The Kedah state government has come under criticism for its decision to log timber in its water catchment areas. While I disagree with the decision, I feel too many sides are criticizing the state government without providing any solution — with the exception of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM).
Here, I want to offer two solutions to the issue that will leave those trees in peace:
SAM rightly pointed out that Penang needs to compensate Kedah for refraining from logging timber within the water catchment areas from which Penang draws its water supply. In everything that we do, there is always an opportunity cost and Kedah is no different in this respect: one of those costs involves the decision to log or not to log.
A similar idea of compensation was proposed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali, Indonesia last year with the objective of halting the destruction of rainforests. The origin of such an idea itself goes back to 1937 when economist Ronald Coase first proposed it. I will not bore you with the economics but what I am trying to do is demonstrate that this idea is not as novel as it sounds.
While SAM gets the idea of Coase, the state-to-state compensation is not as on target as I would like it to be. It does not link the issue with the market and any state-to-state compensation may amount to a water subsidy in the end.
A better compensation method will see consumers themselves compensating the owner of the catchment area and, in this case, the owner is the Kedah state government. This is also the reason why I do not prefer the idea of having the federal government compensating Kedah. This allows the opportunity cost to be included into the water bill of Penang folk. With that, the opportunity cost faced by Kedah will be flipped and eventually provide the state with a chance to reassess its priority. Needless to say, that translates into higher charges for water consumption for Penang folk.
The beauty of this suggestion is that it also encourages water conservation. It reveals the true cost of water to consumers and allows the consumers to appreciate the problem faced by Kedah even more. It is a model for advocating more sustainable water consumption.
The second solution involves property rights. Those who wish for a guaranteed continuous clean water supply from Kedah can purchase rights over the trees or a tract of land within the catchment areas. At the right price, the Kedah state government will sell the rights to the trees and be relieved of the temptation to cut them down. This, of course, only works if the new owners do not succumb to the temptation of cutting down the trees for money.
But the two solutions somewhat digress from my original thought. What I am trying to say is this: please offer solutions. Criticism, however justified, is simply not enough.
p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.
