The Human Right to Water: Moving Towards Consensus in a Fragmented World Joyeeta Gupta, Rhodante Ahlers and Lawal Ahmed The problem of unmet water and sanitation service needs of one-sixth to one-third of humanity has been recognized by the UN General Assembly’s 2010 Reso- lution on the human right to water and sanitation. However, this raises a number of questions. First, does the consensus within the General Assembly imply that all governance actors accept the right and the accom- panying responsibilities and does it override other governance discourses dominant in the global arena? Second, why is a human rights discourse superior to other discourses used to address the above problem? Third, what are the challenges in implementing such a discourse and what are the potential solutions? This article argues that although there is growing consen- sus on the human right to water, the fragmentation of water governance implies that the impact of the consensus is limited. It argues further that there is a real and pressing need to discuss access issues in terms of human rights; but that given the implemen- tation challenges, there is a more active need to move from public–private partnerships to public–non- governmental organization partnerships. INTRODUCTION In July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution in favour of recognizing a human right to water. 1 This provides symbolic acknowl- edgement of a problem that affects one-third of human- ity – 0.9 billion people without access to improved water and 2.6 billion without access to improved 2 sanitation services. Of those with access to improved water, 40% (i.e. about 3 billion people) have to fetch and store water. This is not just a problem of the devel- oping world; some 20 million Europeans do not have access to basic sanitation services. 3 This affects public health and education: girls do not go to school if sani- tation facilities are poor; teachers are unwilling to move to village schools in Namibia without facilities. 4 This exacerbates poverty, 5 and impacts on security, dignity and freedom, while improved access enhances income- generating activities, increases school enrolment and decreases water-related diseases. 6 Health agencies could save US$7 billion annually and individuals could save US$340 million if these services are provided. It is estimated that 320 million more productive days could be gained annually and 272 million school attendance days per year, time savings of 20 billion working days a year, and millions of deaths averted, leading to a total payback of US$84 billion annually. 7 The above discussion raises questions and goes beyond earlier work in this journal. 8 First, does the UNGA con- sensus imply that all governance actors accept the right and the accompanying responsibilities and does it over- ride other governance discourses dominant in the global arena? Second, why is a human rights discourse superior to other discourses used to address the above problem? Third, what are the challenges in implement- ing such a discourse and what are the potential solu- tions? This article highlights the three dominant 1 Resolution on Human Right to Water and Sanitation (UN General Assembly Resolution A/64/292, 28 July 2010), available at <http:// www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga10967.doc.htm>. 2 The term ‘improved’ refers to the fact that people without access to water and sanitation services are not without absolute access. They have access to poor quality and quantities of water and they have access to open defecation facilities. Improved services refers to ser- vices that meet some minimum level of quality standards that are in keeping with human needs, dignity and safety. A ladder concept of improved access to water and sanitation has also been developed. See WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, Progress on Water and Sanitation – 2010 Update (WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2010). 3 C. Wendland et al., Sanitation: A Continuous Challenge for the European Region, European Regional Document for the World Water Forum (Women in Europe for a Common Future, 2009), avail- able at <http://www.wecf.eu/english/publications/2009/european- chapter.php>. 4 J.N. Heita, ‘Water Scarcity and Human Well-Being: Progress towards MDG Targets in Namibia’, M.Sc. Thesis (UNESCO-IHE Insti- tute for Water Education, 2009). 5 A.R. Turton and L. Ohlsson, Water Scarcity and Social Adaptive Capacity: Towards a Deeper Understanding of the Key Concepts Needed to Manage Water Scarcity in Developing Countries, SOAS Working Paper (University of London, 1999). 6 J. Soussan, ‘Assessing the Impacts of Watershed: Seeds to Major Food Crop Production Yield in Punjab, Pakistan’, 4:3 Indus Journal of Management & Social Sciences (2001), 183. 7 WHO, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level (WHO, 2004). 8 J. Razzaque, ‘Trading Water: The Human Factor’, 13:1 RECIEL (2004), 15. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law RECIEL 19 (3) 2010. ISSN 0962 8797 © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 294