Tug of water monopoly
By Gopal Krishna Agarwal,
Water is an important element of
life. The concept of private ownership and commercialisation of
this basic necessity is not in the interest of humanity. A concept that is
not good for humanity can never be beneficial to a nation.
We found that there was a general
consensus on the issue in a series of our discussions and deliberations on the
subject, with various stakeholders, including courts and the government. But
still, at the implementation level, there was complete divergence.
All governmental actions point
towards creating private property with regard to water and its commercialization as a commodity in the name of conservation of this resource.
This is being done under the garb of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) of
distribution and maintenance. This dilemma of the policymaker, whether intentional
or otherwise, has to be exposed and checked.
WATER IS A RIGHT, NOT A COMMODITY
Water, like air, is provided by
nature for free. The state is a trustee of all natural resources. The doctrine
of trust rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and
the forests have such great significance that it would be wholly unjustified to
make them a subject of private ownership.
The said resources, being a gift of
nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their
status. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for
the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their ownership by
private firms for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the state has the power to
manage the resources within the constraints imposed by this arrangement and cannot
usurp the ownership of water, or any other natural resource for that matter,
from the public.
"We have no hesitation in holding that failure of the state to provide safe drinking water to the citizens in
adequate quantities would amount to a violation of the fundamental right to life
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and would be a violation
of human rights.
Therefore, every government that
has its priorities right should give foremost importance to providing safe
drinking water, even at the cost of other development programmes. Nothing shall
stand in its way, whether it is a lack of funds of other infrastructure. Ways and means
have to be found out at all costs with utmost expediency instead of restricting
action in that regard to mere lip service."
The declaration of access to water
coming under the right to life would be meaningless if affordability is brought
into the picture. It would be as absurd as saying that the state would guarantee
the right to life to only those who can pay for it. The whale purpose for the
existence of the state is to ensure basic necessities to all its citizens
irrespective of their economic standing. In fact, only when the state ensures
such provisions can its citizens achieve their full potential. Therefore, it is accepted that the state has the primary responsibility for providing
water to its citizens. The same applies to the Indian state as well.
PRIVATISATION
OF WATER IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
A lot is being heard about water
and his its privatisation of late. If the government finally decides to
privatise water like all government policies, it ad too would be done in
'public interest'. It is therefore ironic that we do not all hear the demand
for water privatisation coming from the public. Why is it that the state that
swears to always act in the interest of the public ends up harming it?
At present, we have two categories- ries
the affluent and the powerful class that has dominance in every aspect of our
policymaking and its implementation. They can afford everything. For them,
availability is more important than affordability- ity. In their business model,
scarcity and commercialisation is a means of creating wealth. Though we believe
that private ownership is a major motivator of entrepreneurship and generation
of wealth, our primary concern is that the other class, consisting of the common
man, has been left behind in the race.
One of the strongest reasons pro-
pounded for privatisation of water is the presumed efficiency of the private
sector. Results that one should have arrived at after analysing the experience
with privatisation have been accepted as biblical truth. Efficiency has nothing to do with ownership, and there are a number of examples where the government
and private sector, if not more. Water is one sector that, by its
very nature, leads to the creation of natural monopolies. Privatisation might
even lead to an outcome where water is auctioned to the highest bidder.
Secondly, looking at the water
availability and demand data, there is no scarcity at the age spatial and temporal
variations in water availability that make the aggregate figures somewhat
misleading, it is comforting to know that Shoubu Bery as a whole does not face
water scarcity as such. According to the Central Water Commission, the 'estimated
utilisable water resources' is 1,123 billion cubic metres (bcm). If we look at
the projected demand for 2025, a standing subcommittee of the water resources
ministry put it at 1,093bcm. The National Commission on Integrated Water Resources
Development (NCIWRD) has projected the total water demand for the year 2050 at 973 bcm under the 'low demand scenario and at 1,180 bcm under the 'high demand'
scenario.
The full cost recovery argument is
being promoted as the Holy Grail Есик полдерованtabout it is that it has almost
become an end in itself in the arguments forwarded by the champions of water
privatisation.
A financially sound public water
company might not need budgetary support from the state which the state can
spend chewhere but what are such priorities that need money diverted from
expenditure on wa- ter supply? It's only when the basic human needs of food,
clothing and shelter are met, the state can think of fulfilling its other
obligations. So, till the time such needs remain unmet, full cost recovery does
not make any sense.
Full cost recovery cannot be defined. A private water distribution company may provide a Maruti 800 to its
employees and add its cost to its expenditure, or it may decide to provide them
with a Mercedes! It is not a mere theoretical possibility. Private companies are
known to have gold-plated their investment to deny the rightful share to the
government. Cost also depends on the efficiency of the operator. A guaranteed
full cost recovery would take away the incentive to carry on the operations
efficiently, since the profit would anyway be guaranteed.
GLOBAL BODIES SUPPORT MARKET MECHANISM
Even after more than six decades of
independence, India has failed to meet the basic needs of its citizens. This
failure, instead of galvanizing the state into action to provide such basic
necessities within the shortest possible time, has led to a twisted argument in
favour of market provisioning of public services. International institutions
like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and wro promote market
mechanisms as the panacea to all the ills plaguing developing world
countries like India. The structural adjustment policies of the early 1990s
gave them a foothold in the country, and they have been influencing policy
decisions to serve their covert agenda of finding new markets for the companies
of the West.
The World Bank and the IMF demand
deregulation and a prominent role for the foreign private sector in countries as
part of their lending conditions. According to a study, out of 40 IMF loans
disbursed through the international finance corporations in 2000-12, most of
them had requirements for partial or full pri- privatization of water supply, full
cost recovery, and elimination of subsidies. Similarly, over 40 per cent of World
Bank loans approved in 2001 for the water and sanitation sector contain
privatisation of water utilities as a condition.
Considering the complex nature of
the subject and its importance, the government, from time-to-time, has come out
with programmes and laws such as establishment of water boards for urban water
supply, met- ropolitan cities and state as a whole, laws on regulation of
groundwater extraction and use, laws on protection of water sources and laws
for supply to industries. Even the National Water Policy (NWP) shows a clear
bias towards using market mechanisms to allocate water. This would price out the poor and the vulnerable, who would not be able to match the price offered by
the rich for a given amount of water.
The society should be structured in
a way that all its components or the stakeholders, are taken care of, without
any discrimination of caste, creed, religion or wealth. The government is duty-bound to provide for the basic needs of all the citizens of the country.
This duty has been cast on it under the adopted Constitution by the people of this sovereign, democratic,
secular republic. To bring out all these aspects and have a healthy debate on
the subject, we, at Jaladhikar, have been holding discussions, seminars, mass
awareness programs, and campaigns. Therefore, we demand that it is the
responsibility of the government to provide a free supply of pure, hygienic
drinking water to the citizens as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution, guaranteeing of Right to Life. And stop the privatisation of water, as mentioned in the recently drafted NWP 2012 by the government of India, which
is against the concept of trusteeship and is anti-poor.
DROPS
OF ANARCHY
* The state has the power to manage
natural resources within some constraints, but cannot usurp the ownership of
water, or any other natural resource for that matter
* It is ironic that we do not hear
the demand for water privatisation coming from the public, as the centre claims
it would be done in the public interest
* One of the reasons propounded for the privatisation of water is the presumed efficiency of the private sector. But
the truth is, efficiency has got nothing to do with ownership
* Looking at water availability and
demand data, there is no scarcity at the aggregate level
* Also, the National Water Policy
shows a clear bias towards using market mechanisms to allocate water. This would
price out the poor, who would not be able to match the price offered by the rich
for a given amount of water
|
NATIONAL WATER POLICY A FARCE |
|||
|
NWP
1987 |
NWP
2002 |
DRAFT
NWP 2012 |
|
|
DRINKING WATER |
To be provided to the entire population
by 1991 |
No
Mention |
No
Mention |
|
ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR |
No Mention, recovery of operation and maintenance cost |
Yes, recovery of pertain and
maintenance costs is part of the capital cost. |
Yes,
Full cost recovery |
|
AUTONOMOUS WATER REGULATORY
AUTHORITY |
No |
No |
Yes |
