The quality of water and upstream communities

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In a bid to guarantee water quality, a company uses outdated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.