Training Programme on Understanding and Resolving Water Conflicts
5-9 April 2010, Kerala
Proceedings
Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India
Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) 16, Kale Park, Someshwarwadi Road, Pashan, Pune 411 008, Maharashtra, INDIA
Tel: +91-20-2588 0786/ 2588 6542 Fax: +91-020-2588 6542 Email: [email protected]
URL: http://conflicts.indiawaterportal.org
Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................................... 7 CLASSROOM PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................................... 7 DAY 1.............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 INAUGURAL SESSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Welcome and Introduction to the training programme: K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM ............................................................. 7 KEY NOTE ADDRESS: “WATER, CONFLICTS AND THE LAWS IN INDIA”: PROFESSOR RAMASWAMY IYER .......................... 9 Summary of discussion: ................................................................................................................................................. 11 UNDERSTANDING WATER: BIO-PHYSICAL AND SOCIO-CULTURAL PECULIARITIES OF WATER: K. J. JOY, SOPPECOM, PUNE............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Summary of Discussion: ................................................................................................................................................ 13 WATER USE PATTERN SINCE INDEPENDENCE: COMPETING WATER USES IN INDIA: SUHAS PARANJAPE, SOPPECOM, PUNE............................................................................................................................................................................... 13 DISCUSSION AND DEBATE ABOUT THE NEW BOOK, ‘WATER AND THE LAWS IN INDIA’ EDITED BY RAMASWAMY IYER .. 14 DAY 2............................................................................................................................................................................ 15 PRINCIPLES, THEORIES AND METHODS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND NEGOTIATION: PROFESSOR JANAKARAJAN, MADRAS INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, CHENNAI. .......................................................................................... 15 Summary of Discussions:............................................................................................................................................... 18 WATER FOR ECOSYSTEM NEEDS: PROFESSOR M. K. PRASAD, KSSP AND INFORMATION KERALA MISSION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM .................................................................................................................................................. 18 WATER FOR ECOSYSTEM NEEDS: DR. A. LATHA, CPSS, THRISSUR ............................................................................... 20 Summary of Discussion: (To be filled in) ...................................................................................................................... 24 NORMATIVE CONCERNS AROUND WATER: SUSTAINABILITY, EQUITY AND DEMOCRATIZATION: SUHAS PARANJAPE, SOPPECOM, PUNE........................................................................................................................................................ 24 RIGHT-BASED DISCOURSE AND RIGHT TO WATER: BY K. J. JOY, SOPPECOM, PUNE .................................................. 26 DAY 4............................................................................................................................................................................ 29 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE WATER SECTOR: DR. PHILIPPE CULLET, IELRC, NEW DELHI...................... 29 UNDERSTANDING WATER CONFLICTS IN INDIA: DEVELOPING A TYPOLOGY: K. J. JOY.................................................... 32 Summary of Discussion: ................................................................................................................................................ 34 ANALYZING, UNDERSTANDING AND DOCUMENTING CONFLICTS: BY S.JANAKARAJAN PROFESSOR, MADRAS INSTITUTE
OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, PRESIDENT, SACIWATERS, HYDERABAD ......................................................................... 34 STAKEHOLDER PROCESSES, DIALOGUES AND RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS AROUND WATER: BY DR. S. JANAKARAJAN, MIDS, CHENNAI............................................................................................................................................................. 36 Summary of Discussion: ................................................................................................................................................ 39 PRACTICAL LESSONS AND EXAMPLES ON MSP, MSD AND THE PROCESS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION: BY DR. S. JANAKARAJAN, MIDS, CHENNAI.................................................................................................................................... 39 Palar Basin: .................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Cauvery Water Dispute:................................................................................................................................................. 40 Summary of Discussions:............................................................................................................................................... 43 FIELD WORK ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 DAY 3............................................................................................................................................................................ 43
2
SUMMARY OF THE MULLAPERIYAR CONFLICT ................................................................................................................ 43 RATIONALE FOR CHOOSING THE MULLAPERIYAR CASE STUDY...................................................................................... 44 FEAR OF DAM BREAK AND DEMAND FOR A NEW DAM...................................................................................................... 44 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIELDWORK.................................................................................................................................. 44 Visit to Vandiperiyar Gram Panchayat .......................................................................................................................... 45 Periyar Tiger Reserve and the water intake point of the Mullaperiyar Dam.................................................................. 46 Experiences and Observations of the participants.......................................................................................................... 46 GROUP WORK PRESENTATIONS (DAY 5) ......................................................................................................... 47 GROUP A: CASE STUDY TITLE “SINGOOR PROJECT – RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD VERSUS RIGHT TO LIFE” .......................... 47 GROUP B: CASE STUDY TITLE “NIRA DEOGHAR- PRIVATIZATION OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS” ....................................... 48 Summary of Discussions:............................................................................................................................................... 49 GROUP C: CASE STUDY TITLE “LAKE KOLLERU- ‘NATURE VERSUS HUMAN GREED” .................................................... 49 GROUP D: CASE STUDY TITLE “CAUVERY RIVER SHARING DISPUTE” ........................................................................... 51 FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................................................... 51
3
The background of the training programme and acknowledgements
Though very late, we are happy to bring out the proceedings of the training programme, Understanding and Resolving Water Conflicts, organised by the Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India (Forum to be brief) on 5 – 9 April 2010 in Kerala and make it available to a wider water community for feedback, suggestions and free use.
Forum is a collaborative initiative of many institutions and individuals, and is an effort to bring together all those interested in working on issues related to water conflicts in India into a loose network for action and interaction. One of the important contributions of the Forum has been the book, Water Conflicts in India: A Million Revolts in the Making which has tried to document different types of water conflicts in India. Forum’s work covers four broad areas, namely, conflict documentation, conflict resolution, conflict prevention, and networking and outreach. For the details of Forum’s work kindly log on to URL: http://conflicts.indiawaterportal.org
During the work of the Forum in understanding and documenting water conflicts in India over the last few years we realised that various stakeholders like researchers, activists, practitioners and policy makers who are interested in resolution of water conflicts, find it difficult to analyse the conflicts with the complexities and rapidly changing debates related to conflicts over resources, and to move towards its resolution in a scientific manner. To partially fill this gap the Forum decided to organise this training programme especially for young researchers and civil society activists who are interested in water conflict issues.
Many individuals and organisations have contributed in organising the training programme and bringing out the proceedings. We thankfully acknowledge all those individuals and organisations especially the participants, the resource persons, Chalakudypuzha Samrakshan Samiti – the local host – and the organisations and individuals who helped us organise a very fruitful field trip. We acknowledge the contribution of Arghyam as this training programme was organised as part of the larger project, Moving from Understanding Conflicts to Resolving Conflicts, funded by Arghyam.
We are thankful to Ms. Malini Bhattacharjee, one of the participants of the training programme, for putting in enormous amount of time and efforts in putting together the first draft of the proceedings. We also appreciate Meta-Culture, Malini’s employer at that time, for allowing Malini to take this up not charging the cost of her time to the Forum. Finally we are also thank full to our young colleagues, Shruti and Medhavi, for giving the final touches to the proceedings and making it available to the large water community.
This has been a learning experience for us in the Forum as it was the first training that we conducted on this issue. The feedback that we have received from the participants would go a long way in making changes in the programme and making it more meaningful. We appeal to all of you to get back to us with your comments and suggestions. Also, feel free to use the material in the proceedings. In case any body wants any specific presentations or papers included in the reader that we put
4
together, feel free to approach us and we can send them to you. You could write to either Shruti or Medhavi on [email protected]
Pune K. J. Joy and Suhas Paranjape
20 October 2010 Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India
5
Introduction
The Training Programme on Understanding and Resolving Water Conflicts was held between 5- 9 April, 2010, in Kochi, Kerala.1 The objective of this workshop was to introduce participants to the basic concepts, debates, theoretical and analytical approaches and emerging issues related to water conflicts and their resolution in India. This stemmed from the recognition that there existed gaps in understanding and skills among several stakeholders, such as researchers, practitioners, policy makers, activists and media persons, with regard to analyzing water conflicts and moving towards their resolution in a scientific manner. It was also expected that the workshop would provide an opportunity for the Forum to get inputs from a large number of participants with varying backgrounds that would further strengthen the work of the Forum. Around 20 participants from academic and research institutions, government and non-governmental organizations and from different disciplines participated in the workshop.
All participants at the Training Workshop with the resource persons
6
1 For the Training Programme Agenda, please see Annexure 1.
Methodology
The workshop methodology consisted of four components: • Reader and case study format: The Forum sent out to all the participants, an illustrated Reader
comprising several articles, reports and research papers on issues covering the legal, social, ecological, economic and political dimensions of water conflicts in India, two weeks before the workshop.
• The Forum also sent a case study format to the participants for the purpose of documenting a water conflict in which the participants were involved in either as researchers or as activists.
• Class room lectures and discussions: The Training largely followed the classroom lecture and discussion format. All through Day 1, 2 and 4, distinguished resource persons2 lectured the participants on specific topics. Following their presentation the floor was opened up for discussion, clarification of doubts if any, and exchange of comments among the participants. This allowed space for very fruitful and enriching engagement around the topic.
• Recap: The workshop provided 15 minutes every morning for a Recap session which was facilitated by participants on a rotation basis. This was done in order to ensure the recapitulation of the previous day’s proceedings.
• Group work: On Day 1, the Forum facilitators divided the participants into four groups. (In order to ensure variety, a conscious effort was made to include participants from diverse disciplines, area of work, gender, etc within the groups.)
• All groups were instructed to exchange within themselves the conflict case studies that each of the group members had documented and then choose one case study out of those. The groups were then asked to design a conflict resolution framework for the chosen conflict and present it to the other participants on the last day of the workshop.
• Exposure visit to a live conflict site (Mullaperiyar Dam): On Day 3, participants were taken to Mullaperiyar, which is around 200 km from the training venue. The trainees experienced hands on interaction with the communities who were involved in a continuous Satyagraha at Chappathu to advocate for the building of a new dam.3Classroom Presentation and Discussions
Day 1
Inaugural Session
Welcome and Introduction to the training programme: K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM
K. J. Joy welcomed all the participants for the national workshop and introduced the chairperson of the session Prof. Ramaswamy Iyer.
2
7
For the list of resource persons please see Annexure 3. 3 Details about the Mullaperiyar issue can be found in section 4.
In his briefing, Joy shared the background of the Forum with the participants. He made the following key points:
• The Forum started its activities in 2005- 06 as a collaborative initiative of 7-8 organizations supported by the WWF.
• In the first phase, the Forum tried to understand different types of water conflicts that existed in India. This led to the publication of a case studies book by Routledge that documented 63 cases grouped under eight themes.
• The present second phase of the Forum continues the documentation process but is also gearing up to go towards conflict resolution.
• There is a need to move from understanding conflicts to resolution and prevention of conflicts.
• The overall objective of the Forum is reduced water conflicts in India as a result of better understanding, dialogue and policy intervention. In this regard, there are three broad areas or themes:
conflict documentation conflict resolution conflict prevention
8
K. J. Joy explaining the background and objectives of the workshop
Joy said that the objective of this workshop is to introduce participants to the basic concepts, debates, theoretical and analytical approaches and emerging issues related to water conflicts and their resolution in India. He also touched upon the organizational aspects of the Forum and its national and state level structures. Joy also briefly talked about the Forum’s other activities around the following events:
• National Workshop on ‘Water Entitlements and Allocations for Livelihoods and Ecosystem Needs and the Legal-institutional Framework for Conflict Resolution’ (30-31 March 2009, Pune).
• National Dialogue on ‘Water Entitlements and Allocations for Livelihoods and Ecosystem Needs and the Legal-institutional Framework for Conflict Resolution’, (25-26 February 2010, Pune).
• Meeting to understand and explore common ground on the Mullaperiyar water conflict, (4 August, 2009, New Delhi).
• One day visioning and strategy planning meeting on ‘Right to Water and Sanitation: Moving Towards a Constitutional Guarantee’, (5 August 2009, New Delhi).
Key note address: “Water, Conflicts and the Laws in India”: Professor Ramaswamy Iyer
Professor Ramaswamy Iyer gave the key note address, in which he provided a macro understanding about the multiple issues related to water conflicts.
9
Key note address by Prof. Ramaswamy Iyer
In particular he elaborated on the legal aspects with respect to the ‘Right to Water’ and the adjudication of disputes over water. Following are the key points of his address:
• The term ‘water conflict’ has to be used in a wider context. • Water conflicts have great ramifications yet we do not have sufficient laws to address the
issues. • Except for interstate conflict we do not even have a proper law for other conflicts. Though
interstate conflict has a law, it is limited to adjudication only and hence severely limited. • With regard to conflicts on water sharing, there are no formal declarations on water sharing;
the Tribunals are using the principle of equitable proportion. • Tribunals set up to adjudicate the disputes are not being considered as the final adjudicator,
while in some cases the proceedings have continued for far too long. Examples include Kaveri tribunal, Sutlej Tribunal, Mullaperiyar conflict etc.
• Mullaperiyar conflict: Not a case of dispute over river water but a dispute over large-scale dissatisfaction of an earlier treaty.
• There are three basic issues in a conflict – the first is Question, it leads to Difference and then to Dispute. Every conflict passes through this process.
10
• Other types of water disputes are Industry Vs Agriculture; Irrigation Vs Drinking water; Rural Vs Urban; Ground water ownership; Corporate Vs Public; State Vs People; Development Vs People etc.
• Conflict over industries arises largely because they not only use the water allocated to others but also pollute the water sources.
• ‘Where does the water come from and where does it go to?’ is a very critical issue in every water conflict.
• Water harvesting is an absolute necessity. • We have to recognize the customary laws and establish good harmony between the formal law
and the customary law. • There is a distinction between ‘right to water’ and ‘water right’- the latter should take
precedence to the former. • Drinking water should take precedence over other rights- the exercise of other rights should
not jeopardize the life right of people. • There is no explicit ‘right to water’ in the Indian constitution; it has been implicitly derived
through judicial interpretation of the ‘right to life’. • Prof. Upendra Baxi therefore calls the Indian constitution ‘less enlightened’ than the
constitutions of other countries such as Venezuela and South Africa, which recognize water as a fundamental right.
• Privatization of water resources is an ideological issue, not a legal issue. • Privatization of water services has a direct relation to privatization of resources- even if we
allow privatization of services, there have to be legal governing principles, the agency should not have the liberty to choose as to whom it would deliver water.
• The principle of entitlement is good; however, ‘it has to be kept away from bureaucrats and bureaucratization’.
• It is essential to have a National Water Act in the country- such an Act should include principles like river sharing, marketing, distribution, role and responsibilities of various actors in the water sector.
• There is a need for River Basin Organizations (RBOs) like those in Holland. However there are many complexities in India with regard to RBOs.
• Laws are essential, however they alone are not enough- changing people’s thinking is more important.
Summary of discussion:
In the discussion that followed, participants raised questions regarding the relevance of customary laws relating to water sharing, whether water should be moved to the Concurrent List from the State list, etc. Prof. Iyer said that initially he did not think it was necessary for water to be included in the Concurrent List, given that it was a State subject. But he now believes that water should be included in the Concurrent List because if each state passes its own laws, it leads to chaos. He also stressed that the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) should be involved in management of water resources. With regard to customary laws he said that while traditional laws have their own value, an overarching national framework with regard to water is needed.
11
Understanding Water: Bio-physical and Socio-Cultural Peculiarities of Water: K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM, Pune
In this presentation Joy highlighted the bio- physical and socio- cultural peculiarities of water as a natural resource in order to provide a more complex understanding about issues related to its distribution, allocation and entitlement. The key highlights of his presentation were as follows:
• Water is an ecosystem resource, i.e., it is embedded within ecosystems; it is not a freely manipulable resource; nor is it a resource to be indiscriminately mined.
• Environmental flows- a minimum flow of water is required for the preservation of ecosystem services.
• Who is returning how much of water to the ecosystem and in what condition is an important issue related to quality of water.
• Water is a common pool resource, irrespective of what the property regime is. • Water is divisible and therefore amenable to sharing- it has multiple, competing uses and users
leading to the problem of excludability. • Water is both a local and non- local resource- the way water is planned, used and managed
causes externalities. • The approach to water management nests different scales – from micro watershed upwards to
basins and further up to states and countries. • Every community has a proportional right to water as part of a collective right to assured
livelihoods. • Water use beyond fulfillment of livelihood needs, does not form part of this right and moreover
cannot be at the cost of others’ livelihoods. • Assured and variable nature of water - assured water should be more equitably shared and tied
to livelihood needs. • Variable water could be utilized and managed in many different ways such as bulk biomass
production or distribution to more enterprising farmers at economic costs. • There is a socio-cultural aspect to water: drinking water use, domestic water use, water for
livelihoods etc are often mediated, at least partially, through cultural traditions and values. • Social hierarchies and inequalities such as caste system get intertwined with cultural traditions
and values. • Peculiarities of water as `private property’: Water never was a commodity prior to the advent
of modernity or capitalism. • ‘Ownership’ of water is basically an entitlement to use water in a certain way at certain points
and times; it does not imply entitlement in an absolute sense.
Joy concluded his presentation by stating that because of the peculiar nature of water both as an ecosystem and common pool resource, it cannot be treated as private property in the classical sense. The instruments like classical market mechanisms cannot work efficiently because water lacks the reliability, the ready manipulability and the constancy that other private property has. All these characteristics have a bearing on water related institutions, policies and laws, movements and struggles around water and the normative concerns underpinning our approach and viewpoints about water.
12
Summary of Discussion:
The participants’ discussion revolved around the following questions: How can we define water as a common pool resource if it is not stated in the
Constitution? Can we say that local communities should have full right over it in their areas?
Some Forum members pointed out that water as a common pool resource is a normative stand that they collectively believed in, even though it was not legally stated in the Constitution of the land. All participants unanimously agreed that given the unidirectionality of water, it is a local and non- local resource. Therefore local communities claiming full right over water resources may not be a useful approach. The group also engaged in discussion with regard to asymmetric relations created by upstream- down stream flows, issues around scalability and about the measuring dependability of water resources.
Water use pattern since Independence: Competing water uses in India: Suhas Paranjape, SOPPECOM, Pune
In this presentation, Suhas gave an overview of the changing trajectory of competing patterns of water uses since the 1950s until the present. He explained the history of water usage in two parts: from 1950s- 1990s and from 1990s until the present. He stressed on the fact that competing uses of water are a direct consequence of the particularities of water as a common pool resource. Following are the key highlights of his presentation:
• Competing uses of water are affected deeply by context: Structural context (who has what and how much access to resources) Policy context (what we collectively try to do shape/change access)
• Water usage from1950s to 1990s concentrated on a hydraulic mission mode; it focused mainly on the utilization potential of water as a resource.
• Surface water– mega projects continued, but now mainly centered on irrigation, flood control and hydropower.
• Groundwater– took off in 70s and 80s, and has rapidly grown. • Changing context of 21st century: witnessed increasing importance of urbanization,
Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG), increasing importance of industries, ‘closing’ of resources/basins.
• India has 16 % of the world’s population and 4% of its fresh water resources.
13
Suhas Paranjape taking a session
• Water use in India in 2007:
Surface water Consumption: 89% - Agricultural, 2% - Industrial, 9% - Domestic Groundwater Consumption: 92% - Agricultural, 5% - Industrial , 3% - Domestic
• In order to address conflicts over quantity and quality, the following issues need to be considered:
normative concerns with regard to livelihoods, sustainability, equity, participatory democracy
Water policy and its actualization Instruments of allocation and regulation (pricing, rationing, allocation, etc.) Water use rights and responsibilities Shortcomings of past vision; readiness to recognize need for new consensus
Discussion and debate about the new book, ‘Water and the Laws in India’ edited by Ramaswamy Iyer
The Forum and Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi organized a discussion and debate on the Book, ‘Water and the Laws in India’ edited by Prof. Ramaswamy Iyer at Bharat Hotel, on April 5
14
from 4.30 – 7 pm. The Honorable Justice Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer was the chief guest at the function. Prof. M.K. Prasad, Director, Information Kerala Mission chaired the discussion. The honorable Justice placed the discourse on water in this manner, ‘if you lose the concept of divinity in water, you would not regard this precious resource in its right perspective’. Article 21, the Right to Life includes the right to good health, which in turn is linked to good food and water. He lauded the efforts of the late Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who believed in planning. Sri Krishna Iyer was instrumental in preparing the master plan for water resources of Kerala in 1948 when Nehru was the Minister. He pointed out that every river in Kerala is polluted and hence if we need to give death sentence to any crime it should be to polluting industries. Prof. Ramaswamy Iyer introduced the book to the audience and made it clear that the book is not on Water Laws but on Water and the Laws. Professor introduced the various themes and authors briefly. Dr. D. Rajeev, Former Director, School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Senior High Court of Kerala Adv. P.B. Sahasranaman and Scaria Meledam, Director, School of Media Studies, Kochi led the discussion on the book. They were in unison appreciating the efforts put in by Prof Ramaswamy Iyer and hoped the book will reach out beyond the legal community and become a good reference material for students, researchers and the civil society. K. J. Joy from the Forum welcomed the audience and Dr. A. Latha proposed vote of thanks to the audience.
Day 2
Principles, Theories and Methods of Conflict Resolution and Negotiation: Professor Janakarajan, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
In this presentation Professor Janakarajan provided an overview about conflicts, conflict resolution, the basic principles of conflict resolution, conflicts as sources of change and the various sources of conflicts. He stressed that it is important to understand and examine the theories of conflict resolution and their applications in order to strengthen our own knowledge base so that we will be in a better position to do further analysis.
15
Prof. Janakarajan talking about the principles, theories and methods of conflict resolution
Further, better understanding of the theoretical perspectives will enable an individual or a group to approach conflicts more scientifically and in a rational manner. Following are the key highlights of his presentation:
• It is important to link conflicts with the overall development of society and development theories, growth models and the issue of sustainable development.
• Conflict is present when two or more parties perceive that their interests are incompatible. They express hostile attitudes and pursue their interests through actions that damage the other parties.
• Conflict resolution or alternative dispute resolution through dialogue, or what may be called Track-II diplomacy, refers to a technique that does not enter into the formal judicial process in a given set of democratic governance.
• In principle, Track-II diplomacy is supposed to be pluralistic, inclusive and more democratic. It is also cost effective and sustainable.
• Main advantages of Track-II diplomacy are that it saves on all kinds of transaction costs – time, energy, resources, psychological stress and health.
• Conflict resolution needs an interdisciplinary approach which covers disciplines such as law, sociology, psychology, economics, public administration, social and cultural history, hydrology, ecology and environment.
16
• Basic principle of conflict resolution: An atmosphere where more than one stakeholder define their degree of stakes, entitlements, roles and responsibilities through negotiation or mediation and dialogue process.
• Conflicts need not be negative; they are a potential source of change. Interaction between conflicting parties may lead to changes, for better or worse, or sometimes preserving the status quo. Regardless of direction, conflicts are usually dynamic, and have a time trajectory.
• Some of the sources of conflict are power, identity, status and values. • Conflicts are of two types: Passive and Aggressive or violent conflicts. • It is important to understand that the violation of bottom line rules and regulations or norms is
the principal reason for the emergence of conflicts. • Extremist movements surface due to growing injustice meted out to individuals / groups of
individuals in a society, growing gap between promises and actual practices of politicians who are in power, growing gap between rich and poor, feelings of deprivation from lack of basic needs such as food, water etc, feelings of exclusion and the sense of being exploited, and erosion of democratic institution, norms and dilution of govt. machineries such as police, court etc.
• Some of the theories of conflict resolution are as follows:
Theory of impossibility and its application to conflict resolution in Natural Resource Management: There are often gains to be had by an organization or society by making a collective choice from a set of alternatives available to them, rather than having each individual act independently. No voting method can satisfy according to Kenneth Arrow.
Impossibility of coexistence: E.g. Husband and wife – if they cannot live together, its possible to seek divorce – the outcome at worst may affect individuals but not the society – but in the case of conflicts in NRM, such a possibility does cannot exist as such drastic decision may affect the society or even the future generation.
Game Theory: Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in the context of economics. It studies strategic interactions between agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies which will maximize their return, given the strategies the other agents choose. The Prisoner’s Dilemma was one of the earliest “games” developed in game theory.
Marxian theory of negation of negation: The Marxian theory suggests that the changes in a society occur through class struggles – the struggle between the exploiting and the exploited classes or negation of one form of society by another.
17
Theory of rationality: The tragedy of the commons – G Hardin. If everybody thinks that one extra well (or by an extra cow in a grazing land) will not affect the commons, it’s wrong; that will be the tragedy of the commons. There are contradictions between individual rationality and collective rationality.
Summary of Discussions:
In the discussions that followed, participants asked clarifying questions with regard to Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3 methods of diplomacy. They also discussed the possibility of Track 4 (Naxalites and terrorist) as being alternative forms of reacting to conflict. Some participants expressed skepticism with regard to the usefulness of non- adversarial ways of resolving conflict and the applicability of its methodologies to certain situations. Broader issues regarding individual and collective rationality were also discussed.
Water for ecosystem needs: Professor M. K. Prasad, KSSP and Information Kerala Mission, Thiruvanathapuram
In this presentation, Prof. M.K. Prasad gave an understanding about the ecosystem, the biotic and abiotic community, food chains, trophic levels, ecological pyramid, water and carbon cycles (skip) and the benefits from ecosystem services. Following are the key highlights of his presentation:
• Ecosystem is a defined area in which a community lives with interactions taking place among the organisms between the community and its non-living physical environment.
• Economic development that destroys habitats and impairs services can create costs to humanity over the long term that may greatly exceed the short-term economic benefits of the development.
• Fundamental Characteristics of the ecosystem are: Structure: Living (biotic), Nonliving (abiotic) Process: Energy flow, Cycling of matter (chemicals) Change: Dynamic (not static), Succession, etc.
• Abiotic components provide practically all the energy for ecosystems and include inorganic substances as well as organic compounds.
• Biotic components of an ecosystem can be classified according to their mode of energy acquisition. Autotrophs (produce their own food) and Heterotrophs (consume other organisms as a food source).
• Trophic Levels are the position occupied by an organism in a food chain. Producers are found at the base of the pyramid and comprise the first trophic level. Primary consumers make up the second trophic level. Secondary consumers make up the third trophic level. Finally tertiary consumers make up the top trophic level. The greatest amount of energy is found at the base of the pyramid.
• Biomass: Energy is sometimes considered in terms of biomass, the mass of all the organisms and organic material in an area. Biomass is mass of all the organisms and organic material in an area. There is more biomass at the trophic level of producers and less at the trophic level of tertiary consumers. Bio + Mass = Weight of living things within an ecosystem.
18
• Food Chains: Food chain is the representation of predator-Prey relationships between species within an ecosystem. There are many food chains in an ecosystem consisting of producers, consumers, and decomposers of each ecosystem make up a food chain. Food chains show where energy is transferred and not who eats who. All the food chains in an area make up the food web.
• Ecology includes the study of the distribution and abundance of organisms, and the flows of energy and materials between abiotic and biotic components of ecosystems.
• Humans and the ecosystem are interdependent: For a Socio-economic sector involving water the two are complementary. Flora, fauna, bio-diversity make up the eco-system, which provides goods and services for human welbeing comprising health, hygiene, nutrition, food, agriculture, industry.
• Food Sector produces bio-mass, influences eco-system positively and sometimes negatively. Therefore a balance of effects of humans on the ecosystem needs assessment. Major use of the ecosystem is consumptive which calls for the adoption of micro irrigation where excess use is largely recycled. Fertilizers, pesticides work in water systems adversely affect environment as a non-point source.
• People Sector use is largely non-consumptive; waste water from domestic and industrial sources appears in d/s waters & affects environment adversely, unless treated before release; being point source it is easy to treat, but costs a lot and is a main cause of eco-degradation.
• Nature Sector use is totally consumptive, provides goods & services and sustenance to human systems (HS). But is less efficient and more expensive than HS.
• In order to estimate water requirement of ‘Nature’ sector, one needs to first access ‘consumption’ by the sector.
• Terrestrial ecosystem (CU): Nature drains land while IWRDM restores it. It cover almost 95% of nature sector use and these needs to be assessed. There is a need to determine forest cover basin by basin and provide for irrigated forestry and a plan for prevention of further reduction.
• Riverine ecosystem (NCU): First satisfy human system and also treat all waste-waters. Estimating EFR requires methodological development. Many models available but one needs to test it’s applicability. Also there is a need to determine goods & services provided and look for other terrestrial options.
• Basic principle of water balance in ecosystems: The soil gets its water inputs mainly from precipitation and its outputs are through evaporation, transpiration and drainage. While water storage depends on the soil depth and texture, we need to look at balancing the inputs and outputs of water.
• Human Activities that alter water cycle: Agriculture, Industry, Alteration of Chemical Composition of the atmosphere, Construction of dams, Deforestation & afforestation, removal of groundwater from wells, water abstraction from rivers, urbanization.
• Effects on Climate: The water cycle is powered from Solar Energy. Since 86% of global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling without the cooling effect of evaporation the green house effect would lead to a higher surface temperature of 67◦C and a warmer planet.
19
Prof. M.K. Prasad taking a session on water for ecosystem needs
Water for Ecosystem Needs: Dr. A. Latha, CPSS, Thrissur
• There is an increasing realization in water discussions that ecosystems in their natural states are capable of ensuring long term availability of freshwater and sustenance of human beings and that the value of water is much beyond its productive value.
• Some of the signs that ecosystems are not in their natural state are there for all to see: many of the larger rivers are not reaching the seas – summer outfalls are very low, fish diversity and fisheries are declining, flood plains and deltas are disappearing, wetland and river dependent livelihoods are getting displaced, water tables are plunging, water quality is deteriorating, streams are losing perennial nature and saline ingress is increasing.
20
Dr. A. Latha talking about the water for ecosystem needs
Exemplary Case Studies: Krishna River Basin: There is a considerable decline in discharge to the oceans. Before
1960, the river discharge into oceans equaled 57 Bcm a year. Since 1965, it steadily decreased, falling to 10.8 Bcm in 2000, close to nil in 2004 (0.4 Bcm). This has impacted the coastal and delta ecosystems.
Indus river basin: Flows decreased from around 1, 85,000 million m3 per annum in 1892 to 12,300 million m3 per annum in the 1990s. Some of the ecological impacts of this include reduced flow into the fertile Indus delta, drop in mangrove forest extent and biodiversity, reduction of shrimp and fisheries reproduction, accumulation of agricultural chemicals in soil, increased salinisation of the lower Indus leading to decline of fish species sensitive to changes in temperature and salinity etc. Also, saline water has intruded 64 km inland and 1.2 million acres of farmland have been lost.
• Water is needed by ecosystems for the purpose of breeding, feeding , migration of aquatic species, sediment and nutrient transport, deposit of sand on river beds and along channels, flushing out of pollutants, enriching riparian, flood plain, mangrove, backwater, delta ecosystems, replenishing groundwater, facilitating navigation and recreation, sustaining livelihoods – fishing, farming, cultural and spiritual needs.
• Human interventions impact ecosystem needs – upstream. Deforestation of catchments can be seen through agriculture and forest plantations replacing prime forests and dams and diversions fragmented river flows. Land use changes and incorrect land use in river catchments like wetland reclamation, hill demolitions also contribute
• Tourism also extracts water. • Dams are direct Modifiers: Dams are the most significant, often irreversible, direct modifiers of
river flows. Hydropower/irrigation releases cannot be considered as environmental flows.
21
They cause change in the natural water flow regimes which is the most pervasive and damaging effects on river ecosystems downstream and in stream. Dams change the timing, frequency, duration of high and low flows. Flow alteration severely modifies river channel and flood plain habitats, changes in life cycles of species, invasion of exotic species. Its related social impacts include fisheries loss, biodiversity loss etc.
Ecological Impacts of flow Alteration: Flow alteration can lead to severely modified channel and floodplain habitats because
river flow shapes physical habitats such as riffles, pools, and bars in rivers and floodplains, and thereby determines biotic composition.
Aquatic species have evolved life history strategies, such as their timing of reproduction, in direct response to natural flow regimes, which can be de-synchronized through flow alteration.
Many species are highly dependent upon hydraulic connectivity (lateral and longitudinal), which can be broken through flow alteration.
The invasion of exotic and introduced species in river systems can be facilitated by flow alteration.
Human interventions impact ecosystem needs – downstream Sand mining impact: has affected the stability of river banks, deepening of river
channel and loss of land. There has been deeper saline ingress into the river & lowering of water tables .Breeding and feeding of fish and other aquatic species which depend on the nutrients deposited on river beds has been severely affected. It has also affected and displaced the fisher folk, lime shell, clam fisheries.
Pollution impact: Agricultural chemicals, industrial pollutants, waste, sewerage discharge impact both surface and groundwater ecosystems. The Periyar River is one such typical case where there has been an increase in water temperature, radioactivity, heavy metals, pesticide contents etc.
Inter basin diversions: is based on the concept of water diverted from ‘surplus’ to ‘deficit’ basin, however this complete diversion denies even ‘minimum flows’. The environmental impacts of such diversions are rarely discussed in inter state water dispute related agreements. There is a lack of assessment on how the livelihoods of people downstream have been affected. There has also been a reduction in the wildlife movements due to the diversion canals across the forest and a degradation of riparian forests and river channels.
• Other human interventions affecting eco system needs downstream include incorrect land use in midlands and lowlands, expansion of cities and their water needs, use of rivers as drains for waste and sewage disposal, wetland and paddy land reclamation, encroachment into river channels, uncontrolled tourism and recreation etc.
How to Interpret Water for Ecosystem Needs? IUCN interprets environmental flows - water regime provided within a river, wetland
or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and their benefits where there are competing water uses and where flows are regulated.
22
IWMI defines environmental flow regimes as discharges of a particular magnitude, frequency and timing, which are necessary to ensure that a river system remains environmentally, economically and socially healthy.
• A third interpretation: Water requirements for ecosystem (both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems)= water needed for direct evapo- transpiration through forests, wetlands, other lands, all supporting distinct ecologies and other functions of terrestrial ecosystems + environmental flows in rivers.
Some relevant principles include: River regulation and/or consumptive use has to be recognized as potentially impacting
ecological values. Provision of water for ecosystems is to be based on best scientific information
available on water regimes and is needed to sustain ecology. Water for environment is to be legally recognized. Recognize existing rights of users while allowing water for ecosystem needs. Action or Reallocation in cases where environmental needs cannot be met due to
existing uses. Accountabilities in all aspects of management of water need to be transparent and
clearly defined. Water allocation planning and decision making on water provisions should be an
inclusive process.
There are risks and challenges: There is a need to asses and analyze the complex and competing social and political
interests while addressing how environmental flows are to be provided without alienating any community.
There is a lack of knowledge, database and interaction between different ecosystem components for arriving at appropriate flow regimes in Indian context.
There is also a poor hydrological database, insufficient correlation between alterations in hydrological regimes and impacts on ecosystems.
There is also a need to analyze what is happening in the already modified river basins.
Who decides how much water to be left in the ecosystem? The present techno- bureaucratic system fails to see the link between continued
availability of good quality water and ecosystem health and integrity. The water managed in sectoral – departmental mode with no coordination between
different agencies sharing same water resources. Lack of responsibility towards upkeep of source by users. The extent of development of the river basin is significant with different norms for
highly regulated river systems and the relatively undisturbed ones.
23
How to arrive at water for ecosystems? IWMI estimates that the environmental water requirement to keep river in healthy
condition is 20- 50% of mean annual flow, just enough to maintain ‘fair’ or ‘moderately modified’ condition.
Allocation should be based on deducting water for ecosystem needs from total yield and then allotting for human needs.
We need to asses future water requirements based on historic records. The hydraulic rating method of relationship between the flow of the river (discharge)
and simple hydraulic characteristics such as water depth, velocity etc. to calculate an acceptable flow can be adopted.
• Indian context: A combination of many methods have been tried out by IWMI in selected Indian rivers such as Krishna, Cauvery, Narmada, Periyar , parts of Ganga.
• Indicators of sensitivity used in the context of India include the following: presence of rare and unique aquatic biota diversity of aquatic habitats presence of protected areas in the river basin sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to flow reduction percentage of a watershed and floodplain remaining under natural vegetation cover
types percentage of exotic aquatic biota overall richness of aquatic species degree of flow regulation and fragmentation human population density in a river basin the overall quality of water
Summary of Discussion: (To be filled in)
Some issues to be considered while arriving at water for ecosystem needs Scale of implementation or management – from micro watershed to sub basin to river
basin? Gathering of reliable data Does community wisdom count? Legally binding compensation for lost livelihoods due to ecosystem degradation? Involvement of all relevant river basin users How practically Flow regimes can be ensured Legislation, enforcement and compliance mechanism to be put in place
Normative concerns around water: sustainability, equity and democratization: Suhas Paranjape, SOPPECOM, Pune
In this section, Suhas talked about the normative concerns around water issues. He said that currently there is a growing recognition of the fact that natural resources cannot exist independently; they are inter-connected and nested within the eco- system. Water is a prime example of this, it is one of the most complex resources – more connected and embedded than other resources. As a result, management of water resources should be based on a normative framework. He also highlighted the
24
need for water framework that would act as a common ground for all policy making. Following are the key highlights of his presentation:
• There has been a change from Natural Resource Management to ecosystem management, given that natural resources are interconnected and embedded in the eco- system.
• There has been a change of perception from natural resources to ecosystem resources. • This calls for prioritization, norms and management of natural resources, especially water
through a normative framework. • The normative framework consists of four norms that ‘should be’/ ‘ought to be’ applied to
water management. • Livelihoods: Access to ecosystem resources (like water) should be based on livelihood needs,
which are more than basic needs – it takes account of needs imposed by livelihood patterns. • Increasing levels of self reliance. • Fulfillment of needs also has to be assessed at household and intra- household level • Sustainability: Allocation should be based on the sustainable use of the water resource- need
to conserve & enhance the primary productivity (productive & assimilative potential) of the ecosystem.
• Sustaining productivity of agricultural and common lands. • Ensuring sustainability of downstream agro-ecosystems. • Minimum environmental flows should also be considered for the sustainability of the eco-
system. • Globally, technology choice should be based on reduction in non-renewable and non-local
materials and energy use. • Equity: Inequality is inscribed into the social structure: class, caste, ethnicity and gender. • Greater sharing of benefits accruing from WDPs. • More equitable access to natural resources, especially to the augmented resource generated by
the WDPs. • Equitable access to additional natural resources/productive potential created. • Positive sum game should be the principle guiding equity. • Participation/Democratization: Participation is both a goal as well as means, i.e. while
participation is important as an objective, it is also a means to achieving equity. • Primacy of local community in decision making and downward accountability of higher level
agencies is essential. • Marginal groups within the local community should be allowed more voice. • Outsiders have a definite role to play in the following areas:
Capability building for informed choice Raising issues related to equity and sustainability
• Water Framework: Water is a common pool resource and the common property of the people and timely access to water of adequate quality and quantity for fulfilling basic human and livelihood needs is a human right.
25
• The state shall hold the water in trust on behalf of the people with the express purpose of fulfilling this right and ensuring socially equitable and ecologically sustainable/regenerative use. All economic, recreational and other uses of water shall be governed by the terms of this trust.
• Communities who have been enjoying direct access to water for the purpose of fulfilling their basic human and livelihood needs shall have the right to continue doing so and it shall be the duty of the state to see to it that they continue to do so and that these rights are not encroached upon.
• Water required for the following uses has the highest priority: Drinking water Water for cooking Water for sanitation and hygiene Water for livestock
• The minimum water flows required for sustained ecological regeneration of water regimes should be ensured.
Some of the participants asked clarifying questions with regard to the categories and number of norms outlined. Some participants asked about the rationale for using only four categories for outlining the normative concerns around water. Some participants also inquired about whether or not water for sanitation and hygiene should be included as part of the right to water etc.
Right-Based Discourse and Right to Water: by K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM, Pune
The purpose of this presentation was to bring about greater conceptual clarity about the meaning of ‘rights’, especially in the context of water. It presented different dimensions of the concept of ‘right to water’. It also focused on enhancing the ability to critically analyze the various developments in the water sector (in terms of policies, institutions, laws and civil society action) from the point of view of (human) right to water and equity. Following were the key points of this presentation:
• Water sector discourse has been drastically changing since the 1990s: new concepts, terminologies and governance structures have come into the discourse.
• Supra national bodies like the World Water Council (WWC) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP) and World Bank and ADB are pushing this new discourse.
• Rights and different right-based concepts: The concept of rights has a long history of usage cutting across different disciplines and rooted in different struggles, there are many versions of rights with different implications.
• There are two important periods in history when ‘rights’ talk gained significance: period of the ‘Enlightenment’ – 17 & 18th century From 1948 (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) till date – heralding a new
‘Age of Human Rights’ • There has been a Proliferation of ‘rights talk’ since the 1990s, for two important reasons
(Upendra Baxi): The increasing tendency to translate basic human needs into fundamental human
rights. The emergence of a ‘Will to Rights’ – the human endeavor to name and pursue the
enunciation of new human rights previously unimagined.
26
• Human Rights: The efforts to ensure an explicit ‘right to water’ as well as rights-based approaches to development are both often articulated in the context of human rights
• Right to water is one of the important economic, social and cultural rights that have come to the fore in the recent times
• Right to water mirrors the tension between non-legal usages of human rights (it stems from human dignity) legal usages of human rights (legal recognition in international and national law)
• One of the important justifications for the institution of a universal human right on access to safe and adequate water is that it provides legal protection.
• It is also useful because it can bring to focus certain critical questions like government obligations, setting priorities for water policy, identifying minimum water requirements and allocation, and so on.
• Right to development is one of the important third generation human rights. • Relevance of Right to Development in the context of water:
It includes equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, which would include water, and hence could provide the basis for a right to water.
the potential that rights discourses have to bring about equity. • Rights language emerged in the post-Cold War period (early 1990s), gathered momentum in
the build up to the Copenhagen Summit on Social Development in 1995. • NGO initiatives in integrating rights and development, increasing emphasis on participation.
Variety of actors – donors, governments, activists and international development agencies – adopted the language and this resulted in what is now called the rights-based approach (RBA) to development.
• Water Rights: The concept of water rights is often conflated with the right to water. • Water right is only a sub-set of right to water: In water rights the right holder is only concerned
about the operational rights (rights of usage) and the decision making with regard to the management of water
• Important features of water rights: Used in the context of water for non-basic needs not for water for drinking or household needs, but for irrigation and other livelihood
needs Water rights have three dimensions socio-legal, technical and organizational The institution of a system of transferable water rights pricing system capable of capturing and reflecting the real value of water water markets tradable water rights
• Right to Water: Broad dimensions of right to water include scope of the right (quantity and quality requirements, accessibility and affordability etc.), duties and responsibilities, ownership of water, delivery, pricing, state, market, social vs. economic good, participation, relationship with other rights and vision of development, macro/global developments that impact on content and the working of the right (especially globalization).
• The basic issue is “ensuring a social minimum to all”.
27
• Right to water at the international level. • The idea of a right to water has been most discussed in the human rights context • Not fully defined by existing international law or practice; it is implicitly and explicitly
supported by many human rights instruments. • Implicit support for the right to water is provided by other human rights • To food, health, adequate housing, well being, and life since water is necessary to secure these
rights. • Third generation human rights – the right to development, the right to environment, and the
right to peace – also provide a basis for the right to. • The Right to Water should include the following:
water for basic needs basic needs often defined in terms of water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene The WHO norm 40 lpcd in rural areas; 100-140 lpcd in urban areas though there is no explicit mention of right to water (in terms of basic needs), other
rights like right to life, health and so are supposed to include this • There is a divided opinion as to whether human right to water should be extended to water for
livelihood activities or not. • Important to recognize the rights of the project affected persons/communities especially in the
context of large scale dispossession of resource poor and ethnic groups taking place under the name of large water projects.
• Ecosystem needs: A river needs to ‘flow’ to perform its various evolutionary and ecological functions.
• Larger questions such as the following need to be addressed. Can minimum environmental flows be part of the right discourse – “right of the river
to flow.” Can humans decide how much water to allocate for the environmental needs?
• Provision of water for basic needs in India: The right to water is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
There is judicial support for it under Article 21, the right to life (a fundamental right in the Constitution)
The various reform processes seem to go against this • Tentative ‘model’ of provision of water for basic needs
The right to basic water needs to be formalized more explicitly. A constitutional amendment that explicitly incorporates a right to water accompanied by explicit provision for a right to water either in the national water policy or a separate basic water policy adopted for this purpose.
The centre could lay down minimum quantity, quality, and physical accessibility norms, with state governments and local bodies having the freedom to adopt more stringent norms.
• Three different categories of quantity of water for households lifeline water (drinking and cooking)
28
water over and above lifeline water or lifeline plus water (washing, hygiene, sanitation, etc);
luxury water (washing cars and son) • Lifeline water should be provided free of cost and lifeline plus water could be charged a low
tariff. • Provision of basic water to all residents (temporary or permanent) must be guaranteed
irrespective of the legality or otherwise of their domicile status. • Provision of adequate finances to local bodies to provide water for basic needs. • Any individual who does not have access to basic water should have the right to approach the
body in charge of providing water in that area to demand that arrangements for providing basic water be made within a fixed time period.
Day 4
Legal and institutional issues in the water sector: Dr. Philippe Cullet, IELRC, New Delhi
In this presentation Dr. Phillipe Cullet provided an overview of the legal and institutional issues with regard to water. He discussed the basic structure of water law in India, its content and the legal procedures established to deal with water conflicts. He finally dwelt on whether the evolving situation in India, requires any changes in the given legal framework. Following are the key points of his presentation:
• Water policies are non-binding general statements of intent or principles that are non-enforceable, non-justiciable, adopted by the executive. They can be changed at any time without reference to any particular procedure and have no specific place in the constitutional scheme.
• Water law comprises all the binding norms and instruments that enforceable and justiciable (constitutional provisions, acts, subsidiary instruments...)
• It is important to note that water policies have been more progressive than water laws. • There is no law or enactment which talks about allocation of water according to priority, it is
only at the level of policy that it is clearly mentioned. In the State water policy of Orissa, it was clearly mentioned that any change in priority would require re-drafting of a new policy. The concept of policies are adopted through colonial rules, the Constitution is silent on this aspect.
• Water law structure: Constitutional mandate
o Union – residual mandate concerning inter-state issues o States – main mandate on all aspects of water o Panchayats/Urban local bodies – mandate for water issues at the local level
Court decisions: Some Court decisions have given rise to certain basic principles and fundamental rights (public trust, Polluter Pays, human right to water)
o Adjudication of ‘traditional’ conflicts (e.g. landowners’ claims) Legislation: Legislation in both Union and State level also covers many aspects of
water law. However till now all the legislations are sectoral and we don’t have basic water legislation at the national level.
29
Common law principles: The common law principle and customary laws have also played an important role in the structure of the water law.
o Riparian rights (surface water) o Rights included in land ownership – groundwater
Customary rules o access to water (e.g. caste based rules) o tank management (local organization of water supply)
Content of water law (pre-reform) Union legislation: The Union legislation deals with some water related issues such as
the following: o Indian Easements Act, 1882 (land-water) o Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (water conflicts)
State legislation: there are some State legislation which are purely sectoral, such as: o Irrigation act (e.g. Bihar Irrigation Act, 1997) o Drinking water (e.g. UP Water supply and Sewerage Act, 1975)
Non-water legislation: Examples of non- water legislation which have some relevance to water issues:
o Panchayat acts (domestic water supply) o Municipalities Act (domestic water supply) o Water Act 1974 (water pollution – environment)
Dr. Philippe Cullet taking a session
30
• Water law development: The development of water law in India is linked with the social, religious, and economic developments.
• Historically emphasis on water as input for economic development • There are strong links between access to water and land ownership • Sectoral development
By water use: eg irrigation, drinking water By body of water: surface/groundwater
• Drinking water is not covered under the Indian legislation. • Water conflicts and law:
• Traditional view of the role of law in water conflicts is largely linked to formal disputes, such as inter-state river disputes, transboundary conflicts
• Water conflicts are in fact much broader. Eg: Sectoral conflicts: allocation across water sectors (issue of ‘reserve’) Use conflicts: e.g. irrigation, food and drinking water (urban-rural) User-related conflicts: e.g. human right and customary/religious restrictions on access
to domestic water Use/location: e.g. differential allocation in policy of water quantity to urban/rural
areas with preferences to cities and among cities bigger cities • The Indian law is silent regarding the above • There is a need to change existing water laws as all existing laws are based on old principles and
dated legislation • There is lack of legislation operationalising the human right to water • Land-based rules are inequitable and environmentally unsustainable • There is a need to operationalise constitutional amendments on decentralization • Different principles for ‘sector’ reforms and law reforms • Water sector reforms based on international policy consensus & national policy documents
Water as an economic good Demand-led, including participation of ‘users’ and private sector De-centralization
• National law Fundamental right to water Water as a public trust 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments
• Proposed legal solutions to address ‘new’ conflicts • State regulation, e.g. groundwater
Aim: centralization, delinking access to water and land ownership. Licensing scheme largely based on grandfathering existing uses Possible basis for trading in future where economic efficiency is basis for regulating
access to groundwater • User group management, e.g. water user associations
Aim: government withdrawal and water use organized at local level De-centralization without reference to Constitution
31
Legal implications, e.g. no accountability framework provided • Institutional reorganization: setting up of ‘independent’ water regulatory authorities
Aim: ‘less’ political body to take over part of the government’s water mandate Broader conception of water management (basin) Focus on management No underlying legal framework for operation (only reference to state water policy)
Unclear relationship to existing laws and principles
Understanding water conflicts in India: Developing a typology: K. J. Joy
In this section, Joy provided an overview of the various kinds of water conflicts. He then identified the various causes for water conflicts in India. Based on these, he then provided a typology of conflicts with examples in each category. Following are the key points of his presentation: There are various kinds of contending water uses, which are as follows:
• When the same unit of water is demanded for different kinds of uses we have a contestation and potential conflict: For example, in Chennai, Tamil Nadu conflicts in the peri-urban areas between those who would mine groundwater to supply to the city versus those who want to use it for irrigation, Ganga canal water for Delhi (urban needs versus rural livelihoods) etc.
• Learnings: Structures built to improve the ecosystems may have unintended effects that harm people and ecosystems, improving water resources through rainwater harvesting at the micro level might improve water availability, but sharpen conflicts if equity is not addressed, and in the conflict between urban uses, the rural needs are steadily losing out.
• Conflicts arising from Equity, Access and Allocations: Focuses mainly on equity issues between different users but within the same kind of use. This includes contestation over and between old and new water rights, old and new projects, tailenders and head-reachers, interbasin transfers, dalits and upper castes and so on. Examples include Mahad to Mangaon, where in a drought year, centuries of caste-based oppression and prejudice, deep rooted cultures and traditions, reared their head once again to deny water to the Dalits. Other examples are that of the Indira Gandhi Canal where diversions and reduction in water allocation causes unrest amongst farmers; Bhavani river where there exists competing water demands between old and new settlers and this was further aggravated by growing demands of industry etc.
• Learnings: The absence of clear cut norms of equitable water allocation and distribution need a better concept of a right or an entitlement to water. A livelihood needs framework that sees assurance of minimum livelihood needs and the corresponding water requirement as an associated right need to share shortages and surpluses in a principled manner.
• Conflicts around water quality: These conflicts arise around the issue of how and in what form users return water to the ecosystem. Polluted water returned by users causes problems to `downstream users,’ and decreased freshwater availability; causes economic loss, social distress and ill health. Musi river in Andhra Pradesh for example, domestic sewerage and industrial effluents have reduced the river to a sewage drain. Similarly, in Chaliyar river, Kerala, the Gwalior Silk Mfg (Wvg.) Co.Ltd., also known as Grasim factory effluents released into the
32
river resulted in severe water pollution, which affected the livelihood of a large section of people while the gaseous effluents became a source of air pollution.
• Learnings: Some of the key questions that need to be addressed revolve around whether closure of the factories is the solution, whether industries can co-exist with agriculture and other water users and what is the long term solution to the problem. There is a need for a three-pronged approach to address the problem:
a legal framework based on rapidly enforced criminal and civil penalties environmental mediation, a pragmatic direction to settle issues quickly and amicably encouraging voluntary compliance
Dams and displacements: Dams have often been called the temples of modern India. For the greater ‘common good’, there is an argument that some people, especially the resource poor sections like adivasis have to be displaced. This has led to situations where there are drought affected beneficiaries versus the displaced victims. Some examples include the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP), Polavaram, Andhra Pradesh and Tawa, Madhya Pradesh. Some of the key learnings from these kinds of conflicts have opened up the debate around large dams, polarization issues such as large vs. small and the need for integration, exploration of options with least cost: social and environmental and proper rehabilitation as part of an upstream area development programme. Transboundary water conflicts: These conflicts are mainly of two kinds- conflicts between nations and conflicts between states (inter-state). Some examples of this kind of conflict are the Baghlihar dam issue with respect to India and Pakistan over Indus, Farraka barrage issue, India vs. Bangladesh over sharing the Ganga etc. Learnings: One of the key learnings that can be derived from these issues is that there is a need to look beyond political expediency and look for long term durable understanding on the issues involved. While an Indo-Pak agreement over sharing waters has withstood hostile political relations and wars, similar agreements have led to bitter conflicts between Indian states. One also needs to think whether water can be taken out of state list and put under union or concurrent list. There is a real need for democratic and nested river basin organizations. Privatisation: Since the past decade, a new set of conflicts are emerging in the context of the Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG) regime that include privatisation of sources and rights and privatisation of service delivery. Some examples of this conflict include, Sheonath river in Chhattisgarh, where a stretch of the river was given to Radial Company; the Plachimada issue in Kerala where there was a conflict of interest between Coca-Cola and the local communities and the panchayat. Learnings: There is a need to make a distinction between source privatisation and privatisation of service delivery; water privatisation is highly polarised between two well entrenched positions of for and against and there seems to be very little attempt to explore the middle ground of seeing water as both a social and economic good. The real issue is about the governance and regulatory framework to secure the rights and access of all to clean water. It is about the right to life. It is also about the rights to water for all. There could be other ways of classifying conflicts. John Brisco and R. P. S. Malik have classified conflicts as follows:
Conflicts at the international level Conflicts at the inter-state state level Conflicts between upstream and downstream riparians in intra-state river
33
Conflicts between the state and the communities Conflicts between the farmers and the environment Conflicts within irrigation projects
Summary of Discussion:
In the discussion that followed, participants deliberated around different kinds of distribution models for allocation of water resources. They talked about the application of Rawls Theory of Justice and the Gandhian principle of ‘Antyodaya’ which espouse ‘the greatest good for the least advantaged’ and that ‘success should be measured by what the last man gets’. They also discussed about the principles of Pareto Optimality (which is a situation where economic resources and output have been allocated in such a way that no-one can be made better off without sacrificing the well-being of at least one person) and how its application may not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources. The group also unanimously agreed that communities who are adversely affected by ‘big projects’ should be given higher weightage in decision making processes. With regard to privatization, some Forum members stated that while privatization is not desirable in the distribution of water, privatization of services under social regulation should be considered as a possibility. There is a need for a regulatory framework for ensuring rights or prices.
Analyzing, Understanding and Documenting Conflicts: by S.Janakarajan Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, President, SaciWATERs, Hyderabad
In this presentation, Prof. Janakarajan underlined the need for documentation of conflicts. He stated that there are hundreds of different conflicts, at different stages for many different purposes, which are contributing negatively to sustainable development and causing enormous concerns of poverty and deprivation and equity and discrimination. Therefore there is a need for Schematic documentation, Methodical documentation and Analytical documentation. He also raised some pertinent questions such as “Why do we need data on water and environment and natural resources in general?” “Do water conflicts constitute a core database? Do we have any database on water conflicts?” Key highlights of his presentation are as follows:
• Documentation of conflicts is important for reasons of social, economic and political accountability.
• Documentation leads to better use, increased efficiency and helps overall to achieve sustainable use and development.
• Currently all the data we have access to is outdated and based on bad methodology; information collected is sometimes not published and not available for public, a lot of invisible data is conveniently ignored which is dangerous
• Approach towards data collection has been quite conventional – e.g., data on wells, pollution, and water use pattern etc.
• Emerging threats such as environmental threats for lives and livelihoods, competitive deepening, groundwater abuse and depletion, water scarcity, competing demand for water and conflicts, floods, droughts, seawater rise and the threats of climate change are leading to several conflicts. However, there is no systematic data that documents this.
34
• Some key questions in the specific context of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)
Under what circumstances do conflicts occur? In what way does the existing legal framework help to resolve these conflicts? How does one turn conflict into opportunities for potential and positive change? Why cooperation is becoming more and more difficult, challenging in natural resource
management? What is the role of research in managing conflicts? Are conflicts unavoidable in the natural resource management? Under what circumstances users of natural resources would come forward to
collaborate? • The aim of conflict analysis is to create a data base in order to manage conflicts, find solutions
to conflicts, mediate, compromise and build consensus among contending agents of conflicts, turn conflicts into opportunities for a positive change, to convert a win-lose situation into a win-win situation and to organize a sustained dialogue among stakeholders in order to travel through the path of sustainable development.
• Analyzing conflicts makes the job of a facilitator or mediator easy; it helps to understand the reasons, depths and intensity of conflicts, its various dimensions and perceptions linked to it. It will also help to analyze and differentiate conflicts arising due to objective reasons (backed by data) and subjective reasons (emotions, misunderstandings, assumptions, suspicions, due to lack of communication flow and mistrust), will help to identify and organize stakeholders more successfully, will help to differentiate between primary and secondary conflict and will help to assess the impact of conflict on different sections of society.
• Guiding principles of conflict analysis: Conflict analysis is a process and not an end in itself. Conflict analysis should be thoroughly unbiased – should be based upon wide range of
views, perceptions and data base and should be approached with an open mind. It is absolutely necessary to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity of conflicts
Most important: Conflict analysis should also link with overall socio-economic and political contexts and processes of change.
Learn from past experience and analysis. Structuring conflict analysis. Attempt to go into the genesis and root cause of conflicts – do not look into things
superficially. Build the conflict time line – map the process of pressure building among different
stakeholders at different points of time. Identify stake gainers and losers – the process of exclusion and inclusion. Attempt on a comprehensive stakeholder analysis. Finally build the multi-stakeholders’ platform and start the dialogue.
• Some of the key steps involved in analyzing conflicts is as follows: Collect all basic data - get the history – go as far as the `A Register’ Map the village – Its resources and demographic details, crop pattern, value of land
and economic categories Land sales for non agricultural purposes – historically History of entry of industries if any, into the village
35
Conduct research into the backdrop of the conflict Examine the conducive conditions that have led to attracting industries to enter the
village What are the manifestations of the conflict? How was the conflict managed / represented? Response of the people to conflicting situation within the village and the response of
Panchayat Any mediatory or legal process involved Outcome of conflicts – whether passive, violent or reached a stalemate – Reasons for
all How the conflicting situation has affected the local population: Poverty and
livelihoods analysis Attempt doing a water budgeting for the village with a futuristic perspective
• Analyzing conflict in a larger irrigation system, examples include: The Case of the Palar river basin in TN where pollution is the dominant factor for
conflicts. The case of the Cauvery – the transboundary issue is the dominant factor of conflict. Prolonged research in both cases have resulted in the birth of the MSD initiatives.
Stakeholder processes, dialogues and resolution of conflicts around water: by Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
In this presentation, Prof. Jankarajan talked about the significance of Stakeholder Analysis (SA), the circumstances under which it should be taken up, the practical utility of SA and the potential users of results of SA. He stressed that most importantly; SA is not an end in itself but only one among several steps in the conflict resolution process among various stakeholders. Following are the key points of his presentation:
• SA is basically a participatory methodology or approach adapted where resource sharing is difficult and proved unsuccessful by all conventional wisdoms such as legal, economic and other institutional mechanisms.
• SA helps to understand the problem better, gives an enormous scope to analyse degrees of stakes enjoyed by various stakeholders or users of a particular resource, helps to document their socio-economic and political power and above all paves the way for beginning a dialogue process among all contending stakeholders.
• The purpose of Stakeholder Analysis is to identify various stakeholders, analyse the degree of stakes enjoyed by them, differentiate between primary and secondary stakeholders, differentiate between primary and secondary disputes, document the strengths and weaknesses of stakeholders, examine the coping strategies and responses of various stakeholders, analyse conflicts in the appropriate socio-economic and political context, build the timeline of conflicts and to ascertain whether there is a threshold level of crisis of the problem in question.
• A good SA should therefore aim to analyse conflicts in detail, identify potential threats for sustainable development and equitable sharing of resources, the extent of free riding and its implications.
• Typically, objectives of SA should be to examine the prevailing and enabling conditions required for a fruitful dialogue process, explore the scope and problems in detail with a view to
36
addressing issues related to water at different levels like watershed, sub-basin, basin, state and nation. It should also try to identify areas for further work with a view to fulfilling gaps in knowledge, explore and analyze the potential utility of the MSD, examine popular and political support for such a dialogue and above all to rule out a possibility that such a dialogue might take place in policy vacuum. It should aim at exploring the possibility of converting a win-lose situation to a win-win situation.
• Identification of stakeholders and stakeholder analysis – Chennai peri-urban case. • Two sets of stakeholders could be identified who have diagonally opposite interest:
State Peri-urban village population.
• State is represented by Metro-Water Supply and Drainage Board, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Block Development Officer (BDO), Thasildar (the Revenue Department taluk-level head), District Collector , Public Works Department (water resources), State and Central Groundwater Boards, Chennai city Municipal Corporation, Departments of Agriculture, Revenue, Forest and a few others who are concerned with water, Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board, Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Member of Parliament (MP)and Ministers.
• Peri-urban population is represented by farmers (as a broad category) who live in peri-urban villages, village Panchayat , village level informal institutions. The broad category of farmers could be further differentiated into several sub-groups such as, land and well owners, water sellers, non-water sellers, land owners but non-well owners, tenant cultivators, landless agricultural labourers and women’s Self-Help Groups.
• In addition to the broad category of farmers, a substantial section of non-agricultural population also live in the peri-urban villages including traders, employed in the other non-agricultural sector.
• In addition to the above two sets of stakeholders, there are others who have either or indirect interests in the urban and peri-urban water supply and conflicts. They are represented by tanker-truck operators and their associations, a large number of water companies who sell purified drinking water, high profile hospitals, hotels, educational institutions, commercial enterprises, industries, SEZs, major educational institutions and government offices located in and around Chennai city, flat promoters, Residents’ Welfare Associations and other urban water users.
• Finally, the last batch of stakeholders represents the civil society. They include (NGOs), activists, researchers and the media.
• Strengths and weaknesses of stakeholders: The State: Has enormous power, control and authority. It legitimizes illegitimacy and
promotes a sense of urgency and emergency through government organizations and enactments. Can be hierarchic, twisting, believing as a whole in exercising control and power rather than delivering.
Other urban stakeholders: Other urban stakeholders go hand in hand or have hand over hand with the State in so far as exploiting resources from peri-urban villages are concerned. This set of stakeholders also demonstrate exigency and claim legitimacy in transporting water from peri-urban areas. In other words, ‘the State’ and ‘other urban stakeholders’ strengthen each other and eventually their strength and power becomes formidable. It is a real threatening alliance which causes enormous concern, in
37
particular because peri-urban resources are fast depleting and getting polluted. Other urban stakeholders basically constitute market which is more profit driven than anything else which concerns the society at large
Civil Society: Civil Society basically constitutes moralists / campaigners and noise makers against injustice. Typically, although well-intended and motivated, they retreat after a point. Unfortunately some of them in recent times get absorbed into the system and start legitimising their action and inaction.
The fourth set of stakeholders include the peri-urban agricultural and non-population. Peri-urban population in this context could be characterized as shock-absorbers; they are fatalists and gross losers.
• Approach to Conflict Resolution: Conflict resolution has the following main tasks; Develop expectations for win-win solutions. Define each party's interests, stakes or claims. Define each party’s limitations. Brainstorm creative options. Brainstorm adaptive strategies and reasons for adaptations. Prepare stakeholders for sustainable long-term solutions. Combine and covert options into win-win solutions.
• In order to achieve an optimal solution, one needs to prepare the stakeholders to go beyond the initial bargaining positions. It is also important to ensure that a diversity of interest groups are represented, that stakeholders are willing to listen, negotiate, compromise, and communicate and be inclusive in hearing all the views of the representative groups. In other words, never be dismissive of any view.
• Dialogue is a form of informed conversation and interaction. It differs from Debate, Mediation and Negotiation Dialogue is more informed, sustained, persuasive, inclusive, pluralistic and democratic than any of the above.
• This approach is often more successful in deep-rooted, value based conflicts where negotiation is impossible.
• Progress in such situation warrants breakdown of stereotypes, willingness to listen, following the principle of caring and sharing, respect others' views, and a willingness to open one self to new ideas.
• A few steps before Dialogue: Pre-dialogue meetings – Brainstorming meetings Give a platform for all stakeholders to get together. The purpose is to get the steam out from ones system. Expect all destructive debates and contestations to take place. Expect stakeholders to take hard positions. The atmosphere may be threatening; attacks, intimidations and interruptions should be
expected. Expect stakeholders to present all kinds of evidences – some of them may be blowing
out of proportions. Participants listen only in order to refute the other side's data and to expose faulty
logic in their arguments. Questions asked will be in the nature of rhetoric, merely challenging and often
intimidating and frustrating.
38
Let all stakeholders speak and hear them and document them carefully. Finally, have a well informed and unbiased panel (acceptable to all stakeholders) to
respond to observations made by the stakeholders. Let the demand emerge from stakeholders unanimously.
Summary of Discussion:
Some of the questions that were raised by participants after this presentation revolved around the issue of empowerment of different stakeholders in a conflict. Many participants argued that Dialogue is not really possible when the stakeholders involved have unequal power. They pointed out that the State/ rich corporate groups can easily influence a Dialogue process with their power and influence. Prof. Janakarajan responded to this by saying that part of the role of the facilitator is to ensure that all stakeholders in the Dialogue are in a position to advocate for their stand. Questions were also raised with regard to the neutrality aspect of the facilitator, to which Prof. Janakarajan said that though the facilitator may have a position on the issue, for the purpose of a successful Dialogue, he has to ‘rise above the occasion’. Speaking from his personal experience he said that though he initially had a position about the issue, his position gradually ‘withered away’ as the Dialogue proceeded.
Practical lessons and examples on MSP, MSD and the process of conflict resolution: by Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
In this section, Prof. Janakarajan provided three practical examples of multi-stakeholder processes and how the process of conflict resolution had worked in each case. The three cases were Palar basin, Cauvery basin and Chennai and peri- urban water conflicts. The Palar basin case was that of a conflict between farmers and tanners due to acute water scarcity and water pollution. The Cauvery basin case was the most litigious inter-state water dispute in India with regard to water-sharing between the two states. The Chennai and peri-urban water conflict consisted of a dispute between urban, peri-urban and rural areas.
Palar Basin:
Context: Palar basin is considered the second rice bowl of Tamil Nadu next to Thanjavur, irrigated by tanks and wells (now both the rice bowls have been disfigured). It has a very high concentration of tanneries; 75% of the tanneries in the State are concentrated in this basin, contributing to 30% of total leather exports of the country, earning Rs.50 billion towards foreign exchange. Tanneries are highly water intensive and polluting industries, generating about 38 mld of effluent with high TDS and chromium and some traces of cyanide. This has led to agriculture getting badly affected, abandoned wells, polluted surface and groundwater, acute drinking water problems, serious health problems, rapid decrease in agriculture. Due to unemployment, thousands of people have already left their villages. Mitigation and regulatory measures: Public interest litigation and Supreme Court’s intervention through what is regarded as a historic 1997 judgment – in which the Bench stated that though tanneries might earn foreign exchange and provide employment, that did not give them the license to pollute the river and the environment; the Court hence ordered for the closure of all tanneries. A ‘Multi-stakeholders meeting of Water Users of the Palar River Basin’ was held on 28- 29th January 2002 at Chennai, with 120 participants, to bring together various stakeholders for a fruitful dialogue
39
and find ways for preventing further degradation of natural resource in question and to work towards sustainable development with a common agenda within a framework acceptable to all stakeholders
• The dialogue centered around the deteriorating livelihoods and local water supply options, rapid environmental degradation, the use of environmental laws, exploring legal remedies, technologically more efficient IETPs and CETPs etc.
• The MSD brainstorming led to the formation of the Multi-stakeholders’ Committee of Water Users’ of the Palar river basin with 32 members drawn from all sectors. It also led to the publication of proceedings of entire dialogue as a book.
• The objectives of the committee were reversal of ecology4, suggesting cleaner technology for water treatment (RO technology) and developing a rapport with various government agencies
• Major outcomes of the MSD process in the Palar basin are as follows: All stakeholders have been meeting periodically with the mindset of finding a solution
rather than to get into fight or challenge each other. It has been unanimously agreed that the closure of tanneries is not the solution. Unanimity to share information among members; it is significant that tanners have
agreed to part with their information on all aspects concerning tanneries. Tanners have agreed to provide access to other members into the tanneries and
CETPs. There is a proposal to hand over the entire effluent to a private company for
treatment; tanners have agreed to cooperate fully for this proposal; we are still exploring and talking to companies engaged in this activity.
A few individual tanners have set up their own RO plants for treating TDS in the effluent.
Tanners have agreed recently to provide access to farmers to inspect the functioning of the CETPs.
Cauvery Water Dispute:
Background: The Cauvery dispute is the most disputed and litigious rivers in contemporary India. It built up mistrust overtime between farmers of both states (Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) due to lack of information flow and communication gap due to restrictions/ confidentiality imposed by respective States. There was an eruption of violence – 1997 episode in which Tamils had to flee Karnataka and there was huge damage to life and properties. There have been institutional and judicial interventions at the highest level: CRA and CMC, constitution of the Cauvery Water Tribunal and the interim award. The dispute also witnessed certain unpleasant events; by disobeying the Supreme Court’s Order, the Karnataka Chief Minister in the year 2003 had to face the contempt of Court and had to tender an unconditional apology. There have been great expectations and undue delay in the declaration of the Final Award by the Tribunal.
4 Reversal of ecology is a package, which involves revamping of traditional irrigation sources such as tanks and springs as a measure of providing adequate irrigation water as well as to recharge groundwater. It also involves channeling water into the Palar River in order to increase water flow, preventing sand mining, preventing polluted water from entering the river.
40
Several stakeholders from the state of Karnataka felt that they were cheated and discriminated by the British Govt. which acted only in favor of their own territory (Madras Presidency) through 1874 and1924 agreements and prohibited them from developing their irrigation command. They also felt that Tamil Nadu farmers grow three crops a year but never allow Karnataka farmers to grow even one crop; that Tamil Nadu has massive unutilized GW potential and wastes lots of water and that Tamil Nadu farmer refuse to grow any crop other than paddy. Stakeholders from Tamil Nadu felt that Karnataka was unjust in developing a series of reservoirs in the 1970s and that Karnataka never appreciates the prior appropriation rights of Tamil Nadu. They also feel that Karnataka does not understand the soil conditions in the old Tamil Nadu delta where plastic clay soil conditions never permit any crop other than paddy and that Karnataka releases water only during flood conditions and uses the river only as a drainage source. All these perceptions have taken deeper roots and have created a negative mindset among farmers of both States due to communication gap. Two dialogue meetings were held, one in Chennai and the other at Bangalore, in the year 2003, attended by 120 farmers from both Chennai (4-5th April) and Bangalore (4-5 June). The objectives of the MSD meeting were to bring together farmers of all riparian states on a common platform for a fruitful dialogue, reduce differences and communication gap, undo all misapprehensions and misgivings built up over time, find a solution to the problem and create a climate of warmth, sense of caring and sharing and to promote an intense feeling of fraternity. The complexity, uncertainty, deficit nature of the basin, emotional attachments and anxiety contribute negatively to sustainable water management in the Cauvery basin in both the states. There is a need to acknowledge the fact that the Cauvery basin is a deficit basin, therefore the crux of the issue in the Cauvery basin is not the sharing of the unutilized surplus water but re-sharing of the available water Outcome of these two large dialogue meetings: There was an overwhelming response from the farming community of both States; they developed a long-term perspective and focused on usage of currently available water in the basin in the best interest of Cauvery farmers. Farmers have shown enormous faith in the farmer to farmer contact and supported the dialogue process whole heartedly. An ad-hoc Committee was formed with 6 members from each State and, a resolution was passed unanimously which reads as follows: “We agree to care for each other, share each other’s problems and also agree not to indulge in counterproductive activities. We also endorse this initiative, affirm our faith in dialogue and commit ourselves to its progress.” At the end of the second dialogue workshop, a body called Committee of the Cauvery Family was constituted with 15 members from each State with three advisors and one facilitator cum convener. The Committee undertook two field visits and arrived at some important decisions. The Committee has met already 13 times since 2003 and the last one was held in Bangalore on 26th March 2010. The central issue for the Committee continues to be arriving at a formula for sharing of water both in normal and deficit years; both sets of farmers have agreed to work out a formula which will be discussed in the next meeting. The Committee has requested the Convener to prepare a paper on entire dialogue proceedings both in Tamil and in Kannada with a view to disseminating the message to farmers in respective States. The Committee is also preparing a visual CD on this issue as a part of the dissemination exercise and a memorandum to the President.
41
Different water sharing models have been presented to the stakeholders and they have been reduced from 6 to 4 to 2. The next meeting scheduled for June 2010 in Thanjavur is crucial. Chennai and peri-urban water conflicts: In Chennai there has been persisting water crisis due to lack of integrated and long-term planning; all the successive governments in the State spent lot of resources in getting water to Chennai; the amount spent on various schemes during the past four decades is around Rs.4000 crores . The net result is either crisis management or unsustainable solutions. Chennai’s future water requirement is estimated to be about 900 mld at a low 150 lpcd for an estimated population of 6 million in 2011. For the rest of the Madras Urban Agglomeration, for an estimated 3 million population 300 mld will be required. The estimated industrial requirement in 2011 will be another 250 mld, therefore, the total requirement for all purposes for the city and urban agglomeration will be of the order of 1190 mld. But the current supply position from the surface sources is nowhere near the need. MSD initiative: A series of multi-stakeholder meetings have been initiated since Feb 2004 and finally a Committee of water users of urban and peri-urban areas was constituted with 65 members. The Committee met five times during 2004-06 with the active participation of all members. A few government officials participated in the meeting but refused to talk. Outcome of the MSD initiative in Chennai PU area: All out efforts to protect the traditional water bodies such as tanks and ponds, to fight against all illegal encroachment – including by the government. However at the same time it accepted the need for coexistence, though it could not sustain the MSD Committee beyond two years.
• Summing up MSD initiative in three cases. Palar basin: Threshold level of crisis exists – carried on quite enthusiastically – even
now people show interest but in a sporadic fashion. Judicial pronouncements helped initially and utter lack of law enforcement and monitoring mechanisms helped the state-market nexus to flourish.
Cauvery: Threshold level of crisis exist - Heading for a solution. Judiciary and legal measures.
Chennai PU: Initial momentum existed – but there was never a threshold level of crisis – very difficult to sustain the MSD – PU areas got absorbed into the City expansion wave.
• Lessons from the MSD experience A sound research is a necessary condition; dialogue should be preceded by research
and a comprehensive stakeholder analysis Degree of success or failure of dialogue initiatives depends upon active and sustained
state support A threshold level of crisis will make dialogue initiative more sustainable and will
ensure active participation of all contending stakeholders; otherwise, only one set of stakeholders will participate
Need for an untiring facilitator who can carry on facilitating and arranging a platform for the dialogue to continue
Dialogues are never smooth; there will be lots of ups and downs; this should be expected.
42
The final outcome is uncertain; but in the absence of a viable alternative there is a case of pushing the dialogue initiative as far as possible until one reaches anywhere near a viable solution.
Summary of Discussions:
The group discussion brought up several important issues. Several participants raised the question of how does one judge the success of MSPs, to which Prof. Janakarajan replied that MSPs are not judged by the outcome but the process. He also said that in the West, it is also used for participatory policy making in the context of development, where different knowledge systems of different stakeholders are shared and synthetic knowledge systems are brought to the table. He stressed that many conflicts are often due to incomplete knowledge, one of the pre-conditions is that we come out with some agreed set of data not one’s own dataset. Participants also asked about what kind of precautions were necessary to adopt especially when one party is weak. Prof. Janakarajan said that in the case of the Palar conflict, the farmers and NGOs were weak, initially one of the activists was even killed, but eventually the tanneries also became interested since they needed water from other basins. Therefore, while we may get cooperation for a dialogue at threshold level of a conflict when positions are hardened, it may be a good idea to start a dialogue early when positions are positions. Most actors however will not be willing for a dialogue as long as there is space for negotiation. Participants also asked if the threshold level could be created and if needed to be created, given that people will come to the table only when there is an emergency or threshold situation.
Field work
Day 3
Summary of the Mullaperiyar conflict
The Periyar lease deed executed in 1886 between the Maharaja of Travancore and the erstwhile Madras Presidency is perhaps the first formal inter-state water sharing agreement between two states in India. The deed allowed the Madras state to construct the Mullaperiyar dam and store and divert the yield from the river through the Vaigai basin for a period of 999 years for the use of Madras state. Accordingly, the Mullaperiyar dam was commissioned in 1895 with a length of 360m for the main dam, 73m for the baby dam and a height of 47.24m, with a catchment area of 648 sq.km and water spread area of about 29 sq.km. The reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 15.6 tmc.ft (443.55 Mcum) feeds an ayacut of 2, 20,000 acres in Tamil Nadu. By another agreement in 1970, Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate power also. In 1979, leaks were detected in the Periyar dam. The CWC ordered lowering of water level in the reservoir to 136 ft which triggered the long drawn debates and arguments and legalities about the safety of the dam and maintaining of water level in the reservoir. Several rounds of meetings and discussions between the two governments, between the central government and state governments and the CWC have been going on in order to reach a consensus. The issue has reached the Supreme Court twice. In 2006, the Supreme Court allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 ft forthwith. Meanwhile Kerala Legislature has amended Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act
43
2003. The amended Act in 2006 listed 22 old dams in Kerala including Mullaperiyar dam endangered due to their age as scheduled dams and freezed their FRL to ensure the safety of downstream population. Tamil Nadu has meanwhile challenged this Act of 2006 by filing an original suit in the Supreme Court. Several studies have been initiated on both sides to prove their stance. Very recently, the Supreme Court hearing the case, has appointed a Joint Committee to look into the matter.
Rationale for choosing the Mullaperiyar Case Study
There were two reasons for deciding to take the participants of the training to Mullaperiyar, which is around 200 km from the training venue at Bharat Hotel. First, the issue was currently in controversy and the Supreme Court of India had recently ordered to form a Commission led by Retired Justice of Supreme Court Shri K T Thomas with members from both the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Tamil Nadu was not agreeable to this. Second, a continuous Satyagraha was going on at Chappathu, on the banks of the Periyar below Mullaperiyar more than 1000 days past and it was a chance for the participants to experience hands on interaction with the communities.
Fear of dam break and demand for a new dam
The people living in the immediate downstream of Mullaperiyar Dam on the banks of the river have been leading a life of fear and threat since the early 1980s when leaks were detected in the dam. Every monsoon, the downstream people are virtually on their toes ready to run for safety in case of a dam break. The people living in Upputhara, Kanchiyaar, Peerumedu, Kumili, Vandiperiyar and Ayyapankoil gram panchayats will be the first and worst affected in case of a dam breach or break. The issue has taken a social dimension evident from the plummeting land value in these areas. Even marriages are not entertained into these panchayats from outside. People are ready to leave the land if given compensation. They have started the Satyagraha with the objective of bringing to attention the gravity of the situation to the State Government and the concerned gram panchayats. According to them except for very few political party leaders, most are not taking any interest in their genuine demands. The Action Council maintains that even the local gram panchayats have not extended the required cooperation. The main demand put forward by the Action Council is a new dam in place of the 114 year old Mullaperiyar dam. However they do not want to deny the water to Tamil Nadu. According to them, the new dam shall not mean a new treaty. The new dam shall be built and the same amount of water to Tamil Nadu as presently diverted should be maintained. The larger political interest appears to be that a large number of important politicians from Kerala own land in the ayacut area of Mullaperiyar on the Tamil Nadu side.
Proceedings of the fieldwork
The team of participants and trainers was accompanied by Sulaiman and Fr. Robin Pendenath from the Mullaperiyar Action Council. Fr Robin is a young priest who has been actively involved in organizing and mobilizing the Satyagraha at Chappathu. Sulaiman is a trader living in Kumili township very close to the Mullaperiyar dam. The trainees accompanied by the resource persons, Sulaiman and Fr Robin reached Chappathu, the venue of the Satyagraha by 12 noon after a long and winding journey through the high Hills of Vagamon and Peerumedu. The trainees were greeted by the local people and some of the leaders of the Satyagraha. The participants were appraised of the issue and the live conflict.
44
Intake point of the canal from the Mullaperiyar reservoir
Visit to Vandiperiyar Gram Panchayat
The brief discussion in Vandiperiyar in the evening revealed the strong sentiments of the people towards the issue of dam safety. The Vandiperiyar gram panchayat which is immediately downstream of the dam claims to have taken many steps to counter any disaster that can take place if the dam breaks. All the downstream gram panchayats have been allowed public alarm systems, control rooms for disaster management and street lights. The Vandiperiyar gram panchayat has also opened counseling centres especially for children struck by trauma and fear indicating the level of fear prevailing there. According to them, the hill streams start flowing immediately after the commencement of rains and the dam level increases day by day in the rainy season - reason enough for panic.
45
Discussions with the panchayat members of Vandiperiyar immediately downstream village
Though the Mullaperiyar Action Council maintains that the gram panchayats have not been cooperating, the panchayat opines otherwise. They claim they have been doing everything humanly possible for disaster preparedness. The panchayat also does not want to deny water to Tamil Nadu. According to them, the Tamilian population in Vandiperiyar panchayat is more than that of the Malayali speaking. Hence they cannot imagine denying water to their brothers at any rate.
Periyar Tiger Reserve and the water intake point of the Mullaperiyar Dam
The team missed entry into the Tiger Reserve by a few minutes and seeing the reservoir of the dam, presently a lake for tourism. The gates had closed by 5 pm. However, permission was secured to see the intake point of the water diverted from Mullaperiyar, well guarded by police. The water level was near 104 ft at the tunnel intake point. The reservoir of the dam is located within the Tiger Reserve and is presently a famous tourist attraction. The water from the intake is taken through underground tunnel to Tamil Nadu side across Kumili to Kambam Theni.
Experiences and Observations of the participants
Most of the participants felt that though there was shortage of time, the intensity of the conflict was revealed to them very clearly. They also felt that the sentiments were very much evident. Courts pass judgments within their inherent limitations. Whether the Mullaperiyar issue can be resolved in the Court is a matter of debate. However, the need for farmer to farmer or even a people to people dialogue across the Western Ghats between the two states is an option unexplored all these years. The conflict cannot be dragged beyond a period either. If the dam decides to give away one day, it will be a case of ultimate repentance for Tamil Nadu. The choices have to be made.
46
Group work presentations (Day 5)
Group A: Case Study title “Singoor Project – Right to Livelihood versus Right to life”
Group A presented a case study of a conflict between contending water uses - drinking water needs of a mega-city (Hyderabad) and irrigation needs of farmers in the command area of the project (Singoor).
• Context: The Singoor dam is on Manjira River which is a tributary of river Godavari in Pulkal mandal of Medak district in Andhra Pradesh. The project work started in 1975 was officially completed in 1989. Water from this project is utilized to supply drinking water to twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
• In 1976 the Singoor dam construction started, in 1978 farmer agitations for irrigation water began, 1980 – GO released allocating irrigation water, in 1989 dams became operational
• In 1994 there were major protests by farmers; in 2003 a 100 day hunger strike was led by Andole Constituency MLA who also started a Padyatra.
• In 2005 the Government order sanctioning canals for downstream was issued. In 2010 – HMWS&SB and Irrigation Department lock horns over release of water downstream
• The stakeholders & their respective concerns are as follows: Farmers – Irrigation needs Political representatives in Command Area – Retaining Constituencies Consumers in Hyderabad – Drinking Water Political representatives in Hyderabad - Retaining Constituencies HMWS&SB (Water Board) – Mandate to supply I&CAD (Irrigation Dept.) – Mandate to Supply Cabinet Members (State Government) – Retaining Control and electoral stability Civil Society – Equity, Access & Allocation Planning Authority (HUDA) – Mandate to Plan for future needs Farmers – no gains from losing water to city City users – increased access and no incentive to conserve or recycle Political representatives – Stand to gain/lose in either way HMWS&SB – I&CAD – Under pressure to deliver given mandate – pitted against
each other HUDA – Administrative concerns and brand image concerns Civil Society – Equity and Sustainability Concerns Currently, the manifestation of the conflict is on a back burner now as city demands
are presently met through new sources. The conflict persists in a simmering state as a demand – supply gap is already increasing in Hyderabad.
The processes for Conflict Resolution include Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue (MSD), Administrative Changes and Future Planning.
As part of the MSD, representatives of both the communities need to be brought together in order to discuss the issues, rights, responsibilities and problems of both parties. Efforts also have to be put in to move this conflict from purely administrative control domain to a community negotiation domain.
47
As part of administrative changes, an independent monitoring and coordination committee with representatives drawn from both the sides and research/scientific bodies and civil society organizations needs to be set up.
The water board needs to have a representation from the farmer’s side to represent their interests in the governing body.
With regard to future planning, recycling water in the city for non-consumptive uses, cutting down transmission losses and correcting distribution errors could be the steps from urban communities. Minimizing water-intensive cropping pattern in command area could be coupled with in-situ water harvesting from rural community. Additional surcharge could be collected from city users to be spent exclusively for supporting watershed development projects in the rural area. A detailed water-audit could be funded with this cess which then may be utilized for planning a sustainable cropping plan for the area with the participation of local WUAs. There may also be a possibility of farmers getting compensated for their water loss in lean years by a form of trade mechanism after a detailed study and analysis.
Group B: Case Study title “Nira Deoghar- Privatization of Irrigation Projects”
This group presented a case study around the issue of privatization of the Nira Deoghar dam in Pune Maharashtra. The primary stakeholders at conflict are the Government of Maharashtra and the farmers of the command area.
• Context: The Nira-Deoghar dam is located on river Nira, near Deoghar village in Pune district, Maharashtra. The length of the dam is 2330 m and its height is 58.52 m. It received administrative approval in 1984.
• Currently, 1246 projects worth Rs 36,630 Crores are in incomplete condition in Maharashtra. The policy of the Government of Maharashtra is to privatize the incomplete irrigation projects. Nira Deoghar was chosen as the pilot project for privatization.
• There has been strong opposition to the process of privatization from the farmers of the command area.
• The Conflict: Various Dimensions People want water without privatization of the project. Government is not ready to fund the project but want to pilot the privatization model. MWRRA has put stay on the privatization process. Land in the command area is being converted to NA. Vested interests: the dam on downstream.
• The stakeholders of the conflict are farmers and other water users in the command area of Nira Deoghar, the Government. Private parties interested in taking up the work and people in the command area of the dam downstream.
• The framework for conflict resolution will consist of conflict documentation, analysis of existing data/information, identification of gaps and collection of additional data, data analysis, identification of stakeholders and gathering multiple stakeholder perceptions on the conflict.
• Given that the main conflicting parties are unequal; at present the government is not willing to come to the table for negotiation. Therefore, people’s voice needs to be raised further to force the government into negotiation. Meanwhile, legal course of action will also be continued.
48
• Assessment of Alternatives: Raising Funds for the Project Private investment- not acceptable to community, civil society. Government funding – government is not willing to fund. Public private partnership. Government + PRI+ community.
• Technical Alternatives: Reducing the dimensions of the canal system can reduce the project cost (with slight reduction in water supply to command areas) or one can explore the possibility of reducing water demand at the command area.
• Multi-stakeholder Dialogue: Each stakeholder group needs to be persuaded to come for a Dialogue, including the state. If required, pre- Dialogue sessions (Focus group discussions) within each stakeholder group need to be conducted.
Summary of Discussions:
The discussions that followed centered on the issue of whether parties who are in conflict can play the role of a ‘neutral’ facilitator. While most participants argued that the facilitator is justified to take a position about the conflict, a few said that a third party actor was necessary for the purpose. However, this third party actor they said would have to be credible and have the trust of both the parties to initiate the process.
Group C: Case Study title “Lake Kolleru- ‘Nature versus Human Greed”
This group presented a conflict case study of Lake Kolleru, revolving primarily around the interests of environmentalists interested in ecological sustainability and aquaculturists and other stakeholders who are interested in the resources of the lake.
• Context: Lake Kolleru is the largest freshwater lake in India and is situated between the deltas of Krishna and Godavari. It is a natural flood-balancing reservoir; the maximum water spread area is 90100 ha (+10’ contour) and the minimum is 13,500 ha at +3.0’ contour. There are about 20 million birds inhabiting the lake and one of the important species is the grey Pelican.
• In the 1950s-60s government assigned the land in the lake area to SCs and BCs. In the 1970s government encouraged fishing on agricultural land (due to frequent floods); this led to the formation of fishing cooperative societies. In the 1980s better-off members of the community started taking land on lease; the real owners work for low daily wages. “Illegal encroachments” also started.
• In 1998 Dr. T Pantanjali Sastry, an Environmentalist filed a writ petition in the AP High Court.
• In 1999 the state government declared Kolleru, a wildlife sanctuary upto +5’ c (30,855 ha); Encroachment continued in protected area (42%).
• In 1999 there were several petitions in the high court by Aqua-culturists/ farmers requesting its intervention to prevent any disturbance of fishponds within the sanctuary.
• In 2005- 2006, Operation Kolleru started; Supreme Court instructed to demolish all unauthorized fish ponds. This led to protest by local communities; however the operation was successfully completed.
49
• The State government sanctioned Rs.15 crores for rehabilitation, communities were not consulted on alternative livelihoods. In 2007, the Pelicans revisited, traditional fishing started again.
• In 2008-2009, the encroachers reappeared. • Stakeholder Analysis:
Aquaculturists are interested in resources for profit, conflicting against environmentalists /Judiciary.
The Government is interested in mediation/ political capital; conflicting against environmentalists.
The Judiciary is interested in justice / sustainability , main conflicting parties are aquaculturists.
Environmentalists are interested in Ecological sustainability, conflicting against aquaculturists and Government.
Local industries produce effluent discharge in the lake, conflicting against aquaculturistsand environmentalists.
Local domestic users are interested in drinking water from lake, conflicting against polluters.
Local farmers interested in agricultural water access, conflicting parties are n ot clear.
• Normative Framework Livelihoods: Basic livelihood of aquaculturists not threatened, they should stick to +5
contour area; not encroach further, wage labour livelihood to be lost (one-third of total), Government to convince them of benefits of conservation, farmers marginalised – basic livelihood under threat, domestic users’ clean water supply source being lost.
Equity: Entitlement of clean water to domestic users, right of farmers to maintained water table level, ecosystem services undermined for humans, inter-generational equity.
Sustainability:Environmental flow undermined for ecosystem, degraded water quality, threat to biodiversity linked with natural habitat loss, judicial mandate subsidiary to political concerns .
Participation / democratisation: Consultative participatory process for lake management/conservation plan, identifying alternative livelihood sources and skill-development support.
• Process Framework for Conflict Resolution: • Case Analysis, Stakeholder Analysis (shared learning dialogue) • Pre-Dialogue: Talk between special group separately, allow wage labourers to voice their
concerns, Government to assure solidarity to labourers and Dialogic process between government and labourers.
• Collective meeting with all groups like aquaculturists (encroachers), Lake user groups (community/ industry /wage labourers) and environmentalists (neutral party; hear them all out).
• Possible action depending on outcome of initial engagement: formation of committee to Demolish aquaculture facilities Alternative livelihood for wage labourers (capture fishing, others) Regeneration of ecological services Relief for farmers, local community and industry
50
• Setting up of monitoring and oversight committee (empowered, with representation of all stakeholders on a consensual basis).
Group D: Case Study title “Cauvery River Sharing Dispute”
Group D presented the case study of the Cauvery river water dispute between the two states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
• Context: The Cauvery River Basin has an area of 87,900 km2 and lies in the states of Tamil Nadu (TN), Karnataka (KA) and Kerala. Cauvery River Sharing Dispute is a Transboundary dispute – inter-state between KA, TN.
• Root cause: River sharing was decided between Maharaja of Mysore and Madras Presidency – issue of differential powers existed even while entering into agreement; no agreement on quantity, misgivings between local communities.
• Sources of conflict: Primary conflict- water sharing, secondary conflict- power asymmetry, water- quality delta region, water quantity, tertiary conflict- deterioration of ecosystem.
• Primary stakeholders- Farmers, non- farmers, state governments and GoI. • Secondary stakeholders- TN people, communities living in KA who were affected by 1991
violence, CSOs, Academicians, Media, Activists, Lawyers, Researchers, Environmentalists • Conflict resolution Framework: • Analysis: Track 1 or the judicial approach failed to resolve the conflict mainly because the
sanctity of the Tribunal was not upheld by the parties and the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction. Tribunals must ensure that normative concerns of sustainability, equity, livelihood and public participation are ensured.
• Track 2/ Cauvery Family can be a successful attempt since it is considered as an academic and CSO exercise. Other actors in the basin area including those who are not a part of the registered committee must be dialogued with. Holding meetings in the basin area could automatically ensure such participation from diverse groups. Getting their consent to validate the ‘solution’ with the wider community will create a win-win situation. Right now KL and PU are ignored in this debate, they must be included in the stakeholder dialogue process. Solution will still need to acquire legal sanctity and political acceptance. Media must play a significant role in reporting the news objectively to shape public opinion.
Feedback from Participants
The participants gave their feedback on the following grounds: • content of topics covered during training • methodology used for training • arrangements and relevance of field visit • reading material provided • group work conducted
Besides this, the participants also gave their general comments and suggestions.
51
The participants felt that the program substantially covered the aspects of Understanding Water Conflicts. One participant also said that the key note and its discussions could have been a bit more elaborate. The participant also felt that it would have been better if the section on eco-system needs was presented first, just after the key note address. Most participants felt that sufficient inputs were not provided with regard to conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation skills in the area of Resolving Water Conflicts. Only one participant said that the sessions on Conflict Resolution were exhaustive. The same participant said that he felt like there was an assumption that multi-stakeholder dialogue processes have a supremacy over other conflict resolution methods. He felt that Track one, Track three (or beyond) may have significant roles independently or collectively for resolving major conflicts and an understanding of these aspects will be helpful. One participant suggested that there could have been a session for explaining the technical terms used in the water sector especially with regard to dams. The participant also suggested that another issue that could have been addressed was with regard to water management and planning that can lead to preventing water conflicts. With regard to methodology, all participants felt that the classroom lectures followed by discussions were very useful. They also felt that the resource persons effectively handled the lectures and appropriate time was set aside for discussions. Few participants suggested that it would have been helpful if the lectures on Conflict Resolution were linked with its application in the field work case study. One participant said that the time constraint was felt for most of the sessions and that the fourth day was particularly hectic. The speed had affected a bit on communication of the lecture. Some of the sessions on day two, especially on normative concerns could have been a bit more interactive as there should have been a discussion (or even debate) leading to consensus on these among the participants. All participants said that they enjoyed the field visit, and felt that they would have preferred to stay on at the conflict site for at least a day, to interact with the people and understand the issue better. There was also a suggestion that in an inter-state conflict such as Mullaperiyar, it may be useful for the participants to visit both the states involved in the conflict. This would facilitate them to gather more comprehensive and unbiased understanding of the conflict. Some participants felt that the arrangements of logistics were not up to the mark and better planning could have taken place with regard to travel and timings of the field visit. With regard to the reading material, all participants felt that it was very comprehensive and rich in content. There were suggestions to post the reader along with the presentations on the Forum’s website. One participant said that the reader cannot be considered as reading material for the training, but that it is reference material. He also said that hard copies could have been avoided for materials available in soft form. All participants said that the group work sessions were effective in helping them learn and express themselves better in smaller groups. However they felt that more time could have been allotted for the same. One participant suggested that the groups could have finalized their case studies on the third day and then worked on their group presentations on the fourth day morning. This way the groups could have been more innovative in their approach rather than only following the models presented by the resource persons. Also a system where in each case study that was prepared, was written and evaluated would have helped more. Another participant said that a two hours session could have been planned on day two for group work followed by a draft presentation. Either a single topic (real or imaginary) or different topics for each group could have been assigned and the groups
52
asked to try and identify the various dimensions of the conflict and try to resolve it. On the last day the groups could have presented the same case in the light of the training. Overall, the participants were very content with the training program. Few participants suggested that since the content was very comprehensive, the training could have been spread over another extra day. One participant said that the training needs to be continued and that one can plan to start the programme by listing various types of conflicts, prioritizing them and along the course of the training, try and do exercises at resolving these conflicts along with theory sessions. This may help to explore different approaches towards conflict resolution for different types of conflicts that have totally different dynamics. Another participant suggested that he would have preferred a slightly less expensive venue for the training. There were also suggestions to include peace activists, peace journalists and researchers in approaching the issue of water conflict and also involving other stakeholders as trainees such as media persons, mediators, lawyers, government officers and conflict resolution practitioners.
53
Annexure 1
Programme Schedule
Time Topic Resource Person
Day One: 5 April 2010
10:00 to Inaugural Session
10:00 to 10:30 Welcome and Introduction to the training programme
10:30 to 11:15 Key note address: “Water, Conflicts and the Laws in India”
Prof. Ramaswamy R. Iyer
11: 15 to 11:30 Tea/Coffee
11:30 to 13:00 Understanding water: bio-physical and socio-cultural peculiarities of water
K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM, Pune
13:00 to 14:00 Lunch
14:00 to 15:00 Water use pattern since Independence: Competing water uses in India
Suhas Paranjape, SOPPECOM, Pune
15:00 Leave for the venue of the discussion on the book “Water and the Laws in India”
16:00 to 18:30 Discussion and debate about the new book, ‘Water and the Laws in India’ edited by Ramaswamy Iyer
20:00 Dinner
Day Two: 6 April 2010
09:00 to 10:30 Principles, theories and methods of conflict resolution and negotiation
Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
10:30 to 11:00 Tea/Coffee
11:00 to 13:00 Water for ecosystem needs
Prof. M. K. Prasad, KSSP and Information Kerala Mission, Thiruvanathapuram and Dr. A. Latha, CPSS, Thrichur
13:00 to 14:00 Lunch
14:00 to 15:30 Normative concerns around water: sustainability, equity and democratization
Suhas Paranjape, SOPPECOM, Pune
15:30 to 16:00 Tea/Coffee
16:00 to 17:30 Right-based discourse and right to water K. J. Joy, SOPPECOM, Pune
17:30 to 18:30 Introduction to the Mullaperiyar conflict Ravi and Dr. A. Latha
20:00 to 20:30 Discussion on the group work and finalization Pranab Choudhury
20:30 Dinner
Day Three: 7 April 2010
Field Visit to Mullaperiyar
54
Day Four: 8 April 2010
09:00 to 11:00 Legal and institutional issues in the water sector Dr. Philippe Cullet, IELRC, New Delhi
11:00 to 11:30 Tea/Coffee
11:30 to 13:00 Understanding water conflicts in India: Developing a typology
K. J. Joy
13:00 to 14:00 Lunch
14:00 to 15:00 Analyzing water conflicts Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
15:00 to 15:30 Tea/Coffee
15:30 to 17:30 Stakeholder processes, dialogues and resolution of conflicts around water
Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
17:30 to 18:30 Practical lessons and examples on MSP, MSD and the process of conflict resolution
Dr. S. Janakarajan, MIDS, Chennai
Day Five : 9 April 2010
09:00 to 13:00 Presentations of the group work and discussions Pranab Choudhury
10:30 to 11:00 Tea/coffee
13:00 to 14:00 Concluding session
14:00 Lunch
55
Annexure 2
Resource Persons
Dr. A. Latha
Dr. A. Latha has a doctorate in Agriculture from the Kerala Agricultural University. She started her involvement in the field of environmental protection in the early 1990s through nature education activities amongst the schools and colleges of Kerala which later evolved into research and information based campaigns amongst communities and local self governments to conserve rivers in relation to dams, sand mining, pollution, deforestation etc. Her area of interest include, restoring E –flows in rivers, decentralised community led river basin management and restoration and watershed management. She has been serving as a resource person in several venues at state level and presented papers on the same at state and international level on these themes. She has been an AID Saathi since three years in recognition of her involvement in river conservation especially in the mobilization, analysis and interpretation of information, research and reach out to river basin communities in Kerala and at the national level especially in the ongoing people’s movement to save the Chalakudy river from a seventh large dam namely the Athirappilly Hydro Electric project. She has played a key role in policy formulation and legal enactments related to river basin management, water policy, sand mining etc in Kerala. She was the State Coordinator in the first phase of the Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India. Presently she represents South Asia in the International Steering Committee of the International Rivers based at Berkeley, USA. She has co authored the book ‘Tragedy of Commons’ the Kerala Experience in River Linking.
Prof. M. K. Prasad
Professor M. K. Prasad is a well known environmentalist, who has been at the forefront of movements to save the environment in his native state of Kerala for over four decades. Prof. Prasad held various positions in Kerala Government Colleges as Botany Professor and Principal, rising to become the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Calicut. In the 1960s and 70s Prof. Prasad was the public face of the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) – the peoples’ science movement in that state, when it addressed environmental issues like pollution as well as attempts to destroy the precious tract of tropical rain forests known as Silent Valley. By his writings and his crusades held and inspired, Prof. Prasad brought global attention to these environmental issues - exposure which ultimately helped reverse flawed planning decisions. Prof. Prasad is a member of WWF, IUCN, CSE, BNHS, Water Resources Society of India, CEE Governing Council & Greenpeace India. Prasad was also one of the Principal Co-ordinators of the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests’ project to conduct Carrying Capacity Based Developmental Planning Studies for the Greater Kochi Region of Kerala. He played a key role in the preparation of a set of documents called “Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers” which recorded the living resources and related traditional knowledge of all the Grama Panchayaths of the District of Ernakulam in Kerala. Prof. Prasad served
56
as a member of the UN launched Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (2001-05). He continues to involve himself in all issues that impact the human environment in the world around him.
Pranab Choudhury
Pranab’s tryst with water-sector is relatively recently and it started with his role as the coordinator of Baitarani Initiative (www.baitarani.org) about two years back. Baitarani is a unique civil society initiative towards Innovative and Futuristic Basin Resources Management (IFBRM) in Orissa which attempts sustainable transformations of basin livelihoods and landscapes through informed choices and enhanced stakeholder voices. As a development action researcher, Pranab has been actively working for the concerns of the poor & the environment for about a decade and half, concentrating mostly on cross-cutting issues around environment and development. Before plunging full time to development sector about four years back, Pranab used to work with the Soil & Water Conservation Research Institute of ICAR as a Scientist in Koraput hills in the Indian Eastern Ghats, carrying out participatory and adaptive research on watershed management and agro-forestry and documenting indigenous knowledge for NR-based tribal development. For his work in developing a watershed model in the tribal Eastern Ghats, he has also received a national award. Pranab has published /presented about 50 papers/ abstracts in peer reviewed Journals and International & National Conferences. He is a member of IUCN’s Commission on Ecosystem Management and the moderator of e-group of Network of Indian River Basin Institutions (NIRBI).
Prof. S. Janakarajan
Prof. S. Janakarajan, an Economist, currently a Professor at the Madras Institute of Development Studies MIDS, Chennai, obtained his Masters degree from Madras Christian College and Ph.D from MIDS. He has done his Post-Doctoral work at the Cornell University, USA, during 1992-93 and subsequently became a Visiting Professor at Oxford University, UK, for one year during 1995-96. He has travelled widely and has presented many papers in international and national workshops and conferences. His areas of interest are rural development and agrarian institutions, disaster management, water management and irrigation institutions, conflicts and conflict resolution, environment, urban and peri-urban issues, and markets. He is currently engaged in a project on Climate change and adaptation in collaboration with six other institutions in South Asia. He has published several books and many papers in national and international journals. He is the author of the 'Cauvery Family', an initiative which he started in 2003 that has brought together farmers of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to resolve the most vexed inter-state water dispute in the history of contemporary India through farmer to farmer dialogue. At the moment, after thirteen meetings, farmers of both states have arrived at some understanding which has resulted in the formulation of a key formula for water sharing.
Dr. Philippe Cullet
Dr. Philippe Cullet is a Reader in Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies – University of London (SOAS) where he teaches law related to the environment, natural resources and intellectual property. He is also the Founding Director of the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC) and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Law, Environment and Development (LEAD-journal.org), a peer-reviewed online journal available at www.lead-journal.org. He studied law at the University of Geneva and King’s College London (LLM). He received an MA in
57
development studies from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and went on to receive his doctoral degree in international environmental law from Stanford Law School, Stanford University. His current research interests include biodiversity law, biosafety, global warming, water as well as the socio-economic aspects of intellectual property protection. He is the author of Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development (New Delhi: Butterworths, 2005) and the editor of The Sardar Sarovar Dam Project: Selected Documents (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). He is currently writing Water, Law and Development in the context of Water Sector Reforms in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2009).
Prof. Ramaswamy Iyer
Ramaswamy R. Iyer was formerly Secretary Water Resources in the Government of India, and in that capacity he was the initiator and principal draftsman of India's first National Water Policy in 1987. After his retirement from the Government, he was Research Professor at the Centre for Policy Research(CPR), New Delhi, where he worked on water-related issues, and in particular on cooperation on river waters by India, Nepal and Bangladesh (1990-99). He continues in CPR in an honorary capacity. He was a member of two high-level committees set up by the Government of India to review the environmental and displacement/rehabilitation aspects of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Project (1993 - 95) and the Tehri Hydro-Electric Project (1996-97), and was a Member of the National Commission on Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (1997-99). He has also been a member of many other Government Committees and Commissions from time to time. He is a member of the Programme Steering Committee for the Rajasthan State Partnership Programme with the European Commission (from 2006 onwards); a member of the Government of India’s National Council on the Artificial Re-Charge of Groundwater; and a member of the Board of Governors of the Foundation for Ecological Security, Anand. From time to time, he has done consultancy assignments for the World Bank, the World Commission on Dams (WCD), the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, UNDP, New Delhi, the European Commission, and others. He is currently (from August 2007) a Member of the UNSGAB High Level Expert Panel on Water and Disaster, an adjunct to the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation. He has authored many books such as A Grammar of Public Enterprises, Rawat, Jaipur, (1991), WATER: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns, Sage Publications, (2003), Towards Water Wisdom: Limits, Justice, Harmony, Sage, (2007). He is editor/ co- editor of Harnessing the Eastern Himalayan Rivers, Konark, (1993), Converting Water into Wealth, Konark, (1994) and Mid-Year Review of the Economy, Konark, in association with India International Centre, (1993-94). Currently, he is working on putting together and editing a book titled Water and the Laws in India’under the auspices of CPR. He has contributed papers / chapters in many books and written numerous articles, papers, etc, on water resource policy, public administration, governance, and economic, political, social and cultural issues.
58
Suhas Paranjape
Suhas Paranjape has a B.Tech (Chem) from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. Has actively participated in different movements like People's Science Movement, Adivasi agricultural labourers' movement, etc. Has participated as a core team member and consultant in many action research studies and pilot projects undertaken by Centre for Applied Systems Analysis in Development (CASAD) and Society for Promoting People's Participation in Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune in the areas of participatory management of natural resources specially in the field of participatory irrigation management. For three years from 1996 to 1999 worked as a core team member of the Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti (BGVS) in its watershed development project across the country. He was a Visiting Fellow with CISED, Bangalore for a year. He has co-authored the following books: 1) Sustainable Technology: Making Sardar Project Viable; 2) Banking on Biomass: A New Strategy for Sustainable Prosperity Based on Renewable Energy and Dispersed Industrialisation; 3) Watershed Based Development: A Source Book; 4) Panlot Kshetra Vikasachya Navya Disha: Sadhan Saksharata, Shashvat Vikas, Samanyayi Vatap (Marathi); 5) Sustainable Prosperity: Sustaining and Enabling Natures Productive Powers; 6) Water: Sustainable and Efficient Use; 7) Striya Ani Pani: Badalte Natesambandh (Marathi); and 8) Community-based Natural Resource Management: Issues and Cases from South Asia. He has co-edited the book, Water Conflicts in India: A Million Revolts in the Making.
K. J. Joy
K. J. Joy has a Master's degree in Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He has been an activist-researcher for more than 20 years and has a special interest in people's institutions for natural resource management both at the grassroots and policy levels. His other areas of interests include drought and drought proofing, participatory irrigation management, river basin management and multi-stakeholder processes, watershed based development, water conflicts and people’s movements. He has worked with Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samithi (BGVS), New Delhi in its watershed development and resource literacy programme. He was a Visiting Fellow with CISED, Bangalore for a year and was a Fulbright Fellow with University of California at Berkeley. Joy has been the coordinator of the Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India. He has co-authored the following books: 1) Sustainable Technology: Making Sardar Project Viable; 2) Banking on Biomass: A New Strategy for Sustainable Prosperity Based on Renewable Energy and Dispersed Industrialisation; 3) Watershed Based Development: A Source Book; 4) Panlot Kshetra Vikasachya Navya Disha: Sadhan Saksharata, Shashvat Vikas, Samanyayi Vatap (Marathi); 5) Sustainable Prosperity: Sustaining and Enabling Natures Productive Powers; 6) Water: Sustainable and Efficient Use; 7) Striya Ani Pani: Badalte Natesambandh (Marathi); and 8) Community-based Natural
esource Management: Issues and Cases from South Asia. He has co-edited the book, Water onflicts in India: A Million Revolts in the Making.
RC
59
