A/HRC/15/31 commercialized service provision. While such services differ greatly depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for people to have no choice but to rely on services (often low quality) which are exorbitantly priced.14 Due to the high number of intermediaries involved in providing the service, high transport costs and a lack of regulation, water bought from informal private vendors is frequently 10 to 20 times as expensive as water provided by a utility.15 When looking beyond networked water supply and sewerage, adding in informal small-scale providers, a completely different picture of the characteristics of the private sector emerges. Overall, there is a need for a more nuanced debate, which recognizes the various forms of private sector participation, the wide range of non-State actors involved, the role of State-owned companies, as well as differences between networked provision of water and sanitation vs. on-site solutions. III. Standards of assessment: the human rights to water and sanitation A. Links between the provision of water and sanitation by non-State actors and human rights 14. In the political debate over the best mode of service delivery, human rights are often invoked in arguments against private sector participation. The right to water (less so the right to sanitation) and opposition to private sector participation are frequently linked to each other. Decisions taken at the national level to recognize the right to water, while simultaneously ruling out private sector participation of water services, contributed to this perception.16 15. Yet, the two issues are separate. Human rights are neutral as to economic models in general,17 and models of service provision more specifically. The report of the High Commissioner points out that “the approach of United Nations treaty bodies and special procedures has been to stress that the human rights framework does not dictate a particular form of service delivery and leaves it to States to determine the best ways to implement their human rights obligations” (A/HRC/6/3, para. 52). The various forms of delegating service provision are viable options that each State can consider. 16. Certainly, however, this does not imply that human rights are irrelevant. The delegation of water and sanitation service delivery does not exempt the State from its human rights obligations. Traditionally, human rights are concerned with the relationship between the State and the individual. They impose obligations on States and endow individuals with rights. When a third party comes in, it has to be accommodated within that bilateral relationship, as the State retains its obligations to realize human rights, while the type of actions necessary to meet these obligations changes. While the State is directly accountable for the provision of services in the case of direct management, the lines of accountability become more complex when a third actor becomes involved. When opting for this form of service delivery, the State must adopt specific measures which take account of the involvement of non-State actors to ensure that the rights to sanitation and water are not compromised. In its general comment No. 15 (2002) on the right to water, the 14 15 16 17 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2006 - Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), p. 83. Ibid., pp. 83-84. See for instance art. 47 of the Constitution of Uruguay. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties obligations, para. 8. 7