IUCN IUCNWater WaterProgramme Programme

NEGOTIATE Toolkit: Case Studies

Negotiating our way through Livelihoods and Ecosystems: The Basin Experience1 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 Goals2. 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 well- meaning 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 () 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 , 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 -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. In this situation, the 73rd and 74th 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, 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 , 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 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 ).

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, water users associations, Women’s Self Help Indian mythology considers the cow to be an Groups etc. The Trust adopted a participatory organic representation of the earth, similar to the approach, by helping the villagers to register and concept of Gaia in Greek mythology. establish Watershed Development Committees Translated literally, Gomukh in Sanskrit means (WDCs). ‘mouth of cow’ which is a symbol that depicts the origin of all rivers. Consequently, temples were This comprehensive approach towards watershed built at springs where rivers originated and the channelised spring water emanated through a management considers both supply and demand spout, which was in form of a ‘Gomukh’ carved in management, promotes a rational and equitable stone. distribution and utilization of water. In the state of Gomukh as a Trust, has adopted this concept as Maharashtra, this approach is recognized as the its figurative symbol. Kolwan Valley Model.

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 consume 22% of the total water available for irrigation4. 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 between 70 to 265 lpcd (litres per capita per day)5. 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. 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 20006. 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 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 livelihoods of local fishermen7.

3. 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 , 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 diverting forestlands for “non-forest-purposes”8. 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 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 fishermen9. 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 up bioengineering models to treat the sewage in the nallahs10 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 consistent negotiations from different platforms available to the CSOs11, RAG was successful in

8 9 Contravention of the Forest Conservation Act (1980) 10 Concept Paper on Ecological Treatment of Polluted Streams, Dr. Sandeep Joshi, 2005 11 Newspaper articles, meetings, meetings not related to river pollution

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- 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 through Integrated Water Resource Management in two watersheds12.

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 an annual multi stakeholder watershed conference.13 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