Canada Foils UN Plan to Make Safe Water a Human Right

[unimaginative2]

Canada foils UN water plan

'Canada failed to take up the challenge'
MAUDE BARLOW, chair of the Council of Canadians Advocates devastated at failure of resolution to recognize water as a basic human right

Apr 02, 2008 04:30 AM
Linda Diebel
National Affairs Writer

Canada emerged as the pivotal nation behind recent manoeuvres to block the United Nations Human Rights Council from recognizing water as a basic human right, according to international observers.

The Geneva-based body wrapped up an intense three-week session late Friday without passing a German-Spanish resolution intended to enshrine its importance in a world where more than 2 billion people live in water-stressed regions.

It would have also set up an international watchdog to monitor the actions of individual countries.

After its 46 members accepted a consensus resolution – essentially for more study – Canadian representative Sarah Geh told the council: "Canada does not view this resolution as creating a human right to water under international human rights law."

In his final speech, disappointed German representative Reinhard Schweppe stressed action is urgent. Access to clean water and sanitation, is "a part of human dignity," he said, adding a child dies every 20 seconds due to water-borne diseases.

Advocates for water rights were devastated by the outcome.

From Oxford, Ashfaq Khalfan, co-ordinator of the U.K.-headquartered Right to Water Program, said he believes the resolution to make water a right would have passed without the resolute lobby efforts of the Canadian delegation.

"It's rather unfortunate Canada put itself in that position," he said in an interview.

Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, said reservations about specific aspects of the motion were raised by member nations, notably Russia and the U.K. But she said it was Canada that "derailed" the process, a view shared by other international observers who monitored the Geneva sessions.

Barlow also suggested Canada acted with support from the United States, which shares Ottawa's view on water but doesn't have a seat at the UN rights council.

"Canada failed to take up the challenge. Canadians would find it shocking to realize our role in this," said Barlow, a veteran of battles about water.

She added that the resolution would have buttressed the argument that nobody should be able to expropriate water for financial profit. There have been battles in countries such as Bolivia over attempts to privatize water.

"It was a benchmark for the concept water is a right, not a commodity," Barlow said, adding claims that the resolution would have forced nations to export water to drought-plagued regions were "fantastical."

MP Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park), the NDP's water critic, said: "Once again, we're internationally disappointed and embarrassed. ... How do you deny water is a basic human right?"

Nash criticized both the former Liberal government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives for failing to take a progressive attitude on water rights.

However, siding with the government's position in Geneva, her Liberal counterpart Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-St.-Louis) raised what could become a critical public issue in the national dialogue over water.

The Quebec MP said Canada's sovereignty over its own water was not established in the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, raising problems for Ottawa internationally. In trade terms, water arguably is a commodity or service like any other.

"I believe – and I guess the government sees it the same way —– if we start signing on to recognizing water as an international human right ... it might make it easy for private companies, or for those south of the border, who would like to export Canada's water in bulk to embarrass us on the public square," Scarpaleggia said.

"These people could argue, 'Well, you've agreed water is a human right, we here down in Atlanta have no water, there's a drought,' or in California or whatever. You have a moral obligation to be consistent with your word and let us take some water down here, by one means or another."

He criticized the Harper government for failing to deliver on its pledge of a national water policy and said he intends to introduce a motion in the Commons to protect Canadian water.

Nash long ago tabled a motion of her own.

The consensus was worked out over three weeks. Minutes taken by representatives of NGOs who attended an open meeting March 18, show disappointment among representatives of countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Norway, Switzerland and others.

Khalfan said that if the German-Spanish resolution had been defeated in a vote, it would have damaged any fight for water rights. Instead, there is at least a consensus to examine obligations "related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments."

Khalfan and Barlow stressed their organizations haven't given up. Among other avenues, they will focus on the report expected to be tabled in three years, under the terms of last week's consensus.

Khalfan said it would have been particularly sweet for Canadians had the rights council enshrined water as a right. In his view, it would have been the next logical step to a report the council already requested from former UN high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour. A former Supreme Court of Canada justice, Arbour stepped down from her UN post last month.

Her September 2007 report said: "The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights believes that it is now time to consider access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right. ..."

In her comments Friday, Canadian representative Geh quoted Arbour's report as saying "debate is still open as to whether water and sanitation is a human right."

Khalfan disputed that view, arguing Arbour's report said it was not clear whether the right to water was a "self-standing right" or derived from "other human rights."

Yesterday, from Ottawa, foreign affairs spokesperson Shaun Tinkler said the compromise resolution "accurately reflects that a right to water is not explicitly recognized as a fundamental human right under international human rights law."

He praised the consensus agreement for setting up an independent expert and said Canada had "worked constructively with other delegations to develop a negotiated text which accurately reflects the status of this issue."

 

[billonlogan]

MAUDE BARLOW, chair of the Council of Canadians Advocates devastated at failure of resolution to recognize water as a basic human right

 

[gullyfourmyle]

Why clean water cannot be a right in Canada.

Clean water should be a right and that right should be world-wide without exclusion. No species has the innate right to deprive other species or nations of water either now or in the future.

The problem is that most nations could not begin to live up to such a right because we are at least one hundred years or more too late.

Globally, most of the planet's ground water is contaminated and will remain contaminated for centuries if not all time due to human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution but more particilarly since we started burning fossil fuels.

The water is contaminated from a variety of sources but spills, sewer systems, leaking dumpsites and raw disposal of harmful chemicals are all working to change water chemistry all over the planet.

Anyone who has ever kept tropical fish, particularly salt water fish understands from painful financial experience how little it takes to make what looks like perfectly good water to magically transform into a lethal solution in which nothing but algae can live.

We are conducting a world wide water chemistry experiment right now. It's a gamble that absolutely cannot be won.

The oceans are becoming acidic. At some point in the not too distant future, we are going to see die-offs of the less tolerant species. They will be followed by species whose survival depended on the dearly departed.

At some point, unless we make fundamental changes all over the earth, we are also going to be dearly departed.

We know what needs to be done. But the decision makers are, unfortunately, completely clueless when it comes to environmental issues. They get their information according to what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

What they need to hear is the words CLEAN UP.

That is a process that is hugely expensive. It's a process that no budget can deal with unless we start to look at clean up as economic banking.

The planet runs on an accounting system just as rigid as any in the financial world. there are two sides to the ledger.

On the liability side there are listed all of man's activities. On the asset side, there are listed all of the planets natural resources.

For over a thousand years, man has been plundering the natural resources side of the ledger and never putting back to the extent that which was removed.

Even with the plundering of resources, man's ability to achieve long term solvencey remains elusive and so far unattainable. That is entirely due to our failure to learn to live in harmony beyond the hunter-gatherer stage. From that point on, all civilizations have regarded the environment as an adversary rather than a partner.

There can never be harmony or stability or real progress when one partner is always abusing the other without cessation.

To change our fundamental approach requires participation from all nations. It requires understanding and a level of cultural maturity only ever expressed in aboriginal belief systems.

That does not mean the aboriginals actually practiced what they believed in any more than anyone else. Circumstances and events come into play. But if we are to survive as a species, we need to be honest with ourselves and understand that the very first priority is clean water and its protection.

Air is not a commodity. Water should not be a commodity either. For life to prosper, they both have to be clean so the soil can be clean so the integrity of life can be maintained.

Clean water and clean air must be universal and inalienable rights. Anything less is anti life.

 

[Moonmoth]

I love Maude Barlow!

Of course Harper (and his representatives) don't want to make water a basic human right, they want to sell it to the USA! At a discount!

 

[Hydrogen]

Clean water should be a right and that right should be world-wide without exclusion. No species has the innate right to deprive other species or nations of water either now or in the future.

While access to clean water is an absolute necessity, it is hard to see how it could ever be defined as a "human right." About seventy percent of the surface of the planet is covered in salt water, which will make you sick and eventually kill you - even when clean.

Globally, most of the planet's ground water is contaminated and will remain contaminated for centuries if not all time due to human activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution but more particilarly since we started burning fossil fuels.

This is not true. Certainly some major aquifers have been contaminated or overdrawn, but this does not add up to anywhere near "most" of the ground water. Again, that is not to give a pass to abusing such a resource.

We are conducting a world wide water chemistry experiment right now. It's a gamble that absolutely cannot be won

You neglect the fact that "we" have learned, and have made a number of significant improvements. There is still much to do, but your pronouncement that nothing can be done is a little dire.

The oceans are becoming acidic. At some point in the not too distant future, we are going to see die-offs of the less tolerant species. They will be followed by species whose survival depended on the dearly departed.

Oceans have been more acidic in the recent past -such as during glacial periods when ocean levels were hundreds of metres lower than today. Also, areas surrounding volcanic vents are often incredibly rich in biodiversity - even though these vents pump out considerable quantities of CO2, making the surrounding water much more acidic than average.

Anyone who has ever kept tropical fish, particularly salt water fish understands from painful financial experience how little it takes to make what looks like perfectly good water to magically transform into a lethal solution in which nothing but algae can live.

A fish tank is not an ocean.

To change our fundamental approach requires participation from all nations. It requires understanding and a level of cultural maturity only ever expressed in aboriginal belief systems.

That does not mean the aboriginals actually practiced what they believed in any more than anyone else. Circumstances and events come into play. But if we are to survive as a species, we need to be honest with ourselves and understand that the very first priority is clean water and its protection.

Why raise a belief system that you then suggest was not practiced? What aspect of this "belief" system are you wishing to propound?

Clean water and clean air must be universal and inalienable rights. Anything less is anti life.

Remember to tell that to the water-born parasites that can sicken or kill you. They're quite "natural" too. Don't forget their "inalienable" rights.

 

[kEiThZ]

I love Maude Barlow!

Of course Harper (and his representatives) don't want to make water a basic human right, they want to sell it to the USA! At a discount!

In case you didn't read the article, it was also opposed by the Liberals precisely because making access to water a human right would risk a legal onslaught attempting to open Canadian water up for export (and not just to the USA).

Given the amount of water resources we have, and the need to ensure responsible management, this was the correct decision. It maybe callous but it was correct. If we agree to this, then if its not the US, somebody else will have our backs to the wall demanding we provide them with fresh water as per their 'rights'. Bravo to both the Liberals and Conservatives for putting Canadian interests first. As for the NDP, way to sell out Canada and pander to that lovely UN committee which has such outstanding members as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia setting the global standard for human rights.

 

[afransen]

"Also, areas surrounding volcanic vents are often incredibly rich in biodiversity - even though these vents pump out considerable quantities of CO2, making the surrounding water much more acidic than average."

You're not serious with this, are you? It's the same line of reasoning as: polar bears like ice, therefore snowball earth wouldn't be so bad.


Yes, some ecosystems like the highly toxic environment surrounding thermal vents. Pity that those ecosystems aren't very similar to the vast majority of ecosystems in the world's oceans (different underlying energy source).

 

[Hydrogen]

You're not serious with this, are you? It's the same line of reasoning as: polar bears like ice, therefore snowball earth wouldn't be so bad.

Yes, some ecosystems like the highly toxic environment surrounding thermal vents. Pity that those ecosystems aren't very similar to the vast majority of ecosystems in the world's oceans (different underlying energy source).

I'm speaking of the lovely green plant life that one typically finds around shallow hot vents, nothing exotic. You can find hundreds of photos showing just this.

The ocean is an extremely complex environment, and not particularly well understood. With respect to fears of ocean acidification, the worries are not backed up by any full or clear understanding. For example, the global carbon cycle is still quite uncertain with respect to fluxes, stocks and residence times both in the air and in the oceans. What is known is that there is a very lively exchange of carbon dioxide between oceans and the atmosphere. Also, while they are very active in the global carbon cycle, it is not known whether the oceans typically produce or absorb CO2. It appears that as oceans warm, they do not absorb carbon dioxide as readily as when they are cooler (the source of heat for oceans is the sun). The carbonate chemistry of the world's oceans has not been properly measured in the presence complex localized ecosystems, such as rich carbonate deposits. Also, the impact of the sea bottom with its carbonate deposits on ocean chemistry is not well understood.

One might think that a doubling in CO2 would result in a doubling of acidity, but this is not the case. Without CO2, pure rain water would have a neutral pH of 7.0. Initially, carbon dioxide will readily dissolve, resulting in the rapid acidifying the otherwise pure water. However, the rate of absorption starts to quickly fall off after that. As a result, a doubling in CO2 will contribute to a much reduced acidification of only 0.15 pH units. This is not a theoretical curve, but one that has been measured by titration. This situation applies to sea water, but the situation is far more complicated due to the great variety of buffering effect, including that of limestone.

 

[Hipster Duck]

In case you didn't read the article, it was also opposed by the Liberals precisely because making access to water a human right would risk a legal onslaught attempting to open Canadian water up for export (and not just to the USA)...If we agree to this, then if its not the US, somebody else will have our backs to the wall demanding we provide them with fresh water as per their 'rights'. Bravo to both the Liberals and Conservatives for putting Canadian interests first.

I totally agree with you on this. As soon as water is a "right", it is used in the most profilgate way. Consider how a desert state like Arizona, with its fierce protection of water access as a fundamental right, uses 220 gallons per person per day (800 litres) - mostly for landscaping. I would hate to see Canada subsidize this sort of idiocy.

 

[afransen]

I'm speaking of the lovely green plant life that one typically finds around shallow hot vents, nothing exotic. You can find hundreds of photos showing just this.

The ocean is an extremely complex environment, and not particularly well understood. With respect to fears of ocean acidification, the worries are not backed up by any full or clear understanding. For example, the global carbon cycle is still quite uncertain with respect to fluxes, stocks and residence times both in the air and in the oceans. What is known is that there is a very lively exchange of carbon dioxide between oceans and the atmosphere. Also, while they are very active in the global carbon cycle, it is not known whether the oceans typically produce or absorb CO2. It appears that as oceans warm, they do not absorb carbon dioxide as readily as when they are cooler (the source of heat for oceans is the sun). The carbonate chemistry of the world's oceans has not been properly measured in the presence complex localized ecosystems, such as rich carbonate deposits. Also, the impact of the sea bottom with its carbonate deposits on ocean chemistry is not well understood.

One might think that a doubling in CO2 would result in a doubling of acidity, but this is not the case. Without CO2, pure rain water would have a neutral pH of 7.0. Initially, carbon dioxide will readily dissolve, resulting in the rapid acidifying the otherwise pure water. However, the rate of absorption starts to quickly fall off after that. As a result, a doubling in CO2 will contribute to a much reduced acidification of only 0.15 pH units. This is not a theoretical curve, but one that has been measured by titration. This situation applies to sea water, but the situation is far more complicated due to the great variety of buffering effect, including that of limestone.

I was referring to ecosystems like this:

I don't know how the ecosystems you refer to are relevant, as they aren't present in the oceans.

"The ocean is an extremely complex environment, and not particularly well understood. With respect to fears of ocean acidification, the worries are not backed up by any full or clear understanding."

I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo, rather than preserve it. We know what we have now works, and we are substantially less certain that more acidic oceans won't have negative consequences.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

how does one make safe water a right? would one be able to drink straight from the river or the lake? that might be naturally dangerous (e coil from wildlife, etc.).

does it mean free tap water?


don't we have laws to protect our water from our pollution?

 

[Hydrogen]

I don't know how the ecosystems you refer to are relevant, as they aren't present in the oceans.

One such place I can think of off the top of my head are the shallow ocean surfaces close to Dobu Island right off Papua New Guinea. There are active underwater fumaroles, and according to vulcanologists, they are pumping out pure carbon dioxide. The sea grass in the area is lush, there is an abundance of fauna, along with a very healthy and large coral reef.

I can assure you that the ecosystem noted above is in an ocean and on earth. That makes it relevant.

So, adding this location to the many others found on the ocean floor - and including the thriving volcanic ecosystem like one you have illustrated in your post - it is clear that pumping large quantities carbon dioxide into ocean water does not automatically result in acid doom and gloom.

It's important to point out to you that the concerns over ocean acidification have to do with how it will affect shelled organisms and coral reefs. As I have noted above, there is a large coral reef right in the midst of extremely rich and continuous sources of carbon dioxide. Along with that, recent research results have shown that organisms that build protective outer shells, such as Coccolithophores (single-celled algae that are extremely important in the ocean's cycling of carbon), respond to acidification by building thicker cell walls and plates of chalk. When these organisms die, their skeletal remains sink to the seafloor, where the carbon in their shells gets locked into the surface sediments.

I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo, rather than preserve it. We know what we have now works, and we are substantially less certain that more acidic oceans won't have negative consequences.

There is no "status quo." Ocean environments have changed over time, and will continue to do so. In fact, ocean water pH can vary from 7.8 to 8.3, depending on location and a host of other variables. From this extensive mix, there is only an assumption that oceans have become slightly more acidic, but there is no conclusive proof. Any "average" will depend on where the measurements are being taken and how they are being taken. Very little is know about deep ocean waters.

As mentioned earlier, worries over acidification focus on the effects to coral reefs and shelled animals. Some people will state how these reefs have been around for "millions of years" and people are killing the off by increasing carbon dioxide and the resulting ocean acidification. What they fail to understand is that many reefs, such as the Great Barrier Reef, were almost all exposed land up to 10,000 years ago during the glacial periods when sea levels were far lower than present. That was a far more harsh environment for coral.


Rather than getting off topic on this issue, let's get back to that of whether water is a "human right" or not.