting through a HRBA.

Universitas Ibn Khaldun Bogor, Indonesia, endorses the case-base approach to HRBA. It offers support in the form of expertise, networking and grass-root empowerment for the HRBA case studies. In its endorsement letter, the University Rector Prof. Dr.  H. Ramly Hutabarat, SH., MHum pointed that application of IWRM in Indonesia would require tremendous investment in the form of knowledge and financial resources. IWRM has large potentials in improving the quality of Indonesia’s water resources. However, there are always possibilities that those with less capacity and bargaining power to participate in IWRM processes would be left out. The Rector suggests that HRBA would be necessary to empower stakeholders in the decision making process of IWRM.

This is the full version of Dr. Riant Nugroho’s Presentation at the World Water Week. The presentation is packed with the latest statistics on Indonesia’s water supply/sanitation and resources. A true reference indeed. Enjoy!

Packing for Stockholm: BothEnds and several other NGOs/IGOs are planning to hold a side event on this September’s Stockholm world water week. The topic: Human Rights Based Approach to Improving Water Quality. 

If I can find some wi-fi there,  Indolawreport may hold a series of live-blogging. More details to follow. If you happens to be in the World Water Week, join us.

The WWF launched postcard campaign to encourage more ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention. In order for the convention to be in force, another 16 ratification would be necessary. Indonesia has land border with East Timor, New Guinea and Malaysia. As such, there might be possibilities that transboundary water is shared.

According to the WWF:

We encourage you to download copies of the postcards and of their accompanying leaflet, in order to find out more about the 2011 target and what YOU can do to help achieve it, whether you are an influential individual, a government official, or a representative of an NGO or other interested institution. Join the numerous individuals and institutions that have already vowed to support the UN Watercourses Convention Global Initiative.

Click on the picture above to download “Everything you need to know about the UN Watercourses Convention”

.

Last April, the Ministry of Health updated drinking water quality regulation. The Permenkes 492 contains minimum obligatory standard of drinking water quality parameters that should be followed. The Permenkes also obligates examination of drinking water quality by water quality providers and government agencies. In practice, regional governments enumerate this rule through regional by-laws. The previous drinking water quality regulation – issued in 2002 – is therefore repealed.

Download the Permenkes here.

OK, maybe not quite a ‘vs’. Tension might be the right word. And here is a paper discussing the topic. Of all the criticism towards the human right to water, this paper might be among those which are most coherent. According to the author:

Abstract:
Water resources management has been shaped by a variety of paradigms reflecting the evolution of government policies and transient societal values. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) became a predominant management framework in the 1990s. The Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to development has also emerged recently as an influential approach in the water sector. IWRM and the HRBA to development in the water sector overlap significantly. The interactions between the two approaches remain largely unexplored although their repercussions may be significant. Because they do not share identical premises and objectives, the concurrent implementation the two approaches might also lead to tensions detrimental to water resources management. The aim of this article is to explore the interactions between IWRM and the HRBA to development in the water sector. Questions raised by perceived conflicts are identified to help address potential tensions when the two approaches coexist. Synergies between IWRM and the HRBA are also detailed to establish how the two approaches are aligned.

Title:

A Clash of Paradigms in the Water Sector? Tensions and Synergies Between Integrated Water Resources Management and the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development

Keywords: Water, Human Rights, Human Rights-Based Approach to Development (HRBA), Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

There are four points of potential and existing tensions which the author raised. They are:

1. The HRBA as an anthropocentric approach and the need for an ecosystemic contextualisation of claims on water resources;
2. The HRBA as an vehicle for developmental aspirations and the acknowledgement of limits in water resources availability;
3. The indistinct duties of right-holders in regards to the user-pays principle;
4. Economic water management and the need to protect marginal groups and the poor;

Download yourself directly from the SSRN.

I am currently writing a paper for a conference and all of these four aspects above will be considered.

Enjoy reading….

High tide floods 2007: “Signs of a sinking Jakarta”

Source: Presentation by Hongjoo Hahm and Janjaap Brinkmann (World Bank)

Brinkman’s statement that Jakarta might sink by 2025 was widely quoted by the media:

'The major reason for this is not climate change or whatever, but just the sinking of Jakarta,' said Mr Jan Jaap Brinkman, an engineer with Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics, who worked on the study. By 2025, estimates from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change show, sea levels would have risen by only about 5cm. But Mr Brinkman said that Jakarta, which spans a plain between coast and mountains, will be between 40cm and 60cm lower than it is now. The study shows that without better defences, the sea will reach the presidential palace, which is around 5km inland, in 2025 as well as completely inundate Jakarta's historic old city.

What you may not have seen is their full presentation:

Now, on to water services. VOA interviewed Jakarta Water Regulator who told that the rate of non-revenue water in Jakarta’s Water Supply System is around 50%. NGOs such as the Mercy Corps has been quite successful in engaging with local community in Penjaringan district in order to help them build water storage infrastructure. 

ADB is planning several million dollars project to restore the quality of Citarum river in West Java, the main supplier of bulk water to downstream cities such as the capital, Jakarta. The ICWRMIP will restore riverbanks along the Citarum. The project involves the resettlement of hundreds of households currently residing in the riverbanks. NGOs argued that not enough room for public participation is provided, something which the ADB denied.  NGOs also claim that the project will not likely to change anything as no mechanism for pollution control is included. I am not able to confirm any of these allegation but some documents relating to the project is available in the ADB website.

Read also: Finding a cure for Indonesia’s sick river (CNN)

Quick blogging. For those of you who are looking for the text of Doc A/64/L.63/Rev.1 , adopted as the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Water and it’s voting records, click here for the resolution and here for the voting records.

Reiterating my previous post that international human rights law is basically agnostic with respect to the choice of ownership, you will now find an interesting press release from Aquafed, the federation of 300 strong private water providers.

In a July 29 Press Release, Aquafed conveyed that private water operators “…celebrate the recognition of the Human Right to water and sanitation by the United Nations General Assembly.” Furthermore, they call that the resolution “…must be used to turn the Right into a Reality for the billions of people who do not enjoy proper water services”.

Certainly, Aquafed are suggesting implicitly (and explicitly in its other submissions to the HRC) that the private sector are among those who can turn the right to water into reality.

Read Aquafed’s Press Release, along with its involvement in the right to water process here.

Anti-privatization movement must now stop advocating alternative service provision using the language of human rights. As I argued previously:

Just to note, literature provide explanation as to the genealogy of the right to water movement (see paper by Bakker here – you may need an access). On the one hand, there is the anti-privatization movement which utilizes the language of human right to water in their campaign against privatization and on the other hand, there is the ‘alter-globalization’ movement which also seeks to foreclose the neoliberalization of waterresources and services but does not utilize the language of human rights. They use the language of the ‘commons’ instead.

Bakker noted in her paper that the campaign against privatization by utilizing the human right to water language are prone to fallacies. Indeed, right to water activists tend to conflate human rights with property rights. If water is a human right, then it should not be a commodity – they think. This is inherently wrong. The right to life does not entitle you not to pay the emergency room service fee, or your medication. The same works for the right to food or education and other rights. Water is by no means different from them.

UN finally adopted the text Resolution on the right to water and sanitation (122 in favour, 0 against and 41 abstentions) yesterday. I had predicted that more vagueness on the text may be necessary in order to attract a higher degree of compromise. I have not seen the adopted text myself, but the UN press release mention Spain’s position which may depicts the trade-off:

Still, water and sanitation were components of the right to a suitable life under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, he said, expressing regret that proposals to include language on the independent expert’s work had not been taken into account

But anyway, this is just my guess.

What is more interesting the reference from the representatives towards the “Geneva Process”. Some expressed their disappointment that the Resolution was too premature. The UK voted abstention under the reason that:

… the text pre-empted the work going on in the Human Rights Council, she said, noting that the United Kingdom had supported the resolution establishing the independent expert, as well as the text on human rights and access to safe water and sanitation, adopted in 2009.  Indeed, the work in Geneva had been progressing, she added.

Similar stance was adopted by the US:

 

He said his delegation had hoped to negotiate and ultimately join the consensus on a text that would uphold the process under way at the Human Rights Council.  Instead, the text fell far short of enjoying unanimous support among States and might even undermine the work under way in Geneva.  It described the right to water and sanitation in a way not reflected in existing international law since there was no “right to water and sanitation” in an international legal sense, as described by the resolution.

Expressing regret that the text had diverted the Assembly from the serious international efforts under way to promote greater coordination on water and sanitation issues, he said it attempted to take a short cut around the serious work of formulating, articulating and upholding universal rights.  It had not been drafted in a transparent, inclusive manner, and neither the Assembly, nor the Geneva process had yet considered fully the legal implications of a declared right to water.  For those reasons, the United States had called for a vote and would abstain in the voting, he said.

and Turkey:

The representative of Turkey, recalling that the Human Rights Council had recently created the mandate of the independent expert and passed a resolution on the same subject, said the matter was before the Council and the Geneva process was ongoing.  The text prejudged the outcome of those discussions and Turkey would therefore abstain from the vote.

It appears to me that states who were previously thought to vote against the resolution are now moving their stance into ‘abstention’ instead by citing the ongoing process in Geneva.

Germany who had been quite active in the human right to water movement, on the other hand, perceives that the Resolution text is not a threat to the Geneva process:

Unlike some, Germany saw the text not as a threat to the European Union-led “ Geneva process” on water and sanitation, but rather as another component of that process, he stressed.  At the same time, Germany would have preferred that the text include more language proposed by the European Union.  It nevertheless included important elements of the work going on within the Human Rights Council and that of the independent expert on the subject.  Germany invited delegations to support and participate actively in the Geneva process in order fully to understand the right to water and sanitation.

Hence, I don’t really know if this move towards a resolution is somewhat premature – as the Independent Expert will only complete and report her work by next year – and therefore counterproductive or this is somehow some sort of diplomatic fait accompli with the purpose of safeguarding the Human Right to Water movement by giving it a more weigh through a resolution and at the same time giving direction to the Geneva process.

Just to note, literature provide explanation as to the genealogy of the right to water movement (see paper by Bakker here – you may need an access). On the one hand, there is the anti-privatization movement which utilizes the language of human right to water in their campaign against privatization and on the other hand, there is the ‘alter-globalization’ movement which also seeks to foreclose the neoliberalization of water resources and services but does not utilize the language of human rights. They use the language of the ‘commons’ instead.

Bakker noted in her paper that the campaign against privatization by utilizing the human right to water language are prone to fallacies. Indeed, right to water activists tend to conflate human rights with property rights. If water is a human right, then it should not be a commodity – they think. This is inherently wrong. The right to life does not entitle you not to pay the emergency room service fee, or your medication. The same works for the right to food or education and other rights. Water is by no means different from them.

This is proven by the recent report (see previous post) arising out of the the Geneva Process. It is explicitly stated there (see Para.63) that:

The human rights framework does not call for any particular form of service provision. It is well established that, from a human rights perspective, States can opt to involve non-State actors in sanitation and water services provision. But the State cannot exempt itself from its human rights obligations and hence remains the primary duty-bearer.

That paragraph should sent a blunt message to anti-water privatization movement that their endeavour in foreclosing the neoliberalization of the water sector through human rights language may not  be successful.

Relevant posts:

Draft UNGA Resolution on the Right to Water – What is Indonesia’s Diplomatic Position?
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation
Papers:
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation:
Anticipating water trade

Quick blogging. Sponsored by Bolivia, next July 28th the UN is moving towards embodying the human right to water in the form of a UNGA Resolution. The current content of the right to water is clarified by the General Comment 15 (GC-15) and reports produced by the Independent Expert on the Right to Water and Sanitation. The GC-15 is not binding as a legal instrument to state parties of the ICESCR, although it is an authoritative source of interpretation.
A UNGA Resolution on the other hand, may constitute an evidence of state practice which reinforces the bindingness and (the legal) existence of the right to water under International law [International Law experts are welcomed to argue on this :) ].

However, I consider the resolution’s draft text to be vague. It only recalls the GC-15 and two previous reports by the Independent Expert (IE). There is no clarification whatsoever on the content of the right. It may be that the strategy of interpretation is to link the Resolution with the GC-15 and the IE reports.

Note that some countries including the UK, USA and Canada opposes this move. As such, a vote might be required. Main supporters are likely to be Southern states. In order for this resolution to be supported by more states, more vagueness might be necessary. Nevertheless, this is already an important diplomatic move.

Read also, Maude Barlow’s and Mikhail Gorbachev’s op-eds on the right to water. The Draft Resolution (July 19th) is accessible here.
Does anyone know Indonesia’s diplomatic position?

Quick blogging. Finally the long awaited report from the Independent Expert (IE) is out.

The report emphasize the importance of transparency, participation and accountability in water projects involving the private sector. On the transparency side, the IE even suggests that "Commercial confidentiality must not jeopardize the transparency requirements provided for under the human rights framework". Finally, she conclude and recommends that "The process of decision-making and implementation, any instruments that delegate service provision including contracts, and instruments that outline roles and responsibilities must be transparent, which requires the disclosure of adequate and sufficient information and actual access to information".

I hope this report ends the long speculation that the human right to water means outlawing “privatisation”. It does not and is never meant to be as such. The discourse on water has been cluttered with the privatisation debate. This report outline that the word “privatisation” itself is dilemmatic and the problem does not end there. Privatization has its problem and so does non-delegated or state-owned services. The real problem is governance, whether the service is public or private or hybrid.

More discussions follows.

Read the full report here.

Relevant posts:

Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault?
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia
Papers:
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation:
Anticipating water trade

Reminder: An audio conference with the topic "Protection of water consumer's rights in Indonesia" will be held on this page today, June 2, 19.00-20.30 (GMT+0) -- that's around 1.a.m. Jakarta Time (GMT+6)! The discussion will be in Bahasa Indonesia. Materials are available below. Read here for previous announcement.