Alexander Likhotal
Credit: Green Cross International |
|
Green Cross International is an international non profit organisation, based in Switzerland, which works to provide “unbiased environmental analysis and expertise, information dissemination, education, objective evaluations for public debate, scientific studies, and social and medical support to help ensure a just, sustainable and secure future for all by fostering a value shift and cultivating a new sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility in humanity’s relationship with nature”. In 2005, Green Cross launched a global campaign for the Right to Water, to raise public awareness concerning the current water crisis, and to urge national governments to negotiate and adopt an International Convention on the Right to Water.
Alexander Likhotal has been the president and CEO of Green Cross International (GCI). Formerly the deputy spokesman and advisor to President Gorbachev , he continued to work with Gorbachev at the Gorbachev Foundation as the International and Media Director. Subsequently he has been the CEO and President of the Green Cross since 1996, after it was launched by Gorbachev in 1993. Dr Likotal is the author of several books and many articles.
QUESTION: Can you tell us about Green Cross International?
ANSWER: GCI is an international, United Nations-affiliated non-profit environmental organisation that promotes sustainable development and specialises in providing practical expertise and post-conflict environmental assessment, particularly in ensuring clean water supplies in many areas throughout the world where this is a significant challenge. Green Cross International contributes to reconciliation and proposes viable solutions for river- basin water management to avoid conflicts and to build up cooperation.
Green Cross implements major projects in many parts of the world, such as in the Middle East, South Africa, in South America, Asia and in Europe. We try to provide integrated water-management solutions for the countries which are involved in disputes. Basically, Green Cross believes that one of the reasons we have problems of water shortages in the world is the inefficiency of the water management. There is plenty of water on the planet, but we fail to distribute it evenly and efficiently. It is therefore the strong conviction of Green Cross International that the only practical way of redressing the water crisis is through consolidation of civil society and the creation of a legally binding mechanism for resolving all water-related issues.
This is why Green Cross International, together with other international, national and local organisations, has launched an international public campaign to convince national governments to start the negotiation of the Global Treaty on the Right to Water.
Q: Do you agree on the Dublin statement, which was issued in 1992 by the International Conference of the Environment, that access to affordable clean water and sanitation is a basic human right?
A: The right to water is defined in the General Comment Number 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and entitles every human being to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use. The right to water includes the right to sanitation. Yes, of course we agree with that, and we consider that this is one of the most important principles that need to be reinforced on the international agenda.
Q: There are many acts, conventions and declarations explicitly or implicitly on the right to water, yet many water experts and politicians think international water laws are still inadequate. Do you agree with them? What do you think should be done to improve the situation?
A: I think the key stakeholders in this issue need to understand the rules of the game. For the time being, there are hundreds and hundreds regional agreements on distribution of water, water management, etc. However, there is no mechanism of law enforcement. What we need is a document that could become a guiding principle for the key stakeholders: the governments, the regional communities and the users of the water resources. It is clear that water should be provided for everybody at a reasonable price and that water should be safe and clean. Water and sanitation are the basic needs everybody should have.
Q: There was conflict in Sri Lanka over water in late July this year. Do you think that in the future wars will be fought over water instead of oil?
A: I think the situation can be opposite if water is turned into a source of cooperation. It depends on how you deal with this issue. Clearly, water could become the source of conflict, but if we shape correctly the relationship between the countries and the people who are involved in the relevant water issues, water can be the strongest element of cooperation and peace-building. When countries and people start working together on the solution to the problem, they will forget about fighting and focus more on cooperation.
Q: The convention on the elimination of all forms of violence against women (CEDAW), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, explicitly mentioned access to water. What improvements do you think have been made since then?
A: I think there are some encouraging developments even in the most arid regions of the world, for example, in sub-Saharan regions. But all of them are far behind the benchmarks of the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs].
Q: MDG target 10 specifically states the need to have access to clean water and sanitation. Do you think that meeting this goal would help achieve the other MDGs?
A: I think water deprivation is one of the most traumatic experiences for a human being. Access to water is literally a question of life and death. This is why water management has such a high ‘price of a mistake’. Unsubstantiated water management decisions destroy lives and leave environmental wasteland. On the other hand, changing water policies for the better can have a positive effect on the environment, public health and education; give people jobs and the chance to lead fulfilling lives.
Even for gender issues: women walk long ways to get water and have to carry the water back to their homes. For instance, in Africa women need to walk approximately 6km to fetch water. As a result, they cannot attend school and they cannot get the necessary education. This situation complicates the equality of gender. If this condition continues, gender equality is unachievable.
Q: There are approximately 1.4 billion people without access to clean water and 2.2 billion people without access to basic sanitation. Do you think these numbers are going to rise in the future?
A: Judging by absolute figures, the situation is becoming more dramatic. Though significant improvements have been made in rural access in all regions, only a few countries have achieved improvement at a sufficient rate to meet the MDG water goal. However, one should not forget that even if the MDG for water supply is met, it will have improved the situation for less than half of those in need!
Today more than 30 countries—most of them in Africa and the Middle East—have fallen below even the most conservative benchmarks for sufficient per capita crop land [0.07 hectares] or renewable freshwater [1,000 cubic meters]. Worldwide, 434 million people face water scarcity, and if current trends continue it is estimated that by 2025 between 2.6 billion and 3.1 billion people will be living in either water-stressed or water-scarce conditions.
The sceptics say that the MDGs are overambitious and that the targets set are unreachable in such a short time. Lack of funds is often given as an excuse for not coping with the current water crisis. This is not true. If we lack anything to resolve this shameful situation, it is not money but values and clear priorities. At the end of the day, the solution to this crisis is not about charity, no matter what form it takes; this is about the EQUALITY of all people and about the RIGHT of every person to have access to clean, drinkable water and basic sanitation.
Q: Do you think privatisation is a solution to improve access to water and sanitation?
A: Privatisation is often a stumbling block in discussions about the water crisis and the management of water resources and services, be it at the level of governments or among the concerned nongovernmental organisations. I would like to state clearly that Green Cross International is totally against the deregulation of water resources and services management. GCI recognises that national and local companies, as well as international corporations, may contribute to overcoming the water crisis, as they steadily diversify their offer of water services. However, they should do it only when those immediately concerned consider it the most reasonable option from the ecological, social and economic standpoints.
The implementation of such projects and works must be placed under the control of public authorities, with full respect for the fundamental principles of the human right to water. Corruption, disregard for the interests of the poor and failure to inform the different participants of the process by public or private water providers must be immediately and severely sanctioned in each particular case. Green Cross International believes, however, that the issue of involving the private sector is not the most important one and does not hold the key to providing water to all those who are currently deprived of it.
Q: The European Union water framework directive of 2000, sets a framework for comprehensive management of water resources in the European Community, including addresses inland surface waters, estuarine and coastal waters and groundwater, with the objective of achieving at least 'good status' for all waters by 2015. What improvements do you think have been made since this directive?
A: I think the idea was very good and the goals were excellent, but unfortunately, as it happens in many cases, we lack visible enforcement of mechanisms to make area of law for everybody. Only a coherent alliance of politicians, business community and citizens, based on shared concerns, will make success possible. We need an innovative international legal mechanism to differentiate between the many types of water use and the related rights and obligations of stakeholders at the local, national and international levels.
Q: Do you think similar directives should be created in particular regions, like sub-Saharan Africa or Asia?
A: Let me give you a specific example. About a year ago, the French government adopted a new programme to help developing countries improve access to water and sanitation. The French government provided the possibility for the local authorities to spend 1 percent of their water bill on assistance programmes. This is just a contingency - it is not legally binding. It is not a requirement; it is a possibility which depends, of course, on the willingness of specific local authorities to deal with the programmes.
Green Cross convened a meeting of representatives of 21 regional authorities of France. We convinced the leaders of the governments to use the opportunity to channel the necessary finances to the poor regions. We think that decentralising cooperation in water management can really contribute to the solution to water problems. It is best to have cooperation from person to person, city to city, village to village rather than a centralised approach from the government. A decentralised approach is much more effective.
For instance, as we work on the case of the Okavango and the Jordan rivers, we see the limitations of the centralised approach that creates the lack of ‘bankable’ projects. Large donors like the EU and the development banks claim that more funds would be available if governments prioritised water and sanitation in their poverty-reduction strategy papers and more bankable projects were presented. But there is clearly a problem here, as developing governments have a host of priorities - transport, health, education - and many have not placed water at the top of the list. The preparation of projects itself requires a huge amount of resources. Such resources may only be available for large-scale infrastructure projects, whereas there is a clearly expressed need for more small- and medium-sized community-level initiatives. The procedures for receiving development financing favour large projects, but it is increasingly believed that smaller scale actions close to the target communities are far more effective and likely to be sustainable in the long term.
For example, in Burkina Faso, communities are not ready even to contemplate these projects, because they badly need a simple water well, which will cost US$5,000 to $10,000. There is no mechanism to aggregate the requirements that exist in the most poor areas of the world in order to match the macro operating level of big donors, like European Community, and the World Bank to name a few. This gap could be at least partly filled by more effective and coordinated decentralised cooperation. And along with these working solutions must come the financial measures to make them happen. But, as with all the new initiatives being proposed, there are many issues of stakeholder participation, cost-recovery, sustainability and funding to be considered.
[ENDS]
|