4. 3 The Right to Water in the Zambian Context
4.3.3 The Debate in Context: Role of Treaties in Zambian Law
4.3.4.6 Demystifying the Right to Water
There have been fears also on the part of government that proclaiming water as human right would activate the Kaunda regime belief that water should be provided free. These fears and misgivings about the right to water are evident in the responses given by some of the government officials when asked about making water a human right.
... if water as a human right means we have to provide water free, government has to increase taxes because that is the only way government can get money to provide water free of charge.
And I am sure people will be displeased with such a move {Policy Maker Interviews, 2006).
In earlier debates both the World Bank and the IMF argued that their mandate does not allow them to engage in matters of political nature like human rights. The Bank particularly defended this position on the basis of Article iv of the Bank's Articles of Agreement. But as Ghazi has observed, both the Bank and the Fund have been involving themselves in activities that have direct connection with human rights (2005: 95). In recent years, the Bank at least has come to realise that this position is not practical and has been accommodating human rights values in its work (see Ghazi 2005,).
What seems to be implied in the above response is that when water is recognised as a human right it will be free for all. And of course that raises the questions of sustainability and resources. But the right to water is not only about giving people free water. As explained earlier, the content of the right to water has both the obligation to ensure people's freedom of access as well as entitlement to access water, which is not the same as free water. Similarly, the obligation to promote, protect, respect and fulfil cannot be reduced just to the obligation to provide free water to everyone.
While government officials have their own fears about making water a human right, people in the communities have their own fears. Some of the community leaders interviewed had this to say about making water a human right:
But if water is free, the services will be poor because no one will bother about providing a good service, and people will be wasteful since they know that they get the service free.
If water becomes a human right people will be wasteful. So it is good that people should contribute something so that they take care of the water {Community Leader Interviews, 2006).
If they make water free, the supply will be very erratic like it was during the time the council supplied water. We use to stay for days without water (Community Leader Interviews, 2006).
When water is recognized as a human right, people will vandalise and steal the public infrastructure thinking that government will replace them. If water is made free for everyone, the services will become poor because no one will be there to ensure that services improve.
The only disadvantage of declaring water as a basic need is that it will make people take advantage of the situation and become careless in the use of water—people become drunk with freedom (Community Leader Interviews, 2006).
As can be seen from these responses, the right to water is understood to mean different things. One common understanding about the right to water is that water should be provided free, and this can lead to misconceptions that can hinder progress in improving and expanding access to clean water. It is for this reason that an official proclamation that elaborates on what the right entails, its nature, content, beneficiaries, the responsibilities it engenders on people and the duties that government and service providers are expected to undertake is critical.
Conclusion
This chapter has outlined the major debates surrounding water as a natural resource and water as a human right. At the global level, there is an emerging awareness of the water crisis and all that this implies. While the magnitude of the crisis is only dimly understood, the growing demand for water
159
resources at the global level is clearly unsustainable. On the other hand, much of the crisis, especially with domestic water supply is one of management and allocation rather than a scarcity problem. This is shown in the next chapter where it is argued that problems of access to water in Zambia are of the second and third order scarcity in nature and therefore relate to governance and political will.
At the international level, although the right to water is not explicitly recognized, there are many international human rights instruments that have indirectly recognized the right to water. Nevertheless, in order to safeguard the right to water more effectively, to focus policy on access to water, to address the environmental issues related to water, and to raise awareness on the deplorable state of access to water for many people, there is need to clearly recognize water as a human right. Efforts to recognize water as a human right are often frustrated by counter debates and moves such as those that emphasise treating water as an economic good. Promoted by many international development agencies, the move to treat water as an economic good rather than a public good, has led to the rigid discourses on the delivery of water services. These and other neoclassical economic rationale pose major challenges to implementing a rights-based approach to water especially in developing countries. Unfortunately, these ideologies have influenced the conception, implementation and delivery of water services in countries like Zambia. For instance elements of marginal cost pricing, creation of water markets, commercialization of water services that are gaining momentum in the Zambian water policy bear evidence to the influence of these global water debates.
Though the constitution has provided for the state to ensure that clean and safe water is provided to people, this provision has been pre-empted and rendered inactive. Relying on the international human right instruments that have recognized the right to water to which Zambia is a signatory is a challenge in that the application of international law in the Zambian context raises a number of problems. This is compounded by lack of clear guidance on the Zambian policy as to how the right to water is to be implemented. Although, clear recognition of the right to water does not imply that the recognised rights become a reality, a clear recognition of the right to water makes it possible to begin to assert, contest and claim the rights. This is true given the assertion that human rights are not given on a silver plata, but are realized through contestation. A clear recognition of a right only makes this contestation a possibility.
Overall, if the right to water is to be given effect, there is need to clearly state what the position of the government is with regard to this right, and this should be followed by regulations and statutes that
elaborate on the content of the right. For the right to water to become a reality, there is need to move from the acknowledgement level, through recognition and measures to the effectuation levels(see Section 3. 2. 8).
161