Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Sri Lankan Struggle for keeping water public



Hemantha Withanage[1]

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. Jakarta is same. However, despite the Asian Development Bank’s and World Bank’s strong pressure to adopt ‘privatisation friendly water policy’, Sri Lankan water is still remaining in the public hand. This is so far because of the civil society struggle for keeping water public.

Among the water management and water governance models, Colombo water is one of the best managed water utility in the world. But it has problems too. According to the ADB “notwithstanding that, National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) is one of the better performing water utilities in South Asia and the existence of sound cost recovery policies in the water supply sector, the lack of autonomy in terms of financial authority, tariffs, and staffing has prevented NWSDB from realizing its true potential.”[2]

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 Colombo was nearly 200 liters in 1995: it in 2001 only 140 liters.”

Nevertheless, Colombo and all other water facilities have a problem with finding adequate water source. According to the Government estimates that about 70 percent of the country's population of 20 million receive safe and adequate water supply. However, only about 30 percent of the population receives a piped water supply. Many piped water supply schemes are in need of rehabilitation to reduce water losses and provide 24-hour service. Most people obtain water from dug wells, streams and small water schemes. However, no figures about the situation in the north and east for 3 million of the population live.

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 Sri Lanka has water available through protected wells. Only 14% of the rural population has access to piped water.”

“From a global perspective, Sri Lanka appears to be below the developing country level (78% with access to improved water source) and far below the standards for South Asia which is 85%. 91% of the population in the Western province had access to safe drinking water, with Colombo district recording the highest of 95%. From the available data the lowest was in the Mannar district of 21.2%.”[4]

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 Sri Lanka is approximately 19,288 km2 or 30% of land area. Forest cover has declined over the years from 80% in 1881 to 24% in 1990. Between 1990 and 2001, the proportion of land area covered by dense forest decreased by 6.6% while sparse forest increased by a marginal 2.6%. This is mainly monoculture which has no importance as a watershed.

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 Colombo water supply and sanitation is the unmanaged sewerage facilities. According to the ADB, even the sewerage in Colombo requires urgent rehabilitation estimated at more than $100 million.

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 Sri Lanka

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 Kelani River to protect the water supply intake for Colombo from salinity intrusion.

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 Sri Lanka "for the Water Resources Management Project" states categorically that:

"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.

  1. Denial of water as a right and inability to consider water as a common resource.
  2. Transferable water entitlements would not benefit the poor, given extensive indebtedness among these communities, and their inability to satisfy even basic needs?
  3. Making water entitlements transferable will promote water privatisation and it will give no solution to water conservation and equitable water allocation.
  4. No transparent process was adopted.
  5. 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".
  6. Introduction of full cost recovery, ‘water tax’ and irrigation tax would increase the cost of other products including stable food rice.
  7. Private sector participation proposed by the policy will lead to water commodification and hand over natural resource to corporations and increase of water tariff.
  8. 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 Colombo on 19th February.

- Discussion with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) which promote IFI rhetoric was held in Colombo on 02nd March 2001.

- “Adhishtana Vandana”, a people’s march to protect people’s water rights from Anuradhapura to Kataragama was held in 19th to 22nd of March 20 with the participation of more than 5000 farmers and NGO representatives.

- 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 Sri Lanka. However, public in Sri Lanka are completely against marketing of water in Sri Lanka. As MONLAR pointed out “New government agreed in its manifesto: ‘Water is one of the prime resources of our country. The owner of these valuable resources should be the people of this country’. Unfortunately the new policy is not much different to the first version prepared by foreign consultants. The new documents would show that the process of revision has been confined to cutting a few controversial words and adding some charming prose by way of introduction, with no fundamental change in the meaning or purpose.”

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 Anuradhapura water utility was ended up in the Appeal court. Similar problem was somehow settled in drawing water from “Kadupity oya” Madampe in Chilaw. Many such incidents in rural areas where free flowing water converted to water projects. The underline problem is how better share water between agriculture and drinking while maintaining downstream flow.

While the nation is in debate, more than 140 private sector (small and large) bottle water companies entered to the water market in Sri Lanka. Ground water in Colombo city and metropolitan areas are not suitable for drinking anymore. Kaleni river where the main water supply for Colombo is polluted and saline water intrusion become a real problem. Ground water level in most areas gone deeper and deaper across the country. Environmental Authorities haven’t been able to tackle water pollution. In short, Sri Lankan water sector is not in good hands. Many different agencies involve in the water sector has no collaboration and coordination settling the issues.

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 Sri Lanka. However, crisis management approach in the water sector and hidden agendas of the governments and IFIs already destroyed the opportunities to settle the problems early.

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 Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan authorities need to depart from the crisis management in water sector and engage in a true dialogue to settle the issues.

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 Sri Lanka.

***

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

North Western Province Water Resources Development Project

$30 million 1992

ADB

North Central Province Rural Development Project

$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 Sri Lanka: by the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform

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

Secondary Towns and Rural Community-Based Water Supply and Sanitation Project

$60.3 million 2003

ADB

Source: The Authors of Water Policy in Sri Lanka: by the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform


[1] Hemantha Withanage is the current Executive Director of NGO Forum on ADB, a civil society network based in Manila. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Environmental Justice based in Sri Lanka. Hemantha held Senior Environmental Scientist and Executive Director Positions of the Environmental Foundation Ltd, Sri Lanka since 1990 until 2003.

[2] ADB Technical Assistance Report, 2001

[3] Cecilia Tortajada, Third World Centre for Water Management, December 2002

[4] MGD Country Report 2005

[5] Source: The Authors of Water Policy in Sri Lanka: by the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform

[6] Source: ADB

[7] Source ADB

[8] Green Movement of Sri Lanka

[9] AGAINST COMMODITIZATION OF LIFE -The activities of the Green Movement of Sri Lanka on the PRSPs and Water Privatization- 2007

No comments: