Columns

A report that the Government plans to introduce a tax on drinking wells has revived a debate on the controversial question of water pricing that goes back to the 1990s. The plan which if implemented will have far reaching consequences on the lives of ordinary people, is to be introduced through amendments to the Water Resources Board Act of 1964.

Anyone who digs a well for drinking, agricultural, commercial or industrial purpose will have to buy an annual permit at a cost ranging from Rs 7,500 to 15,000 a year according to the report. The registration fee for digging a tube well will be Rs. 15,000 with an annual renewal fee of Rs 10,000. Prior registration is required for digging agricultural wells, wells for domestic use and water projects of a commercial or industrial nature. The WRB will have wide-ranging powers to manage, regulate and control all natural and groundwater resources in the country. There will be heavy penalties such as suspension of the registration or forfeiture of all assets of those who violate the regulations. Although conflicting statements have been made by some government ministers, the Chairman of the Water Resources Board Bandula Munasinghe, to whom the story is attributed (Daily Mirror 19.10.12) has not denied any of the details that were reported.

The envisaged regulations do not seem to distinguish between individual users such as families using a well for their domestic needs and commercial users such as owners of bottling plants for drinking water. Nor does it seem to make any concession to the millions of small farmers who represent the bulk of the farming community in the country and are the mainstay of the rural economy. Just as in agriculture, when it comes to small and medium scale businesses too, those affected would be a great many, in terms of absolute numbers, although their capitalization may be low.
Will rivers, streams and water bodies that are used for day to day needs by the rural population from time immemorial, no longer be freely accessible to them? How will the authorities extract these payments from farmers who are already facing countless hardships on account of high production costs, low prices for their produce, and heavy indebtedness? In these circumstances activists say any attempt to enforce such harsh regulations is likely to invite mass non-compliance by farmers, if not mass protests.

Regulations that seek to put a price on water and convert it into a commodity are not only highly impractical but politically untenable as well. They disregard the reality that water is a human right. Both the UNP government of 2001-2003 and SLFP-led governments that followed, attempted to introduce similar reforms under different guises, and had to backtrack following public outcry. It is generally known that the pressure on governments to introduce these changes comes from the World Bank (WB) and Asian Development Bank (ADB). This seems to be the case this time around too, although it is not overtly stated.

The surreptitious manner in which an earlier attempt was made to introduce a water tax through a Water Bill, was reported in the Sunday Times of 03.12.2000. The important policy document on the draft Bill was not made available to the public or the media although the paper obtained it through other means.  According to the report, the then Water Resources Management minister Sarath Amunugama initially claimed that it was merely some notes made by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). It was only when the Sunday Times let on that they had in fact seen the document that he acknowledged its existence. Dr Amunugama was appointed as the new Deputy Minister of Finance in President Rajapaksa’s cabinet on Thursday.

The UNP regime of 2001-2003 sought to bring in an Act on pipe borne water, which was abandoned after a court ruled that some of its provisions were unconstitutional. The debate was again resumed in 2006 with the publication of a draft National Water Resources Management Policy which sought to introduce a system of ‘permits’ or ‘entitlements.’
The idea behind the several attempts by multilateral lending institutions to attach a price tag to water is to establish in principle that water is a marketable commodity. Environmentalists and farmers’ rights activists are vehemently opposed to allowing this quantum leap to take place. The conversion of water into a commodity represents a radical departure from the present status where water belongs to all – rich and poor, plants and animals. It is everybody’s common heritage, just like the sea and the air. This is known as the ‘global commons,’ of which the ‘national commons’ are a part.

If ‘ownership’ of water is yet to be established, how can state agencies take it upon themselves to ‘sell’ the rights to it?
Analysts point out that the thrust of the World Bank/ADB proposals is privatisation. To this end, their recommendations usually ask for state authorities to undertake the mapping, monitoring and enforcement of regulations, thereby ensuring a certain level of uniformity and efficiency, without which business would not be attractive.

Although there are fears of water scarcity in the years ahead at the global level, experts say Sri Lanka is located in one of the world’s highest rainfall areas and refer to studies that indicate it is the only country in the region with an excess of water. Are the multilateral lenders preparing the ground for multinational corporations do big business in Sri Lanka, using its abundant water resources?

The government’s rationale for the new regulations, articulated by the WRB chairman, is “to protect water resources of the country for future generations as it has become one of the highly endangered commodities due to its haphazard use and environment pollution.” This sudden expression of concern for future generations on the part of the government sounds incongruous, in the wake of a series of scandals relating to sub-standard cement, contaminated fuel, fraudulent investments of public funds etc., etc., all of which reflected scant regard for the public good. The more likely explanation is that the government is facing pressures from the lending institutions at a time when the securing loans depends on bowing to their dictates. While ‘protecting water resources for future generations’ is all well and good, we need to ask – who’s calling the shots in formulating policy, and for whose benefit?

Follow @timesonlinelk

comments powered by Disqus

Tamil-speaking US troops

The final nail in the coffin of the judiciary

Whatever the Chief Justice may say, Govt. will have its way

Tough judge, rigged jury and executive executioner

Export or perish: Economic policies for export growth