Articles / Newsletter

Getting everyone on the same page
Date 20-Aug-2018 | Category | Author Dr Zaki Zainudin, New Straits Times Online
https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2018/08/403260/getting-everyone-same-page

 

An illegal dumpsite along Sungai Semenyih in Selangor. FILE PIC

A ‘map’ portraying target water quality should be established and used as a reference for all federal and state agencies.

MANY issues pertaining to shortcomings in water resource management have been highlighted in recent years. These include controversial issues from water supply disruption due to pollution and widespread environmental damage due to uncontrolled bauxite mining. These issues bring into question the water security status of the country.

Two new ministries, the Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources (MWLN) and the Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change were established by the new Pakatan Harapan government. Many “water related” agencies were reshuffled to fit into these two ministries. While the effort to rationalise relevant departments under the same “umbrella” is understandable, it is not really something new.

Such rationalisation efforts are common after elections or when a new administration comes into power (new government or not). Despite such efforts, however, history has shown the country continued to face various water troubles.

Hence, while rationalisation seems to make sense, more important is getting the water authorities to work together towards achieving a common goal. This is the difficult part as there are a multitude of state and federal agencies involved in river basin management.

It may not be apparent to many, but water issues in Malaysia and the disintegrated management style, stem from administrative and even political entanglement, be it between federal level agencies or between state and federal agencies. Some attribute this to the fact that water, as a resource, is under state purview as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In the previous administration, most states guarded their resources diligently and sometimes viewed “federal-led water initiatives” with suspicion.

This was one of the main reasons behind the Selangor water supply debacle. Besides this, many states are also dragging their feet to support the “Water Resources Bill”, which propagates Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM), despite it only being a “model law”.

It remains to be seen whether such trepidation will continue in the newly-formed government. Perhaps it is also time for a paradigm shift.

For decades, the focus has been on rationalising the “hardware,” aka agencies or authorities, hoping they will cooperate with one another by putting them “under one roof”. While there has been some progress, the current scenario is still far from true IRBM.

Perhaps, rather than rationalising the agencies or ministries, more focus needs to be given to the “software” or mission, which is what really matters.

What matters is setting measurable, common goals, targets and outcomes which can be translated to department KPIs. This way, irrespective of ministry the agency falls under, they all work towards the same objective. While this may sound elementary, believe it or not, just a few years ago even KPIs of some water agencies contradicted one another!

An example is water pollution. When it comes to water pollution, many are quick to point the finger at the Department of Environment (DOE). However, many are not aware that under the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (EQA, 1974); the DOE only regulates industrial, sewage, leachate, rubber and palm oil mill surface discharges.

There are a host of other surface discharge(s) not regulated under EQA 1974 such as those from wet markets, workshops, aquaculture, animal husbandry, restaurants, etc. The discharge from these premises can be utterly grotesque.

The Selangor Water Management Authority (Luas) has taken proactive measures by including pollution sources not under EQA 1974 but under their own state enactment. What about the other states?

To add salt to the wound, more than 90 per cent of effluent generating premises under DOE’s purview are already complying with limits as per the law; in other words, DOE has already met its KPI in terms of regulating pollution sources as per EQA 1974.

From this, one can deduce that it matters little if 90 per cent (or more) of effluent generating premises meet limits as required by law, if rivers continue to be polluted. All of this is due to jurisdictional overlaps or discrepancies.

It is now time to shift the focus to what matters: the water quality of the rivers or surface water-courses themselves. The authorities (whoever they may be, federal or state) must have shared responsibility in the “outcome” water quality.

A “map” portraying the targeted water quality should be established and used as a reference by all federal and state agencies. The targets can be based on the National Water Quality Standards (or any other relevant standards related to use), but not the Water Quality Index (WQI). At least not in the current WQI form.

Targets should correspond with beneficial uses and locality (river stretches). Setting these common goals and targets is the first, most important step to achieve water quality preservation, because it gets everybody on the same page.

An overarching basin-wide single target such as that adopted by many state authorities previously is not only without basis, but also neither realistic nor sustainable.

For these targets to hold water (pun intended) it should be drafted and adopted by the states, to be followed by everyone, be it for preservation or water quality improvement.

[email protected]

Dr Zaki Zainudin is a water quality and modelling specialist.

[ Back ] [ Print Friendly ]