Nobody reading this started the day with a 3km hike to collect the family's daily water supply from a stream. None of us will suffer the indignity of using a plastic bag for a toilet. And our children don't die for want of a glass of clean water.
Perhaps that's why we have such a narrow view of what constitutes a "water crisis." Dwindling reservoirs and a few ministerial exhortations to flush the toilet less often, and we've got a national emergency on our hands. Hold the front page, there could be a hosepipe ban in the Home Counties.
In the next 24 hours diarrhea caused by unclean water and poor sanitation will claim the lives of 4,000 children. The annual death toll from this relentless catastrophe is larger than the population of Birmingham. Dirty water poses a greater threat to human life than war or terrorism. Yet it barely registers on the radar of public debate in rich countries.
At any one time, close to half the population of the developing world is suffering from water-related diseases. These rob people of their health, destroy their livelihoods and undermine education potential. The statistics behind the crisis make for grim reading. In the midst of an increasingly prosperous global economy, 2.6 billion people still have no access to even the most rudimentary latrine.
Over 1 billion have no source of drinking water.
In Britain, the average person uses 160 liters of clean water each day. In rural Mozambique or Ethiopia, people use what women and young girls can carry back from rivers and lakes: around 5 to 10 liters a day for each person. The iconic image of a woman carrying water belies a more brutal reality. You try carrying a 20-liter bucket of water for 6km in the baking sun.
The global sanitation gap is even more overwhelming. Those who have seen The Constant Gardner will recall the Kenyan slum visited by Rachel Weisz's character.
The slum was Kibera. With a population of 750,000 it is one of the largest informal settlements in Africa and accounts for one-quarter of people living in Nairobi. Over 90 percent lack access to a latrine, giving rise to a phenomenon that didn't figure in the movie: the "flying toilet." Lacking any alternative, people defecate into plastic bags that are thrown into the street, with terrifying consequences for public health.
Kibera is a microcosm of what happens across the developing world. Rapid urbanization and a crumbling water and sanitation infrastructure in cities like Jakarta, Manila and Lagos have left millions of poor people in overcrowded slums facing a constant threat from water infected with human excrement.
To add insult, the poor pay more for their water than the rich. In Kibera, you pay three times more than in Manhattan or London, and 10 times more than in high-income suburbs of Nairobi. Similar patterns are repeated across the cities of the developing world. The reason: water utilities pump subsidized water to well-off customers, but seldom reach the poor. Most slum dwellers face a choice between buying water from high-cost private traders, or taking a long trip to the nearest stream.
Meeting the UN's millennium development goal of halving the proportion of the world without access to clean water would cost US$4 billion a year for 10 years. That amount represents just a month's spending on bottled mineral water in Europe and the US.
For less than people in rich countries now spend on a designer product that produces no tangible health gains, we would roll back one of the main causes of preventable childhood death. And for every US$1 invested, another US$3 to US$4 would be generated through savings on health spending and increased productivity. So why have rich countries been cutting aid to water and sanitation for the last five years?
Water is not just a commodity. It is a source of life, dignity and equality of opportunity. That is why human need, regardless of ability to pay, must be the guiding regulatory principle, and why governments bear ultimate responsibility for provision.
South Africa has shown the way by requiring all providers, public and private, to supply a minimum amount of water free of charge. In Senegal and Manila too, new partnerships are extending access for the poor through small surcharges on the wealthy.
Redistribution may be out of fashion, but converting public water subsidies for the rich into public investments for the poor accelerates progress and overcomes the glaring equity gaps that scar many countries.
In Britain, the water and sanitation crisis of the 19th century gave rise to powerful political coalitions that brought together municipalities, industrialists and social reformers. Civic duty, economic self-interest and morality combined to make water and sanitation a national cause.
Today, new social movements and partnerships between governments and civil society are beginning to make inroads into the crisis. But we also need global leadership in rich countries that pushes water and sanitation higher up the aid agenda.
Perhaps in Britain we should take fewer baths and be sparing in our use of hosepipes. But none of us should tolerate a world in which over 1 million children are, in a perversely literal sense, dying for a glass of water and a toilet.
Kevin Watkins is director of the UN Human Development Report Office.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under