Resources Research

Culture and systems of knowledge, cultivation and food, population and consumption

Posts Tagged ‘sanitation

The sweeping of Bharat

with one comment

RG_Modi_jhadoo_6_smIt is as customary in politics as it is in administration to expect a new dispensation to sweep clean the debris and dust of the old order. It is just as customary to fix such sweeping with a suspicious eye and mutter that new brooms after all must sweep, for such is their calling.

Yet what we now see in India appears to be no ordinary broom and no ordinary sweeping. There is a movement afoot to clean the country and its chief cleaner and founder had this to say on 2 October (the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi): “Does the job of getting rid of filth belongs to municipal cleaners only? Isn’t it the duty of all the 1.25 billion Indians? We have to change this situation. All of us are responsible for no longer keeping our country like this.”

RG_Modi_jhadoo_7_smThe exhortation was delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has set a benchmark for plain speaking in his government. The tone was set and early adopters proved to be, not the average Indian weary of garbage in her neighbourhood, but practically every government department.

Against a background of apathy by government departments that has been painfully familiar for two decades and more, this is unusual but not surprising. The new Bharatiya Janata Party government has impressed upon bureaucrats and government servants that they too are responsible citizens first, which is why every day after 2 October, one ministry after another has advertised its eagerness to sweep India clean through press releases, posed photographs and stilted promises.

The campaign, called ‘Swachh Bharat’, or clean India, has at best left ordinary citizens both bemused and amused. To set the ball rolling, Modi invited nine well-known citizens to begin a high-profile sweeping. Amongst them is Sachin Tendulkar, the cricketer, who quickly sent for a bunch of the typically ordinary brooms that Indian households use, rounded up some of his friends, and set to work in his Mumbai neighbourhood with at least as much technique as he once used to score runs on the cricket pitch.

RG_Modi_jhadoo_8_smBut the clean India campaign is also proving to have reached places that no such campaign before it has. The governor of the Reserve Bank of India, who ordinarily ponders monetary policy and interest rate adjustments, is reported to have turned his attention to how new toilets in rural India can be financed. Moreover, India’s University Grants Commission, the apex body that coordinates higher education in the country, has instructed all the universities to ensure clean and green campuses.

Preferring the questionnaire to the broom, Delhi University has decided to sociologically study the impact of Modi’s campaign (will Delhi’s residents actually stop littering, they have asked). The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (whose job it is to monitor the gigantic Indian economy) has been asked to “develop an appropriate statistical framework” so that the government can judge whether the campaign is working and how it may be adjusted. And the first smartphone application has been released with which litter-averse Indians can tag unclean places in their city wards, upload pictures to a dedicated portal, and perhaps wait for a municipal cleaner to turn up, armed with a now very familiar broom.

Advertisements

When the 65 million who live in India’s slums are counted

with 2 comments

The graph illustrates the 30 largest slum populations in India, using the new Census 2011 data. The scale is logarithmic - not proportional, else showing the largest metros would reduce the smaller cities to being unreadable - so as to better display the trend of growing slum populations in urban centres whose total populations are less than a million (like Guntur and Malegaon) and up to two million (like Kota, Gwalior, Srinagar, Raipur, Jabalpur and Meerut).

The graph illustrates the 30 largest slum populations in India, using the new Census 2011 data. The scale is logarithmic – not proportional, else showing the largest metros would reduce the smaller cities to being unreadable – so as to better display the trend of growing slum populations in urban centres whose total populations are less than a million (like Guntur and Malegaon) and up to two million (like Kota, Gwalior, Srinagar, Raipur, Jabalpur and Meerut).

We have now one important basis to consider carefully the consequences of the macro-economics of GDP growth and all the programmes to encourage such ‘growth’.

In 2011, 65.49 million Indians lived in slums in our cities and towns (the number was 52 million when recorded in Census 2001). It is important not to allow the immensity of our population numbers (1,250 million now in 2013) to diminish this extraordinary and disgraceful number in any way.

The 65 million who live in slums are all together a population equivalent to the populations of Thailand or France or Britain. This is also larger than the populations of Italy or Burma, South Africa or South Korea.

In Census 2001 the total number of towns that reported slums was 1,743. In Census 2011 the total number of towns and cities that reported slums was 2,613 out of 4,041 ‘statutory’ towns and cities. Here is the guideline for classifying types of slum settlements from Census 2011:

1. All notified areas in a town or city notified as ‘slum’ by state, union territories’ administrations or local government under any act including a ‘slum act’ may be considered notified slums (22.5 million live in notified slums).
2. All areas recognised as ‘slum’ by state, union territories administration or local government, housing and slum boards, which may have not been formally notified as slum under any act may be considered as recognised slums (20.1 million live in recognised slums).
3. A compact area of at least 300 population or about 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water facilities. Such areas should be identified personally by the ‘charge officer’ and also inspected by an officer nominated by the Directorate of Census Operations. This fact must be duly recorded in the charge register. Such areas may be considered as identified slums (22.8 million live in identified slums).

[You can get the Primary Census Abstract for slum populations 2011 here as an xls file. There is a very informative presentation on the data available here as a pdf. Consult the primary pages on Census 2011 – India’s 2011 Census a population turning point, India’s 2011 Census the states and their prime numbers and The data vault of the 2011 Census.]

India Census 2011 – what they use in 330 million homes for light, cooking, drainage and phones

with one comment

The overview of the ‘Houselisting and Housing Census’ has been released by the Census of India 2011. Here are the main points and highlights, in mostly the language and with the focus given by the Census office:

The Census of India 2011 was conducted in two phases. The first phase, called the “Houselisting and Housing Census”, was undertaken a few months prior to the second phase termed as “Population Enumeration”.

The objective of the Houselisting and Housing Census Operations is to identify each building/census house and also to ascertain the quality of the census house, amenities accessible to it and assets available to the households living in those census houses.

The enumerators collected the information by visiting each and every household and canvassing a written questionnaire called the Houselist and Housing Schedule. In Census 2011, a period of 45 days was allotted for this purpose, between April 2010 to September 2010. Approximately 2.5 million enumerators and 200,000 supervisors were engaged for this operation. What made the exercise even more challenging was the fact that the information was collected on 35 items and 15 million Census Schedules were canvassed in 16 Indian languages.

The Houselisting and Housing Census shows that the census houses increased from 250 million to 330 million. There is an increase of 60 million census houses for residential and partly residential purposes. The data indicates that the housing gap has reduced. There is an improvement in the construction material used for roof, wall and floor. Thus there is a substantial improvement in the quality of housing both in rural and urban areas.

[You can get the xls file here.]

* Amenities available with the households – 87% of households are using tap, tube well, hand pump and covered well as the main source of drinking water while 43.5 percent use tap water. Only 47% of households have source of water within the premises while 36% of households have to fetch water from a source located within 500 m in rural areas/100 m in urban areas and 17% still fetch drinking water from a source located more than 500 m away in rural areas or 100 m in urban area.
* Main source of lighting – 67% households use electricity which shows an increase of 11pt over 2001. The rural-urban gap has reduced by 7 percentage points from 44% in 2001 to 37%.
* 58% of the households have a bathing facility within the premises, showing an increase of 22 pts over 2001.
* Around half the households have drainage connectivity with two-third have the open drainage and one-third have the closed drainage.
* 47% of the households have a latrine within premises, with 36% households having a water closet (WC) and 9% households having a pit latrine. There is an 11 pt decline in households having no latrine from 64% to 53% in 2011.
* 61% households have a kitchen with 55% having the kitchen within the premises and 6% outside. Two-third of the households are using firewood/crop residue, cow dung cake/coal etc. and 3% households use kerosene. There is an increase of 11 pts in use of LPG from 18% in 2001 to 29% in 2011.
* Communication – there is an increase of 16% in television and a corresponding decline of about 15 pt in use of radios/transistors. Less than 1 out of 10 households have a computer/laptop with only 3% having access to internet. The penetration of internet is 8% in urban as compared to less than 1% in rural area. 63% households have a telephone/mobile with 82% in urban and 54% in rural area. The penetration of mobile phone is 59% and landline is 10%.
* Transport – 45% of the household have a bicycle, 21% two wheelers and 5% four wheelers. There is an increase of 9 pt in two wheeler and 2 pt in four wheelers, with bicycle showing increase of 1 pt only. 59% of the households use banking facilities with 68% in urban and 54% in rural areas. The rural urban difference has reduced from 19 to 13 pt.
* 18% of the household do not have any of the specified assets.

India’s ‘growth’ and the lifting of showboats

leave a comment »

The doctrine of growthism as the best tonic for India has been given new impetus by Jagdish N Bhagwati, Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, an American think tank.

The CFR has reprinted an article written by Bhagwati titled ‘India’s Reform and Growth Have Lifted All Boats’, originally published by the Financial Times (available here if you have a subscription).

Bhagwati’s paean to an economy judged by whether it does 8% or 9% per quarter is the latest argument in a season of several, from economists and heads of industry, from policymakers and international finance experts.

What is different about Bhagwati’s short article is that it very quickly hits out at those he has called “the reform naysayers” in India. “Such voices present India with a double challenge: they misrepresent the successful way growth has cut India’s poverty, but more importantly their critiques stand in the way of a much needed new wave of reforms, which would further benefit India’s poorest.”

Bhagwati has said that India’s liberal reforms actually pulled 200 million out of poverty, that had these reforms only started earlier more would have been pulled out, that improvements are shared by nearly all underprivileged groups and that, most important for him, “being poor is now seen by India’s underprivileged as a removable condition”.

This trend, typified by Bhagwati’s recent article, of pointing to impressive quarterly growth rates and inferring their impacts on the poor and on wage labour by citing a few studies, needs to be understood and countered.

Writing in People’s Democracy (02 January 2011) C P Chandrasekhar pointed out that “India is a country still plagued by hunger with among the highest rates of malnutrition in the world” (‘Growth for Whom?’). Deprivation in other forms such as lack of access to clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health facilities and school education still afflict a large proportion of the population.

Chandrasekhar has said that the benefits of high growth for the best part of a decade must be accruing to a small minority, resulting in increased inequality. Unfortunately, data of a kind that helps us track inequality is difficult to come by. Surveys of consumption expenditure do not cover the rich and therefore tend to underestimate the extent of inequality.

It is such shortcomings in our ability to measure patterns of consumption that allow the trend, displayed by Bhagwati, to prosper. However, there are signs enough of increased inequality in India.

The first is that the high growth of the last few years has been accompanied by a sharp rise in the gross savings rate, Chandrasekhar has said, of 5.5 percentage points to 29.1 per cent between 2001-02 and 2004-05. The rate rose by another 4.2 percentage points between 2004-05 and 2007-08. “Since it is the richer sections that have incomes that are substantially in excess of their consumption needs which can be saved, this sharp rise in the savings rate points to an increase in incomes among the richer classes.”

This is but one among the many substantial realities whcih the proponents of growthism for India cannot reconcile with their arguments for more reform.

The global water trade, by ship from Alaska to India

leave a comment »

Niger-Men draw water

Niger: Men draw water from a deep well in Zinder. They must make tough decisions as to how to divide the scarce resource between cattle, people and crops. Photo: Anne Isabelle Leclercq/IRIN

The ecological crimes committed in the name of trade and for the benefit of the ‘market’ grow in outrageousness. The latest example of utter irresponsibility, both regulatory and environmental, comes from a company headquartered in the state of Texas, USA, which plans to ship water from Alaska, USA, all the way across the Pacific Ocean, to India, where it plans to set up what it calls its ‘global water hub’.

The alert came on the Triple Pundit site, which quickly explained that the Texan company, S2C Global Systems, plans to ship 11.35 billion litres of water every year from the Blue Lake Reservoir in Sitka, Alaska to the west coast of India and other Asian countries. From there, S2C Global Systems plans to sell the water via “smaller ships that can deliver to shallower ports, like Umm Qasr in Iraq”. Do you smell the hand of US defence contractors like Halliburton here? S2C said the project is expected to begin moving water within six to eight months.

There are a number of obvious questions here. How has a Texan company gained conttrol of an entire lake in Alaska, which is a common property resource? How have the communities and settlements there in Alaska permitted this, or have they? How can US environmental regulation – the EPA for example – permit such commercial exploitation? Who is funding this obscene project – India may be a way-station for S2C now, but the company categorically says India is going to be an important market for its water. But at what cost to Alaska and to India?

S2C says it will sell the water in “20-foot containers with flexi-tanks suitable for pharmaceutical/high tech manufacturing and packaged water (18.9 and 10L) for the consumer markets anywhere containers are delivered in south and west Asia from India.” In a statement dated 07 July 2010, the company said that for “security reasons” the Indian port which is to serve as its “world water hub” will not be disclosed. It will “include a berth for a Suezmax vessel (156,000 cubic meters/41Million USG), an offloading system to a dedicated tank farm and a distribution complex for packaged water. Within 18 months after that we will be able to switch to a very large class vessel (302,833 cubic meters/80 Million USG), as both the ship and the berth for her will be completed within this time frame. Contracts for the distribution hub and ships are being finalised.”

Nepal-children fetch water

Nepal: In some places, children have to walk more than five hours to fetch water. Photo: Naresh Newar/IRIN

The company says: “India itself provides a particularly significant growth market for the packaged waters with a current population of 1.15 billion people, an emerging middle class and an increasing clean water shortage. Sales efforts throughout south and west Asia will continue with travels planned immediately through the region.”

Rod Bartlett, managing partner of Alaska Resource Management and President of S2C Global Systems, USA, is quoted in the statement as saying: “S2C Global has an exciting future in India and the region. After recently spending time in India meeting port authorities and potential distributors, our vision to distribute water globally became real. We fully expect the India World Water Hub to fulfill our minimum expectations of a half a billion gallons sold annually”.

Export Development Canada (EDC), Canada’s export credit agency, announced in March 2010 up to US$10 million in equity commitments to XPV Water Fund Limited Partnership, a venture capital fund focused on investing in the water sector. The press release described the water sector as an “area of significant growth potential for Canada”.

I can’t imagine this profiteering being part of a ‘growth’ strategy that the average Canadian would subscribe to. Meanwhile, what are conditions in countries which companies like S2C say are its world water market?

In India, figures from the Ministry of Rural Development show that the country had enough drinking water for its people in 1951 at 5,177 cubic metres per person per year. But by 2000 India had become a water-deficient country. In 2003, the country had a 25 per cent deficit, at a rate of 1,500 cubic metres per person per year. The deficit is projected to rise to 33 per cent by 2025, unless measures are taken to resolve it.

In Liberia, three out of four Liberians have no access to safe drinking water and six out of seven cannot access sanitation facilities, such as toilets, according to Oxfam. A further US$93.5 million is needed to boost clean water access to 50 percent of all Liberians; and to improve access to toilets to 33 percent – goals set out in the government’s 2008-2011 poverty reduction strategy.

Children draw water in Chad

Chad: Chadians receive US$3 in water aid per capita annually. Photo: WaterAid

In Iraq, there is an acute shortage of water nationwide and a collapsed economy, which makes it very difficult for farmers to do other work. Tribal sheikh Ali Ismael al-Zubaidi from Diwaniya Governorate, about 200 km south of Baghdad, said in an IRIN report he had been having “tough negotiations” over water allocations with another tribe that lives upstream from his. “We have daily problems with water. They are siphoning water with huge electric water pumps and leave only drops for us. Government officials can’t control the regulation of irrigation and stop those who violate their regulations either because of corruption or because they fear for their lives. So we have to solve this issue ourselves.”

In Nepal, according to government statistics, more than 4.4 million people do not have regular access to safe drinking water in rural and urban areas, be it via piped water, wells, rainwater or bottled water. Public health concerns are increasing as a result. Already, more than 10,500 children die before their fifth birthday from diarrhoea, mainly due to inadequate access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, according to WaterAid. More than 80 percent of diseases are the result of unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation, according to its 2009 report, ‘End Water Poverty in Nepal’.

In 2000 the world pledged that half the 2.6 billion people without safe drinking water and basic sanitation would have access to these basic facilities by 2015, but poor countries will need US$18.4 billion more a year to reach this Millennium Development Goal (MDG), which at this rate will only be met in 2200. In 1997, 8% of overall development aid went to water and sanitation; in 2008 this dropped to just 5%-less than commitments for health, education, transport, energy and agriculture, according to the Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water (GLAAS) report by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Moreover, the bulk of this global aid went to middle-income countries, with low-income countries receiving just 42%, said WaterAid, an international NGO working to provide access to clean water, sanitation and health education.

The race to own India’s water

with one comment

Image courtesy 'UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water (GLAAS) 2010', World Health Organization (WHO) and UN-WaterWater privatisation in India today comes in a wide range of what are called “solutions” by the votaries of public-private partnerships. There is water-related engineering and construction (such as earth-moving activities, alteration of river courses, artificial linking of rivers, building of dams and pipelines, etc), water and wastewater services, and water treatment, which affect both nature and communities. What remains outside the ambit of “solutions” – only until the victims can be persuaded to pay – are the impacts of the micro-scale geoengineering. Every impact damages people and the environment. Impacts can be categorised as: ecological (effects on natural ecosystems), social (related to rights of human beings and communities, health, cultural norms, attitudes, belief systems), economic (affecting livelihoods, well-being, and access to basic services) and even legal and institutional.

We are now seeing increasing pressure for private sector development in India – and the rest of Asia-Pacific. Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, an independent research unit concerned with water in India (they are based in Madhya Pradesh) says that this pressure is being mounted mainly by two influential international financial institutions: the World Bank and its regional partner, the Asian Development Bank. The World Bank gives funds, advice, training and technical assistance to governments and the private sector to implement privatisation.

Courtesy, The Economist, special report on water, 22 May 2010Four entities allow the World Bank to undertake various functions. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) lends directly to the private sector and can even purchase equity in private companies. The Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) seeks to improve the quality of infrastructure through private participation. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) insures the private sector against commercial and political risk. The International Court for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) takes charge of disputes between investors and states. The Bank also has some other mechanisms that promote its activities in India including Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), Water and Sanitation for Urban Poor (WSUP), Water for Asian Cities (WAC) and others. The World Bank’s funding partners include the JBIC, AusAid, GTZ, USAID, DFID, UN-Habitat and the ADB.

More growth in large cities and towns, and urbanisation becoming a dominant land use pattern in more districts of India mean that the industrial, residential and municipal demands for water are rising quickly. India’s Central Pollution Control Board (an agency of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India) has released its ‘Observation on trend of Water Supply, Wastewater Generation in Cities and Towns’. Here are its main comments and highlights. I’ve left the language as it is – the import is what counts.

Courtesy, The Economist, special report on water, 22 May 2010

From The Economist's special report on water, 22 May 2010: Global water sources

“In decade of 90’s the growth of cities is observed is 33% while the growth of the decade in beginning of millennium is slowed down. Metropolitan cities is increased from 3 to 6 Nos. from 80’s to 2008. Class-I cities increase from 37 to 53 Nos. Class-II towns increase from 22 to 35. This trend indicates that all type of cities has grown in the decade of 90’s.”

Findings and Recommendations

  • Since the cities are growing, the population is enhanced from 30 million to 48 million.
  • Consequently water supply has been increased approximately twice in magnitude from 4,970 MLD (million litres per day) to 8,782 MLD.
  • Sewage generation has risen 38%.
  • Comparing the data of decades of 90’s to 2008, it is indicated that coastal cities and towns are not growing significantly.
  • Treatment capacity of sewage in comparison to decade of 80’s to until now has increased almost double (93%).
  • There are 498 Class-I Cities having population of 257 million and 410 Class-II Towns having population in India.
  • Total water supply including all class-I cities and class-II town in India is 48,093.88 MLD.

The CPCB says that wastewater generation from all class I cities and class II towns is 38,254 MLD whereas the installed treatment capacity is 11,787 MLD, which means that no more than a maximum of 31% of total sewage generated can be treated. (If the question is ‘where does the rest go?’, the CPCB answers that too in its report.) “This evidently indicates ominous position of sewage treatment, which is the main source of pollution of rivers and lakes,” warns the CPCB report. “To improve the water quality of rivers and lakes, there is an urgent need to increase sewage treatment capacity and its optimum utilisation.”

Image courtesy 'UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water (GLAAS) 2010', World Health Organization (WHO) and UN-WaterThe CPCB, which thankfully still has a reputation for straight talking, has advised India’s municipalities and town administrations to “set up a very thoughtful action plan to fill this gap in a minimum time frame”. The CPCB has suggested that large cities in which and from which the pollution problem is more severe, cities/towns whose effluents and sewage are polluting rivers and water bodies “will be required to be taken up on priority basis in first phase”. Why is the CPCB so insistent? Quite simply, it says there is an “urgency of preventing pollution of our water bodies and preserving our precious water resources”.

But even in the India of non-city and non-town landscapes, there are plans being hatched by the would-be water merchants. An indication of the mischief afoot comes from a report righteously entitled ‘Pro-Poor Financial Services for Rural Water: Linking the Water Sector to Rural Finance’. (If so many good deeds are ‘pro-poor’ nowadays how come the ranks of the do-gooders is only increasing?) Here is what it says: “Previous studies suggest that a considerable demand for pro-poor financial services for water in rural areas remains unmet. The number of potential microfinance clients in rural areas for investments in water supply is estimated to be 5.0 million in East/Southeast Asia, 10.3 million in South Asia, and 3.1 million in sub-Saharan Africa.” Those three numbers get to the heart of the matter.

The report continues: “Concerning microloans for rural sanitation, there are 17 million potential clients in East/ Southeast Asia, 30.8 million in South Asia, and 4.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa. In total, the potential demand for micro-loans in these three regions is estimated at US $ 1.5 billion in the case of rural water supply, and US $ 5 billion in the case of rural sanitation. The challenge is how to unlock this latent demand and turn it into an effective process.” The authors make no bones about it, the riches at the bottom of the water table is what they’re after. And who are the authors? The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (well-known as GTZ in Asia, and which I was surprised to learn is a GmbH), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and of course the World Bank.

Courtesy, The Economist, special report on water, 22 May 2010

Cover of The Economist's special report on water, 22 May 2010

The water merchants have their cheerleading squad in place in the form of a pliant media, and The Economist has obliged by bringing out one of its typically characterless ‘surveys’, as it likes to call them. It is a special report on water (the 22 May 2010 issue) and the subject is dealt with in the sycophantic manner that the weekly reserves for the captains of industry. “Yet even if it takes two litres of groundwater to produce a litre of bottled water, companies like CocaCola and PepsiCo are hardly significant users compared with farmers and even many industrial producers.” (Hear, hear, who needs those pesky farmers anyway?) “PepsiCo has nevertheless become the first big company to declare its support for the human right to water. For its part, CocaCola is one of a consortium of companies that in 2008 formed the 2030 Water Resources Group, which strives to deal with the issue of water scarcity. Last year it commissioned a consultancy, McKinsey, to produce a report on the economics of a range of solutions.” This transatlantic weekly, once upon a time British, puts in a word for big dams too: “Dams and reservoirs certainly need constant repairs and careful maintenance and do not always get them, usually because the necessary institutions are not in place.”

Who are operating as water merchants and what do they want? There are several North American / West European companies now in India: Ondeo-Degrement, Veolia Environnement, Saur of France, RWE/Thames Water of Germany and the UK Bechtel, Enron (US), Compagnie Generale des Eaux (CGE). Indian companies are going to either compete with them, or join them – Tata subsidiary Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company (JUSCO), IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects, Mahindra Infrastructure Ltd., IL&FS.

Surat, Gujarat, near the mouth of the Tapi river

Surat, Gujarat: Fishing boats near the mouth of the Tapi river

The foreign multinationals are involved in several projects across the country. Compagnie Generale des Eaux (CGE) is operating urban water supply project in Hubli-Dharwad in Karnataka. Veolia is operating water and wastewater plant in Nagpur in Maharashtra and it has also formed a joint venture with JUSCO. Ondeo-Degremont has won contracts to construct water treatment plants in Mumbai and Chennai and it is also operating a wastewater treatment plant in Delhi. Thames Water was involved in a leak reduction project in Bangalore while United Utilities and Bechtel are partners in the Tiruppur project. JUSCO has projects in Jamshedpur, Bhopal, Kolkata and Adityapur. IVRCL is working on a wastewater treatment project in Alandur, desalination in Chennai and solid waste management in Tiruppur. IL&FS is involved in various projects in Haldia, Tiruppur, Vishakhapatnam and municipal waste processing facilities in Delhi and Ajmer, Rajasthan.

The CPCB has outlined the water, sewage and pollution tasks for cities, but its worries are going to be transformed into “a challenge to unlock latent demand” by the multilateral lending organisations on the one hand and the global water merchants (together with their Indian partners). Already deficit in terms of civic infrastructure and struggling with yawning gaps in the provision of healthcare and education, India’s towns and small cities will pass the burden of water profiteering on to those who can’t afford it. They leave the rural districts to earn a living in the cities, when their water rupee gets squeezed down to the last drop, where will they go then?