Policy dilemma in drinking water supply services in Sri Lanka
Compared to several countries in the region, India (88 per cent), Pakistan (52 per cent), Bangladesh (73 per cent) Sri Lanka (89.7 per cent) are doing well with respect to providing access to safe drinking water and sanitation to its people (source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation & IBNET).
File picture of a resident transporting water to her home in a village outside Colombo. Several areas still struggle to have access to drinking water.
Sri Lanka has a mean annual rainfall of around 2000 milimetres (mm). However, while some areas receive more than 5300 mm others receive less than 900 mm rainfall per year and the uneven spatial distribution of available safe water results in water scarcity in some parts of the country.
Of the total renewable water resources 88 per cent is used for irrigation while in the case of domestic consumption it’s 6 per cent and industry 6 per cent.
Four organisations are mainly responsible for water resources in Sri Lanka: Irrigation Department (ID), Provincial Irrigation Departments under local government administration, Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) and the Agrarian Development Department.
There are several other organisations that use water like the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ceylon Electricity Board, etc. In addition landowners have rights to tap the water underneath their land and thus to water stored in the common aquifer. Water sharing among each users has to be coordinated effectively and further strengthened. On the other hand the country is frequently experiencing prolonged drought possibly due to climate change while some parts of the country have very limited water resources and people believe that water is a human right and should be provided as a free service. National water Supply and Drainage Board as a principle organisation is struggling to provide drinking water to the nation.
Taking the case of the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB), it’s under these external influences that the NWSDB is providing the major portion of pipe borne water supply presently to nearly 10 million people, mostly urban population which is around 49.6 per cent of the 21.5 million total population in the country. Besides such external challenges, there are several internal constraints such as huge funding requirement for service expansions, repayment of loans, political recruitments etc. Water resources deterioration and climate change and drought etc are also major issues to be tackled in the future. The Government has declared a target of achieving 60 per cent pipe borne water coverage by year 2020. It also expects the NWSDB to find its own funding for the projects undertaken towards expansion of production capacity towards achieving this goal (unlike earlier when the Treasury provided funds for such projects). The Government also expects commercial viability in water services, while on the other hand key decision makers are not in favour of promoting cost recovery tariff measures. Thus it appears government policies are not in tandem with its own actions on the ground. On the other hand innovative ways of project financing going beyond the traditional loan based project financing could be considered.
The issues faced in executing its functions to the satisfaction of the consumers while maintaining commercial viability and taking measures to meet the government’s benchmark of 60 per cent pipe borne water coverage by year 2020 was the focus of discussion at a recent discussion of the Institution of Engineers of Sri Lanka – IESL National Policy Forum under the theme “How Conducive is Water Supply and Sanitation Policy for Economic and Social Development of the Country”.
Senior officials of the NWSDB at the discussion pointed out that the NWSDB currently produces around 700 million cubic metres per year drinking water to cover 39.1 per cent of the total 49.6 per cent pipe borne water coverage in the country. Increasing the coverage to 60 per cent by 2020 would require additional production capacity for about 200 million cubic metres per year. They say that while all efforts are being made, despite the earlier mentioned constraints, saner council should prevail among policy makers, if results are to be achieved without affecting commercial viability and pushing the NWSDB in to debt burden.
Thus it’s imperative that policies be adopted and strictly followed conforming to financial accountability and discipline without acting on populist policies determined with vote consciousness. They point out that there have been many policies adopted in the past which have been forgotten along the way in the face of conflicting political decisions. The National Policy on Private Sector Participation in Water Supply and Sanitation of 1999, National Policy for Rural Water Supply of 2001, Tariff Policy on Drinking Water of 2013, National Drinking Water Policy of 2013 and National Policy on Drinking Water Supply of 2014 are among policies that didn’t fully move towards envisaged objectives. Similar fate has befallen the Policy on Sewerage Tariff of 2002 and National Policy on Sanitation of 2017 with sewerage systems which are usually very costly.
They were all affected by populist decisions taken in direct conflict with well thought out long term policies.
It is in this light that they point out that the tariff proposal of 2018, currently a subject of debate, had been formulated to ensure financial viability of the NWSDB with due social considerations. The change in price proposed by it has much less impact on the consumer than comparative price changes of other essential food items and electricity .
The tariff structure, they say, should be cost reflective while also ensuring consumer protection. The practice of cross subsidisation of domestic consumer by revenue earned from non-domestic consumer should be reduced with smart subsidies targeting real needy segments. Domestic tariff should be set on steeply rising blocks for consumptions over and above lifeline blocks. These aspects have been incorporated in to the 2018 tariff proposal and the Government should explain the rationale and long term benefit that would accrue by the changes, instead of actions that are populist in reaction to criticisms.
Furthermore, they say, they are working on reforming an institutional set-up for meeting the demand with the changing environment toward achieving coverage targets with sustainable operation and maintenance of existing water supply schemes. It is also highlighted that a bottom heavy organisation with over 10,000 employees is a big burden and political recruitment without having need analysis has to be stopped.