Water is a critical ingredient of modern civilization. Without clean water, life cannot be sustained. Around the world water supply, nearly 30% to 50% is stolen per each year, mainly by agricultural interests and farmers, yet the crime itself is not well understood, a new international case study led by the University of Adelaide reported a research article on the “Grand theft water and the calculus of compliance” in the Nature Sustainability journal on 24th August 2020 [1]. They mentioned that “water crises constitute a challenge for humanity. Uncertain supply and growing demand are driving higher water theft, particularly by agricultural users who account for approximately 70% of global use. However, research into water theft is under explored in all disciplines”.
This research paper provides a conceptual framework and modeling approach that can be designed to improve the understanding of both individual and institutional barriers to water theft. The framework and model will explore how effective detection, prosecution, conviction and penalties can be assessed. Three case studies have tested the validity of their framework.
Cause for water demand
The global climate changes are increasing demands and competition of water and putting more pressure on water supplies. This increased the demand for water which may result in higher costs, which could, in turn, increase the price of raw materials and crops needed to manufacture consumer goods like beverages. New regulations have putting caps on industrial water withdrawals and are also anticipated, further increasing the competition for water supplies.
Water sustainability programs can help companies address supply and demand issues by using the water more efficiently, reducing the amount of water needed to manufacture their products.
Dr. A. Loch from the university’s Centre for Global Food and Resources, says based on the case study “Individuals and companies may be responsible for the act of theft, the phenomenon reflects a systematic failure of arrangements (political, legal, institutional, and so on). In addition, when regulators fail to understand the value of water, in adequate prescribed penalties will increase the risk of theft. We have also invited others to test our framework, to apply our model and engage in a wider conversation about water theft”.
Theoretical drivers of illegal activities in Nature Sustainability [1]:
- Deviation from social norms due to differences between rule breakers and compliant users.
- Deviation from social norms due to differences in personal moral development.
- Conditioning of behavior by the environmental context.
- Individual views on legitimacy and fairness of rules, and the penalties involved.
- Benefits and costs of illegal activities.
Some important cases were noted in their article such as Australian water resources where theft may be compounded by perceptions of general non-compliance [2] although inverse results have been reported in European countries [3]. On contrast, in a South Indian case [4], theft was more commonly perpetrated by downstream users desperate for supply, where different management systems to control illegal extraction were employed at top and tail areas with positive results. Theft was also minimized in Andean irrigation systems via shared social objectives, widespread assumption of high compliance rates and effective monitoring [5]. Furthermore, where groundwater resources can substitute surface water, understanding their shared connectivity may minimize tipping points from changes in use [6]. In such settings, cultural values may play a major role in changing social norms towards compliance and the deterrence of breaking rules [7,8], especially where individual accountability is ignored and regulatory controls do not mitigate resource exploitation [9]. Finally, if the probability of successful prosecution is low and the penalty is comparatively small, stronger deterrents maybe needed to dissuade users from stealing water to maximize profits [10] and/or lowering total resource sustainability.
A. Loch et al., summarized a final consequence of increased surface-water monitoring and compliance could be an increase and may also diminish incentives to steal. The surface-water use is affected by pumping or increased restriction to legal/illegal use; groundwater becomes a more valuable product since it may not be perceived as being, subject to similar restrictions [11]. This would have place groundwater resources and any associated rights or markets under stress (if not already), particularly where as resourcing associated with bore monitoring and the compliance checks were reduced. In the preceding cases, where we remain uncertain about whether current levels of environmental rights can provide national benefits, we can be certain that any infringement on those rights via lawful/unlawful extraction will make the systems unsustainable. Once again, this highlights the importance of closing existing legal options to extract environmental flows and implementing effective compliance monitoring and assessment across the full spectrum of water resources as the first steps toward an effective deterrent to water theft.
References
- A. Loch et al., Nature Sustainability (2020), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0589-3.
- C. Holley, D. Sinclair, Australas. J. Nat. Resour. Law Policy 17, 189 (2014).
- European Report on Water Crimes (RECEE, 2017).
- R. Wade, Agric. Adm. 17, 177 (1984).
- P.B. Trawick, Hum. Ecol. 29, 1 (2001).
- J.C. Castilla-Rho et al., Nat. Hum. Behav.1, 640 (2017).
- J. Castilla-Rho et al., Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101972 (2019).
- R. Wade, World Bank Res. Obs. 2, 219 (1987).
- L. De Stefano, E. Lopez-Gunn, Water Policy 14, 147 (2012).
- R. Greiner et al., Australia. Land Use Policy 51, 26 (2016).
- I. Ray, J. Williams, J. Dev. Econ. 67, 129 (2002).
Blog Written By
Dr. A. S. GANESHRAJA
Assistant Professor
National College, Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu, India
Editors
Dr. S. Chandrasekar
Dr. K. Rajkumar
Reviewers
Dr. Y. Sasikumar
Dr. S. Thirumurugan
Comments
Post a Comment