IUCN Water
IUCN Water
Programme
Programme
NEGOTIATE Toolkit:
Case Studies
Negotiating our way through Livelihoods and Ecosystems:
The Bhima River Basin Experience 1
By Prof. Vijay Paranjpye and Ms. Parineeta Dandekar,
Gomukh Environmental Trust for Sustainable Development
1. Background
1.1 The Ecosystems-Livelihoods impasse: Need for new approaches
Ecosystem protection and poverty alleviation are of utmost importance in achieving the
Millennium Development Goals 2. In most developing countries, the two are closely interlinked.
But, due to unsustainable anthropogenic pressures, the carrying capacity of ecosystems is
severely jeopardized, thus affecting ecosystem goods and services on which the rural poor
depend directly. Attempts at focusing on one of the aspects without working on the other have
proven to be unsustainable. An approach focused entirely on ecosystems, that does not perceive
the local communities as a part of ecosystems or conversely, an approach focused entirely on
communities and livelihoods that does not prioritize the urgent need for preservation and
restoration of degrading ecosystems have shown to have limited relevance in tackling ground
realities. In the two options mentioned above, the approaches have been developed by wellmeaning external organizations or governments that seek to 'manage' their projects from a
distance, while the vision, wisdom or problems of the local community are seldom seen as the
building blocks for developing the approach further.
In this conventional top-down water management scenario, new and evolved fields of
management like Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) that aim to seek integration
3
and to function with an ecosystems approach are a welcome change. IWRM aims to strike a
balance between use of resources for livelihood and conservation of resources to sustain their
functions for future generations (Falkenmark, GWP TEC Paper 9). The idea of integrating water
management with ecosystemic well being is promising, especially for communities that depend
directly on natural resources. Although the way it is envisioned in developing countries with
centralized River Basin Organizations (RBOs) recommending top-down measures results in
increased efficiency of the system, it generally fails to address issues related to equity that are
crucial for these countries.
1.2 Negotiated Approach to River Basin Management
The Negotiated Approach to river basin management asserts that local communities have the
potential of managing natural resources not only in their immediate vicinity, but also of up scaling
1 This paper is based on experiences of Gomukh Trust for Sustainable Development from 1998 to 2006. For details on
the project: http://www.bothends.org/strategic/RBM-Boek.pdf
2 Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability. http://www.un.org/
3 Operationalisation of IWRM through the ecological units of river basins has been termed as Integrated River Basin
Management.
1
the vision to cover the entire river basin. A River Basin is taken as the reference ecosystem in this
case because the Negotiated approach evolved mainly as a response to growing dissatisfaction
amongst community and civil society organizations (CSOs) in developing countries to
conventional, top-down water management approaches.
The approach is not restricted to only applying the subsidiarity principle, where communities
take part in decision making related to their own village or sub catchment, but it “calls for the
reverse, allowing local actors to develop basin management strategies specific to their local
context, which are then incorporated in the larger basin management plan. This allows their
knowledge to influence regional and national decisions, ultimately resulting in a truly bottom-up
process of policy development and management.” (Hirsch, Paranjpye, 2005)
Another facet of negotiations is managing the trade offs that arise from ecosystem-livelihood
interactions. Conventional management and policy has little to contribute to the issue: “The
pattern of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ associated with ecosystem changes, and in particular the impact
of ecosystem changes on marginalized communities, has not been adequately taken into account
in management decisions” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). As was experienced by case
holders, the livelihood-ecosystem issue is fraught with trade offs, wherein one sector has to make
considerable compromises to accommodate the needs of the other. Such an exchange has
inherent conflicts associated with it and thus has to be handled with equity and sensitivity. As an
outsider, it is a near-impossible task for an external agency to manage and resolve these conflicts
as and when they arise, neither is it sustainable in the longer run.
Through the negotiated approach, community platforms, often based on traditional institutions,
are nurtured and strengthened to address these issues. It has to be noted that capacity building
and guidance from external organizations forms an important part of the process to ensure strong
representation from weaker stakeholders like families below the poverty line, women and
especially, the environment. Thus, the approach is considerably different than decision-making
based on majority opinion.
Finding an answer to the question, ‘benefits to whom at what cost?’ becomes an important
function of the negotiations that are trying to find ‘trade-offs’ in conflicting situations.
1.3 Applying the Negotiated approach in seven river basins, across three continents
Through a project funded by DGIS, civil society organisations Both ENDS (The Netherlands) and
Gomukh Environmental Trust for Sustainable Development (India) documented and analysed the
results of implementing a negotiated approach to river basin management through local CSOs in
the following basins:
•
Bhima Basin: India,
•
Khulna-Jessore Districts: Bangladesh,
•
Se San Basin: Cambodia,
•
Nan Basin: Thailand,
•
Sand Basin: South Africa,
•
Ocona Basin: Peru and
•
Tiquipaya- Cochabamba Basins: Bolivia
The following case study analyses the impact of applying the Negotiated Approach to a range of
activities from forest conservation to water allocations in the Bhima Basin of Western
Maharashtra, India.
In order to get a perspective of the local conditions, let us take a brief overview of water
management in India and the problems associated with it.
2
2. Socio-Political Context of Water Management in India
After gaining independence in 1947, the development of water resources in India was mainly
based on supply of water by large dam-and-canal systems conceived as independent and
discrete projects. Federal states were free to draw independent water management plans and as
a result, water management today is built on a sectoral, project-based view, leading to pockets of
prosperity in some places and drying fields at others.
rd
th
In this situation, the 73 and 74 constitutional amendments made in 1933 were a landmark as
they provided the enabling frameworks to local self-government giving village committees
(panchayats) the right to plan, develop and manage their own natural resources. This led to a
healthy growth of village level community organizations, with multi dimensional liaison and
technical assistance from urban-based voluntary organizations.
The present case study analyses the potential of local communities in managing their natural
resources sustainably, while working with a basin perspective.
2.1 The location and the context of the Bhima River Sub-Basin, Western India
The Bhima River is one of the main tributaries of the river Krishna, which forms a large river basin
in the southern peninsula of the Indian subcontinent. The Bhima River has a vast basin
comprising of about six million hectares, and flows from west to east passing through the states
of Maharashtra and Karnataka, before meeting the river Krishna, which flows further south to the
state of Andhra Pradesh where it meets the Indian Ocean. The basin consists of four municipal
corporations with a total population of 6,224,807 (Indian Census, 2001). Main occupation is
agriculture. River Bhima originates through moist deciduous forests in the Western Ghats of
India, which are one of the 12 biodiversity hot spots of the world. The basin is rich in biodiversity
with six wildlife sanctuaries. Community conserved areas known as the ‘Devrais,’ (sacred groves)
are also crucial sanctuaries for rare and endangered biodiversity as are man-made ecosystems
(mostly wetlands created by dams).
3
2.2 Gomukh Environmental Trust for Sustainable Development
Gomukh started work as a non-profit organisation in 1989 and dedicated itself to the promotion of
sustainable development, conservation of natural resources and the restoration of ecological
balance through village level planning and development.
In 1995 it was invited by
representatives of the villages in Kolwan Valley, located in the upper watershed of the Bhima
River Basin to take up a comprehensive catchment area treatment project financed by the state
government, popularly known as the ‘Drought Prone Area Programme’ (DPAP).
By the time the project was completed in 2001, Gomukh had implemented soil and water
conservation measures, constructed water impounding structures, implemented measures for
biodiversity conservation, created strong negotiating platforms and a community–based
institutional set-up through watershed committees,
Indian mythology considers the cow to be an
water users associations, Women’s Self Help
organic representation of the earth, similar to the
Groups etc. The Trust adopted a participatory
concept of Gaia in Greek mythology.
approach, by helping the villagers to register and
Translated literally, Gomukh in Sanskrit means
establish Watershed Development Committees
‘mouth of cow’ which is a symbol that depicts the
(WDCs).
This comprehensive approach towards watershed
management considers both supply and demand
management, promotes a rational and equitable
distribution and utilization of water. In the state of
Maharashtra, this approach is recognized as the
Kolwan Valley Model.
origin of all rivers. Consequently, temples were
built at springs where rivers originated and the
channelised spring water emanated through a
spout, which was in form of a ‘Gomukh’ carved in
stone.
Gomukh as a Trust, has adopted this concept as
its figurative symbol.
2.3 Mainstream approaches to water management in Bhima Basin and inherent problems
The major problems with the current planning process are:
a. Supply based management, emphasizing large dams and distributaries: Bhima basin is
subject to extreme variability in natural water distribution. While the upper watersheds receive
heavy rainfall to the tune of 2000 mm/ year, parts of the middle and lower regimes receive
rainfall as low as 135-mm/ year.
In this situation, the mainstream approach of constructing major and minor dams and
centralized canal networks resulted in improved water access to a very limited area. At the
same time, such water resource development had a severe impact on ecosystems and local
communities. The centralised approach does not try to bridge the gap created by the natural
inequities, but accepts it as a matter of course. At the same time, the command and control,
top down method of constructing large dams is capital intensive (around USD 4300/ hectare).
The main problem with the top down system is that it leads to a multiplicity of authorities
and no spaces or platforms for community participation or negotiations. This leaves the
deprived communities perpetually neglected and pauperised.
b. Inequity in water allocation: 51% of the basin area lies outside the purview of all
government water-supply schemes. Out of the remaining 49%, government canals irrigate
barely 4.7% and another 15% are supplied through private sources like lifts, pumps and
wells. Water intensive crops like sugarcane are planted on 3% of the cultivated area and
4
consume 22% of the total water available for irrigation . The case clearly demonstrates
distributional inequity. Only affluent stakeholders have been successful in harnessing the
limited water of the basin. Such distributional inequity has long lasting social, economic and
environmental impacts.
4
Second Water and Irrigation Report, Government of Maharashtra, 1999
4
The urban population of about 42% receives adequate and assured water supply ranging
5
between 70 to 265 lpcd (litres per capita per day) . Within the cities, approximately 35% of
the population, who live in slums, do not have access to safe and adequate drinking water or
sanitation facilities.
The sectoral water management system totally neglects the need of ecosystems. Water
allocations recognize only anthropogenic uses of water like drinking, industrial use and
irrigation.
c.
3.
The sectoral approach to water management has had a severe negative impact on
ecosystems. In most cases this impact has not been adequately documented. The
forest area in the basin has fallen from approximately 20% in 1950 to approximately 8% in
6
2000 . Due to unregulated abstraction, nearly 24% of the watersheds in the basin are
declared as critical or over exploited. Dams have altered the hydrological pattern of rivers and
as a result, the number of fish species is decreasing at an alarming rate. A recent study
conducted in Pune indicated that the diversity of nearly all aquatic and amphibian life forms
has reduced drastically. Of the 114 fish species recorded in the 1940’s, 48 could not be
recorded, of which 18 are feared to be locally extinct. This has had a severe impact on the
7
livelihoods of local fishermen .
Negotiations at work in the Bhima Basin
After working with rural and urban communities for more than ten years, Gomukh Trust and its
partner organisations were aware that powerful natural resource management strategies could
emerge and take shape from within the community, but the problem was the ‘absence of an
active and vibrant platform for negotiation between the various stakeholders and to encourage
replication and up-scaling of these strategies’
Gomukh Trust started working with a river basin perspective in a small micro watershed in the
Bhima Basin known as the Kolwan Valley. After gaining immensely through local wisdom and
insight in natural resource management, Gomukh Trust, along with Both ENDS initiated the
project ‘ River Basin Management: A Negotiated Approach’ to analyse similar inspiring examples
of local actions from seven countries.
By this time, the activities in Kolwan Valley had been upscaled to the entire Bhima Basin. What
follows are some examples of how negotiations with an ecosystemic and river basin perspective
guided us and the other stakeholders while making tough decisions and trade offs.
3.1 From local to regional: upscaling negotiations for conserving sacred groves and
establishing a perennial source of water
Background: Sacred groves are small patches of virgin forests protected through religious
sentiments. They have become sanctum sanctorum of biodiversity and important sources of fresh
water springs. With education and urbanisation, ancient belief systems are getting lost and as a
result, sacred groves are dwindling.
In response to declining sacred groves in the Kolwan valley, Gomukh Trust suggested the idea of
rejuvenating scared groves and natural springs to the community through the platform of
watershed meetings. The villagers supported the idea as this would amount to service to their
deity as well as a new drinking water source for the village. The grove had belonged to the Forest
5
For example, some cities like Pune have a per capita water availability of 265 lpcd whereas in downstream cities like
Solapur, per capita water availability is 70 lpcd.
6
One of the reasons for the sharp decline was the formation of the forest Department in the british colonial times that
disrupted the link between communities and forest lands and governed forests as independent entities. The communities
that depended on the Forests for a number of uses slowly changed from nurturers to exploiters. (Kothari. A, Pathak. N.,
Where Communities Care, IIED, 2000)
7
Freshwater Fish Decline in Pune Urban Area, Ranwa, 2001, Independent study, Malavika Mysore, 2001
5
Department since the British colonial times. Initially, the Department was not open to the idea of
8
diverting forestlands for “non-forest-purposes” . To overcome this impasse, Gomukh arranged
several dialogue meetings between the Forest officials and the village elders for resolving the
conflict. Gomukh advocated the view that protection, augmentation and regeneration of the
Sacred Groves and natural springs achieved through soil and water conservation and plantation
measures would improve the ecological status of the forest by retaining soil moisture, increasing
species diversity, providing much needed “water holes” for fauna, increasing ground water level
flora and improving sub-soil water percolation for recharging ground water aquifers. (Paranjpye,
Dialogue Experiences in the Bhima River Basin, Central India, Dialogue on Food, Water and
Environment, 2002). After several months of negotiation, the Department sanctioned and
supported the process in 2001.
Presently, the area of groves is expanding, biodiversity indices are improving and the water tank
built at the base of the grove collects fresh water from the spring and supplies it to a population of
almost 2500 people.
It is interesting to note that not only did the Forest Department support the project, but since
2004, the development of natural springs with tanks for water-regulation has been adopted as a
special program by the Government of Maharashtra for the Western (Ghat) Mountain ranges.
Thus, through negotiations, the idea of rejuvenating sacred groves through spring tanks was
mainstreamed as well as upscaled by the agencies that were initially hostile to the concept.
3.2 Saving the Ujjani Wetland through Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM):
From litigation to cooperation to negotiation
Ujjani wetland is a man-made wetland formed at the backwaters of the Ujjani dam. Ujjani dam is
located on the Bhima River, nearly 100 kilometers downstream of Pune. Built on a relatively flat
land surface, the submergence area stretches nearly 40 kilometers from the dam wall. It is one of
the 16 proposed Ramsar wetland sites declared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. It
was declared as a Bird Sanctuary in 1991 but was dereserved due to political pressures in 1992.
It has been a roosting and nesting site for a large number of water birds including the Flamingo.
The environmental impacts at Ujjani are an indication of the increasing water pollution in Pune
and the cities upstream of the dam. Science and Technology Park, a Department of the Pune
University, has been working on the biodiversity of the Ujjani wetland since 1999. They have
documented the impacts of water pollution on aquatic species and livelihoods of the local
9
fishermen . A major finding of the research was that problems like pollution, eutrophication and
encroachment by exotic vegetation were a direct result of upstream sources of pollution, mainly
from Pune.
Science and Technology Park alerted other civil society organizations (CSO) in Pune to their
findings. After several rounds of meetings with experts and organizations, more than ten CSOs
came together to form the River Action Group for tackling the problem at its roots, that is to try
and solve the pollution problem in Pune itself.
River Action Group (RAG) has been working for the past four years on several nallahs (urban
stream systems) that have become repositories and carriers of sewage to the river. RAG has set
10
up bioengineering models to treat the sewage in the nallahs and has involved citizens
(especially students) living along the nallahs through environment education.
River Action Group also held meetings about the project with officials from the Pune Municipal
Corporation (PMC). Initially, the officials were hesitant about supporting or being a part of the
project as they considered bioengineering methods to be high maintenance, but through
11
consistent negotiations from different platforms available to the CSOs , RAG was successful in
89
Contravention of the Forest Conservation Act (1980)
Concept Paper on Ecological Treatment of Polluted Streams, Dr. Sandeep Joshi, 2005
11
Newspaper articles, meetings, meetings not related to river pollution
10
6
getting PMC’s support. Although the PMC does not currently provide direct budgetary support to
the initiative, their support is evident through their actions as they routinely visit the area, donate
saplings and actively contribute to waste management strategies.
An important outcome of the negotiating process has been a change in Pune city’s River and
Stream Management Policy. In the year 2000, Gomukh, along with other Environmental NGOs
filed a Public Litigation Writ Petition against the Pune city administration, contesting the illegal
construction of a road within the city’s Mula-Mutha River system. After a long drawn out litigation
process the NGOs eventually won the case and the road construction was stopped. Five years
down the line, the same NGOs entered in serious negotiations with the PMC and the
Commissioner on the City Development Plan for the allocation of city budgetary funds for river
and stream restoration. Without this process, river restoration was certain to be overshadowed by
‘infrastructure’ projects like roads, malls and river ‘beautification’ projects.
CSOs used a variety of advocacy and negotiation efforts including presentations of scientific data
on rising pollution levels and its impacts on health and livelihoods. The officials were convinced
about the urgent need for action as well as the extent of local support for river restoration
projects. The PMC drafted a well-researched proposal for funding river restoration initiatives in
Pune, and submitted it to the Urban Renewal Mission of the Government of India. Fortunately, the
proposal has come through and nearly Rs. 459 million have been sanctioned for stream
restoration, bank stabilization, pollution and sewage treatment to improve the quality of river
water that feeds in the Ujjani wetland. This was a major victory for the river restoration options
and could be the key to saving the ecology of the Bhima basin and the Ujjani Wetland.
Citizens and municipal authorities have come a long way from litigation and conflict to
constructive dialogue and negotiations for restoring the city’s water systems. The collaboration
continues, as ten CSOs are currently working with the PMC on a proposal for Eco-restoration
12
through Integrated Water Resource Management in two watersheds .
3.3 ‘Integrated’ River Basin Dialogues
Throughout the Bhima Basin, there are a number of governmental and civil society organizations
working in water management. In the absence of a common platform, these organizations
continue working independently and integration at a river basin scale is difficult. The lack of
coordination also affects the efforts of organizations at lobbying and advocacy for equitable and
fair water management
As an attempt to bring together all stakeholders in the Bhima Basin, Gomukh Trust and its partner
organizations have been organizing several workshops and conferences to initiate a healthy
dialogue and foster strong networks between organizations
Evolution: In 2001, there were active conflicts between the various government departments
working in water management: the Groundwater Survey and Development Agency (GSDA) was
at loggerheads with the Irrigation Department; the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board had filed
a case against the Pune Municipal Corporation for polluting the Mula-Mutha River (a tributary of
River Bhima); and there was a serious conflict between the Irrigation Department and the
Municipal Corporation about over-abstraction of water and flood control. At the same time, the
citizens and farmers who were worse affected by these conflicts were playing the role of silent
onlookers.
Realizing the futility of such quarrels, Gomukh Trust along with other voluntary agencies decided
to establish a periodic dialogue between the government agencies and other stakeholders.
Gomukh also realized that taking up issues and resolving conflicts was important and that it was
equally important to broaden the dialogue process and establish a forum for discussing matters
of policy which had not yet reached the status of a conflict. To initiate the dialogue, the issues
chosen for discussion were the National Water Policy, the importance of ‘Dialogue’ and
12
http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/cerna_globalisation/Prog/India.htm
http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Progeuropeens/INUWASAPI/Inuwasapi.html
7
alternative approaches to water management. All concerned stakeholders and representatives
were invited for the first round of the dialogue in the second week of February 2002 in Pune. As
organizers, Gomukh felt encouraged that all State Agencies dealing with water and a large
number of civil society representatives attended this dialogue and freely discussed several
issues.
Since the Workshop on National Water Policy, Gomukh and its partner organizations have
regularly organized workshops and conferences on various aspects of water management. What
has emerged is an active and alive platform for dialogue and negotiations. Additional
workshops organized so far have addressed, for example, the State Water Policy, Dialogue on
Participatory Irrigation Management Act, Bhima Multistakeholder Workshops (I and II) and River
Basin Management Workshop. In the same spirit, the Upper Bhima Water Partnership has been
created.
The upshot of the initiative was that even on intangible issues of policy, apparently conflicting
parties and citizens in general are willing to join a dialogue if the process is sufficiently
participatory, and if it continues to acquire social credibility through the media. What was often
heard from the participants was that they had all wanted such a dialogue but were waiting for
others to initiate it. An important lesson we learnt was “Somebody Has to Bell the Cat”. It is
interesting to note that in the Bhima Basin, the media coverage and public discussions on issues
like ‘water privatization vs. social ownership’, equitable distribution of water, citizens’ participation
in decision making, pricing of water etc. have been increasing.
In April 2007, Gomukh Trust and its partner organizations took the dialogues a step further and
organized a River Basin Management Workshop for participants from Maharashtra and the
neighboring state of Karnataka. Maharashtra and Karnataka have been fighting over the waters
of Krishna (of which Bhima is a major tributary) for more than 20 years. We are hoping that
through local initiatives and stakeholder pressure, water management issues will be solved
through dialogue and negotiations and not tribunals limited to politicians and bureaucrats.
3. Lessons Learned:
1. Negotiations are dynamic and may not conform to project timelines or budget lines:
Negotiations for Integrated River Basin Management are a result of an empowered
community that has a clear idea of the problems and its own demands. In order to reach this
stage, especially in developing countries, several stages like capacity building, social
mobilization and information dissemination have to be completed. For example, if the local
community has to negotiate for its water rights with the government agencies, then the
external agency has to make efforts for ‘leveling the playing field’. These activities are
dynamic and, in most cases, time consuming. At the same time, it has been our observation
that negotiated processes finally end up being more time and cost effective than the
conventional approaches.
2. Negotiated resolutions of man–nature conflicts essentially require a suo-motto initiative, or an
agent of change in this case, CSOs like Gomukh Trust and partner organizations, to
represent natural ecosystems and for carrying forward the process sustainably. It is our
experience that the environment is the weakest stakeholder at the negotiating table and
hence requires a strong advocate dedicated to its protection.
3. Scaling up the negotiated IRBM approach is possible through appropriate technology
interventions and social mobilization: Appropriate technology interventions that are small
scale, easy to operate and maintain and environmentally friendly work best with negotiated
IRBM. In the Bhima Basin, local communities are involved in designing, constructing and
maintaining small-scale water harvesting structures and this has led to the creation of
8
negotiating platforms like the water users groups and watershed committees, culminating in
13
an annual multi stakeholder watershed conference.
4. Building community understanding of IRBM: We learned that it is important to demystify
the subject of IRBM and ecosystems management and bring it in the realm of open
discussion, not restricted to subject experts and scholars. This was done through small,
personalized meetings in rural communities, and through newspaper articles and
conferences for urban residents. We have seen that common people are interested in the
discussion and are able to easily grasp the abstractions. It seems that IRBM approach is
intuitively acceptable to urban as well as rural populations.
5. Capacity building: In the initial stages, external organizations play an important role to build
the capacity of the community to participate effectively in negotiations. This helps in making
the community stronger and better informed at the negotiating platform, and also gives them
a river basin perspective in water management. Rural as well as urban communities have to
be introduced to concepts of equitable water sharing, downstream (and upstream) impacts
and deficit sharing.
6. Special efforts to include the disadvantaged: Merely creating platforms for negotiations
does not guarantee equitable participation. Weaker or marginalized members of society like
families below the poverty line, disadvantaged classes and women tend to stay away from
open discussions for a variety of reasons, including social stigma. It is therefore important for
external organizations to specifically encourage these classes and proactively ensure that
they participate and that their voice is hear
Contact Details:
Prof. Vijay Paranjpye/ Ms. Parineeta Dandekar
Gomukh Environmental Trust for Sustainable Development
92/2, Durga,
Gangote Path
Erandwane,
Pune 411 004
IUCN Water Programme
13
Kolwan Valley Water Conferences are being held every year in the months of November-December for the past five
years
9
IUCN Water Programme