|
|
 |
Himanshu Thakkar,
Editor, "Dams, Rivers & People" |
| |
Himanshu Thakkar, an engineer from IIT Mumbai, is currently editor of "Dams, Rivers & People" and coordinator of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (www.sandrp.in). He has been associated with the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Centre for Science and Environment and the World Commission on Dams in the past."
Your recent report on irrigation presents a disturbing picture of large investments over a twelve year period not leading to an increase in irrigated area and you mention several reasons for this: siltation and lack of maintenance, actual failure to build projects despite money being sanctioned, water intensive cropping in the head reaches, salinisation and development beyond carrying capacity. Which of these would you say was the most significant factor?
Among the reasons you have listed, "actual failure to build projects despite money being sanctioned is not one of the reasons, failure to build the canal distribution network is certainly one of them. Some additional reasons include over exploitation of groundwater and building of unviable projects. I think the building of unviable projects is one of the most significant factors, possibly the most significant factor. It is difficult to give specific examples, because our review was sector wide and we did not do project specific examples. Maharashtra government recently has proposed privatisation of Neera Deogarh project (projected command area: 43000 ha) because they do not have money to construct canals after spending Rs 450 crores over the project over the last two decades. In a shocking revelation, the Government of India's working group report on Water Resources Development for the 11th Five Year Plan accepts that an astounding 300 major and medium irrigation project costing Rs.122,060 crores, comprising 63 per cent of the major and medium irrigation projects under implementation in the country, have been going on without clearances from the Central Water Commission, the Planning Commission, the Public Investment Board or the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. What this means is that these projects have not gone through the basic technical scrutiny and yet over Rs.41,000 crores have already been spent on them. Polavaram Dam in Andhra Pradesh, for example, does not have clearance from Central Water Commission, does not have forest clearance, does not have the approval of Orissa and Chhattisgarh states, whose lands would be submerged due to the projects, no public hearings have been conducted in these states, its environmental clearance has been quashed recently by the National Environmental Appellate Authority and yet, Andhra Pradesh is going ahead with construction on the project and a few hundred crores have already been spent. Why should projects be allowed to go ahead and start construction when they do not have basic statutory clearances and have not gone through basic technical scrutiny?
To the extent that siltation and maintenance issues are factors, could it not be argued that corrective measures should be taken and that this need not be an argument for stopping investment?
Where investments have already been done and we are not getting benefits due to siltation, lack of maintenance, water intensive cropping patterns and lack of building of distribution network, indeed, we should be spending the next available resources for addressing these issues. Until we are able to achieve this, there is no sense in making additional investments for such projects, when we know that the biggest reason for under performance is taking up of unviable projects. We need to see how we can amend our planning and decision making processes to ensure that in future unviable projects are not taken up. Similarly, a thorough, credible, independent review of ongoing schemes to weed out the unviable projects and also to redesign the ongoing projects to reduce the impacts and need for additional investments should be done.
Salinisation, on the other hand, is sometimes viewed as a serious long term limitation of large irrigation related projects. In your view, does this make such projects fundamentally unviable or are there solutions?
Waterlogging and salinisation can be partly addressed if proper drainage systems are built while the irrigation project is taken up, and water allocation and cropping pattern are chosen considering the soil and aquifer conditions. But these are relatively less significant reasons for under performance of irrigation projects.
In the urban water sector, JNNURM has begun to shift the emphasis towards maintenance, with the release of second tranche funds being contingent on this. Could a similar mechanism not be employed for irrigation investment?
In irrigation sector, the backlog of maintenance is so huge, the existing systems so ineffective and need so urgent, that in most areas, all available resources for this section should be allocated for repair, maintenance and completion of distribution systems on a priority basis. According to the 2005 report by the World Bank, "India's Water Economy: Bracing for a Turbulent Future", India needs US $ 4 Billion annually for repair and maintenance of water infrastructure, This is equal to Rs.17,000 crores per year. But a tiny fraction of it is being allocated. "Typically, up to 80% of Operation Maintenance Cost is towards salaries… Consequently, the maintenance of most of the irrigation projects is far from satisfactory", notes the 11th Plan Working Group Report. The working group report for the 11th Five Year Plan has repeatedly emphasized adequate allocation for Operation and Maintenance and suggested creation of Irrigation Maintenance Fund with 15% of all allocations going for IMF. And yet the working group has allocated paltry Rs.7000 crores for this, when the requirement is Rs.85,000 crores over five years. As against this, the working group has suggested allocation of Rs.140,000 crores for projects under construction and new projects. This is not a wise decision..
At a johad in Alwar district
You cite increasing ground water use as the primary reason for such irrigated area increases as we have seen over the last decade. Taking it out of the irrigation context for a moment and talking of groundwater use in general, including as a source of urban water, do you think that it is possible to have a viable ground water based water economy if appropriate recharge measures are taken?
Our economy today is already dependent on groundwater to a large extent for large number of areas. We certainly need to ensure that maximum groundwater recharge happens in areas where groundwater use is more than recharge and where groundwater levels are dropping. At the same time, we need to have policy to ensure that in such areas, groundwater is not used for non priority uses (e.g. water intensive crops or industry or bottled water or cold drinks). However, we will have to continue to use the existing surface water schemes and ensure optimum benefits from them and also create more such schemes of smaller size and in local areas where necessary.
These days nearly everyone is agreed that people's participation is essential for urban water supply reform. The World Bank talks about it and so do you. Is there a major difference between your understanding of people's participation and that advocated by the multilateral agencies?
When we raise the issue of people's participation, we mean actual participation right from planning and decision making processes, through to implementation and operation cycles, not just in the namesake as most official agencies, including multilateral agencies mean most of the times. We believe that a viable model for such participation has been suggested in the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams, which, if implemented, would go a long way in ensuring true participation of people.
Why did you feel there was a need for a network of organizations such as SANDRP is? What are the commonalities between these organizations and what kind of voice do they represent?
There is a need for many such organisations that attempt to monitor, research and disseminate information and analysis of the water resources development, management and related issues from local people's point of view. We share the perspectives of people centered, sustainable development with concern for environment from people's point of view, with the individuals and organisations we work with.
Given the increasing tendency for our cities to draw water from sources that are father and farther away, many have been advocating the introduction of concepts like 'Draw, Use, Replenish' and 'Water Balance'. While these are obviously good ideas because they attempt to make cities self sustaining and responsible for their own needs, are they achievable? What are the barriers to this?
I am not very familiar with these new concepts, but indeed, cities need to firstly use the local sources, including the rain, groundwater, rivers, lakes and such local water bodies carefully. Secondly, they need to ensure that the water is used for democratically prioritised needs, in an equitable manner and non prioritised needs are eliminated or charged at rates equal to the cost of recycling the sewage water. Thirdly, cities must be made to ensure that all the wastewater they generate is treated to a level where it can be safely reused for agriculture or can be safely released into rivers. Today cities are not doing this because they find it easier to look for new projects from farther areas rather than pay attention to using the local water resources wisely, because they are externalizing a part of the costs and they are not made to pay the penalties for releasing untreated effluents.
"Interview over email by Madhu Ramaswamy, December 2007"
|
Copyright India Water Portal.
For reproducing or reprinting this interview, please contact portal@arghyam.org |
| |
|
