The availability of water varies across regions of the world. In the past few decades we have seen that global per capita availability of water has declined. Numerous reasons have been put forth for the current situation, but to understand the various dimensions we have to understand the nature of water and its availability. Water, particularly drinking water, is a basic human right. As such, it is the responsibility of the governments to ensure that everyone has access to his or her minimum requirements. But public systems are not always efficient.

The concept of the Tragedy of the Commons is extremely important for understanding the degradation of our environment. This concept was expressed for the first time by Garrett Hardin in his now famous article in Science in 1968, which is "widely accepted as a fundamental contribution to ecology, population theory, economics and political science."

Water is a common property resource where it is not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.

According to the concept of Tragedy of Commons, if a resource like water is held in common for use by all, then ultimately that resource will be destroyed. "Held in common" means the resource is owned by no one, so it is owned by all. Water as a resource falls perfectly into this definition.

Water knows no boundaries and flows across different regions of the world. Owing to the flowing nature of water it becomes difficult to ascribe riparian (dependent on water for agriculture etc.) rights and mark the proportion that each one can use. In case of surface water there have been transboundary problems of water sharing, resulting in several conflicts. The problem is aggravated in case of groundwater where it is impossible to draw limits to extraction. We consider groundwater to be an open access resource and tend to draw in excess of what we need. All this results in over exploitation of the resource and ultimately leads to its degradation.

Managing the quality and the depletion rates of a fluid commons is one of the most difficult tasks of environmental policy. A fluid commons is one in which the resource is non-excludable due to its mobility. That is, besides the well-understood difficulties that attend commons management, there is the added problem of resource mobility.

How can a local resource management issue like water be effectively dealt with by decision makers who are too remote to be in touch with realities on the ground? Management of water must ultimately reside with local communities, working within the guidelines provided by planning authorities to be mindful of regional resource constraints. This requires the commitment and involvement of all stakeholders. There is a need to set up a socially equitable and ecosystem approach to water management.

Case Study: "Tragedy of Commons – Chennai"

According to economic theory, water does not have much value because its marginal utility is low.

But ask any resident of Chennai and they are sure to debunk the theory! If anything, the consumption of water for the Chennai the residents resembles famous game-theory problem called the ‘Tragedy of Commons’.

A residential building has ten apartments. These residents buy water at Rs 150 per house. As there is no mechanism in the common water tank to control the consumption per house, it is in the interest of every household to consume as much water as possible!

This is because each household would want to gain maximum utility for having spent Rs 150. But, what if all households think alike? Water will be consumed in no time leading to further cash outflows, as more water needs to be purchased to fill the common tank.

This process of each household trying to derive maximum benefit from the common resources and in the process depleting such resources resembles the ‘Tragedy of Commons’.

Such a ‘Tragedy is likely to exist when a group shares resources: fishing in coastal waters, for instance. There is every reason for the fishermen to abide by the government rules; otherwise, excess fishing may lead to low reserves, and fishermen may not then have enough fish to sustain their livelihood.

Yet, these fishermen break the rules. The reason? There is a positive component to their breaking the rules — the more they fish, the more they earn.

But there is a negative component as well. As every fisherman thinks alike, all of them tend to fish more. And such excess fishing depletes the reserves, affecting the ecological system, not to mention the livelihood of the fishermen.

So, the next time, you are part of a group that shares resources, draft a plan and ensure that the group adheres to the plan. Do not act like some of the apartment dwellers in Chennai! q