Taking a midyear review of the economic climate – the scenario is grim. Inflation is high, growth is lagging and the rupee has done a nose dive. Rating agencies are busy downgrading banks, stock markets are down. The aggressive positions on international tax have been tempered – but the war with Vodafone continues. The indefensible strike by Air India pilots, coupled with that of Kingfisher employees, disrupted all business and vacation plans, aggravated further by the predatory pricing on part of the haymakers. In this scenario there is no justification for a national carrier to provide freebies to those in power. With all the advantages, resources and opportunities, we are unable to reap the benefits of the earlier initiatives, as reforms have been abandoned - in every sector, whether real estate, infrastructure, land acquisition, insurance, labour policies, laws are in the pipeline – but there is no movement.
While referring to pipelines and flow, it’s high time that we redefined our policies on resources, all of which are scarce – fuel, minerals and most critical – water. India has had its share of trans-border international and inter-state water disputes. The Cauvery and Krishna disputes in Peninsular India were bitterly fought over decades. However, the Indus Water Sharing issues between India and Pakistan were resolved far more amicably. But that’s on conflicts.
On the policy front, there has been a recent effort to revive the 2002 National Water Policy to address the scarcity of the resource, increasing demands, the challenges of growth, urbanisation, changing life styles and natural factors, of which climate change, ground water depletion and disasters are a few. Water governance is a state subject, but the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and valleys is in the Union List. The need for a policy which envisages a central framework law for optimising the development and utilisation of the resource is critical, in identifying and dealing with the current wastage, depletion, pollution, inefficient and inequitable use, planning development and continuing regeneration of water in going forward. The 2012 policy seeks to cover all these aspects.
The 2002 policy sought to prioritise allocation, starting with drinking water, followed by hydropower, ecology, industry and navigation, in that order. The new policy does not provide for allocation prioritisation, instead emphasises on water saving and use of local level mechanisms in irrigation. The Centre, states and local bodies are to ensure a minimum quantity of potable water to all its citizens on priority basis, the balance being used for economic good and livelihood support for the poor. The dispensation with allocation prioritisation altogether may not be the correct move, though priorities need not have permanence.
Well documented, the policy deals with most issues, holistically envisioning laws recognising water not just as a scarce commodity but also a sustainer of ecology and life. Resettlement and rehabilitation more is realistically addressed than the 2002 version, providing for, over and above the compensation for loss of land, that of livelihood and alternative housing.
However, these additional costs are to be shared by the “project benefited families” through higher prices. This has expectedly raised some flags. As has the abolition of agricultural subsidies, particularly as industries in water shortage areas have been provided the option to infuse treated effluent meeting specific standards in the hydrologic system. The policy places considerable reliance on stakeholder and community participation. It does not however address the issues of ownership, particularly of groundwater, but skims over it as an issue to be addressed by modifying the Easement Act 1982, a more updated and specific law would work better.
More From This Section
Water Regulatory Authority in every state, for fixing tariff systems and charges are to be established. The functions are similar that of the electricity regulators, with a national level forum for dispute resolution and deliberation on policy and performance issues.
The concern lies in the government’s proposal to withdraw itself from the role of the service provider in favour of private operators acting in cooperation with the community. Currently, these duties are vested in the municipality / public agencies, whose performance is dismal and community interaction non-existent. This is bound to raise two issues – one whether access to water is a right, the other whether privatisation is beneficial for the poor and environment. The policy is silent on a Right to Water Act, this should be addressed before privatisation is intensified.
Privatisation of distribution of electricity and related services has substantially improved overall power situations in India and other developing nations. Can privatisation work as a pan India model for water? Of all natural resources, water is the most emotive issue being regarded as a survival necessity. Will privatisation provide the requisite efficiency in meeting all targets at affordable costs?
Privatisation of any kind, particularly in the infrastructure sector, is the replacement of the public sector, which has failed to address the needs. Hence the pilot project funded by World Bank was introduced in Greater Mumbai. Empirical evidence shows rise in tariffs; and there are conflicting views on the performance, though the mis-governance appears attributable to the local agency MCGM. The situation is a catch 22 one. Commercialisation of the water sector is part of the change in approach to infrastructure and is essential to achieve a viable solution to water woes. But the state’s duty cannot be easily abdicated. Civil societies will be on the alert for the slightest hint of failure and will hold the state accountable.
Kumkum Sen is a partner at Bharucha & Partners Delhi Office and can be reached at kumkum.sen@bharucha.in