Time to Act Again! The Seeds Bill 2004 is coming

Dear friends,

Greetings !! The necessity to learn and act on the seed bill proposed to be tabled later in this session has come. Please find below a reminder from Living Farms.

Time to Act Has Come!

Bimal

The Seeds Bill 2004 is expected to be placed in the second half of the Budget session of Parliament which is scheduled to start on 13^th of this month, April. Is it a mere coincidence that the push to approve GM crops, the draconian BRAI bill and now the Seeds Bill 2004 are being placed before the Parliament without any national debate? This is not a coincidence. It is a well orchestrated plan to make the path clear for the "Gene Revolution".

In this type of do or die situation the voices of protest should be loud and clear.

Present position of the Bill: It is the same Seeds Bill which was tabled in Parliament on 9^th Dec 2004. This had come under severe criticism countrywide, from farmers’ groups, civil society organisation and many other sections as well. The demand then was complete withdrawal of this proposed bill and recognition of farmers’ absolute rights over indigenous seeds.

Because of this opposition the Bill was handed over to Standing Committee on Agriculture, who submitted its report on 28^th Nov. 2006.

But whether the recommendations of the Standing Committee are incorporated into the Bill and what is the present version of the Bill, is not yet made public.

Though the Seeds Act 1966, Plant Variety Protection & Farmers Rights Act 2001 are in place, there arises question about the purpose of this Seed Bill which overrides many of the farmer friendly provisions of the above mentioned Acts.

We are putting our efforts to share other concerns related to this Bill. Below is mentioned a brief on the highlights and key issues of the Bill. A brief explanatory note on both of these points are given as an attachment. We have done so keeping in mind your tight work schedule.

We request you to kindly go through this and share your responses which will enable all of us for next collective step.

We will be sharing with you more information on this which will affect our food sovereignty.

Regards,

Jagannath (Living Farms)

The Seeds Bill, 2004

Legislative Brief

The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 9, 2004.

It was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture (Chair: Prof Ram

Gopal Yadav).

Highlights of the Bill

      The Seeds Bill, 2004 aims to regulate the quality of seeds sold, and replaces the Seeds Act, 1966.

       All varieties of seeds for sale have to be registered. The seeds are required to meet certain prescribed minimum standards.

      The Bill does not restrict the farmer’s right to use or sell his farm seeds and planting material, provided he does not sell them under a brand name. All seeds and planting material sold by farmers will have to conform to the minimum standards applicable to registered seeds.

      If a registered variety of seed fails to perform to expected standards, the farmer can claim compensation from the producer or dealer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

      The Bill permits self certification of seeds by accredited agencies and allows the central government to recognize certification by foreign seed certification agencies.

      Every seed producer and dealer, and horticulture nursery has to be registered with the state government.

Key Issues and Analysis

  

        Mandatory registration and the National Register of Seeds. Although farmers are exempt from registering their seed varieties, the seeds have to conform to standards prescribed for commercial seeds. Farmers may find it difficult to adhere to the standards required of commercially sold seeds.

        Compensation for underperformance of seeds will be governed by consumer courts.

        Seed inspectors can take samples from anyone selling purchasing or transporting seed. They have the power of search and seizure without a warrant.

        It is not clear whether the Bill bans certain genetic engineering technologies such as “genetic use restriction technology” and “terminator technology.” These technologies preserve intellectual property rights by either requiring specific additives, or by making the next generation seeds sterile.

        Under the new Seed Bill all imported seeds will also need to be registered, though the government may allow the import of an unregistered seed for research purposes. Apart from the registration of imported seeds, the new Bill does not make any other provisions.

        The Bill does not make it mandatory that an applicant has to furnish, such as data about the source and geographical origin, in order to register a seed variety.

        The Bill does not have the provision of benefit sharing (as mentioned in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the PPVFR Act), in which case any applicant can register and use a farmer’s variety of seed without compensating the farmer.

        There is no specification of quality assurance systems.

        Self Certification and testing before registration. Seed producers would be permitted to self-certify the performance of their seeds under certain conditions. The seed companies need to provide the results of multi-locational trials before registration. This opens up the possibility of false declaration by seed companies

        Some provisions of the Seeds Bill, 2004 contradict and overlap with the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act).

High Voltage

*Bimal Prasad Pandia

As consumers in Orissa were bracing to face the summer, power tariff hike came in as big shock. While they are being made to believe that the hike was unavoidable as hydro power generation has suffered a lot owing to low rainfall, this report finds that the reservoirs are in fact teeming with higher levels. Definitely there is something fishy in the whole episode.

The order of Orissa Electricity Regulatory Authority (OERC) to hike power tariff has jolted a big shock to the people of Orissa.  “It’s a big and unnecessary increase”, fumes Bhupinder Singh, the leader of the opposition in Assembly. Even the industry-wallahs are very unhappy with it. “We did not expect the hike to be so steep. It will take the competitive edge out of Orissa,” rues R K Jena, chairman, CII's Orissa State Council.   While it has shocked most, a minority section of the society justifies it by arguing that “It was long overdue as Orissa continued with the same tariff structures since 2000”. When every other commodity has become costlier, this justification succeeded in soothing many. “May be, there was no other way out”, Sujit Nath, a student of Pharmacy in Bhubaneswar, tries to reason out.

While people slowly come to terms, a deceptive strategy - which was in all probability well planned and executed – was succeeding on its objectives. The focus of objection has been on the steep rate of hike rather than on whether the hike was warranted at the first place or not. And this was the plan to lead people that way. They wanted people to focus their attention on lesser important things.  People are shouting about the end result while remaining ignorant about the mischiefs that have been played to achieve that result. There is enough evidence to suggest and prove that the condition of ‘severe power shortage’ has been an artificially created one aimed at achieving many objectives – power tariff being just one among those. And hydro-power production has been the most preferred tool to create that condition. 

Loss – A deliberate creation

Raising the tariff structure, OERC has noted that the Grid Corporation (Gridco) – which buys power from producers and sells to distribution companies – has suffered huge losses and by the end of year 2009-10 the loss may well surpass 1,500 crore rupees. While the loss to Gridco is true, not many people know that the loss was - to a large extent - an outcome of very low power supply from Orissa Hydro Power Corporation (OHPC), the state owned corporation that owns hydro-power units in Orissa.  

The Gridco procures power from various sources at OERC fixed rates. As per the process, Gridco had informed the OERC that Orissa will require a total of 18,726.15 Million Unit (MU) in the year 2009-10. It then informed about the sources from which it intends to procure and meet this requirement. Like the Gridco, other players in the power supply network like the power producers, transmitters and consumer representatives also submitted their design power generation, expenditure burdens and what price they expect etc. Taking everything into account the OERC decides quantity of power to be supplied to Gridco and their rate. It also decides power tariff for consumers and end users. While going through this process for the year 2009-10, the Gridco had submitted its plan to meet Orissa’s power requirement. There is no point for guessing that hydro power being the cheapest among all sources was and is the first choice for Gridco. The Gridco, relying on OHPC sources, had estimated that it will get 6,184.44 MU from OHPC. However parties appearing for the consumers submitted that this was a too conservative estimate and ‘Gridco has merely accepted the data submitted by the OHPC and has not done independent assessment of hydro power availability’.  They submitted that ‘the availability of power from state hydro stations would be around 7,680 MU in FY 2009-10 as against the GRIDCO proposal of 6,184 MU’. But the OERC negated consumer’s estimation and instead agreed to the estimates made by Gridco. Though, OERC did not agree to consumer’s assertion that the consumers are losing out on cheapest energy, still 6184 MU from the OHPC in the year 2009-10 was the single most dominant procurement source for Gridco.  This allotment constituted about one-third of its total energy procurement target for the year at a very cheap rate of 57.66 paise per unit on an average with power from Machhkund being the cheapest among all hydro power centres at 13.90 paise per unit and Indravati being the costliest at 73.35 paise.

In contrast, other sources - from which Gridco budgeted to procure the remaining two-third of required power - were 3.35 to 5.2 times costlier. The purchase rate – fixed by OERC - from Orissa Power Generation Corporation (OPGC) owned thermal power plants is 193.70 paise per unit; from Central Power Generation Corporation (Primarily NTPC) is 197.31 paise; from central hydro sources like Chukha, Tala and Teesta is 190.30 paise; from Captive Generation Plants (CGPs) in Orissa is 300 paise; and from renewable sources at 269.43 paise per unit. OHPC’s power, being the cheapest and the largest source, was expected to moderate all these costly sources and keep Gridco’s total purchase cost at 2,923.80 crore rupees for 19,619.11 MU of power required for Orissa in the year 2009-10, at 148.27 paise per unit.    

So the power sources, per unit cost, units to be made available etc. were all decided by the OERC. Had everything gone as per the plan, Gridco would not have bled losses. But that was not to be. OHPC - the most vital source that moderated Gridco’s total purchasing cost to a reasonable level – faltered in making committed supply to the Gridco. For a period OHPC’s supply almost dried up as if its reservoir beds have gone bare. At the last count, OHPC managed to produce just 4,136.139 MU till 25 March, 2010. With only six days remaining of this financial year, the OHPC is expected to produce another 60 MU. This will take OHPC’s total energy production for the year 2009-10 to about 4,200 MU. This is a mere two-third of what was expected from it. Because of this huge deficit supply from the OHPC, the Gridco was forced to scout for other suppliers to plug the gap. That has undone all calculations and caused severe losses to Gridco. As the other sources from which Gridco gets supply are already stretched, they are in no position to make additional supply to Gridco. Even if they make supply, the cost will be many times more than that of OHPC’s power. Now, Gridco has no other way than to purchase power from wily producers at exorbitant cost. Some privately owned CGPs, with whom the Gridco has purchase agreement, charge OERC fixed rate up to the agreement level. Beyond that... it’s the producer’s fiefdom - to grab profits as much as possible from the Gridco’s misery. The negotiations are held hardly on equal terms. The OERC plays no role there; it does not have any jurisdiction to play either. Naturally, power rates spiral with the summer heat. In such a similar situation, the Gridco purchased power at more than 800 paise per unit last year. The situation is ripe to worsen this year. Gridco has lost substantial units of very low cost energy – hydro power - and is now compensating that loss with very high cost energy.

Smacks of Subterfuge

Low hydro power production cannot be reasoned in any manner

As power situation worsens to new lows, people get bemused by the status of the so called ‘energy capital of the nation’ – that Orissa was flaunting as its USP not long ago. But the government had a ready excuse – that reservoirs have dangerously low water level. That excuse has fooled many people into believing in that.  But the reality of reservoir level is starkly the opposite. As the summer was approaching all the major power producing reservoirs were having higher than their normal water level.

With March we entered the summer months. On the first day of March this year, all the major reservoirs had higher water level than what they had on the same day last year. Hirakud, one of the largest reservoirs of Asia, was at 618.73 feet level against last year level of 612.47 feet. Indravati, the largest hydropower producing reservoir of the state, had a level of 635.6 meter against last year’s 632.61 meter. Rengali, Orissa’s second largest reservoir, was at 118.94 meter level on 1 March 2010 against 116.02 meter level that it had on the same day in year 2009. Only Kolab reservoir had a slightly lower water level than what it had on the same day last year. In fact, the water levels maintained by these reservoirs on the 1 March were higher than not just their last year’s level, they surpassed their past five year’s average level too by quite a big margin (See table: On a High...**). In the last five years, excluding this year, Hirakud reservoir had maintained an average water level of 616.63 feet against this year’s level of 618.73 feet. Similarly, Rengali this year was at 390.12 meter level against last five year’s average 383.82 meter. The catchment area of Indravati reservoir received less rainfall this year. But still, Indravati reservoir maintained a higher water level this year than its average level of last five years. Only Balimela reservoir maintained a slightly lower level than its average level in past years.

When water levels in the reservoirs are at higher than their normal levels, government’s contrary propaganda is very hard to swallow and is perplexing. May be a cleaver ploy is cooking to benefit wily parties at the cost of the consumers. Clearly, while some are probably smiling at the deceitful act of the government, awed common people are floundering on their ways to brace the shock in the ensuing heat.

-------------------

* The writer is a development researcher. He can be contacted at bimalpandia@gmail.com  

** Figures in the bracket shows difference in water level compared to 1st March 2010.

Hydropower in Hibernation

Bimal Prasad Pandia*


Power shortage has reached an unprecedented high in Orissa, which was promoting itself as an ‘energy surplus’ state till last year, as hydro power generation has plunged to never before low. This report dissects the realities and finds out that probably some other motives are working behind the hydro-power management than shortage of water.

As Orissa approaches the summer, people’s fear of powerless days grows bigger. Stretching hours of power cut, and innumerable power disruptions have already become the order of the day in both the urban and rural areas. “Dibri (a small kerosene lit lantern) has become another accompaniment of my son along with books, notes and copies,” rues Shankar Kanha Hota, father of a class 10th student of Binka town in Orissa. Power cut has reached an unprecedented level. “Never in the recent history, power cuts had been so long and power disruptions so frequent even before the summer. I am having a horrible time in saving my crops,” alleges Sunil Mishra, a farmer of Bargarh district. The government and other agencies involved in distribution of energy blame it on ‘very low hydro power production’ due to ‘seriously low water level in major reservoirs’.

Power Plunge

Indeed, hydro-power production in the state has come to an abysmal low. Orissa Hydro Power Corporation (OHPC), the state government undertaking in-charge of hydro power production, produced an average 99.3 Mega Watt on March 1, 2010. This is only one-sixth of the average hydro power produced on April 1 in past five years, from year 2005 to 2009. The government has resorted to strategic water blockade for hydro-power generation soon after the monsoon. In this post-monsoon to pre-summer season - November 2009 to February 2010 - the OHPC produced only 770.73 Million Units (MU) of energy from its hydro-power generating units. This is a mere 40 percent of the OHPC’s average generation in the same period over the past six years, 2003-04 to 2008-09.

Even with additional installed capacity and large-scale modernisation of its power generation units, post-monsoon to pre-summer hydro-power production by OHPC this year has been the lowest of the decade (See chart: Power plunge). This year it produced a mere one-third of what it had produced in the November-February season 2003-04 and 2007-08 and less than half of other years.

This level of energy production will surely lead a lay man to believe that it has been one of the worst years as far as rainfall is concerned. But facts tell differently. Year 2002-03 was one of the worst drought years in the recent memory. We had far better rainfall this year than year 2002. Still, this year’s post-monsoon season hydro-production has been lower than the 2002-03 season.

On a ‘High’, But they say ‘Dry’!

While very low hydro power production this year is a fact, a look at the reservoir levels and the manner in which they have been managed in the past few months lays bare the gross inappropriateness in putting the blame on low water level in reservoirs. Government’s attempt to blame ‘low water level in reservoirs’ for low hydro power production resulting in inadequate availability is nothing short of an abject strategy to continue with a entirely false statement to make people believe that falsity as true. Starkly opposite to what the government wants us to believe, almost all of Orissa’s major power producing reservoirs are teeming with higher level than previous years (See table: Definitely… Water level is not worse).

With March we entered the summer months. On the first day of March this year, all the major reservoirs had higher water level than what they had on the same day last year. Hirakud, one of the largest reservoirs of Asia, was at 618.73 feet level against last year level of 612.47 feet. Indravati, the largest hydropower producing reservoir of the state, had a level of 635.6 meter against last year’s 632.61 meter. Rengali, Orissa’s second largest reservoir, was at 118.94 meter level on March 1, 2010 against 116.02 meter level that it had on the same day in year 2009. Only Kolab reservoir had a slightly lower water level than what it had on the same day last year. In fact, the water levels maintained by these reservoirs on the 1st March were higher than not just their last year’s level, they surpassed their past five year’s average level too by quite a big margin (See Chart: On a High). In the last five years, excluding this year, Hirakud reservoir had maintained an average water level of 616.63 feet against this year’s level of 618.73 feet. Similarly, Rengali this year was at 390.12 meter level against last five year’s average 383.82 meter. The catchment area of Indravati reservoir received less rainfall this year. But still, Indravati reservoir maintained a higher water level this year than its average level of last five years. Only Balimela reservoir maintained a slightly lower level than its average level in past years.

A systematic neglect to stymie hydro-power?

So, why does the government continue to blame ‘low level in the reservoirs’ for the present mess in the energy sector? After all, almost all reservoirs of the state are maintaining a healthy level and definitely a higher level than most of last few years. Answer to this question might just be a speculation, but we have enough indications to presume that it is a well thought out plan by the government to gradually neglect the hydro-power sector. While hydro-power production in monsoon months have somewhat increased, non-monsoon production is on a constant decline. Even with capacity additions and modernisation of its units, annual hydro power production has drastically nosedived (See Chart: Towards Dead Head). In 2009 it produced slightly higher than half of what OHPC had produced the year before.

Hence, something else is driving the government’s decision to prune hydro-power than low water level in reservoirs. It says that ‘providing irrigation to the agriculture sector is the first priority’ and thus hydro-power production has been reduced. While such an excuse definitely pleases the masses, the problem is that the excuse is based on very loose footing. Irrigated areas from the reservoirs have not increased, and the reservoirs hold a higher level than past years. Hence, agriculture sector did not require more than what they were normally requiring.

What is the reason then that the government is so desperate to close the gates for hydro-power production? There are many possible reasons. The first is that almost nobody cares about the water level of the reservoirs and hydro-energy production. They can be easily led to a false belief that water level is very low and hence hydro-power production potential has reduced a lot. Water saved through such falsity can be then diverted towards others uses. Government is now under serious pressure from both pro and anti industrial lobby on water diversion issue. The anti-diversion lobby alleges that government is diverting water at the cost of agriculture and by blatantly violating the State Water Policy of 2007. The pro-industrial lobby, on the other hand, rues that government is not doing enough to provide them enough water quickly. Government has already burnt its fingers in Hirakud as irrigation got severely affected after heavy industries started using water from it. The ensuing farmer’s movement is still alive. The movement has put strong brakes on government’s industrial overdrive plan. Thus the government now does not wish to be fooled the second time. It has found a convenient scapegoat in hydro-power production.

The second reason is probably a result of succumbing to private power producer’s lobby. Many large steel, iron and aluminum plants are coming up with their own Captive Generation Plants (CGPs). Besides, many coal based thermal power plants are coming up. They will bargain the most remunerative price for their energy in a situation of shortage and gain handsome profits. Reducing hydro power production may have been a definite ploy to create a shortage condition.

The third reason may have been an attempt to artificially raise production rate of hydropower energy. Besides being one of the cleanest sources of energy, hydro-power is the cheapest sources of power that the transmission company Grid Corporation of Orissa (Gridco) procures. The Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) has fixed Gridco’s purchase price from the CGPs at the range of 3.10 to 4.05 Rupees per unit. The purchase cost from Orissa Power Generation Corporation (OPGC) comes at 1.94 Rupees per unit. From outside state sources like Farakka, Kahalgaon, TSTPS etc., the Gridco’s purchase rate ranges between 1.69 to 2.28 Rupees per unit. Even the states renewable energy sources cost 2.64 Rupees per unit. In contrast, the Gridco proposed to pay only 51.77 Paise to OHPC in the year 2009-10.

OHPC’s energy rate is primarily governed by its design capacity. Design capacity is the total production capacity of its unit(s) in a year. Total cost – including fixed, variable and depreciation costs - of the power producing units is divided by the design capacity to arrive at per unit production cost. Thus, if the design capacity is higher the per unit cost of energy produced will be lower as OHPC’s total production cost almost stays stable, irrespective of the units it produces. Based on the design energy of the OHPC units, the Gridco had planned to purchase 6184.44 MU of energy from OHPC for the year 2009-10. Now, that plan has gone haywire as OHPC is producing almost nothing. OHPC produced only 4,530.8 MU, including its share from Machhkund, in the 2009 calendar year. Up to March 15 of the present financial year 2009-10 (April 2009 to March 2010), OHPC produced only 4,176.7 MU including its share from Machhkund. In the remaining fortnight of the financial year, it can at best produce another 150 MU. Thus, the total hydro power production in the financial year 2009-10 will be somewhere around 4,300 MU mark. The Gridco was quite conservative in expecting 6,184.44 MU from OHPC. Ironically, the OERC in one of its order made on March 20, 2009 pertaining to case number 62/2008 had rapped the Gridco for such low estimation from OHPC. The order stated, “The availability of power from state hydro stations would be around 7,680 MU in FY 2009-10 as against the Gridco proposal of 6,184 MU.” Hence, OHPC will be producing only 56 percent what the OERC had expected from it (See chart – Fooled by the Fall).

Such low production by the OHPC is affecting itself, the Gridco and ultimately the consumers. The OHPC is losing because its sell price is fixed at the beginning of the year. As its establishment and other variable cost remains almost same, low power production hits its finance badly. Now the OHPC is vigorously pleading before the OERC to reduce its design capacity and increase per unit selling cost. While OHPC is pleading, Gridco is bleeding with losses. Gridco was aiming to buy about 31.5 percent of total procurement required for the state from the state’s hydropower units. For this 31.5 percent power it would have paid only 11.1 percent of its total power purchase budget. Now that Gridco will not get those many units, it has not only lost on the cheapest source of energy, it is now breathlessly scouting for alternative sources to maintain a bare minimum standard supply. And the alternative sources are waiting to cash in from such desperation. Last year, the Gridco was forced to buy energy at more than 8 Rupees per unit from such sources during the summer crisis period. It may be worse this year. No surprise that the Gridco is now staring at a loss of over 1,650 Crores in 2009-10 financial year. The ultimate loser will be the consumers as the burden of the additional cost will inevitably fall upon them very soon. The OERC has already started the process to reevaluate the design energy capacities and price structure. Higher price and even longer hours of power cut is going to be the order now.

Avoidable Fiasco
Not long ago, Orissa government was thumping its chest for being a ‘energy surplus state’ and ‘energy capital’ of the country. It is now one of the most energy deficient states of the country. But the status of the reservoirs and the manner in which hydro-power has been produced suggests that the energy fiasco was avoidable. There was no reason to push the panic button and hydro-power production could have been normal. But the ultimate question is, did the government really panic or is it is a clever ploy to allow more profits for the private power producers and private distribution companies at the cost of general public?
-----------------------------------------------------
*The author is a farmer and a social researcher active in the development sector of Orissa. He may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com

Upward Flow in Urban Water Services?

Urban water supply at the hand of the proposed ‘Odisha Water Corporation’ has both hopes and apprehensions.
Bimal Prasad Pandia

As the Odisha government’s decision to form ‘Odisha Water Corporation (OWC)’ gradually sinks in, responses and reactions of different kinds keep bulging. The OWC will take over the urban water supply responsibility from the Public and Health Engineering Organisation (PHEO). Going by declaration of the government it will start its work first from the state capital. While the exact framework of the OWC is still unknown, the general perception of a ‘Corporation’ is that of a body that undertakes a set of business with an intention of making profits. Many state owned corporations do make losses also, but the intention is always to make profit. Hence, the initial reaction to the OWC has also been quite apprehensive as there is a great deal of difference and reservations on whether water supply to urban areas can be an area of business.

Activists argue that - water being a basic necessity - it is the fundamental duty of the government to provide that to its citizens. Many Court rulings have also maintained that providing clean water is a state responsibility. A recent Apex Court bench - while making orders in a writ petition filed by M.K. Balakrishan and others – held, “In our opinion the right to get water is a part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.” But as cities and towns grow rapidly, the government has lagged in providing that basic necessity. Till now, the business of supplying water has been quite confined to just one entity, the PHED in Odisha – which is severely criticized for poor reach and unprofessional services. It is the only entity doing business of providing water to the urban denizens and thus has monopoly over the business. Economists caution that monopolistic business of a commodity is bad. In case of PHED, it is not bad because of its profit making intentions. It is bad because it provides very poor service with which the user has to be content with. The proposed corporation, too, will be the only entity. There will be no improvement as far as additional choice is concerned. But it comes with added apprehensions. One of the major apprehensions is that OWC, having same monopoly as the PHED but added commercial orientation of a corporation, may begin commoditization of water - a basic good, which was considered free till recently - as a commercial good.

Having raised this apprehension, we must have to admit that we have very few choices left. The urban water supply systems, the way it is being managed now, raises serious concern not just about the sustainability of the system but also about the qualitative and quantitative coverage of the burgeoning urban population. Growing numbers of people complain about lack of water distribution coverage. Those who have tap connections complain of very poor quality and quantity of supply. The PHED, on the other hand, says that people are least bothered to check wastage, leaks and illegal uses. They also say that in spite of the water rate being so cheap, the rate of collection is quite abysmal and the department’s workforce being so thin, it is not able to give proper attention towards collection of revenue and maintenance of the system. Independent watchers say that the department is not very concerned about improving the present gap in potential and achievement of its infrastructures. They rue that the department is neither answerable to the government nor accountable to the water users. Some also say that it tries to find engineering solution to every problem, whereas most of the problems relating to water use behavior are basically of social nature. With such backdrop, the PHED provides a sub-standard service and burdens a very heavy financial liability. When the cities are growing at breakneck speed, the PHED’s services and networks have almost stayed standstill. This situation is quite worrisome. Thus some kind of change is quite inevitable, some argue. The proposed OWC is probably intended towards bringing in such change.

Obvious reasons for selecting Bhubaneswar first?
While the OWC brings in hope as well as apprehensions, why Bhubaneswar was chosen as the first city for the OWC to work is a thing to ponder. A convenient answer to this could be that it is the state capital. But the feel is that there are other reasons also. Bhubaneswar has been selected for facelift under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM). The most important component covered therein is the water supply system. The City Development Plan (CDP), prepared under the JnNURM, has estimated a total capital investment of Rs. 2,220.11 Crores during the period 2007-2012 in an ‘optimum scenario’. Of this, investment in water supply system accounts for 31.14 percent; Underground sewerage system accounts for 22.35 percent and Storm water drains accounts for 5.84 percent. Thus, close to 700 Crores rupees will be spent on improving water supply system in Bhubaneswar in the mission period. This, being a big amount, probably necessitated a professional organisation to manage such a big amount.

Another important status of Bhubaneswar may also have weighed in for selecting that city first. Bhubaneswar is one of the rare cities of the country where the present installed supply capacity is almost double of the requirement of the whole city. It has been estimated that for an ‘A’ class city like Bhubaneswar, 155 Litres Per Capita per Day (LPCD) water is adequate. Bhubaneswar has a supply capacity of 276.24 Million Liters per Day (MLD). The present population of the city has been estimate at a little above 9 lakh. Thus, the PHED now has the capacity - and reportedly supplies – water at 305 LPCD. But the common men, ignorant of such statistics, draw their perception from what they get or suffer. And that’s what really matters as that is the plain truth. People with connection hardly get supply more than 4 hours a day. In addition to 578 public stand posts, the department has given only 55,340 service connections whereas the city has about three times more households residing in it. The 911 kilometers long pipe supply network has barely covered half of the city. So, while the PHED’s capacity is there to provide twice of the ideal water requirement to the whole population of the city, in practice it barely manages to reach one-third of the population directly. This managerial inadequacy is showing in its accounts. While it collects about 12 Crores an year as water dues from consumers, it spends more than that on payment to the CESCO towards energy charges alone. There are other major expenditures like repair, maintenance and salary etc. This cripples the performance of the department and makes it overly dependent on grants from the government to carry out even the routine activities. While the present finance of the water service provider is quite pathetic, the potential for doing great business and making big money is definitely present at Bhubaneswar. The present water rate for 1000 liters of supply is Rs 2.80. Thus, if the supplier supplies at a rate of 305 LPCD then it will have the potential to earn 77.35 lakhs a day. At this rate the annual income will be about 280 Crores against the present 12 Crores rupees. The department is losing substantially to leaks, theft, wastage and lack of professionalism in billing and collection.

Bhubaneswar is at least rich as far as installed capacity for supply is concerned. Most cities do not have that adequacy and hence a corporation will not have to bother about creating or augmenting supply capacity for Bhubaneswar. It will just have to look at the distribution part, at least for now. That makes the job of the corporation half done. Thus, the scope to carry out ‘reforms’ – both from technical and financial angle - is probably a lot easier at Bhubaneswar than any other city. That may have been a reason for choosing Bhubaneswar as the newly created OWC will have it a lot easier at Bhubaneswar than many other cities.

But the prominent reason for forming the OWC and selecting Bhubaneswar as its first play field is the compulsion to bring reforms in the water supply system. Without reforms Odisha or Bhubaneswar will not receive JnNURM grants. The JnNURM has set forth many mandatory conditions of institutional, financial and managerial reforms both at the state and city level. Implementation of the 74th Constitution amendment to give more powers to local urban government, i.e., the Municipality; Association of elected municipalities with the city planning function; Repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; Rationalization of stamp duty to bring it down to no more than 5 percent within seven years etc. are some of the compulsory reform conditions set forth at the state level. The mandatory reforms requirement at the city/municipality level includes, Adoption of a modern, accrual-based, double entry system of accounting; Introduction of a system of e-governance using IT applications, GIS and MIS for various urban services; Reform of property tax with GIS, and arrangements for its effective implementation so as to raise collection efficiency to 85 percent; Levy of reasonable user charges with the objective that full cost of operation and maintenance is collected within seven years; Internal earmarking of budgets for basic services to the urban poor; and Provision of basic services to the urban poor, including security of tenure at affordable prices etc.

The idea of the OWC is, therefore, definitely aimed towards meeting some of those state and city level mandatory requirements. However, there are a lot of confusions on the scope of the OWC; and what will be its relation with the Municipalities and other organisations etc. One of the prominent requirements of JnNURM is to give the Municipalities more governance power. Presently, the PHED – not Municipalities - is in charge of making water supplies to the cities. In other states the Municipalities are in charge of urban water supply. The Municipalities have some form of public representative but the PHED has none. If the proposed OWC too works independently of the Municipalities, then there will not be much difference as far as accountability and public participation is concerned. Thus, while there will be no improvement to public participation or public accountability the OWC, on the other hand, will be more intended towards strengthening its finances. This has the threat of becoming a more dangerous proposition than the present PHED structure.

With such hope and apprehensions, the state government must be careful in making the OWC accountable to public. Doing business in water is nowhere akin to doing business in other consumer goods. General public probably will not be averse to OWC’s intentions of improving financial viability of their services because quality service can be expected otherwise. But they must come with sufficient scope for public participation in its plans and activities, more accountability and responsiveness towards the water users. Thus, while formation of the OWC is quite welcome, care must be given to make it participatory and accountable to the public. It cannot just be given the license to do business with financial considerations first.
--------------------------------
The author may be contacted at: bimalpandia@gmail.com
This article can also be viewed at: http://kalingatimes.com/views/20100115_Upward_Flow.htm
and
http://orissadiary.com/ShowOriyaColumn.asp?id=16259

The challenge is to make ‘farming’ the ‘preferred occupation’

It is so sad that farmers see no point in continuing with their lives. We have to reverse that trend.

By Bimal Prasad Pandia

Sometimes in the early 1990s, I was among the few farmers chosen to undergo a training on hybrid paddy cultivation. Prior to that, I had already started demonstration cultivation of hybrid paddy. Then my district, Sonepur, was geographically divided into two distinct parts by the Mahanadi River. There was no bridge then. I was selected as the representative farmer of my block. The training was scheduled towards the end of July at the DAO office in Sonepur. The river was in spate. Boats were not making ferries. Being a young and enthusiastic farmer, I somehow managed to persuade few boatmen, who were known to me, to ferry us across. We (the farmers) were present at the venue by the stipulated time. But the scientists (who were to train us) or the officers (who were to manage us) were nowhere in sight. They reached at about 12 noon. The meeting started more than 2 hours behind the schedule. As soon as the meeting formally started, I stood up and raised my protest for the delayed start. The Chairman found an excuse in inclement weather for their delay in arriving. When I pointed out that the weather was no different to us and in addition we had to cross a violent Mahanadi river and still made up to the venue in time, the officer told me “that’s why we are paying you 25 rupees for attending the meeting.” I lost my sense of decency and immediately turned the big table on the people sitting on the dais, which included the officer. After they regained their posture, I told them, “Officer, look at my pant and shirt pockets. I can put many officers like you in each of those pockets. And you show me 25 rupees? And if at all you expect me to be present in time just because you are paying me 25 rupees, then my government is paying you in hundreds to do the same thing. Why aren’t you then reaching in time?” It was a different matter that in spite of being a ‘big farmer’, my earning was only a fraction of what the officer earned and thus my thundering that I keep officers like him in my pocket had no truthfulness.

But the reaction was the outcome of an aggrieved and avid farmer whose self esteem was badly hurt by an arrogant officer. In that case the officer beg apology and I accepted that. But the broad point here is that farmers in Orissa are treated that way most often. I mean they are treated with disdain in every sphere. That was not the only instance when I had to face such situation and such approach. I had to assert myself to restore my dignity each time I was faced with similar situation. My personal experience is that very few farmers are treated well by the officers and the authority. And most often than naught, such lucky farmers are engaged in other professions, like legal, polity, teaching etc. And whatever respects that they get accrue from the non-farming profession.

Ironically, the level of respect for a farmer is declining with each passing time. This is an outcome of linking respect with money and not with nobleness of the profession. The general perception is that those who do not find engagement anywhere find engagement in farming. Since, respect is being weighted in terms of money, even a mere gutkha shop owner commands more respect than a farmer. It is an irony that producers of the most necessary item for human survival get less respect than those whose services are not required or less required for survival or existence.

Since, CAPITAL has become ‘the word’ in every social and commercial dealings; farmer is getting more and more stressed as CAPITAL is eluding the farmer even with a lot of energy and expenditure. When even a peon has the ability to give good schooling to his wards, a farmer – how so ever big he may be - struggles. And that is not very easy to cope with these days.

The farmer has also tried to grow with new ideas and technologies. But the laws of economics and engineering innovations, that so well bolster other sectors, fail to apply that way in case of agriculture. The demand-supply mechanism is quite complex in agriculture. Even if you can somehow assess the demand, it is very difficult to get an idea of supply – considering numerous pulls in the production and supply chain and the gross unorganized nature of the sector. Unlike other sectors, utilization of new technology does not reduce the cost of agriculture production. But the farmer is forced to adopt those these days. Climatic factors and reduction in soil nutrient has made things more difficult. While the expenditure has gone up in one upward direction, the income has not only failed to correspond to expenditure but also has become more unstable. While purchasing power of everybody else has gone up, the farmers have been left lurching. In such circumstances, the stress on the farmer is becoming suffocating.

A close look at the profile of the farmers who have killed themselves clearly reveals this aspect. Most farmers were ‘farmers only’. Not like me who earns part from agriculture and part from elsewhere. They did not have a pan-shop, they did not collect and sell firewood, they did not work in unskilled job opportunities like the NREGS. They only toiled and more toiled in their agriculture fields. And they lost there. They did not have a supplementary or substitute options elsewhere. They did not want compassion. They wanted respect for their profession. But that element stayed wanting.

What the government is doing is nothing. At best it can be termed as a humiliating compassion. What else will you term the government’s declaration to compensate Rs 800 for a hectare of lost kharif crop? What is the value of Rs 800? Seed alone costs at least 125 percent more than that.

Our government takes pride in having a comprehensive agriculture policy? A new policy has replaced the earlier one. But the fate of agriculture has only deteriorated further. This will continue to happen as long as agriculture is seen merely as the sector giving employment to more than 70 percent of the workforce. Agriculture has to be seen differently. Agriculture has to be seen as social service. Those who render such service have to be considered as first class citizen. And if CAPITAL determines class of a citizen, then such environment has to be created where the farmer becomes a capitalist.

I believe that when farming will again become the preferred profession, we will have less farmer suicides. And that can happen only when a farmer’s purchasing power increases at par with other occupations. It will be great if we decide on ways to restore the pride of the farmer, not be compassionate on him.

Bimal Prasad Pandia
Email: bimalpandia@gmail.com
Cell: +91-9438488563 / 9937888566

Hirakud... Another instance of Subterfuge

Power gerneration curbed to mislead people about surplus-ability of Hirakud reservoir.

On Thursday the mega Hirakud dam project with installed capacity of 347.5 megawatt (MW) produced an average of only 2.83 MW. This was the lowest energy produced among all major hydro-power units in the state. When the state is reeling under acute power scarcity, the dam authorities are in no mood to open the gates for power generation. This is not new and water release for power generation from the dam has been severely curtailed soon after the monsoon. In a matter of couple weeks in the month of October 2008, power generation from Burla and Chipilima units fell steeply from 270 MW to less than 50. 
Not many will evince interest whether Hirakud is producing energy or not as long as they get energy. The government is riding on this assumption to play a clever ploy to hide facts relating to capacity of Hirakud reservoir in meeting various demands. The dam management is under pressure to prove that there is enough water in the reservoir even after industrial consumption. In that pursuit, the dam authorities are trying their best to ensure that water level of the dam does not reach anywhere near the dead level. 

Is the mighty reservoir empty or is the government trying to prove (or hide) something in stealth? 
As on Thursday, the reservoir was still having 11.2 percent of its utilizable water left in it. Other dams with even less water were producing more energy. The Rengali dam was left with barely 1 percent of utilizable water but used more than twice as much of Hirakud for energy generation. Similarly, the Balimela reservoir - almost half the size of Hirakud - is left with mere 1 percent of utilizable water, but is using nearly as much as Hirakud.  

The Hirakud reservoir is clearly shunning one of its priority objectives to prove some false claims by the government that there is enough water in the reservoir for every user even if industries are allowed water. By trying to end the summer season with more than dead level water, the government wants to achieve two things. The first is to soothe the agitating farmers by showing that industrialisation does not dry the reservoir as is being feared and therefore farmers need not worry. The second is to allay water shortage fears of industrial houses – who are having second thoughts on entering Orissa now. The Hirakud reservoir has been the single most dominant source of industrial water allocation and any indication of water shortage in the reservoir is bound to affect the Government’s allurement. 

There is another angle on why the dam authorities are reluctant to release water even during the fag end of the summer season. The net storage of water is still calculated on an old assessment that the net utilisable storage of the reservoir is 3.9 Million Acre Feet. But this assessment has no value as net utilisable storage has come down to 3.7 MAF which has been mentioned in the high level technical committee report constituted two years ago. Three years ago even when the reservoir level was 10 ft higher than the dead level – the level beyond which water release is not possible – water could not be released to the second largest canal in the Hirakud system. Now the government fears that even if water level stays quite above the dead level, water may still not be released into the canals and intake wells of the industries may also go dry. 

That may be the reason of why the government is in no mood to take risk which may expose its claim of surplus water in the Hirakud because it knows very well that all its arguments will be null and void even if scarcity comes to light even for few hours. If that happen, the farmers will get fresh ammunition in their arm to raise their pitch further and industries will lose their interest in Orissa. Surely, the government wants neither to happen and hence the all out effort to keep water in the reservoir till the monsoon arrives in few days.

Whatever be the predicament, the government is playing to fool the people, especially the farmers and the industries. It is also blatantly violating the State Water Policy 2007 which gives higher priority to energy generation than industrial use. Thus, the government must come clean on this. The circumstances demand nothing less than a WHITE PAPER on Hirakud considering its great role in providing water for irrigation, energy production and industrialisation and also being the only source to control flood in the Mahanadi River system. Otherwise history will never forget one of the most unfortunate and unfair practice played by a government to hoodwink people into a belief that Hirakud has enough water. 

N.B.: This article was published in editorial page of Odia daily 'Dharitri'.

Supreme Court's Heat on Government's Cool

As Supreme Court finds government cool to its ‘recommendations’, a rigorous ‘direction’ follows to make water available to people. But the Court's over reliance on science mars what could have otherwise been termed as historic judgement.

On Feb 19 this year, the Apex Court had ‘recommended’ immediate constitution of a committee to look for scientific solution to water scarcity. On April 26, it ‘ordered’ the government to do that and came out clear targets and time-frames while deciding a different case. Apex court gets louder and tougher as water crisis management fails to its expectations.

The ‘recommendation’ had come while a two judge division Bench was deciding on a writ petition filed by Government of Orissa that sought Court’s directive to the Central Government to constitute a ‘Water Dispute Tribunal’ to try disputes between Orissa and Andhra Pradesh over Vansadhara River water. The Court allowed the petition and ordered the Central Government to constitute a Tribunal ‘within six months’. But in addition to that the Court also held that water scarcity has become so immense that a Tribunal or a Court of Law cannot permanently find a solution to that. In that back drop, Justice Markandeya Katju in a separate concurrent judgment held that the Government is duty-bound to provide water to people. “The right to get water is a part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution,” opined Justice Katju. He was scathing as people everywhere in India are facing a lot of hardship for shortage of water. We don’t have problem of water. Its situation like ‘water water everywhere but not a drop to drink’, had said the Court. We have huge glaciers in the north, majestic oceans on the rest of three sides and numerous big and small rivers all across. Even then we are facing acute water shortage. This is a problem that Science can and should solve, thought the Court. “India has a strong heritage of science… The way out therefore for our nation is to once again turn to the scientific path shown by our ancestors - the path of Aryabhatta and Brahmagupta, Sushrut and Charak, Ramanujan and Raman,” advised the Court. The Court said that our scientists have the capacities. “There is no dearth of eminent scientists in the field who can solve this problem, but they have not been organized and brought together and not been requested by the Central and State Governments to do their patriotic and sacred duty to solve this problem, nor given the facilities for this,” opined the Court.

In that context the Supreme Court had ‘suggest’ constitution of a committee to look into ‘scientific solution’ to water problems on a ‘war-footing’. It had also advised the Central and State governments to give the committee all kinds of support, including financial, material and administrative support. On that count the Court had passed a detailed order, on March 26, ‘relating to the problem of water shortage in our country and we had issued notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology asking him to file a counter affidavit within four weeks stating what measures have been taken to solve the water problem in the country and for implementing the recommendations’ given by the Court.

On April 26, the Supreme Court found the counter affidavits spineless and directed “the Central government to forthwith constitute a Committee to address the problems referred to in our order dated 26th March, 2009 which shall do scientific research on a war footing for solving the water shortage”. The Court was very categorical and pointed in its intention this time. “The Central Government is directed to form this Committee to address the water shortage problem at the earliest, latest within two months from today. This Committee shall have the Secretary, Union Ministry of Science & Technology as its Chairman. Amongst the members of the Committee will be the Secretary, Union Ministry of Water Management. The other members of the Committee will be scientists specialized in the field of solving water shortage problems nominated by the Chairman of the Committee and they are requested to take help from foreign scientists specialized in this field,” ordered the Court.

In order to ensure that the government does not take this lightly, the Court proposed to monitor the progress of the committee regularly. “This matter will be listed on the second Tuesday possibly of every alternative month. List again on the 11th August, 2009, on which date a progress report will be submitted before us by the Chairman of the Committee who is requested to be personally present before us. Thereafter the case will be listed on the 20th October, 2009 and so on,” said the Court.

It’s all fine… but is the Court totally right in reposing faith only in Science to deal with water crisis?

There is no second opinion on the Court’s observation on water shortage and deprivation faced by large number of people or on its ruling that right to water is enshrined in the Constitution of the country. But there can be a level of discomfort when the judgment became a little more obsessed with use and capacities of ‘science’. “It is science alone which can solve this problem,” opined the Court. Definitely, there will be a lot less concurrence of opinion on this.

The Court observed that science had taken ancient India to great heights. But then it attributes the causes of decay of water resources to neglect of science. “However, we subsequently took to the unscientific path of superstitions and empty rituals, which has led us to disaster,” observed the Court.

We cannot say that this was a very sound observation by the Court. The Court did not mention what it means by ‘rituals’ or ‘superstitions’. But if referring to ‘River’ as mother is termed as ‘superstition’ or doing something in good stead like taking bath in ‘holy’ water, or cremating besides a river is considered as ‘empty rituals’ then a lot of eye-brows are sure to rise. On the contrary, science has deteriorated water quality and quantity to great extent whether by polluting the sources or causing changes in climate which has a direct bearing on water or emptying ground water sources or tempering with natural flows of water. Thus, your lordship, please pardon us as we differ with you with the believe that not ‘empty rituals’ or ‘superstitions’ but artificial use of science and technology for use of water has led to its abuse and the present decay of water sources.

Truly, answer lies in our tradition – But which is more simpler, cost-effective and proven

Science does not possess a magic wound – at least not yet - to heal all ailments related to water shortages within a timeframe as the Court expects. The Court hopes that scientific activities - like (a) converting saline water into fresh water; and (b) Scientific research to find out methods of harnessing and managing monsoon rain water and also to manage the flood waters and also to do research in rain water harvesting, and treatment of waste water so that it may be recycled and available as potable water - if done in a war footing will solve water problems. That is quite true. But for that to succeed, we must first have to put seize on the factors that cause direct degradation of water and of the environment that impacts water.
If India was very rich in science, it was no less rich in harnessing its natural resources – including water. Every village and every town in India had its own tradition of water harvesting and use. Modern science has treated such tradition and knowledge with disdain and we are paying the price of that.

So your honour, why go for complex and costlier science when we have simpler, cost-effective and proven technology - in traditional design, knowledge and practice with us?? We thank you for the urgency that you have instilled. We hope that the government too picks that sentiments and start urgently. But for all’s shake - honuorable lordship – please do not think that ‘only science can solve this problem’. Most certainly we have better options available in our tradition to harness our water sources with respect and reap benefits.