நீர் வற்றிப் போனதென்று நெஞ்சத்தில் நெருப்பு!
Supriya SharmaTuesday, January 29, 2008 (New Delhi)
Across India, there is a rising tide of water privatisation projects made possible in recent years by a radical departure in the way national policy views water.
Water is no longer just a public service to be delivered by governments but a resource to be managed well if need be, with the participation of the private sector.
National Water Policy 2002:Private sector participation should be encouraged in planning, development and management of water resources projects may help in introducing innovative ideas, generating financial resources and introducing corporate management and improving service efficiency and accountability to users.It's a shift that parallels wider international trends sharply critiqued by environmentalists like Vandana Shiva who has argued against the commodification of water.
Excerpts from Vandana Shiva's book:Water is a commons, a public good. Privatization is the enclosure of the water commons. Will water be viewed and treated as a commodity, or will it be viewed and treated as the very basis of life?In a New Delhi slum colony whether they want to or not, the poor have to view water as a commodity.
''Private tankers charge Rs 500 for 5,000 litres. But we have to pay. How do we survive without water? asked a Delhi slum resident.
Seen from the perspective of the urban poor, the moral critique of water privatisation begins to falter.
In fact, it's this failure of the public sector to provide water to all or to regulate its use that has formed the basis for those who argue that like other resources, water too must be more efficiently utilised.
Where the debate actually gets polarized is whether bringing in efficiency also means bringing in the private sector?
''From the World Bank's perspective, the issue is not one of private versus public,'' said David Grey, Senior Water Advisor, World Bank.
The World Bank seen as the greatest supporter of privatisation is keen to distance itself from what it calls an ideological debate.
''We are not ideological about which is better than the other. It depends on circumstance. And the important thing is when services are very poor we have to look at alternative solutions,'' Grey added.
''The question is of distibution, in plugging leakages. The non-revenue water in Indian cities is 50-60 per cent. If you reduce those leakages, you increase water supply by that much. If you compare Delhi with Paris, Delhi has 220 litres per capita water while Paris has 150 litres per capita. Paris has water 24x7. So why can't Delhi? asked Smita Misra, Senior Economist, World Bank.
Supporters of privatisation argue private companies are better placed to increase efficiency. Critics say private companies will raise tariffs making water unaffordable.
Apprehensions that get heightened each time a water privatisation plan is brought in quietly. Like in New Delhi, where Right to Information activists found plans to privatise Delhi's water supply been concealed from the public.
''This project was being envisaged since 1998 and till 2004 public had no idea that reform project or privatisation was being envisaged for the Delhi Jal Board,'' said Suchi Pandey, RTI Activist.
''When we asked them how do they plan to go about it, we found the private company will only be responsible for supply to district metering board, not households. So whether water actually gets delivered to homes or not is nobody's responsibility,'' Pandey added.
Each time controversy hits water privatisation projects, the debate becomes even more polarized at the cost of the real concerns, says environmentalist Sunita Narain.
Sunita Narain says:
''The larger debate in India is not about water privatisation, it should not be. The larger debate in urban India should be how do you make safe water available to all. The biggest issue in urban India is in the name of the poor; it is the rich who are being subsidized for water.
The other problem is in the technologies we are adopting for water supply, we are bringing water from further and further away. The longer the distance the water has to travel the more the leakages.
The problem is this debate has become so polarised between one camp the world bank, which essentially believes the answer to efficiency lies in privatisation, and the activists who believe privatisation will deprive poor even further.
I think the answer is not either private or public, the answer is really combination of both, but understanding is the only way to deal with inefficiency in the system is when you first learn to pay for it.
And you will never be able to pay the right price for water and sewage because it's too costly; you have to change the tech both for supply of water and taking back the sewage. Both sides are completely missing the point.
I think we should get out of debate over private. I think the issue really is you need to regulate the supply of water and the taking back of sewage of homes, don't de-link the two.
Remember in every country the body, which supplies water public utility, should always take back the sewage so that cost to system is affordable.
Once you begin to think like this, pieces will fit together, today these agencies are called inefficient because urban populations cannot even pay price for water supplied to them as well as sewage.
Bangalore charges most for water at Rs five per 1,000 litres, yet to supply it costs Rs 40. Mumbai charges less than Rs 2 however, long distance pipelines leakages costs Rs 30-40. If you were to take back sewage it's five times more expensive, so we must start thinking differently.
And I think the people who are crying public or private are completely missing the point that it's not about public and private. It's about the affordability of technology of supply of water and taking back the sewage and currently the urban rich India is wasteful. It is subsidised literally as we say to defecate inconvenience.
This is not about private or public this is about finding a new technology which we in urban India can afford, if we can afford it, our public utilities, our Delhi Jal Board or our municipal will become more profitable we do not need private agencies, private agencies are not per se more efficient.''
Water is no longer just a public service to be delivered by governments but a resource to be managed well if need be, with the participation of the private sector.
National Water Policy 2002:Private sector participation should be encouraged in planning, development and management of water resources projects may help in introducing innovative ideas, generating financial resources and introducing corporate management and improving service efficiency and accountability to users.It's a shift that parallels wider international trends sharply critiqued by environmentalists like Vandana Shiva who has argued against the commodification of water.
Excerpts from Vandana Shiva's book:Water is a commons, a public good. Privatization is the enclosure of the water commons. Will water be viewed and treated as a commodity, or will it be viewed and treated as the very basis of life?In a New Delhi slum colony whether they want to or not, the poor have to view water as a commodity.
''Private tankers charge Rs 500 for 5,000 litres. But we have to pay. How do we survive without water? asked a Delhi slum resident.
Seen from the perspective of the urban poor, the moral critique of water privatisation begins to falter.
In fact, it's this failure of the public sector to provide water to all or to regulate its use that has formed the basis for those who argue that like other resources, water too must be more efficiently utilised.
Where the debate actually gets polarized is whether bringing in efficiency also means bringing in the private sector?
''From the World Bank's perspective, the issue is not one of private versus public,'' said David Grey, Senior Water Advisor, World Bank.
The World Bank seen as the greatest supporter of privatisation is keen to distance itself from what it calls an ideological debate.
''We are not ideological about which is better than the other. It depends on circumstance. And the important thing is when services are very poor we have to look at alternative solutions,'' Grey added.
''The question is of distibution, in plugging leakages. The non-revenue water in Indian cities is 50-60 per cent. If you reduce those leakages, you increase water supply by that much. If you compare Delhi with Paris, Delhi has 220 litres per capita water while Paris has 150 litres per capita. Paris has water 24x7. So why can't Delhi? asked Smita Misra, Senior Economist, World Bank.
Supporters of privatisation argue private companies are better placed to increase efficiency. Critics say private companies will raise tariffs making water unaffordable.
Apprehensions that get heightened each time a water privatisation plan is brought in quietly. Like in New Delhi, where Right to Information activists found plans to privatise Delhi's water supply been concealed from the public.
''This project was being envisaged since 1998 and till 2004 public had no idea that reform project or privatisation was being envisaged for the Delhi Jal Board,'' said Suchi Pandey, RTI Activist.
''When we asked them how do they plan to go about it, we found the private company will only be responsible for supply to district metering board, not households. So whether water actually gets delivered to homes or not is nobody's responsibility,'' Pandey added.
Each time controversy hits water privatisation projects, the debate becomes even more polarized at the cost of the real concerns, says environmentalist Sunita Narain.
Sunita Narain says:
''The larger debate in India is not about water privatisation, it should not be. The larger debate in urban India should be how do you make safe water available to all. The biggest issue in urban India is in the name of the poor; it is the rich who are being subsidized for water.
The other problem is in the technologies we are adopting for water supply, we are bringing water from further and further away. The longer the distance the water has to travel the more the leakages.
The problem is this debate has become so polarised between one camp the world bank, which essentially believes the answer to efficiency lies in privatisation, and the activists who believe privatisation will deprive poor even further.
I think the answer is not either private or public, the answer is really combination of both, but understanding is the only way to deal with inefficiency in the system is when you first learn to pay for it.
And you will never be able to pay the right price for water and sewage because it's too costly; you have to change the tech both for supply of water and taking back the sewage. Both sides are completely missing the point.
I think we should get out of debate over private. I think the issue really is you need to regulate the supply of water and the taking back of sewage of homes, don't de-link the two.
Remember in every country the body, which supplies water public utility, should always take back the sewage so that cost to system is affordable.
Once you begin to think like this, pieces will fit together, today these agencies are called inefficient because urban populations cannot even pay price for water supplied to them as well as sewage.
Bangalore charges most for water at Rs five per 1,000 litres, yet to supply it costs Rs 40. Mumbai charges less than Rs 2 however, long distance pipelines leakages costs Rs 30-40. If you were to take back sewage it's five times more expensive, so we must start thinking differently.
And I think the people who are crying public or private are completely missing the point that it's not about public and private. It's about the affordability of technology of supply of water and taking back the sewage and currently the urban rich India is wasteful. It is subsidised literally as we say to defecate inconvenience.
This is not about private or public this is about finding a new technology which we in urban India can afford, if we can afford it, our public utilities, our Delhi Jal Board or our municipal will become more profitable we do not need private agencies, private agencies are not per se more efficient.''
Coke adds strife to Indian water shortage
View GalleryBy Nick DraineyNick Drainey's world viewINDIAA leading environmental research group has asked Coca-Cola to consider shutting down a bottling plant in the drought-stricken state of Rajasthan, saying that it is depleting scarce water supplies.
The recommendation came in a report released last week by the Energy and Resources Institute which was commissioned by Coca-Cola in 2006 in response to reports that pesticide residues had been found in its products.
The study found no pesticides in the water used at the six bottling plants it sampled.
But the report expressed concern about the company's use of scarce water supplies – an issue raised repeatedly by villagers who live near several of the company's bottling sites.
The assessment looked at six of the company's 49 bottling plants in India, but highlighted conditions at the Kaladera plant in Rajasthan. Its presence in this area would "continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to the communities around," it said. The company should find alternative water supplies, relocate or shut down the plant, the report concluded.
Atul Singh, chief executive of Coke's India division, said the company was not considering shutting the plant. "The easiest thing would be to shut down, but the solution is not to run away," he said. "If we shut down, Rajasthan is still going to have a water problem. We want to work with farming communities and industries to reduce the amount of water used."
View GalleryBy Nick DraineyNick Drainey's world viewINDIAA leading environmental research group has asked Coca-Cola to consider shutting down a bottling plant in the drought-stricken state of Rajasthan, saying that it is depleting scarce water supplies.
The recommendation came in a report released last week by the Energy and Resources Institute which was commissioned by Coca-Cola in 2006 in response to reports that pesticide residues had been found in its products.
The study found no pesticides in the water used at the six bottling plants it sampled.
But the report expressed concern about the company's use of scarce water supplies – an issue raised repeatedly by villagers who live near several of the company's bottling sites.
The assessment looked at six of the company's 49 bottling plants in India, but highlighted conditions at the Kaladera plant in Rajasthan. Its presence in this area would "continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to the communities around," it said. The company should find alternative water supplies, relocate or shut down the plant, the report concluded.
Atul Singh, chief executive of Coke's India division, said the company was not considering shutting the plant. "The easiest thing would be to shut down, but the solution is not to run away," he said. "If we shut down, Rajasthan is still going to have a water problem. We want to work with farming communities and industries to reduce the amount of water used."
India has an increasingly important role in global affairs: Brown
“We should be working together for the benefit of each other, and, in partnership, taking a leadership role in the world” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
The U.K. and India already have a strong relationship. We have bilateral ties covering a huge number of areas and we work closely in the many international organisations of which we are both members. India’s largest overseas investment is in the U.K. — Tata Corus — and one of the very largest investments in to India is Vodafone’s from the U.K. My visit to India this week will be an opportunity to build on these links and to take our relationship to a new level.
The world is no longer a place divided into developed and developing countries; east and west; rich and poor. Our challenges and opportunities are becoming increasingly shared. India, for example, now has more billionaires than we do, and we have more than a million people of Indian origin living in the U.K. Governments around the world face more and more of the same issues; and relationships between countries have to change in response.
India is a beacon of democracy and the rule of law in a region that has more than its fair share of problems. But its strengths go beyond the region. India has an increasingly important role in global affairs. Both India and the U.K. agree that the global institutions established in the 1940s and 1950s are now outdated and are not fit for purpose. During my visit, I will give a speech in which I will outline how global institutions must adapt to meet the new global challenges. At the heart of any changes should be an India with a seat at the top table. And I will propose to Prime Minister Singh that we appoint two special representatives to report back to us on how best to take forward the reform agenda.
Part of any global leadership role involves dealing with terrorism. At the last U.K./India summit, we signed up to greater counter-terrorism cooperation. This has already borne fruit. This week I will discuss with Prime Minister Singh how we can take this cooperation forward still further. Neither of our countries are strangers to terrorism, and by sharing our experiences, we can help each other tackle the root causes of terrorism, and, ideally, stop it from happening in the first place.
On my visit, I will be bringing a delegation of senior business leaders, and the heads of some of the U.K.’s top universities. I am keen that we build on the strong ties that already exist in business and education. Although we are one of the top investors in India, I want to see more U.K. companies doing business here, and more Indian companies choosing the U.K. as their global headquarters. There are plenty of success stories: JCB now sells more excavators in India than it does in the U.K. — but I want these success stories to keep on growing in number. This will require partnership. For example, a British bank is keen to set up 100 rural branches in India.
The English language is a huge shared asset and one I believe we can do more to exploit. English language proficiency opens the door to educational and employment opportunity, and we must work increasingly closely together in this area. I welcome the British Council’s new commitments to develop teacher-training capacity with Indian partners, aiming to train 750,000 teachers across India in the next five years.
On education, over 20,000 Indians are currently studying in the U.K. But I believe that by forming links between some of the best institutions in our two countries, we can have far more than that number benefiting from the U.K. education system, we can encourage more U.K. students to come to India to study, and we can increase research collaboration particularly in those subjects like nanotechnology where our countries excel. It is for this reason that both Oxford University and Imperial College London will be coming to India to sign agreements with Indian institutions during the summit.
One urgent challenge facing all countries in the world is climate change. We are facing a catastrophe unless the world acts together. The impacts of rising temperatures and more extreme weather are already being felt in the U.K.; but India faces disastrous consequences. In my discussions with Prime Minister Singh, I will lay out the U.K.’s point of view: climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, this problem was caused by developed countries, and the weight of responsibility to solve it lies with us. I will also discuss how we can cooperate to build consensus for a global climate deal in 2009. The Bali conference was a good start because all countries agreed to mitigate emissions in varying degrees. The U.K. is doing its bit. We are the first country to put carbon reductions into law — up to 32% by 2020, and 60% by 2050. We are also committed to helping countries like India ensure their growth is climate resilient through building capacity, financing, and technology transfer.
Another very important issue for me is that of development. It has become a cliché that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be met globally unless they are met in India. It is for this simple reason that I am determined that the U.K. Government will do what it can to work in partnership with the Government of India to address the issues of maternal and child health, gender equality, clean drinking water, access to education, and the other MDGs. We need to establish where the U.K. Government can add value to what India is already doing, either through our expertise and experience, or with financial assistance. And India’s emergence on the international stage means the time is now right to use our combined knowledge and resources to expand this partnership to tackle poverty globally. While India is becoming a global power, we accept that many parts of the country are lagging behind. In Bihar, a shocking 58% of children under three are undernourished. This single State is home to 46 million poor people (or 5% of the world’s poor). That is why DFID is proud to announce a new programme of support in Bihar focusing on health, nutrition and urban development.
So, I come here as a friend of India, and a friend of Prime Minister Singh. I am keen to help showcase some of the best elements of India in the U.K. – which is why I will be visiting two of India’s leading educational institutions and meeting some of India’s top business leaders. And I hope that my discussions with Prime Minister Singh will move the U.K./India relationship forward. We should be working together for the benefit of each other, and, in partnership, taking a leadership role in the world.
(The writer is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
The U.K. and India already have a strong relationship. We have bilateral ties covering a huge number of areas and we work closely in the many international organisations of which we are both members. India’s largest overseas investment is in the U.K. — Tata Corus — and one of the very largest investments in to India is Vodafone’s from the U.K. My visit to India this week will be an opportunity to build on these links and to take our relationship to a new level.
The world is no longer a place divided into developed and developing countries; east and west; rich and poor. Our challenges and opportunities are becoming increasingly shared. India, for example, now has more billionaires than we do, and we have more than a million people of Indian origin living in the U.K. Governments around the world face more and more of the same issues; and relationships between countries have to change in response.
India is a beacon of democracy and the rule of law in a region that has more than its fair share of problems. But its strengths go beyond the region. India has an increasingly important role in global affairs. Both India and the U.K. agree that the global institutions established in the 1940s and 1950s are now outdated and are not fit for purpose. During my visit, I will give a speech in which I will outline how global institutions must adapt to meet the new global challenges. At the heart of any changes should be an India with a seat at the top table. And I will propose to Prime Minister Singh that we appoint two special representatives to report back to us on how best to take forward the reform agenda.
Part of any global leadership role involves dealing with terrorism. At the last U.K./India summit, we signed up to greater counter-terrorism cooperation. This has already borne fruit. This week I will discuss with Prime Minister Singh how we can take this cooperation forward still further. Neither of our countries are strangers to terrorism, and by sharing our experiences, we can help each other tackle the root causes of terrorism, and, ideally, stop it from happening in the first place.
On my visit, I will be bringing a delegation of senior business leaders, and the heads of some of the U.K.’s top universities. I am keen that we build on the strong ties that already exist in business and education. Although we are one of the top investors in India, I want to see more U.K. companies doing business here, and more Indian companies choosing the U.K. as their global headquarters. There are plenty of success stories: JCB now sells more excavators in India than it does in the U.K. — but I want these success stories to keep on growing in number. This will require partnership. For example, a British bank is keen to set up 100 rural branches in India.
The English language is a huge shared asset and one I believe we can do more to exploit. English language proficiency opens the door to educational and employment opportunity, and we must work increasingly closely together in this area. I welcome the British Council’s new commitments to develop teacher-training capacity with Indian partners, aiming to train 750,000 teachers across India in the next five years.
On education, over 20,000 Indians are currently studying in the U.K. But I believe that by forming links between some of the best institutions in our two countries, we can have far more than that number benefiting from the U.K. education system, we can encourage more U.K. students to come to India to study, and we can increase research collaboration particularly in those subjects like nanotechnology where our countries excel. It is for this reason that both Oxford University and Imperial College London will be coming to India to sign agreements with Indian institutions during the summit.
One urgent challenge facing all countries in the world is climate change. We are facing a catastrophe unless the world acts together. The impacts of rising temperatures and more extreme weather are already being felt in the U.K.; but India faces disastrous consequences. In my discussions with Prime Minister Singh, I will lay out the U.K.’s point of view: climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, this problem was caused by developed countries, and the weight of responsibility to solve it lies with us. I will also discuss how we can cooperate to build consensus for a global climate deal in 2009. The Bali conference was a good start because all countries agreed to mitigate emissions in varying degrees. The U.K. is doing its bit. We are the first country to put carbon reductions into law — up to 32% by 2020, and 60% by 2050. We are also committed to helping countries like India ensure their growth is climate resilient through building capacity, financing, and technology transfer.
Another very important issue for me is that of development. It has become a cliché that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will not be met globally unless they are met in India. It is for this simple reason that I am determined that the U.K. Government will do what it can to work in partnership with the Government of India to address the issues of maternal and child health, gender equality, clean drinking water, access to education, and the other MDGs. We need to establish where the U.K. Government can add value to what India is already doing, either through our expertise and experience, or with financial assistance. And India’s emergence on the international stage means the time is now right to use our combined knowledge and resources to expand this partnership to tackle poverty globally. While India is becoming a global power, we accept that many parts of the country are lagging behind. In Bihar, a shocking 58% of children under three are undernourished. This single State is home to 46 million poor people (or 5% of the world’s poor). That is why DFID is proud to announce a new programme of support in Bihar focusing on health, nutrition and urban development.
So, I come here as a friend of India, and a friend of Prime Minister Singh. I am keen to help showcase some of the best elements of India in the U.K. – which is why I will be visiting two of India’s leading educational institutions and meeting some of India’s top business leaders. And I hope that my discussions with Prime Minister Singh will move the U.K./India relationship forward. We should be working together for the benefit of each other, and, in partnership, taking a leadership role in the world.
(The writer is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)
No comments:
Post a Comment