Water, a human right or a commodity? Since the dawn of civilization, water has been indispensable. In fact, it is no doubt the epitome of all life on the planet. That being said, water consists of 75% of our world’s surface, but only 3% of that is drinkable. It is a renewable source but only when water is managed carefully. The continuous pollution of water has plagued the world for decades, since the rise of industrialisation and it continues to thrive in our globalised world today, affecting the livelihood of countless people in derelict areas. There definitely exists a clear distinction between establishing water as a human right and a commodity, the former placing certain responsibilities upon governments to ensure that people can enjoy "sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water, without discrimination" while the latter distinguishes water to be dependent on the market itself, indirectly contributing to privatization, an aspect of capitalism. I believe that water should be established as a human right.
Life is sustained by water. Humans, as aqueous creatures, are dependent on water for sustenance. Water cannot be substituted, unlike some other forms of resources. The preservation of life is solely dependent on water. While food is also a fundamental element to sustain life, food is a variation of different items which can effectively substitute one another. It makes water all the more unique, as a universal source of life. Our right to live and other human rights are derived from our access to water. This is verified by the United Nations committee which stated that “The human right to drinking water is fundamental to life and health. Sufficient and safe drinking water is a precondition for the realization of human rights...a limited natural resource and a public commodity fundamental to life and health.”
If water was treated as a commodity, it would inevitably lead to privatization, one of the main aspects of capitalism. Privatisation of water systems would eventually lead to adverse effects, such as lower quality in water and increase in price. Notable examples would include South Africa’s instigation of the privatization of companies, which in turn led to a fatal cholera outbreak. In 1997, the World Bank assisted Philippines in the privatization of its local water system. Astoundingly, more than 6 years later, water prices hiked by 81% and 36% in the east and west regions respectively. These inefficient and extravagant water supply systems eventually led to diminished access to households who were unable to afford water, resulting in cholera and other water-borne diseases.
However, some people might argue that establishing water as a commodity would in turn influence citizens in wealthy states to limit their water consumption, since water would be dependent on the market, which is determined by supply and demand. One notable example would be Singapore, where “The Government's approach is to let the pricing of water show its true economic value”, therefore, instilling awareness in Singaporeans that water is precious. Along with that, the government does consider their responsibility of providing access to clean water at an affordable price, as they do offer subsidies for its citizens. However, with that being said, we must consider the situation in impoverished states ravaged by conflicts or poverty. In these cases, we cannot impose water as a commodity as it would inevitably add fuel to the fire by expecting them to pay for water. With these citizens unable to fulfil even their daily needs, it is undoubtedly defective if water was to be dependent on the market itself.
In conclusion, water should be treated as a human right, rather than a commodity. Water is unequivocally the stem of life. If water was treated as a commodity, it would lead to exploitation. Although, it might be feasible to allow water to be treated as a commodity in wealthy states in Singapore, in situations such as in impoverished states, it could prove to be fatal.
No comments:
Post a Comment