Regarding Groundwater and Drinking Water Access through A Human Rights Lens: Self-Supply as A Norm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting topic. Even if eighty percent of the global population will live in urban areas in 2050, we still have twenty percent of the population in rural areas. Still, the major issues discussed tend to have a strong focus on the urban. This is not to say that urban areas are less important. Clearly, the urban areas in developing countries do, as you point out in the paper, face serious water and sanitation problems. However, my first reflections went to rural areas as I live in a developed country where the authorities have delineated “water protection areas” to protect the water sources of municipal water utilities while the focus in rural areas, in my view, has been more on the health of the natural environment.
The paper presents a very long and detailed description of international rules, regulations, and agreements concerning human rights in general, and the right to water in particular. It is a quite demanding reading for a water professional. I think it could be shortened and provided with some “take-home points”.
The discussion and the conclusions are vague and general. The discussion is very long, and the conclusions are brief and lacking. I think you should provide some kind of priorities. I also think that there are some issues that could be discussed a bit more in depth. Here, I am thinking of for instance the SDG6. The outcomes of the MDGs were not very impressive. South Africa enacted a “Water Code” defining water as a human right already 20+ years ago. It seems that a number of countries have adopted this idea. Is that something to build on? The UN declaration of water as a human right was not passed by a consensus vote. Is that a problem? The international calls for the allocation of a larger portion of the government budget to basic needs have been neglected in far too many countries, and also by far too many international aid organizations. What could or should the development aid community do to safeguard satisfactory WASH conditions? What about the World Bank that insists on, and strongly pushes for, the concept of “water as an economic good”?
In my view, the paper deals too much with paperwork and too little with the realities on the ground. It should benefit from a better balance, I think.
I recently came across a call for action on rural sanitation for all:
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/959161570454050835/Rural-Sanitation-Call-to-Action-10-07-2019.pdf
You may find it helpful.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for taking the time and providing insightful comments towards improvement of the manuscript.
The paper deals with a very interesting topic. Even if eighty percent of the global population will live in urban areas in 2050, we still have twenty percent of the population in rural areas. Still, the major issues discussed tend to have a strong focus on the urban. This is not to say that urban areas are less important. Clearly, the urban areas in developing countries do, as you point out in the paper, face serious water and sanitation problems. However, my first reflections went to rural areas as I live in a developed country where the authorities have delineated “water protection areas” to protect the water sources of municipal water utilities while the focus in rural areas, in my view, has been more on the health of the natural environment.
With respect to there being too little attention to rural areas, we have scrutinized the text and made a few clarifications. For instance, the word ‘rural’ is added where appropriate (such as in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3) to indicate that the issues apply regardless of where those involved live. Most of the court cases mentioned in the text relate to rural groundwater users.
The paper presents a very long and detailed description of international rules, regulations, and agreements concerning human rights in general, and the right to water in particular. It is a quite demanding reading for a water professional. I think it could be shortened and provided with some “take-home points”.
The discussion and the conclusions are vague and general. The discussion is very long, and the conclusions are brief and lacking. I think you should provide some kind of priorities.
Section 2 deals with international human rights law in general, and has been shortened by deletion of aspects not directly connected with the paper’s arguments. Admittedly, Section 3 is detailed, but this intends to provide detailed background to the right to water and the relevant actors acknowledged by international human rights law. We have tried to tighten the text. We feel that the legal aspects need to be fully set out in order to provide a solid basis for the conclusions drawn.
We have done our utmost to shorten the discussion (Section 5), and have restructured the conclusions. The latter now contains a list of take-home points that we hope provides sharper recommendations for policy makers.
I also think that there are some issues that could be discussed a bit more in depth. Here, I am thinking of for instance the SDG6. The outcomes of the MDGs were not very impressive. South Africa enacted a “Water Code” defining water as a human right already 20+ years ago. It seems that a number of countries have adopted this idea. Is that something to build on? The UN declaration of water as a human right was not passed by a consensus vote. Is that a problem? The international calls for the allocation of a larger portion of the government budget to basic needs have been neglected in far too many countries, and also by far too many international aid organizations. What could or should the development aid community do to safeguard satisfactory WASH conditions? What about the World Bank that insists on, and strongly pushes for, the concept of “water as an economic good”?
I recently came across a call for action on rural sanitation for all:
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/959161570454050835/Rural-Sanitation-Call-to-Action-10-07-2019.pdf
We fully agree with the reviewer that these issues could have also been included but see these points as the subject of another, very important paper. This paper already covers a lot of ground. We originally included an analysis of monitoring of SDG Goal 6 targets (through the JMP, GLAAS, and GEMI), but removed it as it detracted attention from self-supply. Rather than adding a few general sentences we have left this out, pointing to the need for more research in 5.4.
This paper focuses on the right to safe drinking water in relation to groundwater. This has shaped out discussions about the background to the right and how it has been implemented in domestic law and policy. The focus thus includes ways that international aid organizations and others can assist in, for example through better understanding how groundwater is sourced and delivered or in relation to aquifer protection. The fact that the UNGA Resolution on water as a human right was not passed by a consensus vote is therefore not of major interest here.
It is mentioned in the text that NGO kiosks often provide water from boreholes and that NGOs, charity organisations and others (from the development aid community) fall under the category of non-State actors. We have added a clarification in 5.2 that this implies that the Ruggie Framework applies also to them.
In my view, the paper deals too much with paperwork and too little with the realities on the ground. It should benefit from a better balance, I think.
The paper is intended to be a desk study review of the interface between the human right to safe drinking water and groundwater resources, focusing on the theoretical aspects. The aim is to provide a foundation for understanding this matter. There are numerous other published studies on the implementation of the HRWS (mainly on the State’s failures to realize the right on the ground), but this paper is unique in that it goes back to the paperwork and secondary sources to explore the legal foundation of the right and what this means for groundwater self-supply. Adding case studies would provide a fuller understanding of implementation gaps and other relevant issues but this is beyond the scope of this paper. We are deliberately targeting this special issue on human rights, for our rigorous theoretical treatise of the topic. A few case studies where relevant illustrate points made. Future papers can take our approach and build on it.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting well-written manuscript giving a detailed perspective on the groundwater resource management from a human right / regulatory standpoint. I have add only some minor comments that are included in the pdf. Also the manuscript is very detailed and for a better readability, I would recommend that at the end of the discussion or in the conclusion, a table summarizing the main points of the study / the main recommendations for future actions is added. Also a sketch presenting graphically the stakeholders, the relations between them, key challenges, etc would be welcome in order to grasp quickly the essence of this work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for taking the time and providing insightful comments towards improvement of the manuscript.
It is an interesting well-written manuscript giving a detailed perspective on the groundwater resource management from a human right / regulatory standpoint. I have add only some minor comments that are included in the pdf. Also the manuscript is very detailed and for a better readability, I would recommend that at the end of the discussion or in the conclusion, a table summarizing the main points of the study / the main recommendations for future actions is added. Also a sketch presenting graphically the stakeholders, the relations between them, key challenges, etc would be welcome in order to grasp quickly the essence of this work.
Comments in the pdf have been seen to. The conclusion has been restructured and now includes a list of take-home points that provides recommendations for policy makers.
A graphic sketch is an excellent idea – and we, the authors will take on the challenge of trying to boil down the messages into an info-graphic (if nobody else does so beforehand). Unfortunately, the time available to revise the paper (over the Xmas holidays when we were both travelling) has not enabled us to provide a graphic that is ready to be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of manuscript water-667340 Regarding groundwater and drinking water access 2 through a human rights lens.
This manuscripts describes the interface of international human rights law and the obligations and responsibilities of different actors, especially state governments, regarding groundwater resources planning and protection. The authors claim to analyse the human rights entitlement to be directly supplied with water and the freedom to self-supply on the one hand, and corresponding State obligations and third-party responsibilities, on the other. They use five criteria to assess the quality of water services; it should be available, accessible, of a certain quality (safe), affordable and acceptable. The State then is held to follow the Ruggie Framework for human rights; implying the States’ obligation to protect against human rights abuses by third parties; the responsibility of companies to respect human rights; and the need for access to effective remedies and grievance mechanisms to address alleged human rights violations. The Framework is then extensively discussed and at some points examples taken from the literature are referred to. The final argument runs that although the most appropriate water source in terms of water quality in almost all cases is a household connection to a networked supply, in practice groundwater is often the only feasible safe drinking water source in remote, low-resource areas and serving over a billion of people. Therefore the authors conclude that the water supply discourse should not focus on piped, networked ‘services’ alone, rather take along the use of our shared natural resource: groundwater.
Not being a trained lawyer, it took me many, many hours to unravel the text. Long complex, winding sentences stating numerous exceptions, annotations and examples made reading and understanding this text very demanding. Many times I have been wondering ‘why am I reading this; what does it add to the obvious message?" And in the end, I was disappointed as the conclusion of these nineteen densely packed pages of text was obvious from the start: there needs to be more attention for groundwater as it is an important and threatened resource for many people. This is not to say that the message is not relevant; on the contrary! I just wonder why it took the authors so long to reach this conclusion?
Clearly the authors have chosen to write an extensive scientific argumentation, thereby extensively drawing on the literature. To convey the simple but relevant message they reach in the end I would have preferred more empirical research; maybe even a more journalistic approach; presenting examples of human right violations, showing the urgency of the message. At one point in the manuscript this seems to be happening: in lines 486-512 the tone of the story changes: in this section the argumentation turns around; diarrhoea is presented as a major concern and (water)quantity may be more important than quality as it contributes to hygiene. Therefore supply and treatment should be close to or at home. ”Ahh, these are explicit and daring statements! Now it gets interesting! ;-)” Unfortunately then the discussion section starts, where much of the arguments first stated in previous sections are rephrased.
As said before: I am not a lawyer, rather a policy analyst with an engineering background. I think the manuscript is theoretically sound and well written. The conclusion and recommendations are fair and relevant and I have no objections to have it published in its current form, but I wonder who will continue reading after the first two or three pages….?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for taking the time and providing insightful comments towards improvement of the manuscript.
This manuscripts describes the interface of international human rights law and the obligations and responsibilities of different actors, especially state governments, regarding groundwater resources planning and protection. The authors claim to analyse the human rights entitlement to be directly supplied with water and the freedom to self-supply on the one hand, and corresponding State obligations and third-party responsibilities, on the other. They use five criteria to assess the quality of water services; it should be available, accessible, of a certain quality (safe), affordable and acceptable. The State then is held to follow the Ruggie Framework for human rights; implying the States’ obligation to protect against human rights abuses by third parties; the responsibility of companies to respect human rights; and the need for access to effective remedies and grievance mechanisms to address alleged human rights violations. The Framework is then extensively discussed and at some points examples taken from the literature are referred to.
The final argument runs that although the most appropriate water source in terms of water quality in almost all cases is a household connection to a networked supply, in practice groundwater is often the only feasible safe drinking water source in remote, low-resource areas and serving over a billion of people. Therefore the authors conclude that the water supply discourse should not focus on piped, networked ‘services’ alone, rather take along the use of our shared natural resource: groundwater.
Not being a trained lawyer, it took me many, many hours to unravel the text. Long complex, winding sentences stating numerous exceptions, annotations and examples made reading and understanding this text very demanding. Many times I have been wondering ‘why am I reading this; what does it add to the obvious message?" And in the end, I was disappointed as the conclusion of these nineteen densely packed pages of text was obvious from the start: there needs to be more attention for groundwater as it is an important and threatened resource for many people. This is not to say that the message is not relevant; on the contrary! I just wonder why it took the authors so long to reach this conclusion?
We have worked on shortening sentences and making the paper easier to read for those coming from a non-legal background.
We have restructured the conclusions section, in order to more clearly underpin the findings of our interpretation of self-supply and the consequences of this. A list of take-home points that provides recommendations for policy makers has been added.
Clearly the authors have chosen to write an extensive scientific argumentation, thereby extensively drawing on the literature. To convey the simple but relevant message they reach in the end I would have preferred more empirical research; maybe even a more journalistic approach; presenting examples of human right violations, showing the urgency of the message. At one point in the manuscript this seems to be happening: in lines 486-512 the tone of the story changes: in this section the argumentation turns around; diarrhoea is presented as a major concern and (water)quantity may be more important than quality as it contributes to hygiene. Therefore supply and treatment should be close to or at home. ”Ahh, these are explicit and daring statements! Now it gets interesting! ;-)” Unfortunately then the discussion section starts, where much of the arguments first stated in previous sections are rephrased.
The paper is a desk study review of the interface between the human right to safe drinking water and groundwater resources, focusing on the theoretical aspects in order to provide a solid ground for improved understanding of these matters. As such, it must by necessity draw on the literature including relevant case law to argue for a certain interpretation of the rights/obligations. However, we welcome the interest captured by the author for a more journalistic style. We believe that rather than significantly changing the paper, that rather, if published the contents can be versioned as shorter, snappier outputs targeting different audiences, and published through different channels. Unfortunately, for those who are not legal expert, legal writing can be demanding to read – we have tried to strike a balance without losing the central legal arguments of the paper.
We believe that by deciding on a special issue on human rights, the Water Journal is open to a theoretical treatise of the topic, which contains a few brief case studies where appropriate, to illustrate points made. There are numerous published studies that explore the actual implementation of the right to water (mainly on the State’s failures to realize the right on the ground), but no other study has hitherto gone back to the secondary sources to explore in detail what the legal foundation of the right, as correlating to duties and responsibilities, actually says on the obligation ‘to provide’. We agree with the reviewer that adding more empirical data to the text would offer a fuller picture of the international and domestic human rights law v. the reality; however, this would have added many more pages to the text.
As said before: I am not a lawyer, rather a policy analyst with an engineering background. I think the manuscript is theoretically sound and well written. The conclusion and recommendations are fair and relevant and I have no objections to have it published in its current form, but I wonder who will continue reading after the first two or three pages….?
We thank the reviewer for concluding that the manuscript is theoretically sound and well written, with conclusion and recommendations that are fair and relevant, and that it could be published in its current form. As to the question who will continue reading after the first two or three pages, our hope is that human rights experts, the UN Special Rapporteur team, (ground)water lawyers and others with a special interest in the human right to water from a legal and policy perspective will find this in depth analysis relevant.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Rules and regulations, for which there is neither monitoring nor sanctions, are essentially ineffective. However, this is how many rules and regulations, that have been pushed onto developing countries by the development aid community, are frequently implemented.
