PHM-Exch> Fwd: [ESCR-Net ] United Nations General Assembly makes progress on the human rights to water and sanitation, but only so far as the USA permits

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Ashfaq Khalfan <Ashfaq.Khalfan at amnesty.org>

 Please find below a Amnesty International public statement which is online
at:  http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/IOR40/005/2013/en

In summary, the General Assembly (in its Third Committee on Social,
Cultural and Humanitarian issues) has for the first time:
- Agreed that the rights to water and sanitation are rights derived from
the right to an adequate standard of living. This means that these rights
are now implicitly recognised as being part of ICESCR, CRC and the UDHR.
The Human Rights Council had made this statement in 2010, but the GA's
resolution means that all States parties to the ICESCR and CRC have
confirmed this statement.
- Called on  States to eliminate inequalities in access on grounds such as
gender and social origin and to progressively eliminate inequalities based
on factors such as rural-urban disparities, residence in slums and income
levels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- C alled on States to provide for effective accountability mechanisms for
all water and sanitation service providers to ensure that they respect
human rights and do not cause human rights violations or abuses.

 The General Assembly came very close to getting universal agreement on the
definition of these rights (as agreed this September at the Human Rights
Council) - but due to opposition from the United States, the sponsors of
the resolution, Germany and Spain, decided to aim for a consensus and left
it out. This issue will have to be discussed at the General Assembly again.

 The resolution as presented for adoption is available at
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.34/Rev.1
Oral revisions were made to this resolution prior to adoption, and which
are not reflected in the version of the resolution available on the
internet: 1. Deletion of the final preambulatory paragraph, 2. Movement of
OP2 to the Preambulatory paragraphs, and 3. Replacement of the the last
phrase in OP 3 (' considering a human rights-based approach; ') with
'taking into account an approach that supports the promotion and
protection
of human rights

   Ashfaq Khalfan
   Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Policy Coordinator
   Amnesty International - International Secretariat
   London



* AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL *
* PUBLIC STATEMENT  *

* AI Index: IOR 40/005/2013 *
* 26 November 2013*

* United Nations: General Assembly makes progress on the human rights to
water and sanitation, but only so far as the USA permits *

 The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on 21 November adopted a
resolution on “The human right to safe drinking water and sanitation”.
Amnesty International welcomes this resolution; the first in which all UN
member States affirm that the rights to water and sanitation are legally
binding in international law. However, we are deeply disappointed that as a
result of pressure from the USA, the main sponsors of the resolution,
Germany and Spain, removed from the resolution a paragraph containing a
critical affirmation of the contents of these rights. It is outrageous that
one country’s view – for which it has not provided any plausible
explanation – has been given priority over the expressed view of the many
other countries supporting this language. The US position stands in stark
contrast to the views of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and against the interests of the
billions of people who lack adequate access to water and sanitation.

* A Glaring Omission  *

 Until moments before its adoption, the draft General Assembly resolution
had recognised that “the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation
entitles everyone, without discrimination, to have access to sufficient,
safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal
and domestic use and to have physical and affordable access to sanitation,
in all spheres of life, that is safe, hygienic, secure, and acceptable and
that provides privacy and ensures dignity”.

 The definition under discussion was based on that contained in a
resolution of the UN Human Rights Council adopted in September 2013, which
was co-sponsored by 111 States and was adopted by consensus. At the time,
the USA was the only country that disassociated itself from the definition
of these rights and stated that it did not agree ‘with the expansive way
this right has been articulated’. However, it has not explained what
aspects of this definition it does not accept.

 The draft of this resolution that included this important affirmation of
the content of the rights to water and sanitation in the General Assembly
enjoyed the support of 81 cosponsors from all parts of the world. Only the
USA consistently opposed inclusion of text endorsing the contents of these
rights. It is regrettable that the main sponsors removed this language at
the last minute at the behest of the USA.

The USA’s view that the definition of the rights set out by the Human
Rights Council is ‘expansive’ cannot be sustained. That definition of these
rights is in fact limited and relates to essential elements without which
they would only be hollow promises. People are entitled to water and to
sanitation that is within reasonable reach and at a price they can afford.
People have a right to enough water to wash their clothes, prepare their
food and keep themselves and their homes clean. People have a right to
sanitation which they can use without risk of disease, injury or assault,
in all locations where they spend significant time, which they can access
in dignity and without spectators and without being forced to abandon those
of their social and cultural sanitation practices that they wish to
maintain. Such rights are only ‘expansive’ if one adopts a 19 th  century
understanding of hygiene and of government duties to ensure the provision
of public services.

 It is therefore incumbent upon the US government to explain which of these
aspects of the rights it cannot accept and why. It owes this explanation to
the world at large, and to Americans, who deserve to know what aspects of
their rights to water and sanitation their Federal government refuses to
guarantee. In fact, during the official mission to the USA in 2011, the UN
Special Rapporteur on these rights identified several instances where the
government was not taking adequate steps to ensure quality, affordability
and access to water and sanitation.

 Amnesty International’s research in informal settlements has shown the
consequences when governments fail to address all aspects of these rights.
For example, lack of attention to safety of sanitation by ensuring that
women and girls have a toilet in or next to their home leads to situations
in which they cannot use toilets after dark. Failure to address
affordability – such as for payment for water, charges for use of public
toilets, emptying latrines or sewerage charges – can be a significant
barrier to access for the poor.

* Positive steps – the glass half full *

 While the explicit reference to the definition of contents of rights was
removed, the resolution adopted by the GA Third Committee endorses the UN
Human Rights Council resolution of September 2013 which defined these
rights.

 Furthermore, the General Assembly resolution strengthens the global
recognition of the legal basis of the rights to water and sanitation. It
repeats an affirmation by the UN Human Rights Council that the rights to
water and sanitation are derived from the right to an adequate standard of
living. It effectively affirms that the rights to water and sanitation are
implicitly contained in several human rights treaties that guarantee the
right to an adequate standard of living, including the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which 161
States are party, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC),
which has reached nearly universal ratification, and are therefore legally
binding rights. The General Assembly’s view is significant because it
comprises all States parties to the ICESCR and CRC.

 The resolution also calls on States to consider these rights in the goals,
targets and indicators for the post-2015 international development agenda.
It calls on States to eliminate inequalities in access on grounds such as
gender and social origin and to progressively eliminate inequalities based
on factors such as rural-urban disparities, residence in slums and income
levels.  The resolution calls upon States to consult with communities on
adequate solutions to ensure sustainable access. It further calls on States
to provide for effective accountability mechanisms for all water and
sanitation service providers to ensure that they respect human rights and
do not cause human rights violations or abuses.

* Way Forward*

 The resolution will now be transmitted to the General Assembly Plenary for
adoption in mid-December.

 Fully achieving the rights to water and sanitation will require sustained
work in the coming years at all levels – from the United Nations down to
sanitation departments at the municipal level. Recognising the content of
these rights should be the most straightforward part of this work. Explicit
and strong affirmation of the content of these rights by the UN General
Assembly would provide additional political and legal support to these
rights and help focus government attention on gaps in water and sanitation
provision.

 Amnesty International therefore urges the supporters of this important
initiative to reintroduce the removed language in future texts, and present
a resolution for adoption at the next session of the General Assembly.

* BACKGROUND *

 The draft resolution presented at the Third Committee of the 68 th
session of the General Assembly was cosponsored by the following
countries
prior to the removal of the paragraph on the contents of the rights to
water and sanitation: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Benin,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Congo, Croatia,
Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan,
Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro,
Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar,
Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Singapore,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Switzerland,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay and Zambia. As a result of the
deletion of the paragraph on the contents of the rights, Costa Rica
withdrew its co-sponsorship and the United States joined the list of
co-sponsors.

 The right to an adequate standard of living is contained, in addition to
the ICESCR and CRC, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The USA has previously declared that it recognised the rights to water and
sanitation only as rights contained in the ICESCR.  The USA has signed, but
is not party to, the ICESCR and CRC. It is therefore under an obligation
not to defeat the object and purpose of these treaties. The UDHR, although
not a treaty, has been used by the International Court of Justice and the
General Assembly as a recognised source of standards binding States. The
USA has claimed that only parties to the ICESCR are bound by the rights to
water and sanitation. However, if it were confident in such a claim, it
would not have devoted significant energy and diplomatic capital to
opposing the definition of the contents of these rights agreed at the Human
Rights Council. Its conduct suggests that it considers itself bound by
these rights.

 The Human Rights Council’s definition of the rights to water and
sanitation, contained in Resolution 24/18 of 27 September 2013, drew upon
the views of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a
body elected by States to elaborate the interpretation of the ICESCR. The
Committee has clarified in General Comment No. 15 on the Right to Water
(E/C.12/2002/11) that the right to water includes water ‘for personal and
domestic uses, which ordinarily include drinking, washing of clothes, food
preparation and personal and household sanitation and hygiene.’ The content
of the right to sanitation was defined by the Special Rapporteur (at the
time Independent Expert) in her thematic report on sanitation to the
Council in 2009 (A/HRC/12/24), and this definition was then relied upon by
the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural rights in its 2010
Statement on the Right to Sanitation (E/C.12/2010/1).

 The Committee’s interpretations of the ICESCR are authoritative and
therefore the content of these rights is already legally binding on States
parties to the ICESCR. They can be used by people to hold their government
to account.

 UN resolutions on water and sanitation refer to the “human right to safe
drinking water and sanitation”; Amnesty International interprets this
reference as covering two distinct rights: a right to water and a right to
sanitation. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has
stated that there are distinct rights to water and to sanitation. There is
general consensus among experts on water and sanitation that sanitation
deserves special attention in order to prevent its neglect. The recognition
of the distinct rights to water and sanitation is important in order to
prevent the neglect of sanitation. The consequences of neglecting
sanitation are dire. Lack of access to adequate sanitary facilities
(including toilets and latrines) is one of the primary causes of infant
mortality and demeans the dignity of people denied such access.
Furthermore, it should be clarified that the term “right to safe drinking
water” in the English versions of its resolutions refers to ‘drinkable’
water – not water just for drinking, but also for other essential uses for
a dignified life. Amnesty International has consistently urged the Council
to use the term ‘potable or ‘safe water’ rather than ‘drinking water’ in
order to make this clear.

 Public Document
 ****************************************
 For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in
London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press at amnesty.org
 International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London
WC1X 0DW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20131204/b794b9f4/attachment.html>