An interview with Mohsin Hafeez, Country Representative International Water Management Institute (IWMI): 'Groundwater must be separated from property rights and treated as 'commons'

Dr. Mohsin Hafeez has over 23 years of experience in research and management of water resources in Pakistan. A hydrologist by training, he is considered an expert on sustainable land & water management, surface & ground water hydrology, integrated water resources modelling, impact of climate change on water resources, and natural resource management in different agro-ecological zones.

In his current role with the International Water Management Institute, he serves as the Country Representative for Pakistan. He past international experience includes association with ZEF Center for Development Research University of Bonn; CSIRO Land & Water Division, Australia; International Center of Water for Food Security; and with Bureau of Metrology Brisbane, Australia.

His association with these organizations and international water management bodies across the globe have made him a formidable force in managing large multidisciplinary water and food security projects.

Mohsin’s significant achievements include describing the hydrology of data-sparse irrigation systems for which he was recognized by the CRC-IF Leadership Award in System Harmonization in 2010; the best Irrigation and Drainage Paper Award from the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage in 2008; the CSIRO Chairman’s Gold Medal for research achievements in Irrigation Water Management in 2007, the Eureka Prize for Water Research and Innovation in 2007; and the CRC IF Award for Research Innovation in Irrigation Water Management in 2007.

Given the breadth of his experience, BR Research sat down with Mohsin in Lahore recently to discuss gaps in National Water Policy, integrated resource management in domestic context, ground water governance, water pricing, and other related issues. Below are the edited excerpts.

BR Research: Two years ago, Pakistan finally developed a National Water Policy amid much fanfare. However, some policy goals have been criticized as overreaching given gaps in institutional capacity. Other goals are noted to be at conflict with each other. Do you agree?

Mohsin Hafeez: The National Water Policy has 33 objectives; but has no clear demarcation in terms of which of these objectives should be urgent priorities or are the low hanging fruits that must be fulfilled in the short term.

Second, policies documents are developed as broad guidelines, but unless these guidelines are based on evidence, successful policy implementation cannot take place. That is another missing element.

Since I joined IWMI in June 2019, the organization has been working on policy implementation with federal ministries of Water Resources; Climate Change; and National Food Security & Research. As ministries usually have their independent policy guidelines, the near-term goal is to first identify the gaps, revise the guidelines in line with available evidence where needed, and ensure course correction if inter-ministerial goals may be not in sync with each other. IWMI also provides research support to governmental bodies as this our core strength.

Note that IWMI is a member of the National Water Council’s policy steering committee which is responsible for its implementation. So far, we have been part of four policy dialogues, and have made concerted efforts to develop a framework for identifying provincial-level issues and responsibilities of federal government to provide support and allocate funding for recommendations made therein.

BRR: On one hand, the NWP calls for integrated water resource management strategy. On the other hand, it calls for establishment of groundwater authorities, which poses risk of relegating resource management in silos as has been the case with irrigation management thus far. What is your view?

MH: The principles of integrated water resource management insist on taking a basin-wide or systemwide approach rather than addressing surface water and groundwater issues separately. When it comes to surface water governance, Pakistan has an adequate institutional capacity through provincial irrigation department, whether in respect of flow management or statistics on sector-wise resource consumption.

Unfortunately, groundwater is a virtually ungoverned area. As surface water availability becomes increasingly unreliable, consumers – whether in farming or industrial/commercial sectors – have switched to unabated abstraction of underground resource taking advantage of absence of regulation for reasonable use.

Following enactment of National Water Policy, the next step is for provinces to develop an integrated water management plan. To this effect, Punjab, for example, has established an authority which will govern all water resources under one umbrella framework.

However, even baseline estimates are absent when it comes to groundwater availability and consumption. Therefore, it became imperative that a separate groundwater authority be established whose mandate is to collect baseline information regarding aquifers and provide evidence-based data that shall feed into the integrated resource management plans at provincial and national level.

Thus, the hope is that the proposed organizations will not work in silos. Instead, based on the feedback provided by groundwater authority, information will flow to on-farm water management arms of the irrigation departments. This in turn will inform evidence-based operational decision making on issues such as whether to allow tube well installation at tehsil/district level based on the health of aquifer in that area.

BRR: In many countries, groundwater rights are considered part and parcel of property rights even today due to precedence set in common law principles such as ‘absolute dominion’ and ‘rule of capture’. Should the first step in groundwater governance not be to amend legislation that separates groundwater rights from property rights before restrictions on abstraction may be imposed?

MH: The colonial legacy that clubbed groundwater rights with property rights has been exacerbated by electoral politics in the country. Abiana collection, for which regulatory framework is already well-established, is an emotive issue because political will is missing.

It may be helpful to cite experiences of other countries which share similar colonial legacy. Back in 1980s-90s, Australian government made efforts to identify causes of low productivity of water use. As a first step, the government transferred management of irrigation authority to farming cooperatives/groups. Second, it made water rights independent of property ownership. Third, it developed a priority-of-use framework, whereby consuming sectors such as household & domestic; environmental flows; high-value crops; and commercial use, were given priority in that order. Fourth, it gave farmers rights to sell their water on temporary or permanent basis to each other and to other consuming sectors.

This transition led to development of water markets, where pricing was determined by supply and demand of consuming sectors. Once a market for water trading was developed, the government assessed health of groundwater aquifers. Based on sustainable yields estimated, it imposed restrictions on groundwater abstraction and tube well installation.

Of course, such a transformation cannot take place overnight. It requires both political will and a long-term action plan. But once a water market is developed, imposing restriction on sustainable groundwater abstraction will no longer be as challenging as it is today.

BRR: Does that mean ground water resource management need to be done on the principle of ‘commons’?

MH: Yes. Groundwater rights need to be untangled from property rights and treated as ‘commons’. More importantly, groundwater boundaries cannot be forced to follow administrative or political boundaries; but instead, resource governance needs to be done based on hydrological boundaries. While the policy guidelines may very well be overarching, but separate plans need to be developed for governance & regulation of each aquifer/hydrological setting.

BRR: How accurate are existing estimates of total water resource availability, and specifically those of groundwater abstraction as provided by Annual Economic Survey?

MH: Existing estimates – at least so far as groundwater abstraction is concerned – are based purely on extrapolation from studies conducted in 1990s and population growth rates. Official surveys indicate that number of installed tube wells is anywhere between 1.2 – 1.4 million. Irrigation and on-farm management departments have varying figures. Operational agencies acknowledge that these numbers are mostly based on guess work.

On the other hand, so far as irrigation water is concerned, reliability of statistics regarding supply is relatively high. However, when it comes to questions such as water losses from one area to another, or water losses in the river system, little to no information is available.

Similarly, estimates of rainfall and precipitation are again largely extrapolation and guess work based on ten-year averages, which in turn affects groundwater recharge.

And while piecemeal information may be available with isolated governmental agencies, big picture database is lacking on national or even provincial level.

BRR: Given the low reliability of availability estimates, do powerful statements on extent of water stress or scarcity in the country carry any weight beyond raising public passions?

MH: We are not a water scarce country, but one with severe mismanagement of water resources. However, indicators such as decline in absolute water availability per capita are accurate, simply because the denominator – population – is growing, whereas total water resources available is not growing.

In addition, isolated evidence points toward the fact that total resource may in fact be declining. For example, groundwater in areas such as Balochistan and Punjab, could previously be abstracted by digging a well under 100 feet. This is no longer the case. Moreover, hydrological studies have established that groundwater is a finite resource. At the same time, recharge may be quantified through rainfall, and research by several public and private organizations has shown that long term recharge rate in many regions across the country has been insufficient.

Ultimately, we need to concern ourselves with efficient consumption, by building on- and off-farm reservoirs and reducing mismanagement. Once those goals are achieved, the absolute indicator of per capita availability can be restored to levels where the country is no longer water-stressed or scarce.

Secondly, debates surrounding groundwater potential need to also take into account its quality. Thus, estimates of abundant ground water availability – as has been indicated by some isolated research studies – are incomplete if 90 percent of that groundwater is salty and unfit for consumption purposes.

BRR: What is your judgment of accuracy of average annual domestic demand estimate of 150 MAF? There appears to be some confusion whether it represents aggregate demand of all domestic consuming segments or pertains only to agriculture sector?

MH: Again, no baseline study exists for water demand in the country; the estimate is largely extrapolated using demand of water by major crops. No credible information is available concerning demand for domestic/household segment, or demand of water for each city or major urban areas. Same is the case of commercial and industrial segments.

And while water boards in major urban areas may have some data on water demand from organized communities/cooperative societies, katchi abadis and slums are also water consumers and a significant percentage of urban population resides in those areas. While these may suffer from water shortages, they must receive some subsistence volume to survive. Yet no information exists for them either.

As a researcher, I believe giving any estimate of sector wise water consumption in the country would be purely guess work. What can be said is that due to high level of mismanagement, water consumption in urban sector is on a higher side compared to other countries. Share of agriculture sector in the total pie must natural be higher than the rest, but in absence of baseline studies it is nearly impossible to assign any number.