Drinking water management: Can privatisation solve all problems?

Ram Kumar Bhandari

The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are the largest financiers of water projects in low-income countries, and the most important international institutions in policy-making for the water sector. They see the solution to meeting people’s basic requirements lying in private sector — not in public institutions. Through loan conditions, political influence, and direct subsidies for transnationals, they are actively pursuing the privatisation of water supply infrastructure, distribution, service operation, and testing facilities. ADB is now a major financier of water sector in Nepal and influencing its water policies while ignoring the public and their right to water.The pursuit of corporate interests often conflicts with public interests. Entrusting private sector with the provision of water supply and energy has, in many instances, caused social, political, economic and environmental damage. In many cases, companies have knowingly allowed such damages.

In Nepal, the water-sector is not transparent and participatory in terms of reporting, publicising relevant issues, appraising benefits, clarifying the roles of government and donors, budgeting and formulating state policies and local strategies to manage and develop water resources. But the political leadership is silent on this matter.The 1990s was the decade of water privatisation and failed experiences. It was expected to bring greater efficiency and lower prices, attract greater investment and extend water and sanitation to the poor. The actual experience has been very different. The expansion of private water companies in the 1990s was supported by the World Bank and other institutions to transform developing countries into market-oriented economies. It entered the countries of Eastern Europe with a wave of water concessions: in the Czech republic and Hungary, in Latin America, especially Argentina, where a series of water management systems of major cities were privatised. The same was done in Manila and Jakarta.

Companies failed to invest much and private investments in infrastructure were falling by the end of the 1990s. The investment of development banks also decreased. Prices rose to reflect the return on capital. When targets specified in contracts were not met, contracts were revised rather than enforced. Regulators lacked the authority and competence to control companies. The privatised water operators in Argentina are now bankrupt and despite all the support for private water sector in Latin America, they have performed no better than public sector operators.Manila and Jakarta, both with private operators, have worse levels of water loss as compared to the large cities where water is managed by public sector. India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Cambodia have had the same kind of experiences. As a result, there is growing opposition to water privatisation.

But still water supply services for Kathmandu Valley are being privatised as per ADB’s loan conditionalities. Although ADB views water as a ‘socially vital’ economic good, it extols the virtues of private investment. It argues that water should be allocated to and used by those who can best afford it. Furthermore, ADB supports establishment of markets for transferable water rights, policies, programmes and projects of IFIs, endangering people’s right to water.In Nepal, too, there has been a growing opposition to water privatisation from different quarters. The reason is that when water is privatised, only those who can pay get clean water. Moreover, privatisation has not improved efficiency, though it has increased tariffs without service obligations. Multinationals will only add to our debt.

The privatisation wave of the 1990s has made clear that the water needs of the poor should not be left in the hands of profit-oriented, transnational corporations. In cities around the world, water corporations have failed to deliver promised improvements and have raised water tariffs beyond the reach of the poor. Hence, foreign experiences in water privatisation must be studied carefully before coming to any conclusion on the water privatisation bill now in the parliament. Before passing it, the interim parliament must deliberate on the issue vigorously.Rather than embrace privatisation, the country should adopt a people-centred management approach, granting greater autonomy to public utilities and municipalities, and involving cooperatives and communities in the management and distribution of water. Water should be recognised as a public service and human right, and not an economic good. Nepal must learn lessons from other countries and our policies should be based on developing sound institutional and operating principles — including transparent and participatory systems of accountability — rather than privatisation. Democratic and community involvement in water management decisions is essential.Bhandari is involved in social research

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 9, 2007

Quest for guarantee

Amid the national debate on whether to declare the country a republic through the interim parliament, Nepali Congress president and Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has ruled out this possibility, at least till the CA polls. Addressing the concluding session of the national workshop of the NC district presidents in the capital on Monday, Koirala said, “A republic will not materialise just because somebody speaks for it, or I speak for it.” He called the republic a “gradual process”, and saw the beginning of the practice of foreign ambassadors to Nepal presenting their credentials to the PM as a step in the reduction process of the royal powers. Alleging that there has been much manoeuvring in the name of republic, he asked the Congressites to think how the “international community” would look at the NC if it now jumped on the republican bandwagon. The “opacity and misuse” of funds received from foreign organisations for the four-day workshop were also criticised.

The workshop passed a dozen resolutions, including the call for a special general convention of the party to shape the Congress stand on the monarchy. The party’s 11th general convention, breaking with its original allegiance to constitutional monarchy, had chosen to remain secular on the issue of monarchy by purging its statute of any mention of monarchy. An overwhelming majority of the district presidents had spoken in favour of a republican order. Even now, the Congress, like any other party, has every right to support “ceremonial” or “constitutional” monarchy or stand for a republican order. Even within the NC, strong pressure is visible for a clear party position on the issue without much delay, as testified by the district presidents’ workshop. There are royalists, republicans and even fence-sitters in the Congress. However, Koirala said the party would make its stance clear when the need arose.

The NC president seems to be taking a policy of wait and watch towards the monarchy, letting things take their course, without the NC doing anything about it. His “international community” bit may give the impression that things are not ripe yet for a republican order as far as their green signal is concerned. Political analysts may make various interpretations of the Congress’s present policy, but a sizable number of them also link it to the fear of the Leftist dominance in politics thereafter. Whatever the contribution of the various factors, it is incumbent on Koirala to speed things up, including fixing a date, in preparation for the CA polls. For this, he has to win the confidence of the seven other parties in the alliance. Because once Koirala failed to keep his date with the polls, it may also be necessary to provide doubting alliance partners with a guarantee that there will not be another postponement of the polls. In the meantime, he has to convince the agitating MPs of the need to let the House proceedings resume to finish urgent businesses. This includes the second amendment to the Constitution as agreed upon, incorporating the genuine ones of the demands of the various agitating groups in the country.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 9, 2007

Federalism New Exercise In Nepalese Polity

Dr. Panna Kaji Amatya

Federalism is a prominent system of government emerging in the world today. It accounts for more than one half of the world?s territory and population. It is increasingly and favourably being discussed and debated more and more in many a country, much more so in culturally, racially, linguistically, religiously and crisis-prone diverse and plural countries like Nepal. A state once federated is rarely found to break up. On the contrary, there are many examples of unitary states either disappearing or splitting.

National aspirations

As a unitary Nepal fails to meet the broad national aspirations, centrifugal forces are growing as a consequence of that failure. So, a nation-wide demand is being made to end the exploitive unitary system and set up a federal system in Nepal. As a result of the new awakening of the various ethnic, racial, religious, indigenous, excluded, marginalised and language communities scattered across the country, the people, during the Second Movement launched for the re-restoration of democracy in 2006, revolted against the excessive centralisation of power and their exclusion from sharing of power for an intolerably long time.That the unitary system, if imposed and continued as in the past, will sure enough augur ill for the nation has been widely talked about. However, sadly enough, the political parties and their leaders have no clear-cut agenda in this regard. They have merely included a non-committal provision in the Interim Constitution, which says: ?The Constituent Assembly will decide on the nature of the federal system.?

The failure of the rulers to clearly plant the seeds of federation in the Interim Constitution of Nepal roused the excluded and marginalised people to exasperation, frustration and fury. They felt that they had been badly done by. It was only in the wake of the paralysing movement by them, particularly in the Terai, that the coalition government of the seven political parties and the CPN-Maoists were forced to amend the Interim Constitution towards their ?commitment? to establish a federal polity in Nepal through the constitution to be made by the Constituent Assembly. Now, the question naturally arises: ?What does federalism mean? Defining federalism is a very difficult task, for this difficulty is heightened by the wide functional differences witnessed in the various federally structured polities in the world and by big gaps between theory and practice of federalism. Thus, federalism has become different things to different persons. Simply put, federalism is a system of government in which power is divided by a written and relatively rigid constitution between a central, national or federal government and regional, provincial or state governments. Under it, national and state governments are, more or less, equally powerful.

Federalism, understood so, refers to a political system characterised by two levels of government, with each deriving its power and functions from a supreme authority which is not controlled by either level and which, in turn, controls both the levels. That authority is the constitution of the union. The generally recognised principle of federalism is that there is the explicit division of powers between the national and regional governments. Whatever concerns the nation as a whole or whatever is primarily of common interest is under the control of the national government, and all other matters which are not concerned with the centre are in the domain of the respective regional governments, each level of government being coordinate and independent. If looked at federation as preached and practised in the United States, the best example of a federal government, the powers to be exercised by the national government and regional governments are specified. The residuary powers are left to the latter, which contrasts with countries like Canada and India where the residue is left to the national governments.

Equally important in this regard is the question ?Why is a federation formed?? For the formation of a federation, K. C. Wheare affirms, there are some prerequisites such as the desire of the regional units to be under a union and the desire to retain or establish independent regional governments. If one follows him further, other factors that lead to the federation are a sense of military insecurity and the consequent need for common defence; a desire to be independent of foreign powers; anticipation of economic advantage; geographical proximity; and similarity of political institutions. Traditionally, such a federal state is formed by an association of independent states federating themselves for some common purposes. Such practice was in existence in ancient Greece. The United States is the first modern country to constitutionally introduce federalism. It is the best model for other countries adopting this system or willing to adopt it. The US federalism is the most successful experiment in the community of nations. Most of the federal polities took inspiration from this model though they had to adjust and modify this system in accordance with their own national requirements. However, it has become a dynamic process rather than a static concept. US federalism has undergone remarkable changes in its nature and characteristics, the most important among them being the progressively increasing power of the national government.

In the case of the USA and Switzerland, the confederation preceded the federation. Today it cannot be properly understood on the basis of such traditional approach to federation, despite the relevance of its views and contention, and contribution to the development of the process of federation. On the other hand, the Nepalese federation to be instituted will be a different process similar to that of Spain and Belgium. In the USA and Switzerland, the constituent states become the federating units, but in Nepal, the state itself, till now all-powerful, independent, sovereign, centralised and unitary, will create its federating units and make a federal state there. The federation may be an effective means for the preservation and promotion of the interests of the geographically, socially, economically and politically disadvantaged, excluded and marginalised people. It also gives them opportunities to get themselves organised to assert their rights and contribute to the development of the nation and its politics. Therefore, arguments that the federation is expensive and complicated should by no means discourage the people from shying away from forming it. Its advantages are more worth than its disadvantages.

There is no reason to ignore and criticise it simply because it may be incongruous with the tradition. Judging by what unitary Nepal has been doing till recently, one may conclude that the unitary system is not a better system for Nepal or for good governance. In reality, federation means more governance throughout the country through constituent units and less government from the centre.Therefore, the people should by all means and to the extent possible keep debates going on regarding the theory and practice of federalism, particularly with regard to the nature of the federal structure in Nepal. The most important factor, which should never be ignored, is the adoption of the co-operative model of federation in contrast to the classical ?dualistic? model under which the powers of the national and regional governments are constitutionally distributed on the basis of localism vs. centrism notion. The co-operative model implies the existence of two levels of governments, both of which are equal partners, not equal rivals, with one government not being subordinate to the other.

Visionary leaders

However, merely talking about federalism continuously and harping on the same string is not enough. The initiation of a federal polity entails the presence of leaders who have the vision and mission to translate it into reality. Federalism to be successful requires national leaders, not mere leaders of the political parties or just sectional leaders recognised by only their cronies as we see it today. It is not wide off the mark if one says that under the unitary system there have always been governments by cronyism since the creation of modern Nepal. One may reasonably hope that federalism, once introduced, will give birth to the emergence of true national leaders with a vision of a better Nepal. This is the crying need of Nepal.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2007

A Step Forward

IT is a welcome sign that the government talks team has initiated dialogue with the various agitating groups. The first meeting has been with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NFIN). This shows that the government has kept its door open for negotiations. It may be worthwhile remembering that the various groups putting forth their demands had resorted to protests through bandhs and demonstrations. Seeing that the government is sincere about discussing and resolving their demands, the talks have begun. It is not that the first meeting itself will lead to the settlement of the demands but that it has begun is an indication that in the next few rounds of talks, appropriate solutions will emerge. The meeting with the NFIN held the other day discussed the modalities of the future talks. Dwelling on the talks, Minister for Peace and Reconstruction Ram Chandra Poudel said that the focus of the talks centred on the processes for the next round of dialogue. It is noteworthy that the NFIN has agreed to continue the dialogue. Minister Poudel also said that the government was ready to negotiate with all the agitating groups, including the Madhesi People's Rights Forum. He also urged all the concerned to make efforts to sort out problems for the cause of the nation, people and democracy.

This is certainly a bright lining in that talks with one of the agitating groups has begun in earnest. The government talks team also has meetings with other agitating groups lined up in the days ahead. This is very crucial in creating a conducive atmosphere in the country for the constituent assembly polls to be held in a free manner. The past months have seen disturbances in some parts of the country, which has made the life of the people difficult. Now the situation may change for the better with the agitating groups willing to sit for talks with the government. With positive indications coming from them, it can be hoped the next few weeks will be able to see some positive changes, with the contentious issues raised by the various groups being discussed and amicable solutions emerging. In this connection, the government well knows that the various demands put forth by the groups need to be resolved so that it will lead the country forward towards the goal of all-inclusive democracy and lasting peace.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2007

US Proposal And Its Initial Repercussions

Kazi Gautam

THE US proposal of resettlement for the Bhutanese refugees has been highly anticipated as it is expected to bring about a durable solution to the refugee impasse. Although it cannot give a permanent solution to the issue, however, it is expected to improve the refugees' lives up to some extent. Nevertheless, the formal announcement of the US scheme has invited serious predicaments that need to be addressed at the earliest. It has particularly created a faction among the refugees, thus, creating enmity between each other.ConsequencesIt was a near miss for Hari Prasad Adhikari-Bangaley, secretary of Beldangi II camp when he managed to evade the attack of an unidentified armed assailant on April 10. It's been almost a year since he started to live in Damak due to numerous attacks that were intended to kill him since he started advocating the US resettlement plan.

In another similar incident, Parsu Ram Dahal of Timai refugee camp was abducted and released by an unidentified group. A few months back, three of the refugee teachers of Beldangi 1 camp were severely beaten up.Following the official proclamation of the proposal of the US to begin from July 1, the refugee population has been divided into three groups: one which has welcomed the US plan, another group against it and the last group of those who are still ambivalent about accepting or rejecting the resettlement scheme. There have been clashes and scuffles between the first two groups that have eventually invited inestimable seen and unseen squabbles. There is an eerie silence in the camps that has tormented the refugees' lives. The refugees must be always alert and be on their guard for fear of getting attacked any time.

Though everyone is aware of the criminal activities that have been terrorising the refugees, no steps have been taken so far to guarantee a secure life for them. Neither the UNHCR nor the Nepalese government has been able to check the internal security system in the camps. Given the dispute between the first two groups, the refugees have been found attacking members of the rival group, thus, afflicting those innocents that don't belong to any of these camps. On the other hand, there exists a cold relationship between the refugees and the locals. The former are mistreated and tortured by the latter off and on. They are chastised and intimidated even for small things. The scuffle between the refugees and the local forestry officials on February 22 this year took the life of Gopal Khadka, a refugee from Sanischarey refugee camp. Because the refugees cannot survive with the meagre commodities supplied to them, it becomes necessary for them to go out of the camp to earn money. This results in quarrels between the locals and the refugees, which eventually benefits none.

The US seems committed to resettling the Bhutanese refugees in its land in the next few years. It has already begun the process by working towards the establishment of an overseas processing entity in Jhapa and Kathmandu. It has also begun to counsel the refugees tacitly. Some other countries as well have shown immense interests towards sharing the burden.However, the prime importance to be carried out without further ado is to provide a secure life to the refugees. There must not be any sort of threat, and there should not be any danger to the refugees. The Camp Management Committee (CMC) and the committee that looks after the internal security system in the camp and the secretaries of the camps have not succeeded in providing security to the refugees as they have been threatened very often by unidentified people.

The police check posts responsible for providing security in the refugee camps do not exist now. Anyone can walk into the camps very easily. If immediate steps are not taken to check the security in the refugee camps, several serious incidents could arise, thus, pushing the situation out of control.Hence, there are certain things that must be addressed before the US begins the process. First, the confusion among the refugees as regards the resettlement scheme must be cleared. There is a large portion of the refugee population that is unaware of the proposal. Also, a peaceful and conducive environment must be created in the refugee camps so that the refugees feel free to decide about choosing the option at hand.The second important thing that deserves special attention is making public the state of those refugees who have been recently resettled in some western countries. Till date nothing is known to the refugees regarding their present condition.

Third, every refugee needs more information. With a paucity of information as regards the terms and conditions to be faced by the refugees, and also the western culture and lifestyle, the American proposal still looks like an enigma, and the refugees are ambivalent about accepting it. So before the establishment of an overseas processing entity, the necessary information should be made public.RepatriationThe next point that deserves mention is that majority of the refugees have been waiting to get repatriated. Failing to address their interests would be a hindrance towards the peaceful beginning of the resettlement programme.The last urgent step to be taken by the concerned authorities is to check the internal security system in the refugee camps. The fact is also that the insidious effect of the present camp activities would surely turn out to be a serious impediment to the resettlement process. A failure to find an amicable approach could prove a serious blow to the US.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 7, 2007