The quality of water and upstream communities

Suhardi Suryadi, Deputy Director, Institute of Economic and Social Studies and Development, (LP3ES), Jakarta

Tempo Newsroom reported on April 25 on the suspected coliform bacteria contamination of water refilling centers based on a study of 120 such centers conducted by the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) in 10 major Indonesian towns. The news, coming in the midst of increasing demand for bottled mineral water, created public concern. Although mineral water companies are springing up all over the country in an effort to meet the demand, water quality still leaves a lot to be desired.

Bottled mineral water is an attractive marketable commodity. However, a profitable mineral water business should not only be dependent on the magnitude of the demand but also on how the company can retain the quantity and quality of the water source at a reasonable price. However, companies usually simply abandon the source in search of a new source as soon as quality and quantity of the initial source start to decline.

Take the case of the boring for mineral water by PR Narmada Awet Muda in West Lombok, which drew strong protest from members of the local community when their own wells started to dry up.

In a bid to guarantee water quality, a company uses outdated strategies such as establishing a water purification facility and a high-tech flood containment structure. This choice is not only expensive but also ineffective and unsustainable.

This is because the real managers of water quality -- the farmers and land owners in the upstream (forest) area -- receive no significant economic incentive or benefit for their role in maintaining or managing the function of the water ecosystem.

Forest Trend (a U.S. non-governmental organization) recently published the case of the French company Perrier Vittel -- the largest supplier of mineral water in the world. Vittel is totally aware that protection of the water source is much more cost- effective than building a water purification plant or the continuous quest for new and unpolluted water springs. Vittel's concept is to establish a program of water quality improvement by decreasing the use of nitrate and pesticide and by restoring water purification in the catchment area.

The program includes the reforestation of the catchment area and the control of possible sources of pollution from commercial agriculture with the assumption that the introduction of nonpesticide-based agricultural technology and management of livestock farming waste will restore the quality of the water.

To implement this program, Vittel allocated US$24.5 million. Most of the budget was used for the acquisition of the land surrounding the source, but approximately $3.8 million was allocated for compensation.

Vittel entered into contracts of between 18 to 30 years with local farmers around the catchment area who agreed to develop environmentally friendly agricultural technology for land and produce management.

The agreements cover more than 40 agricultural farms for a total of 10,000 hectares. The contracts stipulate that Vittel's compensation payments will not relate directly to water quality but will compensate farmers for their losses or decreased profits during the transition period from their previous farming practices to more environmentally friendly practices.

Vittel pays the farmers $250 per hectare per year over a period of seven years. Approximately $3.8 million has been budgeted as an investment for chemical-free community farming land management.

Vittel provided farmers who signed contracts with new agricultural equipment. An interesting point is that Vittel did not involve the government in providing the regulatory framework to support this initiative.

The whole process -- from the initial concept, to the technicalities, to the negotiations to determine the type of compensation to be paid -- was almost entirely based on participatory consultation and agreement with the owners of the land surrounding the water source.

Vittel's initiative has proven successful. So much so that when Vittel acquired the Contrexeville mineral water company in France's northeast, this very same concept was immediately adopted as the suitable approach in maintaining the purity of the water spring. With the increasing market demand for organic farming produce, Vittel's concept was easily accepted by the farmers.

The Cost Benefit Impact Study conducted by the French National Agronomic Institute (INRA), concluded that Vittel's strategy was more economical than the establishment of a water purification plant. INRA's 1997 study also recorded that land producing livestock fodder would yield 3,000 m3 per ha per year of ready to consume mineral water if the land was managed in an environmentally friendly way.

There is now an increasing awareness of the need to protect water catchment areas by improving forest management and conserving biodiversity. There is also increasing awareness about developing funding schemes for the community when a water spring becomes polluted or runs the risk of becoming dry.

Several initiatives are shifting the focus from the market approach to ecosystem services; moving toward social aspects directly impacting on the sustainability of the function of the ecosystem. The Vittel case is a lesson on the importance of the upstream community's role in protecting the ecosystem in relation to the provision of quality water.

The floods and landslides plaguing many of Indonesia's regions in recent years provide a picture of the classic, antiquated concept of environmental development. The upstream (forest) ecosystem area is forced to supply the domestic (drinking water), industrial, electrical and irrigation needs of the downstream community.

The physical-technical approach, namely the construction of check dams, reforestation and the protection of the forestry ecosystem is set up to supply the economic needs of the downstream community.

This approach is not only doomed to failure in decreasing the threats of flood, erosion and pollution of water quality for the downstream communities, but it also creates injustice and poverty for the upstream districts and their people.

As an example, in socioeconomic terms, Jakarta is better off than Cianjur regency, West Java, in its position as the owner of the Cipamingkis catchment area.

In fact the local Cianjur government does not have the budget required to provide compensation and economic incentives to the farmers who clear land for agricultural purposes.

There is a need for a new sustainable approach in catchment area management -- primarily in positioning the upstream communities (around the forest and catchment area) as the main agents in guaranteeing water quality and availability from the forest.

The Vittel experience could serve as a point of reference -- if not indeed the preferred way to go.