1

Governing Water Scarcity and Variability

Case Studies from India

presented at Climate Governance and Development

Berlin 28-30 Sept., 2008

Joyashree Roy

Professor of Economics

Global Change Programme

Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India

2

Case Studies

climate extremes, impacts, responses

and

development goal oriented water service provision

3

Following Development Goal

can achieve both

adaptation and mitigation

with proactive actionclimate smart actions

4

Sustainability: Issues of ConcernDiarrhoea

DiarrhoeaDengue

Gross Cropped Area

Air Pollution

Crime against Children and Women

PolioAir Pollution

MalariaDengue

Electricity Consumption

Whooping Cough, Asthma and Diarrhoea

Air Pollution

Whooping Cough and Asthma

Diarrhoea

Crime against Women and Children

Whooping Cough, Diarrohea, Malaria, Aasthama

Whooping Cough

MalariaFiscal DeficitMalaria

Malaria

Malaria

Malaria and Diarrhoea

Crime against Children

Consumption of Pesticide Malaria

Whooping Cough, Diarrhoea & Asthama

Dengue and Diarrohea

Crime against Women and Children

Dengue

Air Pollution

Diarrhoea and Malaria

Consumption of Pesticide

Consumption of Pesticide

N

Classification Of PrioritiesEconomicEnvironmentalSocial

An issue of concern is that in which a state has not been performing well and hence is in need of good policies. Source: Roy, Chatterjee, Basak, Nandi (2007), Roy, Chatterjee, Basak (2008)

5

CC over arching challenge

6

Provides opportunity to Rationalise Developmental action

7

Facts: Weather extremes

– Water quantity/volume– More precipitation/water in less number of days– Flood and drought – Source Augmentation, More Water storage and

equitable distribution over longer period in a year– Problem more acute in urban areas with high and

growing density– High temperature days: water quality, arsenic

– BAU : Loss of water bodies, demand

8

Climate Extremes

0

10

20

30

40

50

No.

of

Hou

seho

lds

Sale ofbelongings

Dismantling ofhousingstructure

Borrowing Dissaving

Stategy adopted during last flood

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% o

f ho

useh

olds

Dis

save

Bor

row

mon

ey

Mor

tgag

epr

oper

ty

Sell

prop

erty

Shif

t liv

esto

ck

Sell

lives

tock

Mig

ratio

n

Wor

k in

Gov

tpr

ojec

t

Save

fodd

er

Buy

fodd

er

Strategies Adopted during Last Drought

9

Climate Extremes

0

20

40

60

80

% o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Insu

ran

ce

Irri

gati

on

Mo

re r

eli

ef

wo

rk

Hig

her

wag

es

Lo

an

Fo

dd

er/

fert

ilis

er/

foo

d s

ub

sid

y

Catt

le c

am

p

Su

bsi

dy

on

seed

s

Suggested Policies by Households

0

5

10

15

20

25

No.

of

hh

lds

Cro

p C

ompe

nsti

on

Agr

icul

tura

l in

puts

Bet

ter

grai

n pr

eser

vati

on

met

hod

Saf

e dr

inki

ng w

ater

Hea

lth

serv

ices

Tra

nspo

rt &

com

m

Cop

ing

know

ledg

e

Impr

oved

rel

ief

PD

S

Loa

n

Policy Suggestions

10

Likely Impact on Growth Likely Impact on Growth and Development and Development

• Flood and drought increases :Flood and drought increases :

• IndebtednessIndebtedness

• DissavingDissaving

• MigrationMigration

• InflationInflation

• Water borne diseasesWater borne diseases

• Flood is worse than drought Flood is worse than drought Jadavpur University

11

Likely Impact on Growth Likely Impact on Growth and Development and Development

• Incidence of loss are shared by Incidence of loss are shared by

• GovernmentGovernment

• NGOsNGOs

• CommunitiesCommunities

• HouseholdsHouseholds

Jadavpur University

12

Seasonal Variation in Piped Water Quality

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

Months

% o

f con

fluen

t sam

ples

% of Confluent samples KMCoutlet

% of Confluent samples TW

% of Confluent samples IP

13

Water Safe Development

Adaptation and Mitigation

14

Implementation Strategy

• Technical: progressed much but not sustained

• Institutional: urgent need

15

Incentives and Institutions to Ensure Sustainability and

Universal Access

16

Non recovery of Water Production and Distribution Cost

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

KMC's Estimate ofnonrecovery

Research Team's Estimate ofnonrecovery

Total Cost

%

1717

Actual Consumption of water across income groups

0

50

100

150

200

250

BPL MP LIG MIG HIG

income group

litre

per

cap

ita p

er d

ay

Consumption(ltr/cap/day)

1818

% of HHs with In-House KMC Connections

BPL0%

MP14%

LIG28%

MIG29%

HIG29%

BPL

MP

LIG

MIG

HIG

1919

Water use pattern by households

1

2%2

8%

3

90%

1

2

3

Drinking

Cooking

Purpose other than cooking and drinking

Source: Socioeconomic Survey 2003-2008

20

Purification Methods Adopted by Households

0 10 20 30 40 50

BPL

MP

LIG

MIG

HIG

TOTAL

Inco

me

Gro

up

% of Households

Sieve through muslin

Chemicals/Pasteurizer

Boil & Filter

Tap Mouth Filter

Storage Filter

UV Filter

Boiling

21

0 50 100 150 200

% of Affected Households

BPL

MP

LIG

MIG

HIG

Inco

me

Gro

ups

Water-borne Diseases of Different Income Groups

Total

Gastroenteritis

Cholera

Typhoid

Amoebiosis

Jaundice

Dysentery

Diarrhea

22

Society bears the burden

HIG

Averting Expenditure

Adaptive Expenditure

BPL

Averting Expenditure

Adaptive Expenditure

More private benefitMore private cost

2323

WTP as % of avg.income across income groups

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.50

BPL MP LIG MIG HIG

income groups

WTP

as

% o

f ave

rage

in

com

e WTP Min

WTP Max

24

Provides opportunity to Rationalise Developmental action

Integration of water supply service with water recharge, rainwater

harvesting, sewerage, solid waste management

2525

Climate smart building codesUrgent Immediate Action

• To go beyond energy codes only

• Water safe building codes for all new buildings :– Plumbing designs for individual water meters– Meter installation mandatory for all new connections– Rainwater harvesting – Water using appliance standard– Ground water recharge: Large Scale of operation for

scientific, sustainable, quality

26

Governance

• Supply side– Mapping of existing

resource– Source identification and

ownership definition– Source augmentation– Technical efficiency:

• Electricity intensity

• UFW

– Financial efficiency– Sustainability

• Demand side– Behaviourial incentive to

reduce wastage– Incentive design for

economic group wise equity in allocation

– Integrated urban service charge but applicable with decentralised administration

– To induce selection of right kind of technology

27

Beneficiaries do not pay

• Proportion of beneficiaries of the piped water service among total population: 82%

• Proportion of cost un-recovered: 83.7%

• Cost society pays : UFW (30-50%)

28

Mitigation potential

• no accounting for water supply and use

• Per day wastage of treated water: 103.2 MG, cost wise Rs 800 thousand lost /day

• Electricity required to produce 103.2 MG treated piped water: 108,478 units

29

Back of the envelope estimates

• Even if 20% population halves (50% reduction) emission, effect is going to be less but if 80% reduces by little more than 1% same benefit will be generated.

• Mitigation target 50:1?

3030

Multi-criteria based Strategy

• WTP

• ATP criteria for basic amenities

• Access to Basic Minimum need

• Financial Sustainability

• Accountability of Service Provider

31

Value of water quality

• Cost of inaction (4% of HH Income)

• Rs 190 per capita per month on an average.

• In arsenic prone areas Rs 297 per month.

• Cost of action (2% HH income)

• The current cost of supplying filtered piped water to households is Rs. 50-130/- per month per household.

3232

Immediate policy implementation is necessary for initiation of the

Volumetric Water Charge System

Exists:• Meter technology• Installation know-how• Calibration know-how

• Need capacity building

Does not exist:• Policy• Regulation• Incentive• Monitoring

infrastructure

33Thank you

Jadavpur University