1

The Effectiveness of a Human Right to Water Paradigm: A Cross-National

Comparison of Nonpayment Policies

Presented at the 13th Annual UC Irvine Undergraduate Research Symposium By Allan TaingMay 13, 2006

2

Introduction Water is essential for life and health

Lack of access to safe water is a cause of serious illnesses which kill over 2 million people every year. (WHO, 2003).

People should have universal access to water, regardless of wealth.

How do we translate this ideal into practice?

Some countries have attempted to solve this problem by adopting policies that treat water as a human right and forbid disconnection for nonpayment.

3

Research objective & question Objective: What is the

effectiveness of policies that treat water as a human right and restrict disconnections?

Research question: Which policy, of treating water as a human right or more traditionally as an economic good, better promotes justice and equity in developing countries?

4

Literature Review There is disagreement among researchers as to the effectiveness of

a human right to water paradigm, based on what researchers emphasize in their methodology (principles, outcomes, et cetera).

Some researchers support valuing water as a human right, based on philosophical, economic, and social frameworks. (Birdsall & Nellis, 2003; Gleick, 1999; Derman et al., 2005; Scanlon et al., 2004; Brenes et al., 2002).

Other researchers find evidence to support the pricing of water as an economic good, on economic, social, and medical grounds. (Galiani et al., 2005; Alcazar et al., 2002; Gadgil & Derby, 2003; Lee & Floris, 2003; Foster et al., 2000).

Simpson (2004) finds that people who are unconnected to water

systems, the poorest of the poor in rural areas, actually pay for water at unsubsidized rates. The poor in Peru, Kenya and Dominican Republic pay from 10 to 120 times more for water than people who are connected.

5

Methods Case study approach Case study sites

United States Mexico United Kingdom

Elements to consider when comparing sites: Laws and regulations regarding nonpayment Billing policies of water service providers Nonpayment/disconnection rates; other statistics

6

Case study #1 – United States Water is treated as an economic good

and not as a human right. Sites: Irvine Ranch Water District

(IRWD) and Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD).

Both have detailed, strict billing procedures, and policies to deal with delinquency and disconnection.

They do not have programs for low-income residents and do not consider inability to pay as a valid reason for nonpayment.

7

Case study #1 – U.S. (continued)Weekly disconnection rate in IRWD, SMWC - Pie Chart

1

99

Percent billed and unpaid Percent billed and paid

SMWD Disconnection rates: ≈12/week from over 45,000 household accounts (< 1%).

From 2002 to 2005, the average annual number of accounts disconnected was 626.

IRWD Disconnection rates: ≈15/week for over 77,000 household accounts (< 1%).

The figure is so low that they don’t track the data closely “because it isn’t a problem.”

8

Case study #2 – Mexico

Water is treated as a human right.

Article 121 of the General Health Law for Mexico prevents water service providers from disconnecting households for nonpayment.

Cost recovery in several Mexican states, 2003

81% 83%

108%

68%76%

89%

68%76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

State

Perc

enta

ge o

f cos

t rec

over

y

9

Case study #2 – Mexico (continued) The graph shows the cumulative cost recovery for 395 water service providers in Mexico that serve ≈ 45.3 million residents.

Compared to the U.S. sites, the lack of consequence for nonpayment may contribute to the high rate of nonpayment.

Poverty could also be a factor.

Cumulative water cost recovery for Mexico, 2003

75.94

24.06

Percent billed and collected Percent billed and uncollected

10

Case study #3 – United Kingdom Water is treated as a human right.

The Water Industry Act of 1999 prohibits water service providers from disconnecting water supplies to residential households for nonpayment.

Since then nonpayment rates have increased while the success of cost recovery has decreased.

While poverty could be argued as a cause for the high nonpayment rate in Mexico, the same cannot account for the United Kingdom.

Some people in the U.K. take advantage of the system.

11

Case study #3 – U.K. (continued)Number of pre-claims notices/letters issued for nonpayment of w ater and

sew er bills in domestic households in the U.K.

0

10000002000000

30000004000000

50000006000000

7000000

96-'97 97-'98 98-'99 99-'00 00-'01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04 04-'05

Year

Pre-

clai

ms

issu

ed

NOTE: Orange dots represent actual figures; the black line is the regression line showing the gradual increase trend

12

Conclusions Adopting a policy that prohibits

disconnection for nonpayment of water bills may encourage some to abuse the system and avoid payment, even when financially able to do so.

While the hearts of these proponents are in the right place, forbidding disconnection for nonpayment in the name of water as a human right may harm poor people.

Treating water as an economic good may actually be better for promoting justice and equity than treating it as a human right.

13

Conclusions (continued) Water utilities should operate in a way that promotes full cost

recovery, to generate the revenues necessary to improve access to clean and safe water for the poor and prevent water waste (which impacts the environment).

Thus to promote full cost recovery, it is not advisable to adopt policies that treat water as a human right by forbidding disconnection for nonpayment.

Advocating water as an economic good and making everyone pay for water is not meant to place an unreasonable burden on the poor. Condoning nonpayment is often harmful to the poor. When they buy water from water trucks, the poor pay much more than people

connected to water systems and get tap water. The water poor people receive may be of inferior quality than tap Inadequate storage makes poor people more susceptible to water-related

diseases. Increasing block rates can be designed with very cheap first blocks to make

water affordable to poor people.

14

Acknowledgements Dr. Jean-Daniel Saphores

Mentor/Thesis Advisor, Professor in Planning, Policy and Design

Dr. Valerie Jenness Social Ecology Honors Program Advisor, Professor in Criminology, Law and Society

UCI Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) Funding source

Others Irvine Ranch Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, U.K. Office of Water

Service, UCI Libraries, City of Santa Ana, SE Honors Program Cohort

15

Contact information For more information, feel free to contact me:

Allan TaingUndergraduate, UC IrvineSchool of Social EcologyDept. of Environmental Health, Science and PolicyE-mail: allan84@juno.com