Mr Tata, How To Buy Myself An Aquifer in the Himalayas?

For he must surely know the procedure, owning one himself.  How cool is that - an aquifer all to oneself in the Himalayas, the water from which can be sold for the same price as diesel without all the hassle that the latter entails.  I believe diesel can be a bit more difficult to source and all, though I may be mistaken.  

These big industrialists hold all the aces, don't they?  

Hear it from the man in charge, R. K. Krishna Kumar, a Director in Tata Sons: 

We want to partner PepsiCo to distribute Himalayan widely. They have the liquid bottle distribution strength. We don't have that. We can tap that strength to take Himalayan to international markets. Hopefully soon, we will take it to one or two countries. A product like Evian is a source product. Given the uniqueness of the water sources, there is no reason why Himalayan can't be taken to other markets and compete with brands such as Evian. The source, our aquifer in the Himalayas, is a unique source. We have vast reserves. We can tap it, bottle it and make it a global brand.

(Emphasis mine)    So how do I get hold of an Himalayan aquifer?  Once I do that, the next steps are so simple: tap it, bottle it and sell it for a song after entering into a Joint Venture with a global giant:

Tata Global Beverages and PepsiCo India have joined hands to make a foray into nutritious beverages space.

The two have already floated a new company by the name and style of NourishCo.

The joint venture rolled out its first product, Tata Water Plus, on Thursday here at a press conference. Claimed to be the country's first nutrient water, Tata Water Plus is priced at Rs.16 for a 750 ml Pet bottle.

...

“It is taste neutral. It looks and tastes like normal water but with added goodness of nutrients that are bio-available,” says a release.

It had also brought the top-end natural mineral water brand Himalayan (priced at Rs.40 a litre) into the NourishCo fold.

Note the Rs.40 a litre in the last line.  Now, about that nutrient water.  Bio-available doesn't mean what it sounds like.  It does not mean that it comes naturally in the water.  It basically refers to how much of the nutrient can be absorbed by the body.  So I now get a sneaking suspicion that the water is "taste neutral" and "tastes like normal water" because that is what it is - normal water.  Swindle anyone?

Anyway, it is nice to know that our largest industrial conglomerates are on the job of lifting the country out of poverty.  Rs 1L+ nano and Rs.40/litre water and so on.  Hang on, a more affordable tractor would have helped more, you say?  I think you're just jealous of the Tatas.

Profiting From Water

Let water, not profits, flow

As a finite, life-giving resource, access to water must remain a fundamental right. The state, as custodian under the public trust doctrine, should uphold the right of the citizen to clean, safe drinking water. It is such a strong, rights-based approach that should underpin official policy on water in India. Many areas in the country are water-stressed, and there are simmering inter-State disputes on sharing river waters. The National Water Policy 2012, now published in draft for public comments, should ultimately take a holistic view of the issue. The draft text makes some references to the importance of water for people and Nature, but is disproportionately focussed on treating water as an economic good. Such an approach predicated on realising the costs that go into the supply of water can only distort access and prices in the long run, affecting less affluent citizens. To suggest, for instance, that the state should exit the service-provider role and become a regulator is only a step away from abandoning the equity objective. Private sector water services have clearly failed in many countries, including those in the global North, and local governments have taken over again. In the current year, for-profit private water companies in England are raising tariffs, while the publicly-owned service in Scotland is not. Just over a decade ago, water wars in Bolivia reversed privatisation moves. Evidently, private partnership imposes the burden of extra costs.

...if there is any one factor that renders much of India's water unusable, it is industrial pollution. This issue calls for urgent action, and the policy can cover major ground if it lays greater emphasis on making the ‘polluter pays' principle work. A clean-up can make a lot more of India's water bodies and groundwater available for use by people.

 Makes perfect sense.  Also, get rid of the corporate subsidies implied in letting industries pollute untrammelled by the environmental costs.

If The Water Loses Its Salt

Or its purity, where do we go?

Environment Ministry pulled up for absence of water pollution policy

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has pulled up the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for the absence of a “specific water pollution policy”. There was no inventory of water sources or identification of pollution levels, the absence of which hampers water pollution management at all levels, it said in its report on the MoEF's performance during July 2010 to February 2011, when Mr Jairam Ramesh was heading the Ministry.

LACK OF PLANNING

Noting the lack of planning to tackle pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater and assessment of the risks to health and environment, the CAG called for strict enforcement of the related Acts as well as higher penalties.

It said the Ministry had not carried out any study to probe the effect of dumping of industrial effluents by paper mills, pharma, chemical, distilleries and so on.

The National River Conservation Plan (NCRP) was also flayed for focusing on “sewage and crematoria as sources of pollution of rivers. Other kinds of pollution (like industrial pollution) were not considered which had equal, if not more, adverse effect on health and environment”, the report said.

Industries are being subsidised indirectly by this lack of enforcement of the pollution laws.

Telecom Manufacturing Base in India: Why Is It Missing?

Make in India

The Indian market for telecom equipment – from switches, routers and base station systems to microwave radios, optical fibre links and mobile handsets – was estimated at Rs 54,675 crore in 2009-10. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India reckons that just over 12 per cent of this demand was met through domestic value addition. The balance comprised imports, whether in final product form or as parts for local assembly. Moreover, the size of the market is projected to grow to Rs 108,096 crore in 2015-16 and Rs 170,091 crore by 2019-20. Much of it would be powered by the increased rollout of 3G mobile services in the immediate short-term, followed by the more advanced 4G wireless broadband networks.

That such demand can be overwhelmingly met through imports is neither a feasible nor a desirable proposition. It is, indeed, quite incredible how a country with the world's second largest telecom subscriber base of 900 million-plus (from a mere 40 million a decade ago) has not leveraged these numbers to build a robust manufacturing base at home.

 Never too late to start.

After Trade Unions, NGOs

From the corporate paper: NGOs vs India Inc: How are companies gearing up for the face off?.  Some nuggets:

"With trade union leaders, one could at least talk," says Gulabchand. "They stood for the interest of the workers and their cause was always clear. Medha Patkar, on the other hand, refuses to sit down at the table and talk. She wants to destroy Lavasa and every other such project. She's an anarchist." 

That is the CMD of Hindustan Construction Company saying that.  The job of trade union leaders is to talk with management.  Otherwise how could they solve problems?  But  why would Medha Patkar sit down at the table to talk with him if she is taking up the issue of violation of environmental laws? Or is it something else he is implying?  

"The corporate sector needs to press for more transparency in the NGO sector. They should publish their accounts and state their sources of funding. Secondly, Indian NGOs need to have more focus. Right now they are rent-a-cause activists, with no deep knowledge or experience in any one issue." 

Well, well, well.  Shoot the messengers.  Next up, it is Monsanto's turn:

"From NGOs, our interactions have widened to universities, academia, media and end-user industry, like poultry feed, starch industry and ginning mills. Relationships are built on creating awareness and we realise that Vandana Shiva was successful because she had an ignorant audience. We are building an ecosystem of knowledge to counter the next tirade, if any," says Bhatnagar. 

Italics mine.  In other words, she was just exploiting ignorant people for her own nefarious reasons and Monsanto whose very existence depends on selling GM seeds is doing the righteous thing.  Then, this story whose point escapes me from Vedanta:

When Felix Padel, English anthropologist-activist and great grandson of Charles Darwin touched down to espouse the cause of East Indian tribals in 2003, Jitu Jakasika, then all of 15, joined the chorus. A Dongria-Kondh tribal from Lanjigarh in the Kalahandi district of Orissa, Jakasika was entranced by Padel's vision of a denuded community if Vedanta were to be given a free run to mine bauxite from the nearby Niyamgiri Hills. The only school-goer from his village, Jakasika became a conduit convincing his villagers and community about the pitfalls of bauxite mining and even set out to gather support across the political spectrum. Gradually, global non-profits such as Amnesty International and Survival International made a beeline to him, as did Action Aid and the local NGOs.  

But innocence also has its intransigent heroes. All along, Jakasika had a burning desire to be a civil servant. He had friends from his community serving Vedanta and in 2006-07, and on their request, he went to the nearby NALCO bauxite mines, for a demo. He subsequently took his villagers to the NALCO mines and got so convinced about the 'misguided path' he had taken, that he met up with Sanjay Kumar Pattnaik, a senior vice-president in Vedanta. When he asked Jakasika what he wanted to do for his people, the reply was: "I want education so that I can work for my people; so that there will be 100 people in the community like me." Vedanta executives immediately took Jakasika to Bhubaneshwar, where he's now pursuing a Bachelors' in Business Administration sponsored by the same company he once loathed. 

 Corporates should learn that they can't do as they please rather than blame the NGOs.

Foresight In Land Acquisition For The Mittals

KIADB put out the notification for acquiring land fully four months before signing the MoU with the ArcelorMittal. Was everything fixed much before the GIM?

Land Scams

As we digest the daily news about Singur, Nandigram, and SEZs, we couldn't go too wrong reading what Ramesh Ramanathan had to say sometime ago:

I wrote an article in this publication a few weeks ago that was critical of SEZs. Among the responses were a surprising number from professionals in the corporate sector – those who were involved in working on SEZs. And their sentiments were deeply disturbing: without exception, the common refrain was that the SEZ idea was a runaway train, and that it was using the singular, concentrated force of greed and self-interest to rip open the land market in the country. An executive from one of the big four consulting firms told me, “I advise my clients on succeeding in being a part of these SEZs, but I am selling my soul.” Another lawyer said, “Unfortunately, it’s the biggest money-making opportunity we have ever seen.” A senior IT industry executive said, “I agree that it’s a land scam, and it shouldn’t be happening. But we ourselves are bidding for them, because we can’t be left behind. I have my shareholders’ interests to protect – they would tell me, ‘You want to be Gandhi, don’t do it on our money.’”

I consider myself a middle-of-the-road person: I believe in the potential of the market, but also in an affirmative state that regulates the market vigorously and transparently. I recognise that public policy choices are not black-or-white, and need to balance various views, while always keeping the citizens’ and the nation’s interests in mind. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out the compelling argument for SEZs in India . Their stated benefits are debatable. On the promise of job creation, five lakh jobs is too trivial a target for the incentives being provided – close to 50,000 hectares of subsidised and clean-title land, leaving aside the tax-breaks....

And also what an economist had to say in general about governments taking land from Peter to give to Paul:

There is a general view that where there are large externalities — urban renewal programmes, for instance — there may be grounds for government to try and buy land and help renew a city or part of a city. But the dangers of doing this when there is a single firm without externalities are enormous. This is because the government often uses the right of eminent domain with compensation below market price.
...
In general, there is a price at which people would sell their land. The reason these firms ask the government to do it is because they don't want to pay that market price. So once you get into that mindset, it becomes a very dangerous precedent.
...
You have a problem when land is fragmented, or there are land market inefficiencies, and difficulties in getting clear title. Markets might be so poorly developed that businesses can't acquire land and that becomes an impediment to development. Of course, the right answer is to solve the problem of the land market and not to solve it for this particular person by taking over that particular piece of property!

Of course, as the interviewer in the above interview asks, it is a paradox that the same industrialists who want less and less of government interference when they want to sell, go to the very same government to acquire land.