This document summarizes a presentation on water governance in South Africa. It discusses tensions between viewing water as a human right versus an economic good, and between public vs. private water provision. It outlines South Africa's major water reforms in the late 1990s that enshrined water access as a human right. However, court cases later narrowed the definition of basic water needs. There are also challenges in clearly defining responsibilities across rural and urban water services given complex governance arrangements. The document calls for redefining needs, rights and responsibilities in a way that better reflects people's realities and promotes sustainable services.

1. Rights, Needs and Responsibilities in Water Governance: Reflections from South Africa Synne Movik, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

2. Delhi, Dublin, and getting beyond the dichotomies Delhi – Dublin. Delhi: Environmental health and integrated approach to waste management; institutional reform, integration and importance of women; community management; and sound financial management. Dublin: Water as finite resource; emphasis on participation; importance of women; water as an economic good. Integration emerged as key word – but so did sets of dichotomies, such as: Human right vs. economic good Public vs. private, formal vs. informal Resource vs. domestic

3. Water: not an ‘either-or’ Water is firmly entrenched as a human right, which is perfectly compatible with water being also regarded as an economic good – depends on effective regulation. UN recently appointed an independent expert on Human Rights, Catarina de Albuquerque. Reaffirms the ultimate responsibility of the State in ensuring rights are met – but it may delegate powers to third parties. Emphasises stakeholder involvement. Public-private debate not addressing the main issues – more fruitful to focus on quality and long-term sustainability of service provision. There are multiple and hybrid publics and privates – shades of grey, rather than black and white. De Albuquerque: Service providers responsible to ensure human rights are met.

4. From dichotomies to governance The question is not who is providing the water - but rather how needs, rights and responsibilities are defined and matched in each situation, and how constellations of authority, transparency and accountability are formed.

5. The South African experience Major overhaul of water legislation 1997 Water Services Act 1998 National Water Act Constitution recognised water as human right. Introduction of Free Basic Water in 2000 (25 l/c/day, or 6000 litres per household per month) Local government tasked with responsibility of water supply Clear conceptual distinction: Water Service Authority and Water Services Provider (WSAs and WSPs) Impressive record in addressing services backlog, have met the MDGs and achieved – on paper – almost universal access to water.

6. Redefining needs, rights & responsibilities – the Phiri Case April 2008; High Court supports the residents of Phiri, Soweto, claims against the City of Johannesburg and Johannesburg Water, health, hygiene and well-being. Pre-paid meters declared unconstitutional Free Basic Water: Increased from 25 l/c/d to 50 l/c/d, reflecting an expansive understanding of basic needs that focuses on health and wellbeing. March 2009: Supreme Court rules that FBW should be reduced to 42 l/c/d October 2009: Constitutional Court decision 180 degree turnaround, gave full support to the defendants. Extremely narrow definition of needs; water for survival only. Not so much a failure of service provision as a failure of exercising judicial responsibility – and an opportunity lost.

8. Focus on infrastructure development, functioning & quality of service neglected (skills gap)

10. Challenges How to expand and embed in legislation and practice a conception of needs that better reflect people’s daily realities? How to promote a progressive realisation of rights through appropriate technologies without discriminating against the marginalised? How to clearly define responsibilities in an emerging complex constellation of diverse governance arrangements?

11. THANK YOU!