Ganga Common Heritage or Corporate Commodity? VANDANA SHIVA KUNWAR JALEES NAVDANYA/RFSTE A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016 Ganga: Common Heritage or Corporate Commodity? © Navdanya, 2003 Published by Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016 INDIA Tel. : 0091-11-26853772, 26532460 Fax : 0091-11-2685 6795 Email : [email protected] Printed by Systems Vision, A-199 Okhla Phase- I New Delhi - 110 020 Contents I INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 II SACRED GANGA .............................................................................................. 6 III THE GANGA RIVER BASIN ........................................................................... 13 IV PRIVATIZATION OF GANGA ......................................................................... 19 V TEHRI DAM PROJECT ..................................................................................... 25 VI THE UPPER GANGA CANAL ........................................................................ 37 VII WATER PRIVATISATION .................................................................................. 42 WTO and Water .................................................................................... 45 Externally Aided Projects in Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in India ............................................. 46 Some Myths and Reality ..................................................................... 46 Elements of Water Supply Privatisation .......................................... 49 Bolivian Experience in Water Privatisation ..................................... 49 Failure of Water Privatisation in Manila ......................................... 51 Indian Experience: Agitation in Sivaganga ..................................... 52 Water Privatisation in Palakkad District of Kerala ....................... 52 Privatisation of water: The Tiruppur Case ..................................... 53 VIII A PUBLIC FULL COST RECOVERY CAMPAIGN: THE DEBT SUEZ OWES THE PEOPLE OF INDIA .................................... 56 References ............................................................................................................. 58 Appendices........................................................................................................... 60 . I. INTRODUCTION. ater has become the biggest problem of 21st . population growth is spurring a demographic . century. People died in India during the . change, especially as towns become cities and W . recent past, crying for water. And the problem is . cities become mega cities. This can be seen from . worsening day by day. the fact that the 23 million-plus cities in India in . 1990 grew to 42 in 2000 and are expected to grow Global consumption of freshwater increased six . to 63 by 2010. Also, there are serious concerns on . fold during 1900-95, at a faster rate greater than . the availability of freshwater, as India with 16 per . twice the rate of population growth. And if . cent of the world’s population has only 2.45 per . present trend continues, two out of every three . cent of the world’s land resources and 4 per cent . people on earth will have to live in water stressed . of the fresh water resources. The per capita condition by the year 2025. A recent World Water . availability of fresh water in the country has . Development Report corroborates this. About 20 . dropped from an acceptable 5,177 cubic metres in . per cent of the world’s population do not have . 1951 to 1,820 cubic metres in 2001. It is estimated . access to safe drinking water and 40 per cent do . that it would further decline to 1,341 cubic metres . not have sufficient water for adequate living and . by 2025 and 1,140 cubic metres by 2050 (table 1.1). hygiene. The report expects that by 2050, water . This is alarming as the threshold per capita value . scarcity will affect 2 to 7 billion people out of total . for water stress is 1,000 cubic metres. Total water . 9.3 billion, depending on factors like population . availability is 1,122 billion cubic metres as shown . growth and measures taken by political leaders to . in table 1.2. tackle the crisis. The report also found that more . than 2.2 million people die each year from . India ranks a poor 120 in a list of 122 countries . diseases related to contaminated drinking water . ranked for their water quality as also their ability . and poor living conditions, faced with water . and commitments to improving its quality, in a . scarcity (Baxi and Sharma, 2003). World Water Development Report. In terms of . water availability, India has not fared well. If we have to halve the number of people without . She is ranked lowly 133 in a list of 180 countries. access to safe water and sanitation by 2015, the . India’s neighbours, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, . world will have to spend up to $180 billion . Nepal and Pakistan have fared better than . annually, more than double that is spent today . th th th th . India, occupying the 40 , 64 , 78 and 80 slots . (Toepfer, 2003). respectively (The Indian Express, New Delhi, . 6 March 2003). As for India, the problem is more acute, as the . 1 . India’s population, recording a current annual . quantum of freshwater. Due to water shortage, . increase by 15.5 million, has to inevitably face the . over 200 million people are vulnerable to water . greatest challenge of conservation and equitable . wars. In Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh), one . distribution of the limited freshwater resources. person was killed and six injured in May 2003, . And its management is inextricably intertwined . when people fought for water with swords and . with future growth and poverty alleviation. knives. Such sporadic incidents could become . routine. Table 1.1: Population Growth and Per Capita . Water Availability . Table 1.3: Need and Shortfall of Water in . 12 Major Cities Year Population Per Capita Water . (million) Availability (cubic metres) . City Need (million Shortfall (million . litres/day) litres/day) 1951 361 5,177 . 1955 395 4,732 . Delhi 3,830 880 . Lucknow 560 120 1991 846 2,209 . Kolkata 2,258 690 2001 1,027 1,820 . 2025 1,394 1,341 . Jaipur 349 313 . 2050 1,640 1,140 . Jabalpur 239 945 . Bhopal 335 70 Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India . Indore 318 134 . Table 1.2: National Water Resources Potential . Visakhapatnam 305 146 . Precipitation 4,000 BCM . Mumbai 4,000 1,030 . Average Rim-off in rivers 1,869 BCM . Hyderabad 956 186 . Utilizable Surface Water 690 BCM . Chennai 300 105 . Bangalore 840 135 Replenishable ground water 432 BCM . Total Water Availability 1,122 BCM . Source: Aiyar, India Today (New Delhi), 9 June 2003 . Irrigation Potential 140 million hectares . Urban water privatisation is divorced from reality. Hydropower Potential (L) 84,000 MW @ 60 . It is obvious that the privatisation protagonists . per cent . forgot to take into consideration the myriad . Source: Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India . complexities of the India’s Water Management . System that are deeply embedded in the country’s Water is the biggest crisis facing India in terms of . society, politics and economy. spread and severity, affecting one in every three . persons. Even in Chennai, Bangalore, Shimla and . According to Prof. A. V. Vaidyanathan, water . Delhi, water is being rationed and India’s food . expert with Madras Institute of Development . security is under threat. With the lives and . Studies in Chennai: “It is not correct to describe . livelihood of millions at risk, urban India is . water as a commodity. It is a public utility which . screaming for water. For instance, water is rationed . can be priced, but within certain socio-economic . twice a week in Bangalore, and for 30 minutes a . parameters.” . day in Bhopal; 250 tankers make 2,250 trips to . However, Municipal Corporations under the quench Chennai’s thirst. Mumbai routinely lives . through water cuts from January to June, when . pressure of privatisation lobby have proposed a . some areas get water once in three days in . huge tariff hike (table 1.4). For Delhi, the water . Hyderabad (Aiyar, 2003). cost will increase manyfold. Contrary to popular perception, water shortage is As shown in table 1.3, a study of 12 major . cities reveals that they do not get the required . not just an urban problem but is, in fact, worse in . 2 . Table 1.4: Privatisation of Water to Spawn a Steep . cropping patterns to save water. For instance, rice . Tariff Hike . and sugarcane are high water intensive crops and . City Current Tariff Likely Extra . we must look for alternatives. (Rs/kl) Burden (Rs/kl) . Besides the management of water supply, there is . Hyderabad 6.00 4.00 . also the need for technology to increase efficiency. Kolkata 3.00 7.00 . It is time India should shift from the concept of . Surat 2.00 8.00 . yield per hectare to yield per cubic metre of water. Tiruppur 5.00 5.00 . According to Ashok Khosla, president of the New Delhi 0.35 9.65 . NGO, Development Alternatives, demand . Mumbai 4.00 6.00 . management now means “redesigning and . Bangalore 6.50 3.50 . restructure demand” to suit the emerging picture . Source: Down to Earth, New Delhi, 15 September 2002 . of need and availability. Should Andhra Pradesh . grow paddy? Is sugarcane the right crop for . rural India. And as basins and rivers dry up, it also . Marathwada (Khosla, 2003)? . threatens the country’s food security. According to . The National Water Policy passed in 2002 also . the data available with the Ministry of Water . addresses