Daanish Mustafa is a maverick among young environmentalists. He obtained his BA in Geography from Middlebury College, USA, his MA from University of Hawai'i Manoa, and his PhD in Geography from University of Colorado. Since then, he has taught at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA and then at the University of South Florida, St Petersburg, before finding his intellectual home at King’s College, London.

While at King's, Dr. Mustafa received the School of Social Science and Public Policy excellence in teaching award. His research has been funded by the Belmont Forum, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Department for International Development (DfID), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), National Geographic Society, Royal Geographical Society, and the British Academy.

Dr. Mustafa was the co-author of the first climate change response strategies for Pakistan, in addition to being the lead author for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Pakistan five-year flood response strategy. In addition, he has also undertaken policy-related work with the DfID, International Organization for Migration (IOM), Stimson Centre, and United States Institute for Peace (USIP).

His research interests include water resources geography, environmental hazards, development and critical geographies of violence and terror. His most recent projects have been concerned with gender performativity and violence in Pakistan, cultural politics of urban horticulture in Pakistan, and hydro-social territorialisation in Jordan.

Given the breadth of his experience, BR Research spoke to Dr. Mustafa regarding the spectre of water scarcity in Pakistan, tools to rationalise resource consumption, pricing, among others. Below are the edited excerpts of the conversation:

BR Research: Let’s start with total water resources available. Varying estimates are put forward by academics and MoWR, that places annual supply anywhere between 100MAF to 150MAF. What is your judgment of accuracy of these estimates?

Dr. Daanish Mustafa: The debate over available water supply is misguided, because it is built on the premise that if water resources are sufficient based on existing consumption patterns, there is no longer a need to rationalise use or penalise waste.

Let’s not forget that when it comes to resource conservation, ninety percent of households in the country have a negligible water footprint.

BRR: But the principle of scarcity dictates that which is available in abundance is used more. If a country is resource sufficient, is it not natural that its consumption be higher?

DM: When we speak of abundance and sufficiency, we must follow it up with another question: who is it abundant for? The principle also dictates that if resources are limited, its price must also shift upwards proportionately. In Pakistan, water is available in abundance only to those with influence, yet they pay the same price – if at all – as those who face scarcity.

Given the context, even if water supply in the country were infinite, is it acceptable that children in urban slums of Karachi die of dehydration and renal failure due to high incidence of impurities in water available to them? This takes place in the same city where water consumption by one golf course is enough to service all households in Orangi Town.

Unfortunately, the national discourse engaged in macro-estimates of total water supply and total demand misses the point; the real challenge is not one of scarcity or abundance, but of inequitable distribution.

BRR: Why should flagrant misuse and waste of water by certain segments trivialise the need for water accounting? In the absence of such estimates, how can national level policies be formed to rationalise consumption or incentivise conservation in sectors such as farming?

DM: The way the idea of water accounting was introduced to water sector discourse was a great disservice. It should not take a genius to figure out that as population increases, per capita availability must decline.

Remember, Pakistan is the largest exporter of depleted groundwater in the world, even ahead of global trade giants such as China, US and India. People speak of water accounting and total supply of water in a country whose eighty percent exports constitute of water thirsty, agro-based products such as rice, cotton-based textile, and sugar. Given our trade-priorities, how is it fair to brand the country water scarce?

BRR: Does that indicate that water accounting is not needed, or based on a flawed approach? Without emphasis on water accounting, how can pricing be based in fair value of the resource to the consumer?

DM: Let’s focus on pricing. Consumers in Orangi and Baldia Town pay as much as five to ten times the price paid by consumers in DHA and Clifton. And this disparity is not restricted to domestic sector or urban areas. Small farmers at tail-end of the canals pay ten times the price paid by large-scale, influential landlords.

BRR: Is the abiana price not same for all consumers in agriculture?

DM: Eighty percent of Pakistan’s crop water requirement come from groundwater in fresh groundwater zone. This water typically comes from seepages from the canal system. On the other hand, the abiana charged has not been revised since the 1970s.

It is important to build the context. Large-sized landholders abstracting water from 100ft in the ground run tube wells 12-18hours daily to grow water thirsty crops. Electricity supplied from the grid is also subsidised; that too is only partially recovered. On the other hand, tail-enders can hardly afford electric tube wells, but instead use diesel powered.

If you want to rationalise use of water in farming, ensure full recovery of electricity bills from large-sized landholders.

BRR: As tempting as that may sound, what would that do to cost of farm production in a country that stumbles from one food security crisis to another from time to time?

DM: Let’s not forget the biggest defaulter in electricity value chain is QESCO. Why? Because the government charges a flat rate on agricultural tube wells. As has been well established, Pakistan no longer faces a shortfall in electricity generation. Yet, load shedding persists due to circular debt stemming from partial cost recovery from sectors such as farming. Despite this, we continue to subsidise the use only to produce crops that amount to virtual water export.

Lest it be forgotten that the primary beneficiary of this perverse rent-seeking system is usually large-scale landholders, and not subsistence or landless growers. So, we must turn the question on its head: why has subsidising and protecting large scale farmers failed to provide food security? The food shortages witnessed periodically are enough proof that the strategy simply does not work.

And this claim is not based in anecdotal evidence. Research done by me and several others – some of which has been published by USIP and is available publicly - has mapped conclusively that primary beneficiary of subsidy on electricity use in agriculture are large landlords.

BRR: Staying on the subject of farming, is your considered view then that cultivation of water thirsty crops such as cotton, rice, and sugarcane be disincentivised at a policy level by removing support prices, or be left to market forces so long as full cost recovery of water use is ensured?

DM: I am not an agriculture economist so I cannot offer a comment on support prices. Having said that, as I understand, support price is only one aspect of the problem. The other part is subsidy on inputs such as fertiliser, water, and electricity, that create a perverse incentive system in which certain crops are implicitly promoted at the expense of others.

Blanket statements regarding the need to diversify crop mix can be misleading. I have previously noted that hydrologically, there are two ‘Pakistans’. One, that has abundant fresh groundwater, and the other which has saline groundwater zone.

Fresh groundwater zone does not face any scarcity of water and is unlike to face one in immediate or medium term. Ironically, a lot of expansion in cultivated area since Partition has included saline groundwater zone, which obviously is more vulnerable to seasonal shortfalls. Thus, evaporative losses in those areas are very high.

Thus, it must be understood that any conversation in the direction of crop mix must be done on regional and provincial level, not national. In this regard, agriculture extension departments must unlearn the training of focusing on national output targets, and instead concentrate on nuances in groundwater zone that may vary from district to district. Similarly, crops promoted on regional level must also be tailored from one zone to another.

Even inter-provincial disparities can be very stark. What holds true for largely saline zone of southern Punjab cannot hold true for Gujranwala and Gujrat. For all practical purposes the two regions are entirely different climates, at least so far as hydrological characteristics are concerned.

BRR: 80 percent of Pakistan’s exports come from agro-based products that have a very high-water footprint. On the other hand, the country’s balance of payment position is permanently precarious. Given the centrifugal forces, can Pakistan realistically afford to diversify away from its present crop mix?

DM: There are two conflicting perspectives: one of food security, and the other of export promotion. To me, it is a perversity that agrarian districts have one of the highest incidences of malnutrition. The country suffers from one of the highest rates of still births, maternal morbidity. Given this context, should it be enough that Pakistan is able to earn precious foreign exchange by exporting rice, cotton and sugar?

It depends on the world view of policymakers whether they believe the foreign exchange is necessary to encourage consumption-led imports. On the other hand, if the belief is to ensure basic food nourishment to our own population, then the present arrangement should no longer continue.

Having made a philosophical comment, it should be noted that the decision was made long ago by the movers and shakers of this country that the agricultural economy shall be export-oriented for elite benefit.

BRR: Coming to the subject of groundwater, varying estimates exist in literature on the extent of depletion underground aquifer. What is your reading of the situation?

DM: Please remember that Pakistan’s irrigation system was designed assuming one-fourth cropping intensity. That means that the famers were supposed to till one-fourth of their lands and let the three-fourths remain fallow in every season.

Imagine that the system which was designed with such conservative parameters – and mind you, they stand true to this day – is operating today on 150 – 200 percent cropping intensity, thanks to the chemical fertiliser.

Thus, it is logical to ask where the remainder requirement of water is being fulfilled from? The answer is obviously unabated groundwater abstraction.

BRR: Does unabated depletion of groundwater not validate the need to build storage dams?

DM: World over, hydrologists have concluded that surface reservoirs represent inefficient system of storage. Pakistan has been blessed with one of the largest groundwater aquifers. It may not be farfetched to argue that the aquifer can store water equivalent to 50 mega dams. Unfortunately, rather than using it for storage, we abstracted water without any restriction. This gives rise to the mistaken belief that use of water stored in surface-based reservoirs can be controlled more efficiently.

BRR: Closing with your remark on rationalisation of electric tube wells pricing, what would that do to price of food crop commodities, disregarding the economic impact of discouraging export-oriented crops?

DM: It will have little impact, simple because the only crop necessary from the food security lens is wheat, which is a winter crop and is not highly profitable anyway. Also remember that 90 percent of farmers own less than 12 acres of land and grow wheat. Broadly speaking, these farmers hardly benefit from any government subsidies, whether one on electricity for tube well, on inputs such as chemical fertilisers or seeds, or support price on government procurement of wheat. Rural sales of 1800cc and 2400cc vehicles, however, may suffer!