Nestlé, water and Human Rights

Nestlé's Chairman of the Board, Peter Brabeck

Apparently Nestlé has successfully lobbied that water should not be declared a universal Human Right. At first, this sounds like one of those all-too familiar stories of evil-corporation-wanting-profits-at-the-expense-of-everyone-else. But if we look at the issue of Human Rights and how they relate to a natural resource like water, we must also recognise that Human Rights, by definition, can only exist vis-à-vis other human beings. 

Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and one side cannot exist without the other. Human Rights are dependent to others fulfillin their duty to respect those rights. There are no Human Rights with respect to external things outside of direct human control. Indeed, no amount of appealing to a Human Righ can by itself present you with water if you live in a place void of said natural resource.  Therefore, there can be no a priori "right" to water.

By the same logic, however, a private entity like Nestlé should have no legitimate claim to water or air or, for that matter, any other readily accessible natural resource. How can a public good like Law sanction the appropriation of a naturally occurring phenomenon for the benefit of a single interest? And what kind of morality could accept an individual or agent monopolising that which nature, in her infinite wisdom, has provided for everyone? 

We should therefore distinguish between Human Rights — the upholding of which is predicated on everyone fulfilling their duty to not harm those around them and help those in need — and Environmental Rights — that is, everybody having equal access to our natural environment. If the natural resource would otherwise remain inaccessible and those extracting do so at significant cost to themselves, then they should be allowed to recoup their costs, perhaps even accruing some profit as a result their initiative. But in any natural surrounding, what is there readily to be taken by anyone should remain so, a public good for all involved. It would be indefensible for a company like Nestlé to be allowed to claim any property right over a naturally occurring water.

Regarding a Human Right to water, however, to adapt a feminist joke: does a person still have an inalienable right to water if he/she is alone in the desert? Well, that would depend, wouldn't it, on the availibility of a source of said precious elixir of life. If there is none, there are only two ways that any of us could quench our thirst: the first is to move somewhere else with more access to water; the second is for others to deliver this necessity to us.

The question, therefore, is not whether there is a Human Right to water, which there isn't.  A better question would be: do human beings always have a duty to protect other humans? In other words, is it in fact the responsibility of the community to ensure that everyone's needs are met, regardless of where they are located? The answer to this turns out to be a moral choice — and if the answer is "yes, we do have such a duty to help", then to what extent should that inform our national budgets and foreign policies?