1. The Genesis of Chile's Water Privatization
This chapter delves into the origins and
foundational aspects of Chile's water privatization, focusing on the 1981 Water
Code enacted during Augusto Pinochet's military regime. It examines the
historical context, the legal framework established, and the immediate
consequences of privatizing water resources.
1.1 Historical Context: The 1981
Water Code
This section explores the
socio-political environment of Chile under Pinochet's dictatorship, which led to
the introduction of the 1981 Water Code. It discusses the motivations behind
the Code and its alignment with the neoliberal economic policies of that era. The
1981 Water Code in Chile represented a pivotal shift in the management of water
resources, reflecting broader neoliberal reforms initiated during General
Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship.
This period was marked by an
ideological commitment to free-market principles, which endorsed the
privatization of public assets and reduced state involvement in various
sectors, including water management. Under the guidance of the economically
liberal "Chicago Boys," the regime aimed to stimulate economic growth
through deregulation and market-oriented policies, creating a conducive
environment for private investment in essential services, particularly water
infrastructure (Budds, 2004; Bauer, 2005); (Budds, 2020;
Thus, the 1981 Water Code was not
only a legislative act but a keystone of a broader economic vision that sought
to redefine the role of the state regarding natural resources. The introduction
of the Water Code marked the establishment of a legal framework that
transformed water rights into private property, radically separating these
rights from land ownership (Budds, 2020; Fuster et al., 2023; Bauer, 2005;
This separation allowed
individuals and corporations to acquire, sell, or lease water rights
independently, aiming to encourage a fluid market environment where Water could
be allocated according to economic efficiency rather than communal or
historical claims. The enduring nature of these rights, issued in perpetuity,
provided holders with long-term security, thus incentivizing investment in
water-intensive industries like agriculture and mining.
The intention was to create an efficient framework for water use, where market dynamics would dictate resource allocation, potentially leading to optimal water use and economic growth (Fuster et al., 2023; Budds, 2013)(Correa et al., 2020). Proponents of the Code heralded it as an innovative approach to resource management, positioning Chile as a model for other nations pursuing similar reforms Bauer, 2005; Budds, 2020)
However, the liberalization of water rights also generated substantial controversy and highlighted the complexities inherent in commodifying a vital natural resource. Critics pointed out that the absence of comprehensive regulatory mechanisms resulted in large corporations accumulating extensive water rights, often at the expense of local communities and small-scale farmers who lacked the financial clout to compete effectively in this new market-driven landscape (Correa et al., 2020); (Fuster et al., 2023; Budds, 2013).
This resulted in significant
inequities, exacerbating social disparities and fostering tensions between
various stakeholders dependent on limited water resources. Moreover, the
prioritization of economic considerations over environmental sustainability raised
fears of over-extraction and depletion of vital water sources, particularly in
regions already vulnerable to climate change impacts (Budds, 2004; Camacho,
2012).
Developments initiated ongoing
debates regarding the need for regulatory reforms that could address the social
and environmental ramifications of the water market established by the 1981
Code.
1.2 Legal Framework and Provisions
An analysis of the specific
provisions within the 1981 Water Code, highlighting how it transformed water
rights into private property, separate from land ownership. This section also
covers the mechanisms introduced for the trading and selling of water rights,
effectively creating a water market. The immediate impacts of the Water Code on
water governance facilitated a transition from a model of state control to one
dominated by private entities, thereby amplifying their influence over water
resources throughout Chile (Budds, 2020; Bauer, 200; (Correa et al., 2020).
Investment in sectors reliant on Water,
such as agriculture, mining, and hydropower, surged as the new legal framework
attracted considerable capital. This influx of funding was not without its
challenges, however. Many local communities found themselves marginalized in
water allocation decisions, often sidelined by more extensive corporate
interests capable of outbidding them for essential water rights. Economic
disparities heightened by these developments led to social strife as access to Water
became increasingly commoditized rather than treated as a shared societal good
(Fuster et al., 2023; Budds, 2004; Camacho, 2012).
Environmental advocates raised alarms over the potential long-term consequences of prioritizing economic growth: increased water extraction could threaten ecosystems reliant on stable hydrological conditions. Instances of ecological degradation surfaced as water-intensive activities proliferated without adequate oversight, highlighting the urgent call for a more balanced governance approach that integrated ecological integrity alongside economic imperatives (Budds, 2004; Budds, 2020; Bauer, 2004).
The radical restructuring of
water governance compelled stakeholders to reconsider their strategies,
emphasizing the necessity of redefining the relationship between water rights
and environmental sustainability.
Difficulties created by the Code
underscored the need for an ongoing dialogue about water management in Chile,
with calls for regulatory reforms and a revisit of governance approaches
gaining traction. Policymakers and scholars alike began advocating for a more
nuanced system that could address the inequities perpetuated by the Water Code
while also safeguarding environmental resources crucial to future
sustainability (Correa et al., 2020; Puschner & Niewöhner, 2021; Trawick,
2003; Camacho, 2012). Discussions evolved to consider potential models of water
governance that could reconcile the competing demands of economic development,
social equity, and environmental stewardship.
1.3 Immediate Impacts on Water Governance
This subsection assesses the
immediate effects of the Water Code on Chile's water governance, including the
shift towards market-driven allocation of water resources and the reduction of
state control. It also touches upon the initial reactions from various
stakeholders, including local communities and environmental groups.
Moreover, the experiences gleaned from the 1981 Water Code provided vital lessons for other nations grappling with similar dilemmas surrounding resource commodification. As Chile became a reference point in global discussions about water privatization, its challenges and successes fueled international discourse. The lessons drawn from Chile's experience proved critical for nations contemplating the intersection of neoliberal policies and natural resource management, illustrating both the potential benefits and the significant risks associated with market-driven approaches to essential services (Budds, 2020; Budds, 2004; Bauer, 2005; Budds, 2013).
The complex interplay between
water rights, market dynamics, and social equity in Chile epitomizes broad
trends of the past few decades, revealing the intricate relationships between
economic policies and environmental governance. The consequences of the 1981
Water Code remain relevant today as Chile continues to navigate issues of water
scarcity, equity, and sustainability, standing as a testament to the enduring
challenges of managing vital resources in a rapidly changing world (Correa et
al., 2020; Julio et al., 2024; Budds, 2013).
As Chile's constitutional
evolutions unfold, discussions about the future of water governance remain
paramount, particularly as they intersect with the rights of indigenous
communities and the pressing demands for ecological integrity in the context of
climate change (Budds, 2004; Macpherson & Salazar, 2020).
The historical context of the
1981 Water Code in Chile reveals a complex tapestry woven from the threads of
neoliberal ideology, market-driven policies, and the pressing realities of
social and environmental justice. As Chile reflects on its journey through
water governance, the lessons learned from the 1981 Code will undoubtedly
resonate, shaping the future of water management not only within Chile but
globally as nations strive to balance economic ambitions with the equitable and
sustainable stewardship of natural resources.
2 Chile's Water Paradox: Democracy in the Age of Commodified Water
2.1 The Constitutional Catch: Democracy with Privatized Water
Chile's water governance
structure reflects a perplexing dichotomy: a democratic framework that
enshrines Water as private property under the 1980 Constitution, a remnant of
Pinochet's authoritarian regime. This legal foundation creates significant
challenges for public governance, whose responsibility is to ensure equitable
access to necessities.
While democracy is typically
associated with rights and protections for citizens, Chile's Constitution
primarily safeguards corporate interests over the fundamental human need for Water.
This contradiction is glaring, especially in the face of climate-induced
stresses such as prolonged droughts and decreasing water availability (Bartram
et al., 2014).
The privatization of water
resources has led to systemic exclusions, disproportionately affecting
vulnerable populations. As Water continues to be treated as a commodity, WASH
(Water, sanitation, and hygiene) services have become not just commodified but
often unreliable and inaccessible to those who need them most. This issue is
encapsulated in the ongoing struggle of marginalized groups, highlighting how
constitutional provisions that favour corporate rights inadvertently exacerbate
inequalities in water access (Gupta et al., 2010).
The implications are not merely
theoretical; they manifest in real-life hardships where lack of access to safe water
and proper sanitation leads to detrimental health outcomes for millions,
particularly among poor and rural communities (Oliveira, 2017).
In a climate-stressed world, the
urgency for constitutional protection of human rights, including access to Water
and sanitation, cannot be overstated. The recognition of Water as a human right
is increasingly considered essential within the frameworks of international
law, as articulated by the United Nations (Laituri & Sternlieb, 2012). Failure to codify such rights into law often leaves communities vulnerable to exploitation, resulting in contamination, unaffordable tariffs, or inadequate infrastructure (Marks, 2014; Antunes & Martins, 2020). The example of
Chile illustrates the dangerous intersection of democracy and privatization,
wherein citizens are denied basic needs due to a legal structure that favours corporate profit over human welfare.
2.2 Global Gap: 29 Countries Still Deny Water as a Right
The imperative for constitutional
recognition of Water as a human right in Chile resonates within a broader
global context where nearly 30 countries still do not recognize Water as a
fundamental human right (Alsaadi et al., 2020). The absence of legal guarantees
for Water and sanitation significantly undermines the universal principles of
human rights, suggesting a glaring inequality in the recognition and protection
of basic needs (Cumming et al., 2014). Unprotected, the right to Water remains
subject to political agendas and elite interests, leaving communities defenceless
against exploitation and environmental hazards (Harris et al., 2015).
In the absence of strong legal
frameworks, deprived communities face continual threats, including increasing
tariffs, inadequate sanitation infrastructure, and environmental degradation.
This situation leads to profound public health ramifications, especially in
developing nations where water scarcity is becoming a chronic reality due to
climate change and mismanagement (Leb, 2012). The negligence toward enshrining
these rights within national constitutions results not merely in logistical
failures but in the moral neglect of essential human dignity by governments
worldwide, as they prioritize economic growth or political stability over
public welfare (Antunes & Martins, 2020).
As climate-related disasters grow
in frequency and severity, the stakes of not treating constitutional
protections for WASH as integral components of governance rise exponentially.
The ramifications of such neglect are severe: increased waterborne diseases,
heightened poverty rates, and worsening social tensions. The urgency for legal
frameworks that guarantee access to Water and sanitation, especially in the
context of climate crises, becomes not just a matter of policy but a critical
humanitarian necessity (Ribeiro et al., 2018; Obani & Gupta, 2016).
Enshrining the right to water
within a constitution transforms it from a mere aspiration into a legal
obligation, holding governments accountable for ensuring equitable access
(Schiel et al., 2020). It empowers marginalized communities to advocate for their
rights and demand accountability from those in power, promoting a shift toward
inclusive and participatory governance. Jurisdictions that recognize Water as a
human right not only protect their citizens but also set a precedent on the
global stage, influencing international policies and encouraging progressive
models of water management (Neves-Silva et al., 2020).
Ultimately, the necessary
constitutional reforms in Chile—and indeed, the urgent calls for similar
structures globally—speak to a burgeoning recognition that access to safe and
sufficient Water is synonymous with the right to life itself. The necessity for
robust constitutional protections around Water is echoed in studies
highlighting the indivisibility of human rights and the critical importance of
ensuring water security to support broader socio-economic development goals
(Neves-Silva et al., 2019).
A global movement advocating for
water rights signifies more than just a fight for access to a vital resource;
it embodies the essence of justice, equity, and human dignity. This collective
struggle highlights questions of environmental justice, sustainable practices,
and democratic governance, urging both local and international communities to
re-evaluate their relationship with Water as not merely a resource to be
exploited but as a fundamental right to be protected (Mirosa & Harris,
2011). As Chile grapples with its unique water paradox, it raises profound
questions relevant to many nations navigating the complexities of privatized
water governance and human rights in an increasingly climate-stressed world.
3 From Dictatorship to Drought: The Legal Legacy of Water Markets
3.1 Pinochet's Constitution: Turning Water into a Tradeable Asset
The 1980 Chilean Constitution,
crafted during Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship, institutionalized
a neoliberal approach to water governance by permitting private ownership of
water rights. This shift transformed Water from a public good—subject to
communal management and environmental stewardship—into a tradeable asset,
marking a fundamental reorientation towards commodification (Borzutzky &
Madden, 2011).
This legal framework stripped
public agencies of their regulatory power, consequently reassigning authority
over water management to private entities whose primary objective focuses on
profit maximization rather than sustainable community welfare (Seefeldt, 2022).
The resulting speculative water markets prioritize corporate interests,
leveraging water resources primarily for lucrative agricultural and mining
ventures while neglecting the essential needs of local populations (Davis,
2004).
As a consequence of this
privatization, WASH (Water, sanitation, and hygiene) services have become
deprioritized and perceived as secondary to the demands of industrial profit.
The effects on community access to safe Water and sanitation have been severe;
entire regions have seen water sources contaminated or rendered inaccessible as
major corporations extract vast amounts of Water without adequate oversight.
Legal architecture that supports
extreme commodification contributes to a consistent pattern of social exclusion
and environmental degradation (Hadjigeorgalis, 2008; With the power dynamics
favouring corporate control, communities—especially those already marginalized,
such as Indigenous populations—are further sidelined in decisions that
dramatically affect their access to vital resources (Seefeldt, 2022).
The historical legacy of this
constitutional rule has profound implications for contemporary water governance
in Chile. Small farmers, peri-urban communities, and Indigenous groups suffer
disproportionately from the adverse effects of unregulated water markets. While
the market ostensibly functions under the promise of efficiency, empirical
research indicates that such gains have often been illusory, contributing
instead to exacerbated inequalities and ecological harm (Jackson et al., 2019).
Centralization of water rights
among a few corporations illustrates this point, creating a landscape where
community needs are sidelined in favour of profit-driven motives that ignore
the long-term sustainability of water resources (Correa et al., 2020).
3.2 Agribusiness, Mining, and the Rise of Water Barons
Water's commodification in Chile
has resulted in a concentration of control among corporate interests,
particularly in sectors such as agribusiness and mining. These enterprises
often secure exclusive rights over vast waterways and aquifers, undermining the
water access of local communities, whose water sources are increasingly
polluted or depleted (Borzutzky & Madden, 2011).
The dominance of these
"water barons" comes at a significant social cost as smallholders and
Indigenous communities experience systematic exclusion from water resources
crucial for their livelihoods and cultural practices (Curran, 2019). Studies
have shown that the disproportionate allocation of Water to industrial users
leads directly to neglect of WASH services, indicating that social and
environmental justice must be reconsidered in the context of water governance
(Hadjigeorgalis & Lillywhite, 2004).
In rural areas, the impact of
these market dynamics is particularly severe. A significant number of small
farmers find themselves unable to compete with the economically advantageous
operations of agribusinesses that utilize intensive irrigation methods and
industrial-scale water extraction, thereby exhausting local water supplies
(Bauer, 2004). This competition threatens the viability of traditional farming
practices and poses direct risks to food security and community resilience
(Bauer, 2005). Indigenous populations, already facing socio-economic
marginalization, remain particularly vulnerable amid these market pressures.
The lack of formal recognition of Indigenous water rights contributes to their
continued disenfranchisement. It exemplifies the need for legal reforms that
respect and integrate Indigenous governance systems within broader water
management frameworks (Seefeldt, 2022).
The environmental implications of
enhanced corporate control over Water cannot be overstated. Numerous studies
indicate that intensified industrial use of water resources contributes to
significant environmental degradation, including the deterioration of aquatic
ecosystems and diminished biodiversity. This phenomenon presents a stark
reminder that punitive measures against unsustainable practices must be
integrated into national policies to safeguard against the long-term impacts of
water mismanagement (Hadjigeorgalis, 2008; Budds, 2004). The imbalances created
through unchecked water markets establish a direct correlation between water
resource control and patterns of inequality—e, acerbating the ongoing crisis of
access to safe water for low-income and rural populations across Chile (Correa
et al., 2020).
3.3 Flowchart: Who Owns the Water?
A visual flowchart illustrating
the complexity and concentration of water rights in Chile underscores the asymmetries inherent in the current system. The reality revealed through such diagrams highlights how a small number of corporations control extensive water volumes while entire communities grapple with scarcity and limited
access to essential resources (Garrido, 2007).
The stark contrast between
corporate water ownership and the unmet needs of local populations speaks to a
systemic failure in the governance framework established under Pinochet's
regime. This legacy continues to restrict equitable access to Water while
amplifying corporate power (Zwarteveen & Boelens, 2014).
In Chile's water market, the
commodification of Water has effectively established a hierarchy of rights and
access, wherein economically powerful entities monopolize resources necessary
for community survival. This concentration breeds not only environmental but
also social injustices, prompting a growing demand for reforms that prioritize
community equity and sustainability over corporate profits (Honey‐Rosés,
2009).
A human right to water emphasizes
the essential nature of this resource, challenging the existing paradigms that
permit its commodification and exploitation (Hearne & Donoso, 2014). The
urgent calls for legal changes within the evolving constitutional framework
offer a vital opportunity to reimagine water governance, one that prioritizes
community needs and environmental health amidst rising climatic pressures
(Galaz, 2004).
The need for collaborative
efforts between governmental entities, civil society, and Indigenous groups
becomes increasingly evident in addressing these challenges. Ensuring that
future policies incorporate diverse perspectives and acknowledge historical
grievances related to water rights can lay the groundwork for a more just and
equitable distribution of water resources (Seefeldt, 2022).
As Chile navigates its path towards democratic
rejuvenation amid these crises, rectifying the entrenched inequalities produced by decades of privatized water governance becomes imperative (Nicolas-Artero, 2021).
The transformation of Water from
a public good into a ttradableasset under Pinochet's Constitution has resulted
in significant consequences for Chilean democracy, society, and the
environment. The urgent task before Chile is to dismantle the exploitative
systems entrenched by neoliberal reforms and build a governance framework that
acknowledges the intrinsic value of Water as a human right—a resource to be
collectively managed for the benefit of all (Berger et al., 2006; Jackson et
al., 2012).
4 Crisis on the Ground – Drought, Displacement, and Resistance
4.1 Thirst in the South: The Dispossession of Mapuche Communities
The Mapuche people, one of
Chile's principal Indigenous communities, are facing significant water loss
driven by factors such as extensive deforestation and upstream privatization of
water rights. This chapter details the ongoing dispossession of these communities,
where local water sources have become increasingly inaccessible due to the
legal and economic frameworks established under past regimes.
Privatization efforts have not only commodified Water but have also facilitated a systematic extraction model that prioritizes industrial profit over community needs García-Bartolomei et al., 2022; Hoekstra et al., 2012). As a result, the Mapuche people suffer
from a profound lack of access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
services, which has escalated into a concerning public health crisis (Gosling
& Arnell, 2013).
The commodification of Water
through privatization processes has led to severe ecological harm,
significantly impacting the well-being of Mapuche communities. Waterborne
diseases and contamination have become prevalent due to compromised access to
clean water sources. Studies indicate that the health impacts of inadequate
WASH services in these communities are starkly pronounced, highlighting the
urgent necessity for integrating Indigenous perspectives into water governance
(León‐Muñoz
et al., 2017).
Socio-cultural erasure stemming
from the lack of access to clean Water erodes traditional practices and customs
integral to the Mapuche identity and well-being (Álvarez-Garretón et al.,
2021). This climate of dispossession reflects the material loss of Water and
illustrates broader issues of social justice and the fight for Indigenous
rights within the context of environmental degradation (Sola et al., 2024).
Local resistance movements among
the Mapuche emphasize the importance of reclaiming their rights to Water and
revitalizing their ancestral connections to the landscape. As pressures from
agribusiness and other extractive industries escalate, solidarity movements
have emerged that seek to challenge the status quo and advocate for the
recognition of Indigenous water rights (Bedirhanoğlu et al., 2022).
The synergies among community-led
initiatives serve as powerful rebuttals to the narratives that govern water
scarcity as a purely economic issue; they frame water access as a human right
that is fundamentally linked to place, culture, and identity (Pineda et al.,
2020).
4.2 Public vs. Private in a Changing Climate
The escalating crises of drought
and water insecurity in the context of climate change are profoundly affecting
both rural and urban areas in Chile. Cities like Santiago are experiencing
severe water rationing measures as public WASH infrastructure struggles under
the strain of prolonged drought conditions (Ocampo‐Melgar et
al., 2022).
Privatization of water resources
has exacerbated these issues, illustrating how commodification undermines
public health and accelerates environmental injustice. For instance, the
privatized model of water distribution often prioritizes profit-driven motives,
further deteriorating public sanitation systems (Wang et al., 2024).
As droughts become more frequent
and severe due to climate change, the consequences of privatized water systems become starkly apparent. Reports indicate that a significant portion of
Chileans are now living in areas of water scarcity, with substantial
implications for health and sanitation (Kummu et al., 2016).
The implications of these
failures extend beyond immediate physical health risks; they perpetuate cycles
of marginalization and disenfranchisement among already vulnerable populations
(Cacciuttolo & Pulido, 2022).
The disconnect between water as a
commodity and as a public good highlights the pressing need to re-examine
governance frameworks that support equitable access to water for all citizens.
The fragmentation of water governance has led to an inequitable distribution of
resources, where those with economic power dominate water rights to the
detriment of marginalized groups (Castro et al., 2023).
HaIt hasignificant ramifications for
social equity and environmental stability, as evidence suggests that access to
clean Wawaters integral to both health and the maintenance of ecosystems upon
which communities depend (Ocampo‐Melgar et al., 2021).
The distinction between public
and private water provisioning emerges within the current crisis context,
demanding a reevaluation of priorities in water management systems across
Chile. Rather than strictly pursuing neoliberal frameworks that perpetuate the
commodification of Water, there is a compelling argument for integrating
broader community perspectives into governance structures, aiming for
sustainable solutions that uphold social and ecological justice (Chandrasekara
et al., 2023).
4.3 Lessons from Ecuador: Rights of Nature in the Constitution
Ecuador presents a contrasting
model to Chile by recognizing natural entities such as rivers and forests as
rights-holders within its Constitution. This legal framework underscores a
progressive approach to water governance that extends beyond anthropocentric
considerations, framing environmental protection as essential to the health of
communities and ecosystems (Astorga‐Eló et al., 2021). This
comparative case notably offers a bold model for rethinking water law in
holistic terms, advocating for integrated WASH systems that benefit both people
and the planet.
The Ecuadorian approach conveys a
profound recognition of the interconnectedness between human rights and
ecological health, emphasizing that a secure environment is inherently linked
to social well-being (Flores et al., 2021). Such recognition asserts that water
laws must encapsulate Indigenous rights and environmental considerations to
ensure equitable access to water resources while fostering stewardship of
natural ecosystems (Ahmed et al., 2020). By framing nature as a rights holder,
Ecuador provides a legal basis for resisting exploitation and demanding
accountability from corporations and state entities (Abbas et al., 2023).
Lessons from Ecuador highlight
the urgency of shifting policies concerning water governance in Chile. They suggest that constitutional reforms should centre around the acknowledgement
of Water as a public good rather than a commodity. By doing so, there exists
the opportunity to create legal mechanisms that prioritize sustainable
management strategies while addressing historical injustices faced by
Indigenous populations in Chile (Hasan & Hanafiah, 2017).
This reevaluation of water
governance aligns with global trends advocating for the rights of nature,
offering pathways to incorporate ecological justice into legal frameworks.
Under this model, WASH services can begin to serve dual functions, addressing both
human and environmental needs while advancing rights-based discourse that roots
water access considerations within broader struggles for social justice (Barría
et al., 2017).
In conclusion, the crises faced
by Chile concerning water insecurity, displacement, and cultural erasure demand
profound systemic changes. The struggle of Indigenous communities, legislative
models from other nations, and the failures of privatized systems collectively
call for an urgent reevaluation of water governance in Chile. By embracing
principles of equity and recognizing Water as an intrinsic human right, there
exists the potential to rectify entrenched injustices and foster resilient
communities amid a changing climate and ongoing environmental challenges (Sola
et al., 2019; Theeuwen et al., 2024).
5 Rethinking RightsWASH, Equity, and the Role of Constitutions
5.1 Rewriting the Rules: The 2022 Constitutional Draft
Chile's 2022 Constitutional Draft
marked a crucial moment in the national discourse on water rights, attempting
to enshrine Water as both a common good and a human right. Although the
proposed Constitution was ultimately rejected in a subsequent referendum, the
drafting process highlighted the significance of water justice in Chilean
society.
Underscored the urgent need for
constitutional provisions that assert WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) as
an integral obligation of the state, Momberg et al. (2020). This attempt to
include specific protections for Water in the Constitution represents a
progressive shift towards confronting the inequities entrenched by past
privatization and commodification policies.
The debate surrounding the draft
revealed a growing recognition of the systemic inequalities that have emerged
due to the neoliberal water governance model, fostering an inclusive dialogue
on the fundamental role of Water in ensuring public health and equity
(Mikkelsen et al., 2015). The emphasis on WASH as a constitutional obligation
indicates an evolving understanding of Water not only as an economic resource
but also as a vital contributor to human dignity and community resilience. It
affirms that access to clean Water and sanitation must be protected by law to
prevent marginalization and exclusion, particularly for vulnerable populations
such as Indigenous communities (Mikkelsen et al., 2015).
A comprehensive constitutional
framework that encompasses WASH rights can serve as a foundation for legal
accountability and action against water injustices. By foregrounding WASH in
constitutional law, the state can foster equitable access and address the
historic injustices faced by communities deprived of adequate water and
sanitation services (Brown, 2010). Such provisions could empower local actors
by facilitating legal pathways for contesting water rights violations and
launching initiatives to safeguard community access to Water (Schiff, 2021).
5.2 Constitutional Tools for Water Equity
Ensured water
equity requires robust constitutional tools that embed community rights,
guarantee fair distribution, and regulate private sector overreach. Model
provisions seen in various international contexts can inform Chile's constitutional
negotiations, providing templates for integrating water rights in ways that
enhance equity and access (Keith, 2002). Constitutional language on WASH must
include explicit guarantees of affordability, accessibility, and adequate
sanitation infrastructure, especially in underserved and marginalized regions
(Brown, 2010).
A strong legal foundation
supports the creation of regulatory mechanisms that can mitigate oligarchic
control over water resources. For example, constitutions can establish public
trust doctrines that compel governments to act in the public interest regarding
water management, safeguarding the resource from exploitation and undue
commercial interests (Guan et al., 2021). Additionally, specific provisions can
empower community monitoring mechanisms and facilitate equitable audits, thus
ensuring that all community members have reliable access to their
constitutional rights (Mirosa & Harris, 2011).
The comparative analysis of other
countries indicates that effective constitutional models can include
rights-based frameworks that establish water access as part of broader social
rights, integrating Water into the national development agenda (Furlong, 2012).
By embedding WASH rights within constitutional structures, nations can frame Water
as a social and environmental good rather than a mere commodity, aligning legal
frameworks with the principles of sustainability and social equity (Cronin et
al., 2007).
5.3 Global Reform Guide: What Other Countries Can Learn
International success stories
offer valuable insights into constitutional models that prioritize water
equity. South Africa's constitutional commitment to basic water access,
articulated in its Bill of Rights, exemplifies how legal frameworks can incorporate
WASH rights into governance (Kotzé & Calzadilla, 2017). This inclusive
model not only reinforces the necessity of government accountability in
delivering water services but also provides a blueprint for other nations to
improve their governance policies (Masiangoako et al., 2022).
Bolivia offers another salient
example with its participatory model, where local communities are actively
involved in the management of water resources. This empowers citizens,
cultivates community ownership, and strengthens the connections between local
governance and equitable service delivery (Barnard, 2020).
A similar participatory approach
in Chile could enhance the efficacy of water equity initiatives, ensuring that
decision-makers are held accountable at all levels and that the voices of
marginalized groups are recognized in the governance process (Furlong, 2012).
The integration of WASH metrics
into national planning and regulatory frameworks is paramount. Metrics such as
service delivery satisfaction, affordability ratios, and health outcomes can
guide policy improvements and track progress towards fulfilling WASH rights
(Movik, 2012). By adopting evidence-based monitoring practices, nations can
enhance transparency and citizen participation in assessing water governance
effectiveness, promoting accountability and fostering greater trust between the
populace and state institutions (Hall et al., 2013).
5.4 Addressing Key WASH Questions
To effectively tackle challenges
related to WASH, several crucial questions must be at the forefront of policy
discourse and legislative frameworks:
- Preventing Oligarchic Control: Establishing
public trust models alongside equity audits and public interest mandates
can help diminish oligarchs' influence on water resources.
Transparent governance structures that incorporate community input and
oversight can mitigate the risks of power concentration (Ndeunyema, 2020).
- Monitoring WASH Impact on Poverty:
Implementing indicators such as service access levels, affordability
ratios, and health outcomes in low-income communities enables a clearer
understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of water access (Schiff,
2021). This approach not only aids policymaking but also magnifies the
link between safe water provision and poverty alleviation.
- Learning from Successes: Celebrating
transparency, participatory budgeting, and community-led service
assessments serves as a foundation for a just water governance regime.
These practices can catalyze increased community engagement and foster
accountability by ensuring that WASH services align with public
expectations and needs (Hall et al., 2013).
- Key Indicators: Developing indicators that
track water access gaps, sanitation coverage, affordability indexes, and
grievance redress mechanisms is critical to evaluating water governance
effectiveness. Such measurements can highlight gaps in service provision
and identify marginalized populations that require focused interventions
(Mirosa & Harris, 2011).
In conclusion, the pressing need
for constitutional provisions embedding WASH rights highlights the critical
intersection of human rights, environmental justice, and social equity in
resource governance. By learning from international frameworks and actively
engaging communities in the governance process, Chile can address its water
crisis and promote a more equitable and sustainable future for all citizens
(Cahill, 2005). The evolving discourse on constitutional reform in relation to
WASH rights situates Chile within a broader global movement toward recognizing Water
as an inherent human right, essential for both human dignity and ecological
sustainability (Ge et al., 2017).
6 Future Flows – Pathways Toward Water Democracy
6.1 Community Water Governance: The Power of Local Councils
Examples from Chile and around
the world demonstrate the effectiveness of community water governance, where
local councils and Indigenous-led systems manage Water sustainably and
equitably. Such decentralized models have shown promise in achieving success,
whereas centralized systems have often failed. The critical advantage of local
ownership stems from its ability to directly respond to community needs and
challenges (Sofoulis, 2013). Community-led initiatives foster tailored WASH
(Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) systems that align resources with the unique
social, cultural, and environmental contexts of the communities they serve
(Abraliyev et al., 2024).
Recent case studies indicate
significant improvements in both water access and quality when communities are
given the jurisdictional authority to manage their water resources. Local
councils enable participatory decision-making processes that empower community
members to engage meaningfully in the governance of their water supplies (Ulya,
2019).
This approach not only enhances
service delivery but also strengthens community identities and increases
self-reliance, as evidenced by successful models in various regions, including
initiatives among Indigenous groups (Sofo et al., 2013). Research suggests that
sustainable water management practices at the local level tend to yield better
public health outcomes due to reduced contamination and increased accessibility
(Sachidananda et al., 2016).
Moreover, establishing community
water boards integrates local knowledge into water management, supporting
sustainability goals. Local councils are better positioned to balance water
allocation fairly among diverse community users, providing a governance form
that can mitigate oligarchic tendencies often characteristic of privatized
water systems (Dean et al., 2016).
Importantly, this
community-driven approach emphasizes the social dimensions of water management
by prioritizing not only the technical metrics of supply but also the social
relationships and equity implications that govern water distribution (Sofoulis,
2013),; an et al., 2016).
6.2 Legal Empowerment: From Protest to Policy Change
Rights are not inherently
self-executing; they need to be actively asserted and translated into
enforceable laws and practices. As observed in various movements across the
globe, especially in Chile, social movements, legal clinics, and policy
advocacy are critical in bridging the gap between constitutional reforms and
everyday WASH access (Abraliyev et al., 2024).
Communities' legal empowerment facilitates the transformation of water justice aspirations into
practical changes, ensuring that equity is a guiding principle in water
governance (Abraliyev et al., 2024). Strategically engaging in legal processes
can help communities assert their rights against privatized systems that lean towards
exploitation. Initiatives have shown that legal clinics, providing education
and resources, enable grassroots organizations to navigate the complexities of
water rights effectively.
Movements often spark significant
dialogue and policy adjustments at local and national levels, fostering a more
equitable water landscape (Zehui et al., 2023). In many cases, successful
policy advocacy relies on building coalitions and leveraging data-driven
strategies to highlight inequities in access and allocation (Abraliyev et al.,
2024).
However, legal empowerment must
be closely tied to infrastructure development and equitable service provision
conditions. As communities gain a voice through legal means, it is essential
that they also have the accompanying access to financing and support to develop
the necessary infrastructure to meet their WASH needs (Li et al., 2019). The
synergy between legal advocacy and tangible infrastructure upgrades validates
community rights and fosters resilience in the face of water scarcity and
environmental degradation (Li et al., 2019).
6.3 A Global Framework for
Water Justice
Drawing on the momentum of
climate justice and the rights of Indigenous peoples, this chapter proposes
establishing a global treaty akin to a "Geneva Convention for Water."
Such a treaty would aim to protect Water as a commons, safeguard those who
defend it, and standardize obligations regarding WASH access worldwide (Ju
& Chang, 2016). Given the increasing recognition of Water as a fundamental
human right, a global framework could solidify international commitments to
equitable access to Water and sanitation, fostering global solidarity in the
fight for water justice (Haasnoot et al., 2012).
A global treaty could facilitate
the sharing of best practices and experiences among nations, drawing empirical
evidence from various models where WASH rights have been successfully
integrated into legal frameworks. For instance, Ecuador's incorporation of
rights for nature could help inform provisions that explicitly protect
ecosystems within a comprehensive water governance structure. Additionally, the
inclusion of protections for water defenders within the treaty would act as a
vital countermeasure against the violence that environmental activists face
globally (Yoon & Jun, 2023).
Such a framework would not only
formalize commitments to equitable WASH access but also provide a mechanism for
accountability at the international level. By creating clear standards and
obligations related to water governance, this treaty could align the efforts of
states with the aspirations outlined in the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals, highlighting water equity as a priority for global
development (Ju & Chang, 2016; Haasnoot et al., 2012). Strengthening
international legal obligations concerning water could also empower local
communities to protect their rights and manage water sustainably (Sendawula et
al., 2020).
6.4 What the Future Demands:
Toward Just and Resilient WASH Systems
Achieving true reform in WASH
systems requires more than establishing laws; it necessitates a significant
shift in values that prioritizes justice, equity, and sustainability across
generations. Water governance must address not only immediate access challenges
but also systemic issues of inequity that arise from historical injustices and
current structural conditions (Córdova et al., 2023). Ensuring climate
resilience, promoting public health, and supporting gender equity are
interconnected aspects of robust WASH systems that must be supported by public
investments, data transparency, and active social accountability (Doreen et
al., 2020).
Fostering a culture of participatory governance that includes diverse community perspectives at all levels of decision-making regarding water management is essential to responding effectively to future demands (Wirba et al., 2020). This approach can lead to a more
equitable distribution of resources and innovative solutions to address
challenges posed by environmental change (Wirba et al., 2020). Strengthening
the roles of local councils and community governance can produce WASH outcomes
that reflect the needs and aspirations of the communities they serve (Worku,
2017).
Furthermore, a commitment to
public investment in water infrastructure, driven by social accountability
principles, is necessary to build resilience in WASH systems. Engaging
communities in the design, implementation, and monitoring of WASH projects will
empower them to hold decision-makers accountable while ensuring that their
rights and needs are addressed (Siddique, 2024). The future of water governance
must thus focus on integrating principles of justice and sustainability,
recognizing that equitable access to Water is foundational to realizing broader
human rights and dignity (Arsana et al., 2022).
In conclusion, the pathways
toward achieving water democracy in Chile and globally lie in fostering a
commitment to community governance, legal empowerment, and international
solidarity through frameworks that recognize Water as a vital human right. By
addressing the systemic barriers to WASH access and prioritizing the needs of
all communities, particularly marginalized ones, a just and resilient future
for water governance can be realized (Sulaiman et al., 2022; Alotaibi &
Kassem, 2021).
7. Reclaiming Water, Reclaiming Democracy
Chile's water crisis transcends
mere drought; it is intimately tied to the health of its democratic
institutions. The intertwining of legal frameworks with systemic inequalities
underscores the moral imperative for reformatively addressing water access and
management practices. When constitutions enshrine inequalities—favouring
private rights over public needs—the call for change becomes not just a
political necessity but an ethical obligation (Schiel et al., 2022). The
ongoing struggle for Water emerges as a broader struggle for sovereignty,
community resilience, and the integrity of public life in a nation facing
profound ecological and social crises.
The latitudes of water justice
are shaped by the constitutional legacy of water privatization that still
haunts Chile—a legacy rooted in the laws of the past dictatorship. This
historical framework has concentrated control of water resources in corporate
hands, simultaneously stripping communities of their fundamental right to clean
Water and sanitation (Bernauer & Kuhn, 2010). Indigenous populations,
particularly the Mapuche, bear the brunt of this reality, experiencing both
ecological and cultural dispossession as droughts worsen the already
inequitable distribution of water supplies (Hoogesteger, 2016). Furthermore,
access to sanitation facilities is often hindered by structural gender biases
within regulatory systems, which lack the necessary transparency and
accountability to ensure public health and welfare (Wilder, 2010).
Moreover, the global context of
water governance reveals that nearly 30 countries deny constitutional
recognition of Water as a human right, perpetuating elite capture of resources
and exclusion from essential services (Bernauer & Kuhn, 2010). Chile's
journey for water justice exemplifies the urgency for other nations to
similarly engage in constitutional reform processes that recognize WASH rights
as foundational elements of democracy. Recognizing Water as an inherent human
right could catalyze extensive legal reforms aimed at dismantling oligarchic
control over this vital resource (Qawasmeh et al., 2021).
Achieving equitable access to
WASH systems requires concerted efforts at both the national and international
levels. To this end, the following actions emerge as crucial steps toward
facilitating water justice:
Support Constitutional Reform:
Advocating for explicit recognition of Water as a human and ecological right
within national constitutions can help lay the foundation for lasting reform
(Kalbhenn, 2011).
Ban Speculative Water Markets:
Protection against speculative practices in water governance necessitates
robust regulations to ensure fair distribution and use of water resources,
prioritizing community needs over corporate profits (Barasa et al., 2018).
Mandate Public-Interest Reviews:
Large-scale water allocation decisions must be subject to rigorous public interest
reviews, ensuring that community impact is the foremost consideration in
resource management (Grimm & Mathis, 2017).
Create Citizen-led Governance
Structures: Establishing localized governance frameworks empowers communities
by allowing them to directly influence water management processes that affect
their lives and environments (Tural, 2018).
Advocate for an International
Treaty: As proposed, a global treaty akin to the Geneva Convention for Water
Rights can standardize obligations concerning equitable access to Water and
protect those advocating for water rights globally (Blum et al., 2021).
The pathway to true water justice
engenders a vision of WASH issues as central to broader aspirations of
democracy, ecological resilience, and human dignity. As nations collectively
strive for better governance of water resources, Chile serves as a poignant
reminder that equitable access to Water is integral to fostering a just
society. The struggle for Water is the linchpin that connects community agency
and democratic renewal, establishing WASH systems not solely as public services
but as vital rights that uphold the dignity and health of all people (Brown,
2018). In reclaiming Water, communities are indeed reclaiming democracy.
References :
Alsaadi, S., Khalid, R., &
Dahalan, W. (2020). Revisiting the human right to Water in contemporary
international law. Uum Journal of Legal Studies, 11.
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls.11.1.2020.6860
Antunes, M. and Martins, R.
(2020). Determinants of access to improved water sources: meeting the MDGs.
Utilities Policy, 63, 101019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101019
Bartram, J., Brocklehurst, C.,
Fisher, M., Luyendijk, R., Hossain, R., Wardlaw, T., … & Gordon, B. (2014).
Global monitoring of water supply and sanitation: history, methods and future challenges.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(8),
8137-8165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110808137
Cumming, O., Ellıott, M.,
Overbo, A., & Bartram, J. (2014). Does global progress on sanitation really
lag behind Water? An analysis of global progress on community- and
household-level access to safe Water and sanitation. Plos One, 9(12), e114699.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114699
Gupta, J., Ahlers, R., &
Ahmed, L. (2010). The human right to Water: moving towards consensus in a
fragmented world. Review of European Community & International
Environmental Law, 19(3), 294-305.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00688.x
Harris, L., Rodina, L., &
Morinville, C. (2015). Revisiting the human right to Water from an
environmental justice lens. Politics Groups and Identities, 3(4), 660-665.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1080619
Laituri, M. and Sternlieb, F.
(2012). Mapping institutional landscapes: global efforts to improve access to Water.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 7(3), 273-287.
https://doi.org/10.2495/sdp-v7-n3-273-287
Leb, C. (2012). The right to Water
in a transboundary context: emergence of seminal trends. Water International,
37(6), 640-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.710950
Marks, S. (2014). Human rights
and the challenges of science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics,
20(4), 869-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9518-z
Mirosa, O. and Harris, L.
(2011). The human right to Water: contemporary challenges and contours of a
global debate. Antipode, 44(3), 932-949.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00929.x
Neves-Silva, P., Lopes, J.,
& Heller, L. (2020). The right to Water: impact on the quality of life of
rural workers in a settlement of the landless workers movement, brazil. Plos
One, 15(7), e0236281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236281
Neves-Silva, P., Martins, G.,
& Heller, L. (2019). Human rights' interdependence and indivisibility: a
glance over the human rights to Water and sanitation. BMC International Health
and Human Rights, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-019-0197-3
Obani, P. and Gupta, J.
(2016). The human right to sanitation in the legal and non‐legal literature: the need for
greater synergy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 3(5), 678-691.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1162
Oliveira, C. (2017).
Sustainable access to safe drinking water: fundamental human right in the
international and national scene. Ambiente E Agua - An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Applied Science, 12(6), 985. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2037
Ribeiro, M., Abreu, L., &
Laporta, G. (2018). Drinking water and rural schools in the western Amazon: an
environmental intervention study. Peerj, 6, e4993.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4993
Schiel, R., Langford, M.,
& Wilson, B. (2020). Does constitutionalization, democratic governance, and
the human right to water matter? Water, 12(2), 350.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020350
Antunes, M. and Martins, R.
(2020). Determinants of access to improved water sources: meeting the MDGs.
Utilities Policy, 63, 101019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101019
Bartram, J., Brocklehurst, C.,
Fisher, M., Luyendijk, R., Hossain, R., Wardlaw, T., … & Gordon, B. (2014).
Global monitoring of water supply and sanitation: history, methods and future challenges.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(8),
8137-8165. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110808137
Cumming, O., Ellıott, M.,
Overbo, A., & Bartram, J. (2014). Does global progress on sanitation really
lag behind Water? An analysis of global progress on community- and
household-level access to safe Water and sanitation. Plos One, 9(12), e114699.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114699
Gupta, J., Ahlers, R., &
Ahmed, L. (2010). The human right to Water: moving towards consensus in a
fragmented world. Review of European Community & International
Environmental Law, 19(3), 294-305.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2010.00688.x
Harris, L., Rodina, L., &
Morinville, C. (2015). Revisiting the human right to Water from an
environmental justice lens. Politics Groups and Identities, 3(4), 660-665.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1080619
Laituri, M. and Sternlieb, F.
(2012). Mapping institutional landscapes: global efforts to improve access to Water.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 7(3), 273-287.
https://doi.org/10.2495/sdp-v7-n3-273-287
Leb, C. (2012). The right to Water
in a transboundary context: emergence of seminal trends. Water International,
37(6), 640-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2012.710950
Marks, S. (2014). Human rights
and the challenges of science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics,
20(4), 869-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9518-z
Mirosa, O. and Harris, L.
(2011). The human right to Water: contemporary challenges and contours of a
global debate. Antipode, 44(3), 932-949.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00929.x
Neves-Silva, P., Lopes, J.,
& Heller, L. (2020). The right to Water: impact on the quality of life of
rural workers in a settlement of the landless workers movement, brazil. Plos
One, 15(7), e0236281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236281
Neves-Silva, P., Martins, G.,
& Heller, L. (2019). Human rights' interdependence and indivisibility: a
glance over the human rights to Water and sanitation. BMC International Health
and Human Rights, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-019-0197-3
Obani, P. and Gupta, J.
(2016). The human right to sanitation in the legal and non‐legal literature: the need for
greater synergy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Water, 3(5), 678-691.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1162
Oliveira, C. (2017).
Sustainable access to safe drinking water: fundamental human right in the
international and national scene. Ambiente E Agua - An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Applied Science, 12(6), 985. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2037
Ribeiro, M., Abreu, L., &
Laporta, G. (2018). Drinking water and rural schools in the western Amazon: an
environmental intervention study. Peerj, 6, e4993.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4993
Schiel, R., Langford, M.,
& Wilson, B. (2020). Does constitutionalization, democratic governance, and
the human right to water matter? Water, 12(2), 350.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020350
Haslam, P. (2016). Overcoming
the resource curse: reform and the rentier state in Chile and Argentina,
1973–2000. Development and Change, 47(5), 1146-1170.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12259
Ho, T., Phung, D., &
Nguyen, Y. (2020). State ownership and corporate risk‐taking: empirical evidence in Vietnam.
Australian Economic Papers, 60(3), 466-481.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.12214
Li, W. and Zhang, R. (2010).
Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political
interference: evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4), 631-645.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0488-z
Mendoza, J., Yelpo, S., &
Ramos, C. (2018). Effects of corporate policies and governance practices on
ownership structure: evidence from Chilean firms. Revista Finanzas Y Política
Económica, 10(2), 269-286.
https://doi.org/10.14718/revfinanzpolitecon.2018.10.2.2
Onguka, D., Iraya, C., &
Nyamute, W. (2021). Corporate governance, capital structure, ownership
structure, and corporate value of companies listed at the Nairobi securities
exchange. European Scientific Journal Esj, 17(15), 300.
https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2021.v17n15p300
Rahmawaty, R. and Maswan, P.
(2020). Determination of corporate social responsibility disclosure based on
the ownership structures: evidence from companies listed on the Sri-that index.
Journal of Accounting Research Organization and Economics, 3(2), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.24815/jaroe.v3i2.16763
