3D Vision: Seeking a truce in
the water wars
In the first
of a two-part series on dwindling resources in
rural areas, James Fahn writes that everyone
will have to pay
more for water to prevent annual shortages, but water
security
should be offered in exchange.
Last year around this time, lowland farmers in
Chiang
Mai's Chom Thong district demonstrated for days
on end,
closing off roads to protest the activities of
hilltribes on
nearby Doi Inthanon. The leaders of the protests
were
widely criticised for obstructing traffic and
stirring up ethnic
hatred.
The daily throng of blue-shirted farmers,
however, looked
strangely familiar. The scene was reminiscent of
the
so-called ''public hearings'' held in Phrae
province to
support construction of the Kaeng Sua Ten Dam.
There
the speakers railed against several ethnic Thai
villages,
who stubbornly oppose the dam because it would
flood
their homes.
While there is prejudice in the countryside,
these conflicts
are not due to ethnic animosity. In Chom Thong,
there was
very little evidence of ill feelings toward
hilltribes as such.
Indeed, the lowlanders grew visibly angry at
critics who
accused them of being chauvinists. Concern over
ethnicity
seems much more prevalent in academic, NGO and
media circles.
No, these are battles over water. The farmers in
Chom
Thong accuse the hilltribes of clearing more
land for crops,
and irrigating more intensively despite the fact
they live in
a national park. The lowlanders in turn are
accused of
heedlessly expanding their water-hungry longan
orchards.
In Phrae, farmers downstream of Kaeng Sua Ten
thirst for
a secure water supply in the dry season, while
provincial
leaders dream of building industrial estates.
Land, water, forests and people. They are all
intertwined in
a complex relationship that is showing
increasing strain as
populations grow, consumption increases and
resources
get scarcer.
The problem of people living in protected forest
areas is a
complicated issue. But the water crisis, despite
the vast
number of agencies and laws involved, really
isn't.
The problem with water in Thailand is that its
consumption
is heavily subsidised. As a result, Thailand
faces chronic
water shortages. Then, when the inevitable
drought comes
along, we hear calls for some grandiose project
to build
another big dam or divert water from the Salween
and
Mekong basins, leading to all kinds of internal
and
international conflicts.
Rather than look for more supplies, it is time
that Thailand
tackled the demand side of its water crisis. A
demand-side management programme for the power
sector has helped reduce electricity
consumption, but it
works because electricity tariffs at least
approach market
levels.
Water is a different story. There is an annual
irrigation
budget of around Bt40 billion, but farmers pay
nothing for
irrigated water. Town dwellers, meanwhile, are
supplied
with cheap tap water, and many factories simply
pump it
up from underground illegally.
To solve the crisis, simply reducing waste would
be a
good start. In the cities and towns, an
estimated 25-30 per
cent of the water supply is lost due to leaky
delivery
systems, but the low fees for water consumption
mean
there is no money to fix them. There is even
more waste in
the rural sector, which uses the vast majority
of Thailand's
water supplies. Only 30 per cent of the water
from
irrigation projects is estimated to reach the
farms they're
supposed to serve.
So far, Thailand's attempts to manage water
demand are
reminiscent of the late, unlamented Soviet
Union. Farmers
are urged to grow crops that use less water, or
to avoid
planting a second rice crop. City dwellers are
asked to
stop washing their cars. Meanwhile, officials
try to manage
the flow of water from dams and through
irrigation projects
to meet the priorities they deem highest. But no
matter
how brilliant these managers are, this kind of
command
and control system simply won't work anymore.
This year,
thousands of farmers have simply ignored the
government's orders, planted a second rice crop,
and
pumped up water whenever they can.
It is time to make people pay more for water.
Thailand's
current water management system is so skewed
that
determining the resource's true value is
difficult, but
whatever the market rate is, that's what tap
water users,
factories and other commercial users should pay.
Farmers, meanwhile, should contribute at least a
nominal
fee for irrigated water. That will give them an
incentive to
use it more efficiently, while providing funds
to reduce
waste in the distribution system.
Of course, there is a reason this policy hasn't
been
invoked yet: it is considered political suicide.
An
agricultural sector loan currently being
negotiated with the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) has run into controversy
following reports it will ask the Thai
government to make
farmers pay water user fees. But while the ADB
would no
doubt applaud such a move, officials there say
they are
more concerned with the broader issue of ''cost
recovery''
for irrigated water, which could be achieved in
many ways.
The real controversy over water fees is within
the Thai
government, where administrations have been
rejecting
water reform proposals for decades. Officials in
the
Ministry of Agriculture are reportedly split
over whether to
charge farmers for water, and are bickering with
the
Ministry of Finance over who would take
responsibility for
the unpopular policy. The ADB is being used to
leverage
the reforms past the Cabinet, and could become a
convenient scapegoat for politicians come the
next
election.
Farmers are naturally suspicious that they will
be made to
pay for Thailand's past financial sins, but
perhaps they can
be persuaded to accept water fees in exchange
for
receiving water property rights. Analogous to
land title
deeds, they would guarantee a certain amount of
water
every year. In effect, a water subsidy would be
exchanged
for water security. Surveys suggest farmers
would go for
such a trade.
It would be a difficult policy to implement --
consider, for
example, all the controversies surrounding land
rights
initiatives -- but in theory it could work,
especially if it is
organised at the local level. Water rights in
some areas,
such as the North, might be given to
communities; in the
central region, individual guarantees might be
more
appropriate. Furthermore, if handled correctly,
it could set
the stage for a proper water market, through
which poor
farmers could gain income by leasing some of
their water
rights to factories and cities.
Many NGOs oppose any policy that would put a
further
burden on farmers, especially under current
circumstances, and argue against the further
commercialisation of agriculture. But they
should consider
whether farmers are actually well served by the
current
lack of water fees. Farmers living in marginal
areas face
severe drought conditions every year, and if
this year is
any guide, even those living in irrigated zones
may face
shortages in the future.
Sympathy runs deep for farmers in Thailand, a
traditionally
agrarian society. There are many social,
historical,
environmental and security reasons why we may
want to
help farmers and conserve their traditional way
of life.
Most countries around the world do give farmers
some
kind of aid.
But there are much better ways to help farmers
than by
allowing them to take water freely. That is a
policy that in
the end will leave everyone thirsty.