WATERTIGHT
Economic Sense ('Water soluble', #351) does not make any sense. I don't understand why your economists prefer not to analyse issues surrounding Kathmandu's water in depth and simply wash it off as pro- and anti-privatisation. Ashutosh Tiwari dismisses the whole issue as Yami's 'the usual more-concerned-about-Nepali-than-thou rhetoric against privatisation and foreign investment&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#'&#̵'216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;216;' ('Why is it we are here?', #350). Artha Beed, the wannabe populist columnist, first charges that 'NGOs that helped end Arun III nearly 15 years ago have managed to now stall Melamchi helped by a populist wannabe minister', and then goes on to show us how much we are paying for water (as if we do not already know) and how this problem will be solved by a private company and the ADB.

Wake up, friends. The issues surrounding Kathmandu's water are more than just a high school debate on for or against privatisation. From day one, Minister Yami has said that she is for public-private partnership, she is simply questioning the process of selecting Severn Trent in a one-horse race and the reputation of a company which has been involved in corruption in the UK and been kicked out from countries like Guyana and Trinidad. Don't you think that a new minister has the right to raise questions? Give her a break. Coming from a party that does not really believe much in the strength of private sector, she has made a compromise by talking PPP, while the ADB, which preaches good governance, is refusing to go beyond its normal rhetoric of Severn Trent or no aid. Okay, so rethinking Severn Trent may set us back by a few months (see 'Not a drop to drink', #350), but why should that delay the entire Melamchi project? We can have Melamchi and a good system to manage Kathmandu's water if we are careful enough to analyse issues in detail and make logical decisions instead of just following the advice of few consultants of the Bank.

Have any of our economists taken a look at the contract Severn Trent was about to sign? No, because it is not accessible to the public. We are using public funds through ADB loan to pay three foreign managers from a discredited company $11.5 million (the 'private sector' will not invest a single penny) to manage an essential 'commodity' such as water. Shouldn't we be concerned about what is in the contract? And if the minister says she wants to discuss it in cabinet before signing it, what's wrong? The Beed advises us to 'create an environment where the private provider is penalised for not delivering quality or quantity'. Well said, but the current contract does not do this. Shouldn't we, or at least the minister, raise this issue boldly and seek solutions instead of just following the status quo?

Bhushan Tuladhar,
Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO)

Related Article:
Ashutosh Tiwari on handing out the management contract in 'Thirsty for change', #334.

. There have been many articles lately, by Ratna Sansar Shrestha ('Not a drop to drink', #350) the Beed, and others in Nepali Times arguing why a PPP model needs to be adopted and how Nepali companies were not allowed to bid in the management of Nepal Water Supply Corporation (NWSC). As someone who has been closely following this process, I just can't help pointing out a few facts.

The currently proposed model is already a well thought-out PPP model with 50 percent of the company's shares owned by the municipalities, 30 percent by the government, and the rest by the private sector, and the employees of the company. A competent private company was invited just to manage this newly established utility by providing three full-time residential experts and other highly skilled specialists as needed over the initial few years. It is sad that people are so swayed by rhetoric and hearsay and not told the real story. And having seen how NWSC has performed over the last two decades, there is a reason for asking for real life experience in managing a utility, and there was absolutely no country bar. Nepali companies were theoretically allowed to bid, and they have done precisely that by forming partnerships with international firms. All the five firms that did put in the Expression of Interest (EOI) to manage NWSC had Nepali partners. The basic requirement for prequalification was that the company has managed at least two utilities in two countries.

Wasn't it prudent to ask for such a minimum requirement when seeking competent companies to help turn around a lost cause like the NWSC? And the requirement didn't even say water utility. Any company, be it Nepali, European, Asian, or from any ADB member country, could bid as long as it has managed any two utilities (gas, power, water). I'm a nationalist and take pride in our doing things ourselves, but I can't see any Nepali company which can qualify. In the future there will be, but not yet. In the meantime, building up solid experiences by partnering with seasoned international firms would be a perfectly reasonable and practical first step. So, as much as I like your no-nonsense articles, this particular point that your reporters and columnists and the others out there keep repeating is not factually correct.

Name withheld,
email