Water and Human Development

The article argues for a human development approach to the water ‘crisis.’ It explores the application of the entitlements approach (EA) and capabilities approach (CA) to water. EA goes beyond volumetric or per capita measurements of water scarcity and directs attention to the structural and institutional issues concerning water inequalities. CA focuses on links between water and wellbeing. Both strengthen the case for the human right to water and break down false distinctions between water for domestic and productive purposes. Despite challenges with operationalizing CA and EA, a human development approach to water helps question the sector’s traditional focus on utilitarianism and efficiency. It also directs attention to equity and to the needs and interests of the marginalised and excluded

Why Invisible Power and Structural Violence Persist in the Water Domain

This article argues that inequality in access to water and sanitation is largely caused and legitimised by different forms of invisible power that prevent universal access. It shows how invisible power combined with structural violence and experiences of unequal citizenship result in dismal access to water that cause systematic harm to poor and marginalised women and men. The article also argues that invisible power and other forms of power imbalance have ended up naturalising water inequalities around the world. While the inalienable universality of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their focus on inequality must be celebrated, unless the power imbalances that perpetuate inequality are tackled head on by both policymakers and activists, the SDGs will not achieve social justice. It is thus important for both the sufferers of water injustices as well as water justice advocates to challenge structural violence and invisible power in the water domain

Somewhere over the rainbow? : the politics and dilemmas of researching citizenship and marginality

Research on development is normative, engaged and seeks to make a difference since it focuses on the excluded, on power relations and aims at the empowerment of the voiceless and increasingly on the ‘pedagogy of the powerful’. This makes it even more loaded and contested than other kinds of research. However, how aware and reflexive are researchers of their own biases and positionalities? Do final research accounts pay attention to questions concerning power and politics in the course of the research process? What are the dilemmas and contradictions encountered by researchers in both the North and South when they work with marginalised and powerless groups? This paper focuses on these issues by drawing on the experiences and testimonies of researchers involved in the Development Research Centre (DRC) on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability based at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. By focusing on the methodologies and methods that DRC researchers drew on while researching questions of citizenship and marginality in India, Nigeria, Mexico and Brazil, the paper discusses the increasing distance between researchers and the research participants and the politics of researching citizenship and marginality. It also provides theoretical and personal insights on issues related to methods, ethics, positionality, reflexivity and power. The paper intersperses personal statements and reflections (presented in italics) with theoretical reflections to highlight the messiness and confusion embedded in the research process which rarely come to the fore in conventional research papers and reports. It demonstrates that development research that seeks to make a difference must rethink questions concerning policy influence, change at local and global levels and the politics of research given the interconnectedness between the problems in the South with policies and politics in the North. It urges us as researchers to ask critical questions, decide more forcefully how to engage with the powerful and take the sides of the weak while maintaining a pragmatism of hope. Keywords: Development Research Centre (DRC), research on citizenship and marginality, action research, research ethics, reflexivity, methods and methodology

Ensuring Rights to Water and Sanitation for Women and Girls

Paper for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, Fifty-seventh session, 4-15 March 2013, New York. Interactive expert panel on Challenges and Achievements in the Implementation of the Millennium Development Goals for Women and Girls

Mirror Event on Water and Power

Inequality in access to water and sanitation is one of the biggest development challenges of the twenty-first century. In 2015, 663 million people around the globe lacked access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lacked access to improved sanitation with about 946 million people defecating in the open (UNICEF and WHO 2015). This situation undermines good health, nutrition and human dignity and is a global outrage. Accessing water can be particularly challenging for smallholders, vulnerable and marginalised populations, and women. There is no dearth of ideas, fora and meetings regarding how to deal with water challenges. Yet the key challenge remains of how to address water problems in ways that are sustainable, socially just and which consistently address the interests of poorer and marginalised people

Unpacking rights and wrongs : do human rights make a difference? : the case of water rights in India and South Africa

This paper focuses on why poor and marginalised people still lack access to economic, social and cultural rights (also known as positive rights), despite a fairly mainstream support to positive rights in mainstream development debates. In part this is due to the problematic division between so-called first and second generation of rights. This is particularly true in the water debate where dominant narratives more often see water as an economic good rather than as a human right. Rights also fail to be realised due to sins of omission where poor states may lack the institutional capacity or financial resources to provide rights. Similarly, citizens may not be aware of rights and may not have the capacity to mobilise around them. Lack of rights may also be due to sins of commission. Thus states or non-state actors such as the World Bank may knowingly put vulnerable people’s rights at risk or even violate them with impunity. Economic globalisation also leads to policies that violate basic rights where diffuse and unclear rules of accountability exist for global and local players. The paper focuses on the right to water in South Africa to examine sins of omission and looks at forced displacement caused by the Narmada dams in India to examine sins of commission. In both cases, it examines local-level dynamics of rights grievances and claims and argues that there is a blurriness between policy and practice around rights practice and violation and that there are often overlaps between sins of omission and commission. Finally, the paper highlights the need for accountability structures and mechanisms through which compliance and answerability can become an indispensable aspect of the human rights regime. Keywords: human rights; economic, social and cultural rights; citizenship; accountability; right to water; forced displacement; Narmada Project; India and South Africa