National Water Policy

To qualify for a policy, according to Pakistan’s former chief economist Arshad Zaman, a document should be more than a wish list of things to do. A policy must propose a coherent set of specific courses of action to be undertaken by specific, capable, private and public-sector agents. Does the recently tabled National Water Policy have what it takes to be an effective policy?

In his 2007 paper titled Understanding Policy (published by PIDE), Zaman points out the following key criteria for a wish list to be called a policy. “The agent that would carry out the proposed action should be identified. The action proposed should be within the capability of the proposed agent. The action proposed should be compatible with the nature and interest of the proposed agent. And finally, the proposal be instrumental in the sense that the instrument proposed to achieve the desired results should be independent of the target.” The last point implies that policy proposals should not be tautological, in the sense that there is no point saying that the budget deficit should be reduced by increasing revenues and reducing expenditures, because that’s obvious.

Seen in that light the policy identifies a long list of proposed actions (of which many specific) that need to be taken by federal and provincial governments. Credits for that!

It also lays down a “broad policy framework and set of principles for water security on the basis of which the provincial governments can formulate their respective master plans and projects for water conservation, water development, and water management”. This begs the question whether provinces really needed the centre to draft a water policy to kick start their own water reforms.

While the centre surely needs to coordinate the provinces on this subject, water is a provincial subject and a wide array of actions identified by the policy in questions are actions for which the provinces didn’t need a go-ahead from Islamabad. If the provinces had any sense of duty, they would have begun taking those steps soon after the devolution.

The good news is that the agents who would carry out the proposed actions have been identified. These include a body to be established as the National Water Council; proposed graduation of Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authorities into Provincial Water Authorities; the establishment of Ground Water Authority in each province; and revitalisation and restructuring of Wapda.

The next question is whether the proposed agents have the capability and capacity to implement those actions. The National Water Policy recognises the lack of capability of the agents identified above. It promises to prioritise capacity building of water regulators. But the policy is silent on how to go about it.
Whether technocrats will be hired in these authorities, or whether specialized cadre of civil servants will be created; or where will the right human capital come from? Because surely Pakistani universities are not producing water management professionals; nor is water a subject of choice for Pakistani students going abroad.

Lastly, are the proposed actions compatible with the nature and interest of the proposed agents? In this case the agents in question would be political leaders because they are the ones who would set up these authorities, ensure their autonomy and regulate the regulators for successful implementation of the policy.
Now consider this. According to the draft policy, the priorities for the consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water shall be in this order: (a) drinking and sanitation; (b) irrigation including land reclamation; (c) livestock, fisheries and wildlife; (d) hydropower; and (e) industry and mining.

The policy declares that water at the delivery point shall be realistically priced according to the following general principles. “For production sectors of the economy full cost recovery of water shall be affected; for social uses the concept of affordability shall be applied, and for environmental and ecological needs water supply shall be free of cost,” the policy states.

The policy is silent on how will federal and provincial governments raise finances to subsidise water for social and environmental/ecological needs. Unless these governments want to run budget deficits each year given poverty levels in the country, it will make sense to raise those moneys by including a surcharge component in water pricing for production sectors. Regardless, the policy asserts that water charges for industrial and farming uses shall be revised upward to include operational and maintenance cost of infrastructure.

These measures cannot be implemented without redrawing the consumption pie of water. Currently, more than 90 percent of water is used for farming purpose, according to government’s estimation. But with change in priorities and pricing, the pie will eventually have to change. Rice, cotton, sugarcane, and wheat – Pakistan’s mainstay - are among the top five water consuming crops, and sooner or later the change in priorities and pricing would require a rethinking of crops. These industries also have a notable share in industrial economy; for example, cotton yarn and sugar production has about 17 percent weight in the Large Scale Manufacturing Index. Which means the industrial choices will be affected too.

In light of these facts, the real question is whether Pakistan’s federal and provincial lawmakers who mostly represent the farming elite (and/or industrial elite), will truly implement the measures spelled out in National Water Policy and shoot themselves in their feet?