The post Mumbai: People’s Campaign for Right to Water appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>In Mumbai, the right to water in people’s settlements (known as slums) was revoked in 1996 when the Maharashtra Urban Development Department instructed all municipal corporations to stop water infrastructure being installed in them.
Since then, the right to water and sanitation has been deeply neglected in these communities. An estimated three million people in Mumbai have no access to water and lack of sanitation forces 70% of them to defecate in the open. Those living in people’s settlements buy expensive, low-quality water from private suppliers – a time-consuming activity, especially for women, young girls and children.
Photo credit: Pani Haq Samiti
Against this backdrop, Pani Haq Samiti (PHS, Committee on the Right to Water) came about. Its members included people’s settlement residents, activists, academics and non-governmental organisations. It relied on voluntary donations while other institutions and organisations helped with technical expertise, research support, advocacy strategies, strategy and legal support, all of which helped mobilize people.
As the mobilisation took off, people demanded greater transparency, and this coalesced into the Pani Haq Abhiyaan (Right to Water movement), creating widespread awareness of water privatization by raising it with political parties, elected officials, members of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament.
Eventually, widespread agitation and fierce campaigning across the city resulted in denial of water to people’s settlements being shelved, and two state judges stating that whether homes are deemed ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – the right to life – intrinsically implies it is the responsibility of the government to provide water to all. On 9 January 2017 a circular was issued to all municipal officials to implement the policy.
The judgment and subsequent policy change have been the campaign’s biggest achievements. People have been the biggest beneficiaries of this as water connections will be available to them, irrespective of the ‘legality’ of the settlement. Moreover, water provided will be through the Municipal Corporation, and not expensive private sources.
Exhibition on Mumbai’s water by Pani Haq Samiti at Marine Drive. Photo credit: Pani Haq Samiti
“The transformation from successfully fighting against privatisation into a broader water rights movement, concerned with the denial of rights to the most vulnerable people and communities is remarkable. The positive court decision to defend water access for all would not come about without strong social mobilisation.”
– Satoko Kishimoto
Would you like to learn more about this initiative? Please contact us.
Or visit panihaqsamiti.org
Transformative Cities’ Atlas of Utopias is being serialized on the P2P Foundation Blog. Go to TransformativeCities.org for updates.
The post Mumbai: People’s Campaign for Right to Water appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post My one problem with the Sustainable Development Goals that drives me crazy appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>All these and much much more make up the Sustainable Development Goals – the globally agreed wish list for saving the world and building a better future. If you haven’t heard of them, you’re not alone. Their public outreach leaves a bit to be desired. In any case, they make up the UN’s development agenda up until 2030.
In this post, I’m going to introduce you to what the SDGs are, what’s good about them, and my one problem with the SDGs that actually drives me crazy every time I think about it.
The Sustainable Development Goals (aka SDGs or Global Goals) follow on from where the Millennium Development Goals left off, in 2015. They will guide the development priorities for the UN and its agencies, the aid budgets of most wealthy nations and major development charities up until 2030, when it’ll be all change all over again. Here’s the full list:
As you can see, they’re… Let’s call them ‘stretch targets’.
The SDGs. Image credit: Reedz Malik
Others more cynical than I have called them a utopian wishlist more suited to a letter to your fairy godmother than a serious policy statement, or words to that effect. But you know what they say about ambitious goals: even when you don’t hit them you still end up doing pretty well. And to be honest, aren’t these exactly the things we should be aspiring to?
Before I get on to my one glaring problem with the SDGs, I want to take a moment to consider what’s so good about them, particularly in comparison to the old Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
.No country has locked down 100% of this stuff. The UK certainly hasn’t. These goals are for every country to work towards, and kisses goodbye to the patronising old development model of ‘developed’ countries that have apparently got it all worked out (yeah, right) and ‘developing’ ones who need help.
.They cover a lot of ground because they understand that poverty and wellbeing are complex, multi-faceted and relate to a lot of different things at once. I like the way the goals are not split up into environmental, social, economic, but instead many of the goals cover all three aspects of sustainability. Goodbye silos.
When the goals were being drafted, diplomats from each country got to contribute and they also engaged with charities, scientists and academics for their contributions. You may not have been consulted or even told about them until now, but compared to other high-level global policy, this was very inclusive.
So the SDGs sound wonderful, right? They do. Really, they do, and overall I think they are a fantastic thing that will do a lot of good in the world. But there’s one problem that I think people should be aware of (and I want to get it off my chest).
One of the goals is liable to contradict the others. Yes there will always be trade-offs and that’s understandable, but in my opinion, one of these goals sticks out like a sore thumb because it just doesn’t fit.
Goal 8 calls for ‘decent work and economic growth’ and I take issue with it for several reasons.
This may just be me, but I can’t stand it when you have a list of things and one doesn’t fit with the others. Like if you had a whole list of your favourite books and one of the list items is ‘Waterstones book token’. What the hell is this?! A book token isn’t a book, it’s just a way to get more books! Goal 8 is kind of like the book token here. It isn’t a goal in itself, it’s at best a means to reach other goals. As this article on postgrowth.org puts it: “Growth that is at best a means to reach certain welfare goals is redundant as a development goal in itself.”
Problem 1 on its own would just be a grammatical pet peeve. What makes it problematic is that it isn’t even a very effective means to achieve the other goals. In fact sometimes it can do the opposite. The most important goal of all the SDGs is to eradicate extreme poverty. The thinking is obviously that economic growth helps with this – but that isn’t actually necessarily true. Of all the wealth produced by growth since 1990, the poorer 60% of the world population only received a pitiful 5% of it. And that’s not even the poorest, that’s over half of all humanity. The very poorest people who need it most got such a tiny sliver it’s almost nothing. Growth is a very inefficient way of helping the poor out of poverty because the vast majority of the wealth goes to the rich, a slice goes to the middle class and the poor just get some crumbs. So, Goal 8 could easily conflict with goals 10 (reduced inequality) and Goal 1 (no poverty).
There’s no hard evidence that economic growth is compatible with the kind of emissions cuts we need to keep climate change to below 2 degrees. The only time global emissions went down is when we had the 2008 global crash and recession. People get all excited about decoupling when they see that the UK’s economy grew while our direct emissions went down, but that figure for direct emissions doesn’t include ‘embedded emissions’ in consumer goods, and it doesn’t include aeroplane flights or international shipping. We have seen that emissions can hold steady while growth rises, but we need emissions to go down, and fast, and we just don’t know that that can happen with growth. If not, then we need to prioritise climate action (Goal 13) rather than growth (Goal 8).
Unlike the others, goal 8 is a double whammy: decent work and economic growth. They obviously thought those were a natural pair, but they could easily be in conflict, as a company that abuses its workers could make more profit and so contribute more to economic growth. Well-paid workers contribute more to growth than poor ones, because they have more spending power, but healthy workers could contribute less to growth than sick and stressed ones because they won’t be paying for medicines and therapies. All this is because of what a strange and unhelpful metric GDP growth is. Decent work – good jobs that are useful and fulfilling with fair wages and rights – is already a very important goal. Why stick something else in there as well? The way it stands, Goal 8 could even come into conflict with… Goal 8.
As well as being unnecessary and counterproductive, the growth part of goal 8 also gives regressive companies and countries a loophole where they can say ‘we’re working on the SDGs!’ when they’re doing anything that will boost growth, even if it goes against the other goals. A study by Ethical Corp found that Goal 8 was in the top 3 of the SDGs that corporates are most keen to engage with. I recently saw a major brand boasting on their website that they were making progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 8. Like… Every other company out there.
The Sustainable Development Goals were never going to be perfect. They have flaws because they are trying to make progress from within the capitalist system we have. They sidestep fundamental causes of poverty like structural readjustments, unfair debts, unfair trade deals, and of course the history of colonialism. They seek to bring the poor and ordinary up, but don’t dare to mention the elephant in the room: that the elite have too much. None of this is surprising and I don’t think the drafters of the SDGs or the UN can be blamed for that. They weren’t going for a radical political statement that would be divisive. They wanted to get everyone on board. Like sustainable development itself, it’s very hard for anyone to disagree with the SDGs as a whole. That means that as well as the UN, charities and governments, they have also had excellent buy-in from corporates, with the likes of Unilever, Coca Cola and H&M using them to inform their ‘corporate responsibility’ and sustainability work. 46% of corporate reps said their business would engage with the SDGs, according to a survey by Ethical Corp. Their engagement is worth a little watering down, given their immense scale.
The SDGs represent real progress. They give everyone across sectors a common language for sustainable development and gets everyone on the same page. They represent a clear roadmap on where we collectively want to go from here. The progress they aspire to can be best realised if we ignore growth and work on the things that matter – which are summed up perfectly with all the other goals.
The post My one problem with the Sustainable Development Goals that drives me crazy appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>