Even poor people have the same equal right to nature
South Africa Court ruling on water sets global precedent
| We trim and append this 2008 article by IRIN on May 6 from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. |
by IRIN
A landmark High Court ruling against a multimillion-dollar prepaid water scheme in South Africa's largest township, Soweto, has been heralded as a global precedent in the struggle for the basic human right to water. The City of Johannesburg is analyzing the judgment in order to be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to appeal.In a class-action suit, five residents of Phiri, one of Soweto's poorest townships, asked the court to order the city to provide at least 50 litres of free water per person per day, double what they currently receive but the basic minimum prescribed by the World Health Organization. Across the globe in areas of comparable climate to South Africa, between 150 and 400 litres a day per person was the norm.
The plaintiffs also asked that they be given the choice of an ordinary credit water meter instead of the prepaid system imposed by the city, which discriminates against the poor, on which the court ruled in their favor as well. The prepaid meters, deemed "unconstitutional and unlawful" by the judge, automatically disconnect the water supply once a household has used up the 6,000 free litres given by the city. The connection remains severed unless the user can afford to "top-up".
Residents in other areas pay for use with conventional meters. Yet if they don't pay, they also get cut off.
Households used 66,000 litres per month in 2003. This had dropped, by a staggering 81 percent per user, to 12,000 litres per month in 2007.
There is a culture of non-payment throughout the whole city. Water in Soweto had never been metered before in the first place, so conventional water meters would not work there -- people would just not pay for consumption. Soweto residents used to receive unlimited water for a flat fee of R149 (about US$20) but payment levels were always low out of opposition to the apartheid government in the 1980s.
Judge Tsoka argued that it contravened the "right to equality" if some Johannesburg residents - those with regular meters - got access to credit, while those in other areas - such as the residents of Soweto with prepaid systems - were denied the same privilege.
“To expect the applicants to restrict their water usage, to compromise their health by limiting the number of toilet flushes in order to save water, is to deny them the rights to health and to lead a dignified lifestyle," Judge Tsoka ruled.
The ruling is a warning shot against attempts to forcibly impose pre-paid water systems on the poor elsewhere in Africa and globally. The challenge now is to make sure that Joburg Water respects the judge's order.
JJS: We all have a right to water; if someone could deprive us of water, they could kill us, which is still wrong. However, we don’t have the right to require another to deliver us water; instead, we have a right to equal access to water. Hence, if government, provides water to some members of society, it must supply water to all members of society, equally.
Yet, delivering water does not come free; those who do the actual delivering must be paid for building and operating the pipes and reservoirs. But what if somebody can’t pay their fair share of that cost? Short term, those better off would make up the difference.
But long term, eradicate poverty, which should not exist where water is available. Let’s:
- * Quit taxing wages and earned profits, so businesses can hire more workers.
* Quit allowing absentee ownership; instead, recover land rent -- something Johannesburg used to do -- breaking up land hoarding, so others can more easily find places to work or to start up a business.
* And quit subsidizing a few insiders; instead start paying everyone a fair share of social surplus.
Getting such a Citizens Dividend, residents could then afford their share of the cost of water delivery. As long as government does not let a water monopoly overcharge, then even people living in Soweto could come up with the $20 per year.
---------------------
Jeffery J. Smith runs the Forum on Geonomics.
|
Also see: Africa: Water as a Right, Not a Business
Unequal Water Resources Present a Challenge
Attempts to Make a Water Monopoly Result in Violence |
| Email this article | Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report:
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
