“We do not have to privatise the CWA

Interview: Dev Aukle, Former General Manager, CWA

What I strongly suggest is a Public Private Participation in terms of a Management Contract of limited duration”

* ‘The CWA Act as conceived in 1971 allows for a high degree of political leverage, and things have not changed since’

* ‘Water tariff is a sensitive political issue; successive governments have resisted the arguments put forth by the CWA to justify tariff increases’

---

With over 30 years of experience in the sector and keeping up to date with the latest developments even after retirement, Dev Aukle shares his views on the chronic and recurrent water shortage problems that the country faces year in and year out. The way to do this is a two-pronged strategy of maximum harnessing of rainfall and eliminating the heavy water losses in the distribution system.

This will only happen through reforming the archaic legislation dating to back to 1971 that allows for too much of political leverage and using the latest technologies that are available and affordable – which also means revisiting the tariff structure so that CWA can generate adequate revenues instead of being at a loss. He is not in favour of prioritization; the option is for a PPP of limited duration and performance driven.

Dev Aukle started with the CWA as Site Engineer, after graduating as aCivil Engineer at Bombay University (First Class with distinction). He went on to pursue his Maters at Concordia University, Canada, and subsequently rose from the ranks to take up the post of General Manager for a short stint from 2015 to 2016.

---

Mauritius Times: Why is it that the CWA has to cut down on water supply to consumers every year whenever it has not rained for only a short period, despite the billions of rupees that have gone into the replacement of long stretches of pipes, and lately the increased water retention capacity with the construction of the Bagatelle and the Midlands Dams? Is it still a problem of insufficient capacity to meet the demand for water or has it to do with its distribution?

Dev Aukle: We need first to understand where the CWA taps its raw water prior to treatment and distribution to all the sectors of the economy. The CWA derives 54% of its resources underground (commonly referred to as groundwater) and 46% from surface sources (impounding reservoirs or direct river intakes).

Whilst some rivers have been impounded by dams to create a sizeable amount of storage capacity (e.g. Mare aux Vacoas, Mare Longue, Midlands, Bagatelle reservoirs), our groundwater cannot be impounded and flows continuously to the sea. The groundwater aquifers are mostly recharged during the summer rainy season (December to April) whilst winter rains contribute to a lesser extent in recharging the aquifers. If both the summer and winter rains are below the normal average, as is the case this year, then as from August/September, all CWA boreholes (160 presently) as well as river intakes suffer a decrease in water yields. Such a situation automatically results in water cuts, with the more affected regions being those served principally by boreholes and river abstractions e.g. in the southern and western parts of the island.

If we harness more of our rivers to prevent billions of litres of water going to the sea, we would have enough water to make up for the heavy shortfall of outputs during each annual dry period. The Bagatelle and the Midlands Dams have definitely helped in terms of increased available capacity to cope with the present dry period. However, we do need to cushion the island’s water supply against dry weather and reduce its vulnerability by building more dams to catch as much rainfall as possible. During the rainy months, the strategy should be to pump out as much groundwater as possible and use more retained water in dams during dry weather, when groundwater yields are at their lowest.

With regards to the water distribution system, we should not forget that the CWA had inherited an old water distribution network from the then Ministry of Works, which is subject to heavy physical leakages of the order of 40-50% of the volume injected in the system. The CWA has for the last 5-6 years embarked on an extensive pipe replacement programme, but more than 1000 km of old and defective pipes still remain to be replaced.

The priority of government therefore should be to increase local water catchments through the construction of more dams and impounding reservoirs, and the topmost priority of the CWA should be to reduce water losses to an acceptable level of 15%.

* There are three players which are involved with the water sector: the Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities, the Water Resources Unit, and the CWA itself. There must be some overlapping here and there, but would you say that the CWA is sufficiently autonomous to fulfill its mission?

The Ministry of Energy and Public Utilities (MEPU) is the main body responsible for the water sector. The key players that operate in the water sector are:

– The Water Resources Unit (WRU), a department of the MEPU.
– The Central Water Authority (CWA), under the aegis of the MEPU.
– The Water Management Authority (WMA), also under the aegis of the MEPU.
– The Irrigation Authority (IA), under the aegis of the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security.

The objectives and responsibilities of some of these agencies indeed overlap to a great extent. One case in point relates to the objects of the CWA according to the CWA Act, which states that “the Authority shall be responsible for the control, development and conservation of water resources” and to those of the WRU, which was established in 1993 as a department of MEPU, and which has as one of its main duties to “develop and manage water resources”.

Legally speaking, the CWA’s duties and responsibilities encompass the functions of the WRU. In practice, however, the CWA limits its duties mostly to the treatment and distribution of water for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. It is clear that the WRU should be given a legal status and that the CWA Act should correspondingly be amended in order to shift many of its legal duties to the WRU. I am aware that a proposal to that effect was made a few years ago as part of the Water Sector Reform Plan; but as far as I know, it has not been implemented yet.

* But when things go wrong, it’s mostly the CWA that takes the flak, and insiders would say that given the required autonomy and putting a stop to excessive political interference in the management, including appointments, procurement exercises, etc., there’s a good chance public sector bodies like the CWA may execute satisfactorily what they have been set up for. What’s your take on that?

I will refer you to certain sections of the CWA Act of 1971 which speak for themselves:

– “Section 6: The Minister may, in relation to the exercise of the powers of the Authority under this Act, give such directions to the Authority as he considers necessary in the public interest and the Authority shall comply with such directions.”
– “Section 13 (1): No deed, instrument, contract or other document shall be executed by or on behalf of the Authority unless the approval of the Minister to the execution thereof has first been obtained.”
– “Section 15: The Authority may appoint or employ, on such terms and conditions as the Authority may, with the approval of the Minister, determine, such officers as may be reasonably necessary for the purposes of or in connection with the discharge of its duties under this Act.”

As you can deduce from the above, the CWA Act as conceived in 1971 allows for a high degree of political leverage, and things have not changed since. For instance, under section 13(1) of the Act quoted above, the CWA cannot award a major contract even if directed by the Central Procurement Board unless the approval of the Minister has first been obtained.

I believe many of our parastatal bodies operate under similar conditions. In fine, the efficiency and success of the organisation depends on the integrity of the people having the power of decision.

* The water losses in the CWA water system have now reached a record high of the order of 60%. Is this situation sustainable? What can be done to address the situation?

No manufacturer of a product can survive if he were to lose 60% of his product on the way to his point of sale! The CWA network definitely suffers physical water losses through leakages in the system from production to distribution of the order of 40-50%, and the rest of the unaccounted for water is due to commercial losses (inaccuracy in metering, pilferage, etc.).

The question in fact should be “What needs to be done imperatively to redress the situation?” As I have stated earlier, the CWA had inherited an old network covering about 50% of the island. The CWA’s priority for the first three decades of its existence was to increase water production and extend its network to cover the whole of Mauritius and to satisfy the growing needs of both domestic and industrial sectors. Proper rehabilitation of the distribution network was consequently neglected and due to inadequate available funds, the network has deteriorated even more.

Reducing the Non-Revenue Water (NRW) to the standard of well-operated utilities (15% NRW level) would significantly improve service quality and the CWA’s financial capacity too. We need not emulate Singapore which has achieved a very low NRW level of 4% through intensive pipe replacement and aggressively pursuing each “drop” of unaccounted for water in its distribution system; but if many African cities can now boast of a NRW level of 15%, why can’t we?

I understand that the NRW Unit of the CWA that was set up and trained under an expert from Singapore has been disbanded since 2016. The topmost strategic operational priority of the CWA should be to drastically reduce its NRW level from 60% to 15% within a period of 5 years. This could most expeditiously be done under a Public Private Partnership Agreement with a foreign operator of proven experience.

This Agreement should have clearly defined parameters and performance indicators to improve the operational efficiency of the organisation to the set target. Keeping the NRW level under control would have a significant positive impact on the CWA’s objective to attain a 24/7 water supply…

* We were being told at one time that we should go for the privatisation of the CWA, presumably for want of local expertise to ensure a sustainable water supply to the population and the financial clout that a foreign company would bring to the reengineering of the CWA. How do you react to that proposition?

Having been associated with the CWA for more than thirty years and having attended a recent International Water Conference after my retirement, I can confidently state that we are far behind modern water utilities.

The future of the operational management of water is now digital. Today’s computing power enables us to make better decisions in all aspects of water management, viz. storage, distribution, leak location, smart flow metering, etc. New technologies have come up with new products and services that are more sustainable and cost effective.

We now have smart meters which are no more costly and can measure, register and transmit data to remote servers and inform operators and consumers almost instantaneously. Remote sensors of all kinds are now inexpensive, reliable and work round the clock to collect data on water quality, water flow, pressure, pump performance, pipe bursts and so on.

Hence the CWA should move from laborious ways of the past towards a future that will be more accurate and cost-effective. To achieve this, we do not have to privatise the CWA. In fact, I am not a proponent of privatisation of our water sector(s). What I strongly suggest is that we opt for a Public Private Participation (PPP) in terms of a Management Contract of limited duration, say 5 years with an experienced foreign Utility or Operator which would modernize the CWA and bring in state-of-the-art technologies.

Payment to the Operator should be directly related to performance, for example: reduction in operational costs, reduction of NRW level, improvement in water supply service levels, reduction in consumer complaints, reduction in down time (i.e. speedy repairs), and training of personnel.

* Water-intensive activities in industry and trade, tourism and real estate (IRS, RES, etc.) sectors have gone up considerably. When things go back to normal in a post-Covid world, the demand for water will go on increasing. Would you say that the current level of investment in the water sector would allow us to meet the demand in 10, 20 or 30 years?

The demand for water will doubtless keep increasing. With the government’s policy to achieve a higher degree of food sufficiency, there will be increased pressure on the water suppliers to satisfy the competing demands of agricultural, industrial and commercial users.

The current level of investment in the water sector should be boosted as we need to build new dams to tap as much of the rainfall over Mauritius as possible, and we need to improve both the irrigation and potable water infrastructure to meet future needs. This, in my view, can only be achieved through the principle of Integrated Water Resources Management or, better still, through Total Water Management.

The latter also takes into consideration recycling of wastewater. The ultimate objective is to invest in an essential commodity to sustain life and to allow the country to meet new challenges such as reduction in annual rainfall caused by climate change, potential sea level rise affecting groundwater quality, pollution risks due to urbanisation and industrial development, etc.

* In fact, besides economic activities, there is also the issue regarding our capricious climate situation, not only in Mauritius but globally, and predicted to get worse in the decades ahead with climate change. Will this impact on our water safety situation?

Climate change is already impacting the annual rainfall over Mauritius. The mean annual rainfall over the last 20 years has shown a decreasing trend from 2,300 mm at the turn of the century to a present average of 2,000 mm.

We are also witnessing a changing rainfall pattern both spatially and in intensity. We had in the recent past been subjected to very heavy precipitations in the north and in the coastal regions rather than on the Central Plateau, where our main water catchments are located.

The unprecedented drought of 2011-2012 is still fresh in our minds, when the country faced an acute water deficiency and Government had to take drastic water restriction measures, such as severe water cuts, banning of hose watering, washing of cars and pavements.

We are being faced with a similar situation this year onto next year. We need to review our economic agenda and give priority to water-related investments such as building more dams and impounding reservoirs as I have previously emphasized. The CWA would need in parallel to undertake interconnectedness of its production sources so that deficit in one part of the island can be supplemented by other sources less affected by drought.

Should we resort to desalination for domestic use? In my view, desalination, being a costly option, should only be considered in the long-term future for coastal inhabitants after we would have exhausted all means to harness as much rainfall as possible and only after we would have eliminated the heavy water losses in the distribution system. We would surely not wish that desalinated water, produced at very high costs, be wasted through leakages in the pipe network!

* It would appear that due to pressures from different quarters, several governments have resisted the correct pricing of water to customers. Consequently, the CWA hasn’t been in a position to generate the financial surpluses it requires to be able to revamp its infrastructure and modernize itself for future increase in the demand for water. Can this go on?

The cost to the CWA for the production and distribution of water stands around Rs 13.00 per cubic metre whilst the average fee it charges to domestic consumers is Rs 8.00. The CWA barely manages to meet its operating expenses and that too only through a tariff structure that differentiates between various user groups, with commercial and industrial consumers cross-subsidising domestic consumers.

As per the regulation in force, tariffs are approved by Government. The last major tariff increase dates back to 2012. Since then, the CWA has been facing increases in labour, fuel, energy and other input costs. The CWA has to rely heavily on Government’s grants or loans to meet its investment programmes. However, with the tariff in force and the inadequate revenue generated, the CWA has been experiencing a precarious cash flow situation for several years and has had to do a lot of financial manoeuvering to reschedule its loan repayments. Had CWA’s revenue been more substantial, it could have undertaken more investments towards modernisation.

The political decision to grant free water to a household if its monthly consumption does not exceed 6m3 has further compounded the CWA’s financial situation. By the way, has a survey been effected to ensure that this measure is really benefiting the poor?

Water tariff is a sensitive political issue and successive governments have resisted the arguments put forth by the CWA to justify tariff increases. The situation, in my opinion, is already untenable for the CWA. Government will sooner or later have no choice than to approve an increase in water tariffs based, in the first instance, on adjustments for inflation over the past years and, in the second instance, the tariff structure may perhaps be set by the newly-created Utility Regulatory Authority.

---

* Published in print edition on 8 December 2020