IMPACT OF PRIVATISATION OF LAKES IN BANGALORE

compiled by Mr.Rohan s D'Souza

Bangalore has been synonymous with its salubrious climate, due to its position on the Deccan Plateaus as well as its extensive greenery and lakes. Lakes, which have been an inherent part of the ecosystem, also have traditionally served the function of meeting water requirements of the populace, be it for drinking, household uses like washing, for agriculture, fishing and also for religious and cultural purposes. Apart from these functions, which involve direct use of the lake water, lakes are also known to recharge ground water, chanelise water flow to prevent water logging and flooding. These water bodies are also host to a wide variety of flora and fauna, especially birds.

Given the vast number of lakes in Bangalore, it was imperative that they be maintained on an ongoing basis. This role over a period of time has been being performed by numerous governmental bodies. In Bangalore, bodies such as Forest Department, Minor Irrigations Department, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore Development Authority and Horticulture Department have been responsible for maintenance of various lakes over a period of time.

This fact combined with the changing urban realities in Bangalore due to rapid urbanization, ushered in by the Information Technology boom, has made it all the more imperative that attention be paid to maintenance and protection of the environment, especially of lakes. Environment has been at the receiving end due the increased pressure on land to sustain a rapidly growing city. Lakes and tanks have been very directly affected, primarily in two ways – disappearance due to encroachment and building on lakebeds and unchecked pollution by means of dumping of untreated industrial and household waste, which includes solid waste as well as sewerage.

These emerging realities have put enormous pressure on the government bodies that look into maintenance of lakes. Added to this, was the lack of a single focused body responsible for the upkeep of lakes, resulting in bureaucratic tangles and overlap of functions. In this context, the government of Karnataka set up a new body that would exclusively be responsible for management of lakes. This body titled, Lake Development Authority, was setup in 2002 as a non-profit society. This body consisted of forest department/IFS officials and its agenda was the regeneration and preservation of lakes in Bangalore and other districts of Karnataka.

This move was seen to be one in the right direction as it not only meant a dedicated body for the upkeep of lakes, but its constitution, which included members from related organisations such as the Forest Department, Pollution Control Board, BWSSB, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore Development Authority, Fisheries Department, Minor Irrigations Department, etc., which implied broad level of expertise as well as participation. This, along with the functions of the authority as detailed in the Memorandum of Association of the LDA, surely meant focused and thorough upkeep of lakes in Bangalore.

This is turning out to be a grave situation that ends up making common property resources and public spaces into private spaces, thereby limiting access to the general public as well as traditional users of these resources. This also points to an exclusivist approach, where such privatised spaces become enclaves for the richer classes, wherein they could indulge in various activities on offer, courtesy these private bodies, in isolation from the rest of the society. Clear class based demarcated zones, which up to now have been happening in up market housing societies, clubs, organisations, will now spread to common public spaces.

This report intends to critically scrutinise the government's approach of privatising the lakes of Bangalore and studying its social, economic as well as environmental impact.

The process of liberalisation was set in motion in 1991, by the Congress government, under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao and the current Prime Minister and then Finance Minister, Manmohan Singh. An understanding of why this happened, which lead to the so called paradigm shift from a Controlled, Regulated and Monitored economy to a Liberalised, Privatised and Globalised economy will help put things in perspective as far as privatisation as a policy as well as the driving factor for many of the decisions being made at the national as well as the state level.

A close look at the performance of the Indian economy until that period of time (early 90s), will show that due to poor management of the economy, i.e., excessive and unchecked public expenditure, with no provisions built in for accountability as against public income, led to a situation, where the country had to depend heavily on borrowings from other countries as well as some international agencies like the World Bank. The imbalance between public expenditure and public income lead to balance of payments crisis, which almost forced the government, with pressure from international agencies like the World Bank, to open or liberalise the economy.1

The logic of the government, one would assume, being that it would help facilitate the growth of economy by encouraging more and more private players set up businesses and provide commodities, ranging from consumer/household goods to industrial goods. The other argument also was that efficiency and effectiveness of business would also improve, leading to better products and services for all. While the range and quality of products and services may have improved over a period, what also has been irreversibly begun is the consumerist lifestyle, which is neither sustainable from a ecological point of view nor is socially equitable, promoting visible differences between classes of society and widening the chasm between these two segments. As the clichéd statement goes, the rich have become richer and the poor poorer!

What the Indian government failed to or ignored to look at was the ground realities of the situation in the country, where a large chunk of the population lived below the poverty line - An estimated 33.2 crores, 38% of the population in 1993-942 when the economy was liberalised. Strengthening of government service delivery systems like education, health care along with improving the situation of the agricultural sector, by investment in sustainable and localized irrigation, electricity generation methods, infrastructure in villages and small towns, proper access to markets for agricultural produce for the farmers, without dependence on middlemen, revamp and efficient handling of the food/agriculture storage and distribution systems and set ups as well as efficient functioning of the Public Distribution System, local employment generation based on local conditions.

As a part of this liberalisation approach, the government started viewing common property resources, like the rivers, lakes, tanks, forests, wetlands etc, as economic goods, to be the exclusive reserve of the industry. This has led to a situation where there is increasing private control of rivers. Cases in point are The Sheonath River in Chhattisgarh, Periyar River in Kerala, Bhavani River in Tamil Nadu.3

If one were to look at the Sheonath case specifically, water supply from a 22.7 km stretch of the semi-perennial Sheonath River was handed over to local entrepreneur Radius Water Limited (RWL) under a BOOT (Build-Operate-Own-Transfer) agreement to supply water to the Borai Industrial Growth Centre in Durg district. This move met with protests from 15 villages situated along the riverbanks that were dependent on water from the river for agricultural irrigation, domestic household chores, fishing, growing vegetables on the riverbank and breeding livestock. People were not allowed to fish or carry out any other activity inside the area where RWL had constructed an ‘anicut’ across the river. 4

Similar was the case with the Periyar as well as Bhavani Rivers. In the case of the Periyar River, in 2003, the United Democratic Front government planned to lease out part of the river to private industries in Aluva through the Cochin Industrial Water Supply Scheme. This scheme pegged at Rs.330 crore, would operate on a Build Operate Own Transfer basis and would allow private investors to pump out 200 million liters a day5. The major beneficiaries would be hospitals, hotels, restaurants, educational institutions, seafood industry, industrial parks and other commercial establishments in and around Kochi. According to then State Industries Minister, the project would be implemented in a tie-up with MNCs.6

As far as the Bhavani River was concerned, a stretch of it was sold to the Coimbatore based Annapoorna Hotels, which was allowed to draw 1,000,000 litres per day to supply it to Kinley, Coca Cola's bottled water. The annual fees for this was pegged at Rs.500,000, which meant that the company paid only 73 paise per litre, while it sold its product ,i.e., one litre of Kinley bottled water at Rs.12. This meant that the company paid at a much lower rate than the residents for their domestic water supply! 7

In this case as well as the other cases, sections of rivers were leased out to private organisations for exclusive use, which meant that locals, living around these bodies, were denied access to them, thereby impinging upon their basic rights. Water and its sources are being set aside for the interests of a few, instead of being seen as a community resource. According to the public trust doctrine, the government is just a trustee of public land and not really the owner. It holds the land as a trustee of the citizens. Given this, in all of these instances above, there is a serious violation of this doctrine. Moreover according to Sociologist, John Bellamy Foster, if commons are enclosed and exploited outside of any collective restraints, it is due to the reduction of everything to mere economic value.8 And this reduction neither bodes well for communities nor for the environment in the long run.

The commodification of water and through that water sources like rivers, has been made possible or pushed aggressively through international organisations like the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. In the era of gloabilastion and liberalisation, which has accelerated the process of water privatisation, the state has given up the role of welfare agents9. Such bodies in conjunction with the Water Multi national Corporations have increasingly taken over supply of water in many developed and developing countries.

With precedents such as these, it is not surprising that the Karnataka government has decided to hand over lakes to private parties, supposedly in the name of maintenance. Though the end use of the common property resources in this case is a little different from the cases mentioned above. Underlying this, are commonalities, which are private control of common property resources, their commercial use and restriction of access to the traditional users/general public. As we delve further into the specific cases of commercial uses of lakes in Bangalore, in later chapters, it will become clear that the motive at the end of the day is private profit generation. The other point is also the conversion of common property resources into amusement/entertainment zones and therefore the complete change of the face of these bodies, catering to a new and emerging economy, that of entertainment.

Lakes in Bangalore - Background

Bangalore has been blessed with a large number of lakes and tanks mainly due to the vision of Kempe Gowda and few rulers of Wodeyar dynasty, who invested in building a chain of tanks, which would help serve all the water needs of the populace. This led to Bangalore having hundreds of such water bodies through the centuries. Even in the early second half of the 20th century, ie, in 1961, the number of lakes in the city stood at 26210. These lakes continued to serve the traditional purposes as mentioned above apart from helping maintain the eco system of the city. This happened mainly due to lakes serving to influence the microclimate as well as helping maintain biodiversity, apart from providing channels for rainwater to pass through thereby avoiding flooding.

Traditional uses of lakes still continue in the city, despite the dislocation in many places of villages and traditional users. In many lakes, residents around the lakes use the waters for purposes such as drinking, for household purposes or for livelihood activities such as agriculture, livestock, fishing, washing (dhobis), etc. In fact, in a study done by TV Ramachandra and Rajnikanth of the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science on Economic Valuation of Wetlands in 1999, focusing on Hebbal and Rachanahalli Lakes suggest that lakes are being used for what is called as direct use benefits, i.e., agriculture, fishing, fuel wood, harvesting etc. Apart from this they also suggest that lakes have their value and use in terms of culture and heritage as well11. In this context, during the present study the Researcher also spoke to residents around Nagavara Lake to understand usage of lake and found out that that another lake in its vicinity was being accessed for these traditional purposes.

Over a period of time these functions served by the lakes and tanks have gradually changed due to urbanisation and the consequent changes. Urbanisation and related demands on land for real estate as well as infrastructure meant that lakes were the most seriously affected. Due to the creation of layouts by bodies such as the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) as well as illegal encroachments by real estate organisations and building of infrastructure by the authorities, the number of lakes has diminished rapidly. Official figures put the number of lakes at 117 as of now out of which only 8112 are recognisable through government records. However, recent satellite imagery (2003) gives a different picture altogether. As per satellite imagery, only 33 lakes are visible13, out of which only about 18 exist in some shape while another 15-20 show some signs of existence. Many lakes have been converted into bus stands, stadiums etc. Some notable examples of these are - The Kempegowda bus stand, which was once Dharmabudhi Lake, Kanteerava stadium, which was Sampangi Lake, PGA golf course, which was Challagatha Lake.14

Given this situation, the then government set up a Committee in 1986 under the chairmanship of Lakshman Rau, IAS (Retd), Chairman, Local Finance Commission to look specifically into the preservation and restoration of lakes in Bangalore metropolitan area. The Lakshman Rau Committee report had recommended that no layout be formed in tank bed areas either by the BDA or any other authority. The committee further recommended that water sheets should be maintained wherever possible and sewerage and other pollutants should be suitably diverted. Another recommendation of the Committee was that dried lakes be developed as tree parks.15

 
All these recommendations have been grossly violated. The BDA itself has built layouts on no less than 27 lakebeds16! Sewage and industrial waste is being directly pumped into many lakes as in the cases of Bellandur Lake, Varthur Lake17, Agara Lake and many others. In the case of Bellandur Lake, where a Sewerage Treatment Plant has been set up upstream, low capacity of the plant has resulted in most of the untreated sewerage being let out into the lake18. In the specific cases of Varthur and Bellandur, farmers have been very directly affected. Their crops have suffered due to using these polluted waters for irrigation purposes. As far as converting dried lakes into parks, the authority’s performance on that as well has been abysmal, with not one case of tree parks being developed in such areas, but instead diversion of such areas for real estate development.

The government had also recently set up a Joint Legislative Committee, with Mr.T.A.Ramasawamy as Chairman. This committee was to look into land encroachments. Among other findings, they have discovered encroachments of lakes in various parts of the district.19 The very setting of this clearly points out to an admission of the government of the failure of the various bodies maintaining lakes in protecting them. While the final report of the committee is still due, the actions of the state government and the legislature in tackling this problem needs to be awaited.

Maintenance of Lakes in Bangalore

Maintenance of Lakes in Bangalore has been a vexed function at best! Given that a number of governmental bodies have ownership as well responsibility for maintenance has meant a lack of coherent and focused approach. The governmental bodies that have responsibility of the lakes in some way or the other include Forest Department, Minor Irrigations Department, Horticulture Department, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP), Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Tourism Department, City Municipal Councils and Panchayats.

The data available for the 117 lakes recognisable show us that ownership of 97 of these lakes are with the Forest Department, 13 with the Minor Irrigation Department and the remaining with the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and other government bodies like the BDA, CMCs, Panchayats etc20. Large number of bodies having ownership and responsibility for maintenance has led to a situation where each department is busy passing the buck and washing its hands off maintenance, which in turn has meant destruction of many lakes, either through encroachment or pollution. This further has reduced the number of visible lakes to 33, out of which only 15 are in some stage of being healthy water bodies, This is a very serious issue not only for the ecology and bio diversity but also for the traditional users of lakes, whose livelihood is linked to the health of these water bodies.

Lake Development Authority

It also details the governing council as well as the other bodies that have been created for the smooth functioning of this body.

The governing council consists of the following:

Chief Secretary - Govt. of Karnataka
Additional Chief Secretary - Govt. of Karnataka
Principal Secretary - Finance Department
Principal Secretary - Planning Science and Technology Department
Principal Secretary – Ecology and Environment Department
Principal Secretary – Urban Development Department
Principal Secretary – Minor Irrigation Department
Principal Secretary - Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department
Principal Secretary - Tourism & Youth Services Department
Secretary – Ecology and Environment Department
Commissioner – Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Member Secretary - Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Chairman - Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Chief Executive Officer – Lake Development Authority
and some prominent citizens.
 
The functions of the governing council include powers to:23

Apart from this, the Memorandum of Association also mentions the creation of an Empowered Committee 24 of the Lake Development Authority, which is chaired by the Principal Secretary Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, and which consists of:

Secretary - Forest, Ecology and Environment Department
Principal Secretary - Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department
Principal Secretary - Urban Development Department
Principal Secretary - Minor Irrigation Department
Principal Secretary - Revenue Department
Secretary - Finance Department Expenditure
Principal Secretary - Information and Youth Services Department
Secretary – Finance Department (Budget & Resources)
Chairman - Pollution Control Board
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department
Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Commissioner - Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Chief Executive Officer – Lake Development Authority.

The functions and powers of the Empowered Committee are:

The creation of this body, though seen as a welcome move initially, given the bad condition of the lakes in Bangalore due to both encroachment and pollution, if seen from an administrative point of view, is very really adding to the conundrum of existing bodies governing various aspects of Karnataka and Bangalore. Even though as can be seen above, the constitution of the LDA's Governing Council and Empowered Committee involves various government stakeholder bodies with powers to not only frame laws, but also set up task forces and committees in areas related to lake maintenance as well as seek funds for maintenance of lakes, there has been very little cooperation between the LDA and other bodies. Rather than working together, there has already been instances where the blame game has been indulged in25. LDA's functioning in the four years since its inception, has been autocratic and autonomous, making all the bodies as well as powers and functions, listed under the Memorandum of Association seem redundant. The poor functioning of the LDA has even led the Chief Minister, Mr.H.D.Kumaraswamy to criticised this body in public and contemplate handing back the maintenance of lakes to the BDA and BMP26.

While the LDA has not lived up to its potential in the four years of its existence, let us critically look at the creation of such a body. By putting in place a dedicated wing of the government to focus on the upkeep of lakes, one could argue there would be focus through specialized and exclusive manpower as well as budgets, thereby giving the lakes the attention and energy they require. But on the flipside, due to jurisdictional complexities, how much authority does the LDA have over lakes that fall into different jurisdictional areas is what is yet to be resolved. And also the fact that the LDA constitutes a range of bodies adds to the complications that would inevitably arise out of inter departmental coordination and interfaces. What also needs to be considered is that a para-statal body like the LDA may not be so concerned about traditional uses and users of lakes and be more focused only on the ecological and to some extent the beautification aspect of the lakes.

Bangalore as such is governed by various entities such as the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP), Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA), City Municipal Councils (CMC), Panchayats et al. Therefore the bodies in whose areas, the lakes fall being divested of authority over these water bodies point to a more complex question as to what the roles of lakes are, as seen in the city of Bangalore.

Due to the increased urbanization of the city and thereby the corresponding change in life style, one could say that very few lakes in Bangalore city limits are used for the last mentioned role, i.e., provision of direct source of water for daily/livelihood needs. But this generalization is prone to a biased middle/upper class view of the situation. As mentioned in chapter 2, there still continues to be a large number of lakes and tanks that are being utilized by the lower strata of society in the city limits itself for their daily needs.

Given this, one could say that a body like the LDA, which has powers at the State level may not be so sympathetic to this function of the lake, rather be more concerned with the maintenance of the water quality of the lake only and maybe to a certain extent, conservation of life forms that are dependent or are part of the lake ecosystem. And also given the increasing demand to make public spaces more into leisure, tourist spots rather than to maintain their traditional role, there has been the development of a beautification approach to maintenance of lakes. Therefore, the focus of LDA would not be so much concerned with the social/traditional role that a lake plays to the people dependent on lake water. This assumption is borne out by the fact that the LDA has already leased out three lakes to private parties, of which one is Nagavara tank, where the lake and its surroundings have been leased to Lumbini Developers to create an amusement/water park.27

The other contradiction that has come in by setting up of this body is that the government has vested in it powers to maintain only the water body and some part of the shore line, completely ignoring the role shore and adjoining lands play in the overall maintenance and health of a lake. The control and maintenance of land bodes adjoining to the lakes are in the hands of district wise bodies like the BDA, BMRDA, BMP or the more local bodies like the CMCs and panchayats. This separation of land from water and thereby separate maintenance, further makes the situation more complex, not seeing the lake as a continuum with land and thereby in a way not seeing water in a utility context, as an extension and an essential part of land and its inhabitants.

The Lake Development Authority on behalf of the Govt. of Karnataka, Dept of Ecology and Environment, put in place a scheme for the development, beautification and maintenance of select lakes in Bangalore, which invited private participants, under its Public - Private - Participation (PPP) policy. This scheme invited interested parties to take the lakes on a lease for 15 years and develop and maintain them. The reason for doing this, according to the Chief Executive Officer of the LDA was due to lack of funds and human resources at the disposal of the LDA and also to generate revenue.28

According to the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the privatisation scheme, lakes will be leased out to interested parties on a Develop Operate Transfer (DOT) basis. Tenders were invited from bidders and the lakes leased out to the successful parties. So far, three lakes, Hebbal, Nagavara and Venkayanakere have been leased out to private parties.29 These private parties have been allowed to operate recreational facilities in return for maintaining the lake. According to the Terms of Reference (TOR) for Invitation for Expression of Interest (EOI) for Development of Lakes in and around Bangalore on DOT (Develop/Operate/Transfer) basis, the scheme is outlined as including30:

The lakes will be leased out to successful bidders for a period of 15 years. After successful ecological restoration and beautification, the agency will be permitted to use the foreshore and lake for above mentioned specified activities by collecting user fees approved by the LDA. The agency will also be permitted to put up restricted number of advertising hoardings. The agency will also be required to maintain these lakes during the period of lease, which includes preventing waste from being disposed in the lake, cleaning of drains and removal of undesirable weeds.

List of lakes ear marked to be developed under this scheme has been changed from time to time. The initial list consisted of 7 lakes, which later was modified to 11, and then to 36 and now the latest figure that is being portrayed is 60 lakes 31. Given the above TOR for the DOT scheme, three lakes have already been leased out to private parties. The Nagavara Lake has been leased out to Lumbini Gardens, Hebbal Lake to E.I.H and the Venkanayakere to ParC Ltd. The researcher has in his possession, the agreements entered into for two of these three lakes, Nagavara and Hebbal. The highlights of these are as follows:

Encouragement of activities, which are meant for leisure/entertainment of the ones accessing the lake, like water sports, artificial beach, rock garden etc, not only means, the scaring away of fauna dependent on the lake, like birds, fish etc, through excess and disturbing human activity, but also conversion of the lakes and their surrounding areas into exclusive resorts, limited to certain sections of the populace, ensured by charging of entry fees into the lake areas. These recreations/entertainment resorts are meant to cater to specific sections of society, who need not even necessarily be living around the lakes. The general populace living around the abovementioned lakes especially Nagavara, largely belong to the lower middle to lower class category. They don't seem inclined to partake the facilities being offered there. The Researcher understood this when he spoke to some of these people residing near the lake. Moreover as is evident from a newspaper report, the locals living around Nagavara Lake protested during the inauguration of the facility, on the grounds that the lake has been leased to a private firm.34

Apart from the social damage that is caused by this act of privatisation and thereby restriction of entry into public spaces, environmental damage will also be caused to the lakes. Even though, there are clauses for maintaining water purity, through desilting, setting up of water treatment plants etc, the very act of building up along the shore lines, ensure that birds dependent on the lakes, will not be able to nest, which will drive them away. Building up of food courts and pavement like structures have ensured, at least in Nagavara lake that the habitat of birds are destroyed for good!

By building up around the lakes and making them stand alone water bodies that are only storm water fed, a linkage to other lakes through wetlands is denied. Wetlands play key ecological functions, which ensure the health of the lake systems. By disturbing that, the very existence of the lakes as lakes is seriously being threatened! One would even go so far as saying that in the long run, due to the disruption of the eco systems of lakes so key to its survival, the lakes will gradually die out and be converted into real estate. The fact that all the three lakes that have been leased out have been to players in the real estate/hospitality business only adds to this assumption. Further, information that E.I.H Ltd plans to construct a 223-room Hotel at the side of Hebbal Lake35 indicates that this lake has been taken up on lease purely for commercial and business purposes. Having their own private lake next to their Hotel, would surely add to the allure of staying in that Hotel and also the Lake, one fears will be increasingly used purely for guests of the Hotel and their Leisure and entertainment, thus almost making it next to impossible for the general public to access the Lake.

What has also been observed is the violation of land use regulations by the private organisations while implementing the scheme. Through information received in response to a right to information application, it has come to light that neither Lumbini Gardens nor E.I.H Ltd have sought for change in land use from the Bangalore Development Authority for converting the Nagavara and Hebbal Lakes for commercial use, a clear case of non compliance of the law.

In the preceding chapters, details of the privatisation scheme and some of the impacts have been touched upon. Now we would delve into some more details of the impact, especially on the social and economic front. Lakes have been part of the historical as well as social landscape of Bangalore for many centuries now. Villages have clustered around many of these water bodies and depended on them for meeting all water related needs, from household uses to livelihood uses. Though as mentioned earlier, this aspect of lakes has changed due to urbanisation, there still exist many people as well as communities residing around these lakes, who depend on them. Lakes continue to exist as Common Property Resources in Bangalore. Before we go into the impact of privatisation, it would be appropriate to look into some detail at the concept of Common Property Resources itself.

Common Property Resources are broadly defined as those (non - exclusive) resources in which a group of people have co - equal user rights. Membership in the group of co-owners is typically conferred by membership in some other group, generally a group whose central purpose is not the use or administration of the resources (per se), such as a village, a tribe etc. CPRs perform several functions. They contribute to people's employment, income generation and asset accumulation (directly or through complementing the private resource based activities). Contributions of CPRs can be through physical products, income/employment gains, and larger social, ecological gain. 36

As per the definition of Common Property Resources, it is a resource in which a group of people have co-user rights. Taken in the context of an urban/semi urban area, lakes/tanks, open spaces, parks etc fall under the gambit of CPRs. Lakes and Tanks if taken in the context of Bangalore are water resources first and foremost. Many of the lakes and tanks were constructed artificially to serve the needs of drinking and irrigation. It certainly helped that these lakes also served the purpose of influencing the microclimate of the city.

However over a period of time, the traditional role of many of the lakes and tanks in the city have been eroded due to increased urbanisation. This has meant that the growth in population and corresponding infrastructure has had a two-fold effect on the role of lakes as CPRs. One, where the volumes of population and thereby demand for water has increased in great numbers, which the lakes are not being able to cater to. Two, the increased need for real estate has meant encroachment of lakebeds and conversion of many lakes into built up property. Apart from this, the dumping of urban waste like sewage, industrial effluents, solid waste etc has seriously affected the quality of water of the lakes, thereby making the dependence on them as drinking water sources less. In spite of all of this, the fact remains that lakes and tanks are Common Property Resources, which have common users.

Given this fact, one needs to take a look at what impact the privatisation scheme of the LDA will have on lakes as CPRs. Lakes provide for at economic, social as well as ecological levels.

On an economic level, the products and employment opportunities that lakes provide are:

Products:

 
Employment Opportunities:

3. Dhobis/Washer men:

As a result of the beautification stressed on in the privatisation scheme, weeds will most certainly be removed, which is evident as clauses in the TOR of the scheme as well as the agreements, and which has happened in the case of Nagavara Lake. Weeds and other such fauna do have their role to play, like, the water hyacinth, which helps purify the water and absorbs waste, apart from providing with sources of fodder and compost. But, they will be removed, as has been done in the case of Nagavara Lake and therefore will affect the people who have been utilising them for the purposes mentioned above.

Focusing on the two lakes with respect to this study, Hebbal and Nagavara, a brief survey was carried out to understand the water usage by people around the lake and therefore the impact of privatisation on the socio-economic aspects. The findings from that indicate that no agriculture is being practised around Nagavara Lake. However, at the northwestern shore of Hebbal lake, there is some agricultural land for which waters from the lake are being utilised. Denial of entry into the lake, due to fencing by the parties, which is a part of the contract signed between the LDA and E.I.H Ltd, where chain link fences will be put all around the lake, will certainly impact the livelihood of these farmers. If the farmers are denied direct access to lake, it implies that they would have to seek permission from the private property for access of the lakes. They may even have to pay the entry fees, which is being levied upon the general public to enter the lake premises, which is also a part of the agreement. 37

Both Nagavara and Hebbal lakes, have people fishing in them for livelihood purposes. In a visit made to Nagavara Lake, no fishermen were seen. However it was understood by speaking to the locals that fishing was done at the lake. At Hebbal Lake, commercial fishing does take place. At the northern shore of Hebbal Lake, fishermen have set up a shelter, where they store their boats as well as fishing equipment. There is also a small shed, closer to the Bellary Road, where the fish caught from this lake are sold 38. Before the Hebbal Lake was privatised, the fishermen were allowed to fish only twice a day, in the morning and evening. Now with the private control of the lake, one assumes that this may get restricted even further.

Even though the agreement between the LDA and E.I.H Ltd, has a clause that states that the lessee will not interfere with the traditional or acquired rights of any groups of people or individuals vested in them by the government, one has strong apprehensions on this count, given that the focus of this scheme is more on the beautification of the lakes. Also, fisher folk would be seen as an eyesore, especially in the case of Hebbal Lake, where the intention is for the lake to be the foreground and private amusement zone for the proposed hotel there. Moreover, as boundaries are being put around the lakes and entry fees being levied to the general public, which points to a clear revenue generation focus and commercial exploitation of the lake by the private player as well as the LDA, fees may also be levied on the fisher folk, thus increasing their economic burden. This apprehension has been aired by the fisher folk 39 without any moves by the LDA or the government to address them.

Neither Hebbal nor Nagavara lakes have their waters being used by 'Dhobis' or Commercial Washer men. However it it has been observed thathas been observed that there is a 'Dhobi ghat' at Madivala Lake, where clothes are washed by 'Dhobis' for livelihood. Given the fact that lakes such as Madivala Lake are also on the list of 60 lakes being proposed for privatisation by the LDA, there is no doubt that this would impact the livelihood of the 'Dhobi' community. Private lessees of the lakes would surely not want the general public to access lands, which they have taken on lease and 'dirty' the waters so to say by washing clothes in it en masse. They could very easily claim that as their responsibility is to maintain the cleanliness of the lake waters, activities such as washing clothes would go in contravention to that. Also the point mentioned above of fisher folk being eyesores in an environment geared towards 'beautification', a 'Dhobi ghat' with its display of variety of clothes will certainly not go well with this.

Given the nature of Common Property Resources, restriction on access to it, either through a physical barrier such as boundary walls, chain link fences etc or through selective entry by way of entry fees, would amount to a violation of co-users rights of the citizenry who use these waters for various livelihood purposes. This is to be seen not just from the point of view of denial or restriction of access of CPRs to the general populace, but also a move, which seriously affects the livelihood of many. As it is, due to the increasing urbanisation, which manifests itself in the form of increased demand for real estate for individuals as well as industry, roads, shopping centers, entertainment complexes etc, many traditional occupants are being displaced and marginalised. To add to this, denials of access to CPRs like lakes, on which they depend on for livelihood means forcing them to take up occupations, which they are not familiar with. These new and unfaimilar livelihood sources in all probability also do not give them enough economic as well as social independence.

Lakes in Bangalore as has been discussed above have provided for economic and livelihood means for people from centuries. Lakes have also provided water for daily needs to the people, thus serving the very purpose for which these lakes and tanks were built. Apart from this, lakes and tanks also served to be the source of water for a village adjoining it, thus making it a communal symbol of a village or community. Rituals have been performed around these lakes and they have been seen as representations of heritage as well.

Lakes around Bangalore still continue to be used as sources for daily household needs such as washing of clothes, bathing, washing of cattle and for drinking purposes. Though the pollution and the shrinking of water sources as direct result of urbanisation has made people increasingly depend on other sources of water, especially from Kaveri for daily needs. However, in lakes such as Hebbal, it has been noted that locals living in the neighbourhood do access the lake water especially for washing clothes. The same used to happen in Nagavara Lake, up to 3 odd years ago. From interaction with a local near Nagavara, who was born and brought up in that area, it was understood that they used to use the lake waters for all their daily needs till 5 or so years ago, when the forest department put in place an embankment that physically prevented them from accessing the lake. They were also told that they couldn't use the lake waters as they were polluting them. This alienated them from this lake and forced them to seek another water body in a more interior location.

In the case of Nagavara, the privatisation may not affect this use of the lake by the locals as they have already been denied of it some years ago. However, one must note that this move of private management of the lake will ensure that whatever chances of locals being able to come back to the lake and access it for daily needs, will be lost forever. In the case of Hebbal Lake, as mentioned earlier, locals have been observed to be washing their clothes in the lake even now; there would be a direct impact. With the private management of this lake and the proposed boundary/fences being set up with no provision for the access to the lake waters, except through the main gate, where a fee is charged, (Rs.20 on weekdays and Rs.30 on weekends), will mean not only hardship for the locals to come to the main entrance to enter the lake, but also extra economic burden.

It is also highly likely that the private organisations will not allow the locals the use of lake waters for washing, bathing etc as it would be seen as acts that would pollute the lake. If the Forest department is capable of barring residents from accessing lake water on these grounds as has happened in the case of Nagavara three years ago, private organisations, who have taken up the lake to generate income by way of selling them as beauty spots would be even more likely to do so. Therefore the possibility of denial of access to Hebbal Lake as well as other such lakes lined up for privatisation is a very distinct possibility.

On the traditional and cultural front as well, lakes have been used for various rituals and poojas corresponding with festivals, religious and social. With private control of these spaces, such practices may erode as well. Community ownership and use of lakes for even such traditional practices will be minimised and then gradually lost. For every such function and ritual, the locals would need to seek permission from the private organisations managing the lakes. And also the possibility of them getting permission would also be reduced, by being faced with the fallacious argument of them polluting the lakes in the process. Lakes and Tanks, which are symbols of community pride, will be out of bounds of the community.

What also needs to be looked into is increasing displacement and marginalisation of traditional users. As the city grows, there are increasing cases of displacement to cater to needs that have arisen to urban comforts and amenities. There have been many cases in point, where people who have been living and earning their livelihood having to vacate their lands and also their livelihoods, supposedly for the greater common good! Cases in point are the displacements that have happened due to the proposed International Airport at Devanahalli and along the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project and various ring roads across and around the city. In the case of the Devanahali airport as well as the BMIC project, not only have the lands had to be given up, but also livelihoods had to be changed. Where once, people used to earn their living using their traditional skills in agriculture and related areas, are now being forced to take up jobs such as of security, menial labour etc. Though there are some efforts by NGOs to train these displaced, especially the youth at livelihood skills and attempt to help them acquire jobs, which would call for some skills as well, provide with reasonable remuneration 40, there still is the forceful conversion of livelihoods of people.

The same is the case is with denial of access to lakes and therefore forcing them to take up alternative livelihood options. As Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, in their book, 'Ecology and Equity' describe, people traditionally dependent on the natural environment to met most of their material needs can be termed as ecosystem people. These ecosystem people due to displacements and forceful changes in livelihood due to various projects are converted into ecological refugees in order for the omnivores, i.e., those that enjoy the produce of the entire biosphere by way of their wealth, purchasing power, prestige, political clout etc41. As Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha point out, ecosystem people have been suffering from an increasingly circumscribed access to natural capital, the resource base on which they still depend to fulfill many of their basic needs. They go onto say that this is because of the shrinkage of this resource base as lands are encroached and because the ever-growing state apparatus increasingly hinders them from using resources, as when 'open - access' revenue wastelands are taken over as strictly controlled forest lands 42.

This is a state every similar to the lakes in Bangalore being marginalised from the ecosystem people by the state apparatus both by denying them access to commons directly as was in the case of Nagavara three years ago or indirectly by placing commons in the hands of private parties. This approach of the government to wash its hands off maintenance of commons citing lack of financial and human resources is seen as an excuse to hand them over to private parties for maintenance. The authorities as well as certain section of the populace places faith in these parties as well as the free market as the best instrument available for combating environmental problems 43 as, John Bellamy Foster, in his book, 'Ecology Against Capitalism', points out. However, as he goes onto say such an approach, which makes a case for free market in the case of environment management and levying costs on all environment resources, depends among other things on the privatisation of the commons and the assignment of monetary values to parts of the environment that have previously been accorded little or no value. Also to attach monetary value to a part of nature, in the cases of the lakes in Bangalore, maintenance of purity of the lake waters, in isolation to other aspects, such as the social, livelihood, ecological as well as bio diversity aspects of a lake ecosystem, is erroneous because the environment is an organic whole rather than something replaceable by parts 44.

This increasingly distressing approach of the government, where they see the maintenance of environment and commons as something which needs to have commercial and tangible economic returns for being worthy of investment, financial and otherwise, is making them hand over commons to private players. The private players on their part see the commons, not as environmental and social spheres, but as potential sources of revenue and profit generation. This has in turn led lakes, which have been leased out, to private parties to become entertainment/recreation zones. The private players seeing the potential in the demand for such entertainment/recreation zones from the public, prone to an increasing consumerist mode of existence, have made full use of the space provided to convert them into commercial areas.

This conversion of lakes to cater to the entertainment/recreation economy is very apparent through a close reading of the TOR of the privatisation scheme of the LDA as well as the agreements agreed in with the two private players, Lumbini Gardens and E.I.H Ltd for Nagavara and Hebbal Lakes respectively. The focus is on providing recreational /amusement facilities such as water sports, artificial beaches, food courts, amusement games, food courts etc. All this, of course would come with a cost, which is separate from the entry fees into the premises! Given the nature of these avenues of recreation/entertainment, they would be priced at a premium, which will enable the leasing private organisations to not only recover their investments in terms of infrastructure and lease but also make profits. Given this, these public spaces will get converted into enclaves for the middle and upper classes who can afford entry as well as indulge in the various amusement/recreational activities on offer. This in effect will make commons such as the lakes totally inaccessible to a large section of the population in the city, which is totally unacceptable in a democratic and free country, where there are constitutional as well as legislative safe guards against such actions.

Lakes are being leased out to private parties, supposedly in the name of their maintenance and therefore one would assume for their ecological health. However a close look at the scheme as well as the agreements will show that rather than preserving the lakes ecologically, the various activities envisaged under the scheme, will in actuality lead to destruction of the lakes on an ecological front as well.

On the environmental/ecological aspect, lakes provide various benefits that include influencing the microclimate, flood control, encouraging bio-diversity and replenishing groundwater. The microclimate of the area surrounding the lake will benefit if the lake water level is maintained as it is, which on the face of it will be possible through the privatisation scheme, which requires maintenance of lake including clean inflow. All the same, the fauna that surrounds lakes as well as wetland area of the lake also contribute towards microclimate as well as biodiversity. With the privatisation scheme, the private parties build around the entire lake, including cemented/stoned shorelines, building on wetland area, removal of naturally present greenery to replace with ornamental plants as well as to accommodate structures such as food courts restaurants etc45, will certainly have an impact of the microclimate. More amount of built up area and less of fauna will mean that the structures and built up area will absorb heat and reflect, resulting in the increase of temperature around the lake.

As far as flood control is concerned, the very building upon the wetlands and such areas which are mistakenly considered wastelands, there will be an impact on flooding. Wetlands, which form the connecting link between series of lakes, perform the function of transmitting excess water downstream to other lakes in the chain. With the building up that is happening due to the privatisation these wetlands will get choked and blocked, leading to increased instances of flooding. This has been happening on an increasing level in Bangalore over the last few years, especially last year, which was witness to extensive flooding due to building up on lake beds as well as obstructing the interconnections of the lakes through channels.46

The biodiversity of a lake depends on many natural systems and processes like a natural shoreline, presence of wetlands, connectivity of lakes, presence of weeds etc. All these have been badly and almost irreversibly damaged through the activities in the wake of the privatisation of lakes. Building up on the shoreline ensures that certain bird species, which nest upon the shore, cannot do so anymore. Destruction of wetlands, through building up, ensures that many flora and fauna dependent on them die out. The flow of water from one lake to another through the wetlands and storm water drains will get disrupted, destroying the natural character of the lakes, on which many species that are dependent, getting wiped out. Excess activity on the shore and on the lakes as a result of the recreational facilities, like water sports etc on offer, will ensure that birds get scared away.

In the case of affecting groundwater, the privatisation, through one of the clauses of having to set up a water treatment plant to ensure only treated water enters the lake, may help by keeping the ground water clean. But the fact is that, this same function, i.e., setting up of Water Treatment Plants can very easily be done by govt. bodies like the BWSSB or the LDA as has been done in places like Bellandur lake.47 This need not be the prerogative of private parties. What is also a distinct possibility, as mentioned earlier is the govt. on pressure of the private parties putting limits in accessing ground water through wells in vicinities of the lake to enable the private parties to have more access to the lake water for various uses like in the case of Hebbal lake, where Oberoi plans to set up a 223-room hotel next to the lake.

Now that the proposed privatisation scheme of lakes in Bangalore and its impact has been delved into, what would be the alternatives to this scheme? While looking the alternatives, a good starting point would be too relook at the reasons why the requirement for such a scheme has been put across in the first place. The conditions of lakes in Bangalore are in a bad shape and the government bodies do fall short of financial as well as human resources from time to time. However, before jumping to a conclusion that private management can play this role more efficiently, one needs to look at the possible alternatives, which do not alienate commons from the general public, be it the traditional users or the people seeking to access such spaces as a temporary relief from the stressed urban existence.

The main claim of the Lake Development Authority in leasing out lakes to private parties is that they are understaffed as well as do not have the finances for maintaining lakes on an ongoing basis. The possible alternative here is to involve the local bodies, be it the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike or the City Muncipal Councils or the Panchayats in maintenance as well as financing maintenance, by allocating human resources as well as setting aside part of their budget to lake maintenance also. Ownership of the lakes could be given to these bodies and the task of protecting them could rest with them. In cases where there are regular traditional users of the lakes, a fair amount of autonomy with them by formation of Water Users Association could be a possibility.

If such a decentralised approach were followed, the local populace would feel more ownership towards the lakes in their areas and therefore could also, if required, put pressure on the BMP, CMCs, and Panchayats to ensure proper maintenance, so that the social roles as well as ecological roles of the lakes are served. One possible drawback in this system is that the local bodies would not have the expertise to maintain lakes/tanks. Given this, one could possibly explore the option of looking at LDA as a consultative body, which could provide the expertise and train the manpower of the local bodies or even the local populace.

One would also need to look at enlightening and creating awareness among local bodies on the need of them to focus on the water bodies, especially lakes in their areas. This would have to be from both the point of view of them being direct as well as indirect sources of water for residents for various livelihood and daily use purposes as well as the ecological value they provide, leading to changes in the micro climate and therefore the quality of life of citizens. While creating this awareness with the local bodies is important, what is also equally important is for a similar level of awareness to be with the local populace.

Local populace could be reached out through various means like the media, direct personal contact, through government bodies, NGOs etc and could be sensitised to look at lakes not just as beauty spots but also the value they provide as livelihood providers, social and traditional symbols as well sustainers of various life forms and impactors of climate. Once this awareness is created with both these sets of people, one would expect the local bodies, with support as well pressure from the citizens, to take the job of maintaining lakes with the utmost seriousness it deserves.

5 Arun Kumar Singh (2004) - Privatisation of Rivers in India, (E26.S.62) pp. 100

6 'Antony drifts into river ‘sell off’ froth' - The Telegraph, December 29th, 2002

7Arun Kumar Singh (2004) Privatisation of Rivers in India, (E26.S.62) pp. 101

8John Bellamy Foster (2002) - Ecology Against Capitalism, (B.EOOa F60) pp. 88

9 Arun Kumar Singh (2004) Privatisation of Rivers in India, (E26.S.62) pp. 23

10. Memorandum of Association and Bylaws of Association and Rules of the Lake Development Authority, pp 1

11. TV Ramachandra and Rajnikanth (1999) - Economic Valuation of Wetlands, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Sciences, - http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/ecodoc2004.htm#18 (last accessed on November 5, 2006)

12.IDIP Report, prepared by STEM for KUIDFC, pp 2, Chapter 8

13http://www.wayfaring.com/maps/show/19613 , http://parisaramahiti.kar.nic.in/lakes.html (last accessed on November 5, 2006)

14. http://parisaramahiti.kar.nic.in/lostlakes.html (last accessed on November 5, 2006)

15.Laxman Rau Committee Report, pp 11, 12, 13

16. 'Encroachers put Bangalore's Lakes on Endangered List' - New Indian Express, August 14th 2001[C.eldoc1/j50_/J50_B1014.pdf]

17.'Varthur Lake Faces Extinction: Farmers Hit' - The Hindu, September 27th 2001[C.eldoc1/j50_/J50_B1012.pdf]

18.'Bellandur Bubbles with Foam Again' - Deccan Herald, September 24th 2001

19.'Revenue dept. gave 16 tanks for BMIC: Panel' - Deccan Herald, August 24, 2006

20.IDIP Report, prepared by STEM for KUIDFC, pp 2,3 Chapter 8

21.Memorandum of Association and Bylaws of Association and Rules of the Lake Development Authority, pp 1

22.Memorandum of Association and Bylaws of Association and Rules of the Lake Development Authority, pp 7,8

23.Memorandum of Association and Bylaws of Association and Rules of the Lake Development Authority, pp 11 - 16

24.Memorandum of Association and Bylaws of Association and Rules of the Lake Development Authority, pp 16 - 18

25.'Bellandur Lake - Another Row' - Deccan Herald, October 18, 2006

26. 'No Lakes for Lake Authority' - New Indian Express, May 3, 2006

27.'Fresh Lease of Life for Lake' - Deccan Herald, June 26, 2006

28.'Lakes Will be Privatised' - City Express, March 21, 2006

29.'PPP for Lake Revival' - Times of India, July 28, 2006

30.Terms of Reference for Invitation for Expression of Interest (EOI) for Development of Lakes in and around Bangalore on DOT - (Develop/Operate/Transfer) Basis

31.IDIP Report, prepared by STEM for KUIDFC, Chapter 8, Annexure 8.8

32.Agreement for Development & Maintenance of Nagavara Lake under Expression of Interest (EOI) on DOT Basis Between The Lake Development Authority and M/S Lumbini Gardens Ltd.

33.Agreement for Development & Maintenance of Nagavara Lake under Expression of Interest (EOI) on DOT Basis Between The Lake Development Authority and M/S E.I.H Ltd., C/O The Oberoi, Bangalore

34.'Fresh Lease of Life for Lake' - Deccan Herald, June 26, 2006

3'EIH announces 12 new projects in India, abroad' - The Hindu Business Line, July 29, 2006

36.N.S.Jodha (1990) - Rural Common Property Resources - A Growing Crisis, Indian Institute for Environment and Development, (E27) pp. 1,2

37. Agreement for Development & Maintenance of Nagavara Lake under Expression of Interest (EOI) on DOT Basis Between The Lake Development Authority and M/S E.I.H Ltd., C/O The Oberoi, Bangalore, pp 12

38.'BPO City outsources Lake Revivial' - Priyanjana Dutta, April 30, 2006, CNN-IBN http://www.ibnlive.com/news/bpo-city-outsources-lake-revival/9135-3.html (last accessed on November 5, 2006)  [C.eldoc1/j50_/BPO_city_outsources_lake_revival.html]

39. 'LDA Gearing to Lease 11 Lakes' -The Hindu, April 12, 2006 [C.eldoc1/j50_/LDA_gearing_to_lease_11_lakes.html]

40.'NGO launches college for training in life skills' - The Hindu, October 24, 2006

41.Madhav Gadgil & Ramachandra Guha (1995) - Ecology and Equity, (E26 54) pp. 3,4

42.Madhav Gadgil & Ramachandra Guha (1995) - Ecology and Equity, (E26 54) pp. 117

43.John Bellamy Foster (2002) - Ecology Against Capitalism, (B.EOOa F60) pp. 57

44.John Bellamy Foster (2002) - Ecology Against Capitalism, (B.EOOa F60) pp. 58

45. Terms of Reference for Invitation for Expression of Interest (EOI) for Development of Lakes in and around Bangalore on DOT - (Develop/Operate/Transfer) Basis

46. 'Bangalore - Urban Growth, Environmental Decline' - Asha Ghosh and Champaka.T.R - The Hindu Survey of the Environment 2006

top