There are many different narratives that exist today about how to politically address the current concern of water scarcity in Africa. Some narratives make arguments that granting Free Basic Water ("FBW") in the constitution of a government is the best way to ensure that the people of a country receive safe, adequate access to water resources; others assert that governments ought to step out of the way and allow for market mechanisms to distribute water in an economically efficient manner. In this blog I intend to dive into some of the intuition of FBW and see whether or not it may work outside the realm of theory.

Most of the current academic literature on water rights makes arguments similar to the following: “the human right to water exists without requiring any legal recognition, if one admits that water is vital to life and the only basis for human rights is being human” (Ziganshina, 2008). The arguments centralize on the rationale that water is a necessity of life, and therefore all humans are entitled to it in order to live. For instance, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life” (ICCPR, 1966). 

So clearly international conferences, epistemic communities and politicians tend to agree that we, as humans, need water to survive. This may seem superfluous, but it is an important starting point for passing legislation that will allow for African countries to get clean water to their people. By establishing a framework in which all are guaranteed access to water, we can move forward with deciding how to fulfill this promise. 

However, we have faced certain troubles in attempting to solve the provisioning troubles of water, as the actual quantity that humans are rightfully entitled to remains ambiguous. In 1977 the United Nations Water Conference resolved that “all peoples, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantities and of a quality equal to their basic needs” (UNWC, 1977). Unfortunately, the UN did not provide any guidance regarding how much water any one individual is entitled to, raising the question of “what are the implications of a human right to water? A right to water cannot imply a right to an unlimited amount of water… how much water is necessary to satisfy this right?” (Gleick, 1998). 

There have been many research coalitions that have attempted to answer this question, in order for us to more successfully understand the amount of water we must generate in order to provide for a decent quality of life. Gleick, 1996 provides some data on the minimum amount of water that individuals need to sustain life. Different research reports vary on the amount suggested for minimum water and water equivalent in direct consumption, ranging from 1.8 liters to 5 liters per day.

Figure 1: Average daily water requirements for survival, in liters of water per day per capita. Gleick, 1996

However, we know that in order to live a healthy life a person needs access to a much greater amount of water than just 5 liters per day. Water is needed for agriculture, irrigation, sanitation, cooking and various other household tasks. Ultimately, Gleick, 1996 recommends an approximate 50 liters per capita per day in order to provide all of the basic household tasks one must perform in order to live a satisfactory quality of life. However, this rate of 50 liters of water for each person daily represents a significant threshold to meet in order to provide for adequate quality of life outcomes.

Many researchers assert that we must meet these basic water levels per capita in order to maintain human dignity and health in developing countries in Africa. In a follow up on previous research, Gleick, 1998 argues that incidences of cholera have soared as a result of governments not implementing programs around a framework with water as a fundamental right. However, even in a framework where water is treated as a guaranteed right, we still have seen water problems from improper legislative implementation.  

When South Africa instituted its Free Basic Water initiatives, it allowed for 6,000 liters per household per month, which provides for roughly 40 liters per day per capita in a family of 5 individuals (Peters and Oldfield, 2005). This was seen as an ambitious program that nearly reached the recommendation of 50 liters per person per day provided by Gleick, 1996. However, the legislation failed to calculate for the fact that most household were larger than 5, sometimes as large 15 or more, especially in poor families. Thus, many poor households needed access to a greater amount of water than was provided for as a basic right. After the minimum amount of water for the month was passed, water rates increased explosively, and many poor families were forced to pay premiums they couldn’t afford. Thus, we experienced the odd phenomena reported by Owusu-Mensah, 2017, where poor families in Africa not only receive water of lower quality, but also tend to pay more for it. 

Ultimately, scientific findings showed that as a result of the new program, “residents in a variety of lower-income and poverty-stricken areas face severely limited access to water, despite adequate infrastructure and extensive Constitutional rights to access basic services such as water” (Peters and Oldfield, 2005). Moreover, this change in payment structure forced many poor families to revert to lower quality water they could find for free, which the epistemic community largely agrees may have led to the cholera outbreak in South Africa in 2001. This consensus goes directly against the argument Gleick, 1998 makes that FBW is needed to end cholera; rather, poor policy implementation of FBW in this instance appears to have actually promoted a cholera outbreak.

Clearly this is not the outcome intended for the poor people of South Africa when the new constitution guaranteed them Free Basic Water. This result came from a political failure to implement a smooth transition into the new water system, where differences in household needs could be recognized, and where payment structures were not created to reflect different needs on a household basis. FBW is no easy thing to promise the people of a country. If legislation will guarantee it, the program must do so carefully and ensure provisioning and pricing truly reflects community needs.

Ultimately, the fundamental guarantee of water as a basic right is something that most people can agree upon. On paper, the intuition makes sense academically and ethically. However, if we are going to use this framework in order to guide policy that promotes water equality in Africa, we must ensure the systems put in place do indeed guarantee water to those who need it, and do not accidentally disadvantage them as a result of the system.