The Right to Sanitation: Time to Delink from the Right to Water

Abstract

Within the human rights arena, water and sanitation are very often presented as linked together. This article examines the historical roots of this linkage as well as its manifestation at both the international and domestic level in countries that have formally recognized a right to water and sanitation. The analysis leads to a conclusion that a continuation of the linkage is not historically warranted, nor does it offer clear advantages for realization of a right to water or a right to sanitation.

Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development

“…Both rights share some similarities, to the extent that they are essential to the realisation of other rights and human security, require capital investments in infrastructure for their realisation, and are public goods. Nonetheless, the differences illustrated in Table 1.1 support calls by scholars for delinking the understanding and analysis of the HRS from the HRW (Ellis & Feris 2014;Obani & Gupta 2016), and justify my distinct consideration of the HRS in this thesis. In practical terms, water may not be crucial for sanitation but water-intensive hygiene practices nonetheless occur in water scarce regions (Rusca, Alda-Vidal, Hordijk & Kral, 2017).…”

“…There are three main justifications for my focus on the HRS, while making references to the human right to water (HRW) where necessary for analysis: (a) the combined scholarly analysis of the human rights to sanitation and water does not enhance the normative development of the HRS due to inherent differences between both rights that are inadvertently overlooked (Ellis & Feris, 2014); (b) scholarly research on the HRS remains limited and continues in parallel across various disciplines that address sanitation governance (Obani & Gupta, 2016); and (c) the analysis of the HRS by legal scholars has minimal considerations of the impact of HRS instruments on the drivers of poor sanitation services and the options for adopting complementary non-human rights instruments to strengthen the governance framework (Obani & Gupta, 2016).…”

“…There is also no evidence that combining the HRWS results in better implementation within national jurisdictions (Ellis & Feris, 2014). Second, sanitation is highly capital intensive but also has high indirect economic returns on investments which mainly accrue from healthcare savings (see 1.2) (Hutton, 2012;Salter, 2008;Toubkiss, 2006).…”

“…Second, sanitation is highly capital intensive but also has high indirect economic returns on investments which mainly accrue from healthcare savings (see 1.2) (Hutton, 2012;Salter, 2008;Toubkiss, 2006). However, a purely narrow economic analysis suggests that sanitation investments may not give sufficient returns to the investor and could discourage investment; HRS would therefore suffer from standing independently from the HRW which is relatively cheaper to implement (Ellis & Feris, 2014). Third, the rights discourse enriches sanitation programmes with normative content that is critical for prioritising human wellbeing and which would otherwise be missing from non-human rights based approaches.…”

“…For instance, the quantity of water required to meet the right to sanitation is context specific; the quality of water required for flushing toilets (and whether flush toilets are needed) is not necessarily the same as that required for drinking; and the combination does not account for the specific amount of water necessary for sanitation and hygiene distinct from drinking water needs. Second, combining both rights virtually implies the right to water for water-based sanitation services and thereby potentially undermines the relevance for people who rely on dry sanitation systems whereas the normative contents of the HRS apply to all forms of sanitation and hygiene systems (see Chapter 3) (Ellis & Feris, 2014). Third, sanitation and water differ in terms of perception (sanitation is often a taboo issue) (Black & Fawcett, 2008;IRIN, 2012); potability (while individuals can take drinking 3 Interviewees 30, 33, 38, 40, 41, and 42.…”