Water is a right! Water is a ‘common resources’. No one seems to confront this. However, ‘right to water’ means that everybody gets access to ‘free access to water’ is something that people engage in a debate. This debate is endless. However, how to manage water is a question that everybody is trying to answer.
Meanwhile, International Financial institutions powered by the water corporations are moving to engage making water a commodity. Manila water is run by a private corporation.
Among the water management and water governance models,
However, this is perfectly not correct.
According to the research report entitled ‘Impact Evaluation of Greater Colombo Water Supply Project’[3] “the bill collection efficiency of the NWSDB has been excellent. During the 1992-2001 periods, annual bill collection efficiency has varied between 89% and 99%. NWSDB staff has decreased tremendously. For example, in 1991, the Board had 33 staff members per 1000 connections. By 2002, this has been reduced to 11 members per 1000 connections. The demand management policies are already in place. Water Board has already led to the reduction in per capita consumption in the country. For example, the per capita daily consumption of water in
Nevertheless,
According to the 2005 Millennium Development Goal report, “In Sri Lanka approximately 21.5% of the total population lives in urban areas, which cover 0.5% of the country’s total land area. While 75% of the urban population is served with pipe born water, only 14% of the rural population has that benefit. However 65% of the population in
“From a global perspective,
Despite the fact that Asian Development Bank and World Banks has supported many water supply and irrigation related infrastructure development projects in Sri Lanka( see table I and II)[5], Srilankans still face many water problems. Foreign Funded water utility projects mostly target cities. Therefore, situation is more serious in rural areas where more than half of the Sri Lankan population lives. Most water systems in distant cities do not provide 24 hour service. For example, “the district of Batticaloa with a population of about 500,000 (of which half live in urban areas), has only about 1,600 piped water supply connections. The situation is same in Trincomalee and many other dry zone cities.”[6]
Poorly maintained water catchments and irrigation system, pollution have destroyed the natural potable water sources for majority Sri Lankan. The poor live in rural areas face severe water shortage due to droughts, and natural calamities, a result of climate change.
According to MGD Country report 2005, the extent of natural forest eco-systems in
Many of the smaller water supply schemes are operated by local authorities e.g., the Kandy Regional Support Center of NWSDB is responsible for 105 piped schemes, whereas in the same area, local authorities are responsible for 350 schemes. Some of the local authority operated schemes receive a bulk supply of treated water from NWSDB. In rural areas, community involvement in the O&M of water supply schemes is being promoted and non-government organizations are facilitating this process during project implementation.[7]
It is also a fact that most institutional support the Government goes considerable support to the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) for developing and managing the larger piped water supply schemes, but not much has been done to assist local authorities that are legally responsible for water supply.
The biggest problem in
Meanwhile, in many rural areas farmers and domestic water consumers compete for water resources. Water supply is the winner all the time. Lack of water for irrigation keeps farmers out of their field by leading country to a food shortage. Most fertile lands have been abandoned due to lack of water. Meanwhile newly funded schemes organize farmer/ consumer association for water management with more focus on recovering the costs.
Effort to water privatization in
ADB and World Banks are looking for promoting full cost recovery, water entitlement and private sector participation around the world as a principles for regulating water. In 2000 ADB approved a loan for a water resources management project to support the setting up and establishment of the National Water Resources Authority, an apex body that will be responsible for the comprehensive management of water on a river basin basis. Water policy was an attached conditionality to a loan to construct a rubber barrage across the
In April 2000 the Water Secretariat produced a document entitled “National Water Resources Policy and Institutional Arrangements” prepared with the assistance of the ADB - advocates the issue of transferable water entitlements which had obtained Cabinet Approval on March 28, 2000. Arrangements were made to prepare a regulations based on this policy. Although the work had been done to prepare this policy since 1996, there was no popular public awareness except that ADB hired a NGO to conduct some consultations on their behalf. No consultation has been initiated by the government at any level, including subsistence farmers who will be the most seriously affected by such a policy. The Cabinet made no public announcement even after the approval.
As Mr. Sarath Fernando of the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform ( MONLAR) pointed out “the privatization process was the proposal that was made by the World Bank in March 1996 in its “ Non-Plantation Sector Policy alternatives” to stop free water and irrigation to farmers as a means of encouraging small farmers to give up agriculture and sell their land. This policy clearly influenced by the processes advocated by the World Bank lead “World Commission on Water for the 21st Century” which strongly insists on “Pricing of water” and converting water into a “commodity”.”
The process once again proved the wide gap between the ADB's policies and rhetoric and the implementation processes. For instance, the ADB President's August 2000 Report and Recommendation to the Board of Directors on the proposed US $19.7 million loan to
"The first and most important lesson is that, despite a wide range of interests and conflicting mandates, through a process of consultation and participation it is possible to reach consensus among the stakeholders for improved governance in the water sector."
As the Green Movement of Sri Lanka recently pointed out “Yet this is precisely what has been absent so far in the project formulation and planning process, leading a diverse group of local organizations to raise fundamental objections to the secretive nature of the entire process.”
Referring to one incident of the political interest of the water policy Green Movement state that “For instance, villagers of a war-affected "border" area in the Polonnaruwa district in North-East Sri Lanka told us that a single meeting - held under the aegis of the ADB in early 2000 - had become the rationale for the enforced deduction of costs/user fees for common wells from welfare payments under the “Samurdhi scheme”, in order to subsidize mismanagement and corruption by officials in the region. A women's group which resisted this coercion has been threatened, both physically, and with the promise that their welfare subsidies will be withdrawn.”[8]
The water policy approved in 2000 claimed to be for the objective of protecting and conserving the water resources to prevent a future water crisis and to ensure equitable distribution of water for the present and future generations. However, it was found that actual intention of the policy and arrangements were entirely different from its key objectives, but were designed for ownership of all water resources to be vested in the state and to initiate a process of water marketing, diverting much of the water resources in the country for private commercial purposes by inviting international water companies for water marketing. The policy and draft regulations went as far as charging a registration fee for ground well, allocation of water from the flowing rivers and provide an entitlement which can be transferable, sale or mortgage. However, in fairness to the draft policy and regulation, it had many water conservation approaches including some mechanisms for river basin management.
As summary, People opposed to the water policy approved in 2000 based on following reasons.
- Denial of water as a right and inability to consider water as a common resource.
- Transferable water entitlements would not benefit the poor, given extensive indebtedness among these communities, and their inability to satisfy even basic needs?
- Making water entitlements transferable will promote water privatisation and it will give no solution to water conservation and equitable water allocation.
- No transparent process was adopted.
- Charging of user fees in the case of groundwater would be harmful to the poor and marginalised groups of the society including women - who are the "poorest of the poor".
- Introduction of full cost recovery, ‘water tax’ and irrigation tax would increase the cost of other products including stable food rice.
- Private sector participation proposed by the policy will lead to water commodification and hand over natural resource to corporations and increase of water tariff.
- disregard of traditional water management and governance mechanisms
As a civil society response to the Government- ADB joint effort to privatize water, civil society organizations formed a broader coalition together with Farmer organizations, trade unions and NGOs including Green Movement of Sri Lanka, Environmental Foundation Ltd(EFL), Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR), Lawyers for Human Rights and Development (LHRD), Movement for Defense of Democratic Rights (MDDR), Committee for Protection of Farmers Rights, Polonnaruwa, Committee for Protection of Eppawela Phosphate deposits, SETIK, Kandy.
They took diverse action to educate the general public and confront with the political authorities, and bureaucrats with effective media activities. In summary:
- took initiatives to educate public though media and poster campaigns
- participated series of workshops organized by Sri Lanka Foundation Institute proposed water policy and institutional arrangements (April to August 2001)
- “Adhishtana Bhavana”, a peaceful campaign with meditation was carried out in Hingurakgoda on 2001-02-04 on water issues and problems of agricultural sector.
- Produces a People’s Statement on proposed water policy and sent to all Parliamentarians in January 2001.
- Discussions with parliamentarian and civil society organizations held in
- Discussion with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) which promote IFI rhetoric was held in
- “Adhishtana Vandana”, a people’s march to protect people’s water rights from
- A review of proposed water policy was send to the farmer organizations. An awareness program was conducted to farmer organizations, media and the civil society organizations.
- Presented comments to the National science and Technology Commission who were engaged in preparing Alternative water policy.
The Civil society held a traditional view of water and challenged the past attempts to charge fees for water have sparked public outcry. Since 1980s the resistance accumulated to the proposed “water tax” and later against issuing the “water entitlements” under 2000 policy. Civil society lead by NGOs opposed this policy as they would see the policy shift as an attempt to privatization. The struggle leads to confronting then government by the civil society. As a result then Cabinet decided to shelve the approved policy and make alterations.
While ruling government produced a new draft policy paper in 2003, a left wing party within the Coalition Government produced an alternative policy, called “deshiya Water Policy”. However, the policy draft prepared by a Presidents consultant in line with the ADB policy was once again approved by the Government. Other than making objections, “Deshiya water policy” was not seen the light.
However, the approved policy was not fully implemented although there are some areas that have been implemented. Latest attempt to change the water regulations was abandoned in 2005, after a series of cases filed in the Supreme Court.
There were almost twenty versions of the draft policy and at least eight draft bills since the first version emerged in March 2000. At the latest In October 2006, the national newspapers carried a one-page advertisement inviting public views on a draft water policy for
Since Government was not able to fulfil the ADB requirements, ADB cancelled its loan for the water policy which was approved in 2001. However, now the World Bank is in the seen to provide support for the process. According to the Green Movement “The most recent attempt to gather public support for the privatization of water is through the “Navam” program with the finance from the World Bank. This attempts to devolve the power to “privatize” water to each provincial council and once highly localized activity in this respect succeeds then implement a national policy of water privatization. The core component of this drive is to attempt to price water for irrigation. Towards this end, the government is covertly attempting to get the support of farmer’s organizations and thereby force a “collective vote” in favour of privatization of water.”[9]
What can be done?
Now water is a highly politicised subject. Water management is always leading to conflicts when it’s getting scarce. Recent incident at Malawi Aru, in the Eastern province is a good example. But there are many such stories around the Country. Drawing water from Thuruwila tank for
While the nation is in debate, more than 140 private sector (small and large) bottle water companies entered to the water market in
At the same time it cannot be ruined by adopting IFI policy which will lead to private sector control. It is clear that a locally produced water conservation and management policy and active regulation is very important for
It was true there was no public participation during the water policy formulation process. Civil society participation was mishandled by certain organisation that was supported with ADB funds. However, the campaign against the water privatisation assured public voice heard by the decision makers.
Governments certain project have been implemented by the NGOs in some areas under the ADB loan. However, this participation not necessarily good governance but sub-contracting water delivery and construction even charging operation and management costs. Meanwhile, most of them face problems with finding a suitable water source.
With regard to the challenge to change towards a focus which is based on local demands and needs, real participation and pro-poor i.e Negotiated Approach, and improve overall performance to lead to more effectiveness and sustainability in the water sector has not been addressed in the past process. In this sense, both ADB and local process has been used as an excuse for failure over and over again. There was non capacity building and awareness building on the growing water issues.
The local process seems be conducting a social experiment where they implement projects to add to their very slow learning process on the back of local communities’ livelihoods. The government and the bureaucrats seems not learned from the seven year old struggle in
Civil society is not against water management. But public opinion is clear that they are not ready to accept any policy driven by the IFI rules and conditionalities to open water sector for private corporations. We would like to see an open dialogue between the government and the civil society to better manage and conserve water in
***
Table I
Loans for irrigation from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank
| Project | Amount & Date | Agency |
| Walawe Development Project | $7.7 million 1969 | ADB |
| Mahaweli Ganga Development Project I | $29 million 1970 | WB |
| Tank Irrigation Modernisation Project | $5 million 1976 | WB |
| Kirinda Oya Irrigation and Settlement I | $45 million 1976 | ADB |
| Mahaweli Ganga Development Project II | $19 million 1977 | WB |
| Mahaweli Ganga Technical Assistance Project | $3 million 1980 | WB |
| Anuradhapura Dry Zone Agriculture Project | $15 million 1980 | ADB |
| Kirinda Oya Irrigation and Settlement II | $45 million 1981 | ADB |
| Village Irrigation Rehabilitation Project | $30 million 1981 | WB |
| Mahaweli Ganga Development Project III | $90 million 1981 | WB |
| Walawe Irrigation Improvement Project | $15 million 1984 | ADB |
| Major Irrigation Rehabilitation Project | $17 million 1984 | WB |
| Kirinda Oya Irrigation and Settlement III | $45 million 1985 | ADB |
| Agriculture Program Loan | $80 million 1989 | ADB |
| Southern Province Rural Development Project | $38 million 1991 | ADB |
| National Irrigation Rehabilitation Project | $29.6 million 1991 | WB |
| | $30 million 1992 | ADB |
| | $20 million 1996 | ADB |
| Mahaweli Restructuring and Rehabilitation Project | $57 million 1998 | WB |
| North-East Irrigated Agriculture Project I | $27 million 2000 | WB |
| North-East Irrigated Agriculture Project II | $64.7 million 2004 | WB |
| National Water Management Improvement Project | $36 million 2005 | WB |
Source: The Authors of Water Policy in
Table II
Loans for Piped Water from the Asian Development Bank and World Bank
| Project | Amount Date | Agency |
| Water Supply Project I | $9.2 million 1977 | WB |
| Water Supply and Sewerage Project II | $30 million 1980 | WB |
| Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project | $37 million 1986 | WB |
| Water Services Sector Project | $30 million 1986 | ADB |
| Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project I | $24.3 million 1992 | WB |
| Second Water Supply and Sanitation Project | $40 million 1993 | ADB |
| Private Sector Infrastructure Development Project | $77 million 1996 | WB |
| Third Water Supply and Sanitation Project | $75 million 1997 | ADB |
| Water Resources Management Project | $19.7 million 2000 | ADB |
| Community Water Supply and Sanitation Project II | $39.8 million 2003 | WB |
| | $60.3 million 2003 | ADB |
Source: The Authors of Water Policy in
[1] Hemantha Withanage is the current Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, a civil society network based in
[2] ADB Technical Assistance Report, 2001
[3] Cecilia Tortajada,
[4] MGD Country Report 2005
[5] Source: The Authors of Water Policy in
[6] Source: ADB
[7] Source ADB
[8] Green Movement of
No comments:
Post a Comment