SPECIAL ARTICLES

Pax:

Water Resource PlanningChanging Perspectives

Ramaswamy R Iyer

Water resources planning in India has largely meant irrigation development through big-dam projects.':Over the years a powerful movement has emerged against such projects. The paper spells out the issue's*involved and the opposing views. There is a sharp polarisation of attitudes on this matter. The Worli'Commission on Dams established by the World Bank and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in order;!to resolve this impasse is expected to submit its report in the year 2000. A crucial question in this context-would be whether there are effective alternatives to large dams for meeting the future needs of water and-energy. There have been some very successful local initiatives in watershed development and social'''transformation, which seem to indicate that significant results can be achieved through these means. What'is needed is a major reorientation in the approach to water resource policy. The paper sets forth some?recommendations in this regard. :{r'r

I

IN India, the idea of 'water resourcesplanning' is of relatively recent origin. Inthe past, irrigation and to some extenthydro-electric power were the mainconcerns: and this largely meant theundertaking of several big projects, ofwhich perhaps the most well-knownexample was Bhakhra-Nangal. In recentyears, however, there has been muchopposition to large-dam projectson severalgrounds: and there is a growing advocacyol a change in the approach to the planningand management of water resources. Thepresent paper will give an account of thesechanging perspectives, set forth the issuesinvolved and outline an approach. It isintended to be a broad tour d'horizonrather than a scholarly paper, and it isaddressed to all those who are interestedin issues of public policy, in government(at the political and bureaucratic/techno-cratic levels), in academia. in the media,and in the general public.

II

In pre-British India water-managementwns essentially a local matter and was inthe hands of the community. This changedwith the advent of the British period andof 'modernity1. Control over waterresources passed from the hands of thecommunity into those of the state. Whileownership of natural resources wasclaimedby the state, management passed into thehands of engineers and bureaucrats. Theinduction of western engineering usheredin the era of large dams and there was aconcomitant decline of traditional formsof small-scale, local, community-managed

3198

systems of water-harvesting and manage-ment. The new projects became symbolsof 'development' and came to be regardedas 'the temples of modern India' (inNehru's famous phrase).1

The basic syllogism in the modernengineering approach to water resourcesdevelopment proceeds.- from the spatial and temporal variabilityin the availability of water (the con-centration of precipitation in a few monthsor even weeks of the year, and the factthat the different regions of the countryvary from conditions of excess rainfall toarid or drought-prone conditions),-through a view of rivers as 'surface waterresources' to be 'harnessed' and 'exploited'lor human use with the instrumentality ofscience and technology; the understandingof 'use' to mean 'abstraction' (largely forirrigation); and a tendency to think ofwater that flows to the sea as 'wasted',- to the conclusion that projects need tobe undertaken for the large-scale storageof river waters and their transfer overspace and time.

This is reinforced by the economic ordevelopmental syllogism which proceedsfrom an equation of development with

^e ver-higherconsumption and the exaltationof demand as sacrosanct to the formulationof supply-side solutions in the form oflarge projects.

(The very expression 'water resourcesdevelopment' has acquired a specialisedmeaning in India: it is implicitly taken tomean dam-and-reservoir projects).

There has been a long-standing pre-occupation in this country with the ideaof a transfer of surplus waters from thenorthern and central rivers to the southern

parts of the country which are chronic-ally water-short. Several decades afterK L Rao mooted a Ganga-Cauvery linkJyDastur talked about a 'Garland Canal';those ideas still continue to beguile Thegeneral public. From the 1980s onwardsthe National Water Development Agencyhas been studying possibilities of storages,links and transfers. In the deliberationspfthe National Commission on IntegratedWater Resources Development Plan (setup by the government of India in ^96and expected to submit its report by tfemiddle of 1999), an important thenw^j'inter-basin transfers'. There isalsoadesueto tap the abundant waters of the remoteBrahmaputra river and take them to.tljeareas where they are felt to be needed. Inenergy planning, a much-canvassedproposition is that there is a huge hydnv •electric potential in the Himalayan rivenand that this should be realised througha number of gigantic projects: the p ifocus in Indo-Nepal talks on watresources has been on large projects.suas Karnali, Pancheswar and SaptafcOTp

However, disenchantment with laijjeprojects has been growing during the.laatwo decades or so. The Silent ValleyProject in Kerala was abandoned. IT*,.Narmada (Sardar Sarovar) Projec t^Gujarat and the Tehri Hydro-Electrt'Project in the Himalayan region ;ljffbeen stalled by strong anti-prof"movements and their future will <on the final outcome of public inpetitions pending in the Supreme C^JA similar anti-project movement:to be gathering strength against ; |Kalabagh Project in Pakistan. In N ftoo, there is some opposition to t

Economic and Po

jm

I projects mentioned earlier, and in onei'ease. namely. Arun ID. the World Bank; found itself obliged to withdraw from the! project. Even in China, there is some(jjssidence. though muted, on the ThreeGorges Project. Projects proposed longago in the north-east of India (Dihang,gubansiri. Tipaimukh) and in Bhutan(Manas. Sankosh) have made hardly anyheadway because of opposition on diversegrounds. No large-dam project in the futurejs likely to have an easy passage. Theearlier tacit consensus on such projectshas clearly broken down: the statementthat they are "the temples of modern India"no longer commands universal assent.Some of them have become highly con-troversial and some face fierce opposition.How did this happen? The answer lies ina convergence of dissatisfactions with

; such projects from diverse points of view:(i) financial/economic: unconscionable

delays in the completion of projects:repeated changes in scope and modi-fications in design; an insatiable demandfor resources, imposing severe strains on

E the government budget and crowding outother worthwhile investments; theincreasingly unaffordable capital cost per

; .hectare of what goes by the name of' majorirrigation": the failure of many projects toachieve the projected benefits; theirinability

: to generate revenues for re-investment or.even for propermainienance. partly becauseiof the poor pricing of irrigation water;i-. (ii) political economy' aspects: the:powerful influence of vested interests in

|Uhe planning and implementation ofjvprojects; the widespread prevalence of' '-corruption: collusions and nexuses among

•bureaucrats, engineers, politicians,.consultants, contractors, etc: serious.inequities in the incidence of costs andbenefits - viz. cosis borne by one set ofpeople and benefits gained by others,benefits accruing largely to the big farmers,excessive water use by the head reachfarmers leading to limited and uncertainavailability to the tail-end farms, etc:

(iii) environmental/ecological concerns:• ranging from an enumeration of specific

•̂ •adverse "impacts' to fundamental criti-'• cisms of the technological hubris and thepathological relationship to nature that

'characterise such projects, and a questio-• ningofthe underlying notionsof'develop-• mem".

(iv) concern about the displacement ofpeople and dissatisfaction with re-habilitation policies and practices:including, as special cases, criticisms otthe adverse impact of such projects onweak and disadvantaged groups, tribalcommunities, women, etc; and

(v) the movement for the 'empower-ment ' of the people vis-a-vis the stale:the restoration to the community of theearlier control over common resources,etc.

All these strands are important, but theenvironmental and displacement aspectsare at the heart of the controversy.

HI

The environmental and other 'impacts'are project-specific and vary from case tocase: but the following is a generalisedaccount in compendious form.

(i) The very processes of projectconstruction in remote and often pristineareas (cutting and blasting, movement oflarge trucks and heavy earth-movingequipment, generation of noise and duston a large scale, establishment of constru-ction colonies, induction of large numbersof people from outside, etc) involve aviolent disturbance of nature and atremendous upheaval in the lives of localinhabitants (often tribal communities):

(ii) The creation of a large reservoir(and the construction of a system ofcanals) means the submergence of land(agricultural or forest land, andsometimes rural and urban settlements),the displacement of people and theirlivestock, the loss of occupations, andso on. (Land is also taken away forproject 'colonies");

(iii) The stilling of flowing water bringsabout drastic changes in its morphologyand quality (temperature stratification,variations in nutrient content and dissolvedoxygen at different levels, etc) which havegrave consequences for aquatic andriparian life. The decay of submergedorganicmattercould also leadtoemissionsof some greenhouse gases:

(iv) The most serious impact of thedamming of a river is on the fish population,which is doomed todecline rapidly becausemovement is impeded and spawninghindered;

(v) The reservoir spells danger for wild-life through possibilities of drowningor marooning; habitats and routes of move-ment arc disrupted; groups and inter-dependent species could be split and food-chains broken: some species could dis-appear, and this in turn could affect otherspecies. (Communication links betweenhuman settlements could also be disruptedby the reservoir);

(vi) Flora too could be affectedthrough the construction processes, sub-mergence and other factors. Some species(endemic and/or rare) could be endangered,and herbs and medicinal plants of localor wider importance lost.

Economic and Political Weekly December 12. 1998

Taking the loss of forests and Ihe impactson flora and fauna together, there couldbe considerable loss of bio-diversity.

(vii) The reservoir and the canals couldfacilitate the spread of disease vectors andcould lead to the increased incidence ofmalaria, filaria, schistosomiasis, etc;

(viii) The creation of a large water-bodycould bring about climaiological changes:

(ix) Projects in seismically active areas,such as the Himalayan region, are subjectto the riskof earthquakes and their possible 'impact on the dam and the slopes of thereservoir. There may also be possibilitiesof re-activation of old and dormant faults.An important issue on which there isconsiderable difference of opinion is thatof 'reservoir-induced seismicity" (RIS);

(x) The damming of a river affects thewhole river regime. Flows as well as thesilt load and nutrient content downstreamof the dam would be substantially reduced, }and this would have an impact on lives, !occupations and livelihoods downstream i(fisheries, the plying of boats, agriculture, !settlements alongside of the river, indu-stries, etc). Estuarine conditions may alsobe adversely affected (decline in fish popu-lation, the incursion of salinity from ihesea, etc). The reductionof flows also meansa deterioration in water quality and anincreased concentration of pollutants inthe river downstream of the dam. A furtherconsequence of reduced flows is a declinein groundwater recharge;

(xi) In some cases, structures of religious,historical or cultural importance may bein danger of submergence or damage:

(xii)Thereisan inherent and unavoidablerisk in the damming of a river. Undernormal circumstances, and having regardto the design, a dam could conceivablymoderate Hoods; but in the event of theoccurrence of floods of an order higherthan the 'design flood" the dam itself couldbecome the source of great danger;2

(xiii) The construction of canals could(unless great care is taken) disrupt thenatural drainage leading to drainagecongestion. In the command area, thepractice of canal-irrigation for some yearscould result in the emergence of water-logging conditions and the salinisation ofland, and in some instances valuableagricultural land may go out of use:

(xiv) Lastly (though this is not a neces-sary consequence of dams), the belief inthe virtues of dam-building and extensionof irrigation often leads to ihe applicationof these ideas in the wrong places. (Forinstance, irrigated agriculture may not bethe best option for a desert area; andthe attempts to convert nomads to set-tled agriculture, or failing that, to induct

3 199

i j

agriculturists from other areas, as wasdone in Rajasthan. may not be the wisestthing to do.)

That was a summary and simplifiedaccount of the kinds of consequences thatlarge-dam projects could have. Not all ofthem occur in all cases, nor are they allof equal importance, but quite a numberare common to many projects and manyof them are indeed matters for concern.

TV

These implications and rami fications oflarge-dam projects were not well under-stood in earlier years, but they are nowwidely recognised. Not even the mostardent advocates of large dams will denytheir negative aspects. Faced with acatalogue of ills, their response will bethreefold.

First, they will readily concede that allthese 'impacts' need to be studied fullyand thoroughly. There is a general agree-ment that proper 'environmental impactassessment' (EIA) studies must be madein all cases; that this should be a part ofproject formulation ab initio and not anexercise to be undertaken to meet anexternal requirement after the project hasbeen prepared: and that the EIA studyshould be an important element in theprocess of project appraisal. EIA is nowa standard requirement, and both theCentral Water Commission and theministry of environment and forests havelaid down detailed guidelines on scope,coverage and methodology. A clearanceby an Environmental Appraisal Committeeunder the ministry of environment andforestsisapre-requisiteforfinal investmentapproval to all big projects.

Secondly, it will be argued that once afull EIA is available, what is needed ismerely the reckoning of all the environ-mental and displacementaspectsas 'costs'(in addition to the direct financial costs)and the balancing of these costs againstthe 'benefits' which the project will bring(increased agricultural production resultingfrom irrigation, increased industrial activitymade possible by hydroelectric power,their multiplier effects, etc) in a thorough-going cost-benefit analysis.

Thirdly, it will be pointed out that theplanning of a project would include theformulationofdetailedmeasurestoremedyor mitigate or compensate for the adverseimpacts of the project (catchment-treatment programmes for arresting thedeterioration of catchment areas andrestoring degraded parts; compensatoryafforestation schemes for offsetting theloss of forests: devices such as fish laddersto facilitate the movement of fish: escape

3200

routes, corridors and alternative habitatsto mitigate the distress of wildlife: thedevelopment of reservoirfisheries to makeup for the decline in fish populations inthe river; preventive and curative publichealth measures to combat the incidenceof water-borne diseases; elaborate re-habilitation 'packages' to help project-affected people to cope with the pain ofdisplacement; measures such as improveddrainage and the conjunctive use ofground water and surface water to counterthe emergence of water-logging or salini-sation in the command area; and so on).

Unfortunately that line of argumentignores several serious difficulties.

In the first place, environmental andother concerns continue to be regarded asdisagreeable external impositions; theyhave not become integral parts of projectplanning from the start, despite many'guidelines'and instructions to thiseffect.Everyone pays lip-service to those con-cerns, but the prime interest is in theengineering aspects. The implicit assum-ption is that water planning is essentiallya matter for engineers. (It is significantthat the Central Water Commission whichregards itself as the apex body for waterplanning in this country is not a multi-disciplinary body encompassing agri-culture, environmental sciences, econo-mics, sociology, law, etc, but is merely abody of engineers.)

Secondly, EIA studies are notoriouslyundependable. When they are undertakenin-house by the project planners, thedesireto get the project approved may influencethe EIA and render it suspect. Even whena reputed external consultancy firm isengaged (as is often the practice), thethoroughness and objectivity of the studycannot be taken for granted. It needs tobe recognised that the insidious pressureon the consultant to be 'positive' aboutthe project could be very strong: to saythis is not to imply that there is collusionbetween the project-planner and theconsultant. The latter has an interest (notnecessarily conscious) in coming to theConclusion that the adverse impacts of theproject can be remedied or mitigated orcompensated for, that the project will stillremain viable; and that the overall balanceof costs and benefits will be favourableto the project. A consultant who says:'The impacts of this project are too graveto be mitigated oroffset: the project shouldnot be undertaken" is unlikely to securemany assignments. It is only a disinterestedexamination by an independent appraisalagency, say, the ministry of environment

and forests or an agency appointed by kthat could be expected to be truly neutraland objective. Even that agency couldcome under strong pressure from otheragencies within the government to be'positive' and supportive of 'develop-ment'. . ;;Sji

Thirdly, it is unrealistic to imagine thatany EIA. however careful, can be madetruly comprehensive and exhaustive.Large-dam projects often constitutehorrendous interventions in nature, and itis impossible to foresee all the conse-quencesof such enterprises. Despite exten-sive studies there may be many aspects,dimensions and ramifications which havenot been taken note of. (This is not*general a priori statement, but has in factbeen found to be the case in several in-stances). • .

Fourthly, it is not always possible toremedy or mitigate or compensate for theill effects of such projects. For instance,what goes by the name of 'compensatoryafforestation' is a delusion. It is rarelyfeasible to create a new 'replacementforest'in the neighbourhoodof the existingone which will be submerged, or in thesame ecological zone; quite often thecompensatory afforestation takes place ina distant and very different area. Further,while such afforestation may be ..asuccessful effort and may evolve into anew ecological system in due course, whatis lost cannot be replaced: that ecologicalsystem is gone forever. Again, the changesin river morphology and water qualitybrought about by stilling a flowing streain,and the impact of such changes on aquaticand riparian life, simply cannot'be,remedied. The decimation of fishpopulations by the damming of a river is..also totally inescapable; fish ladders, etc, 'rarely work satisfactorily, and thedevelopment of new reservoir fisheries!!?no answer to the distress and disasterinflicted on existing fish populations*.Similarly, once a dam is built, the riverwill never be the same again: flowsdownstream will necessarily be reduced,with unavoidable consequences foraquaOClife and riparian communities. Displace^ment because of submergence, agahwftinescapable, and rehabilitation 'packages}*howeverenlightened and generous, donalways work well in practice. • •• fl<^

Fifthly, the cost-benefit calculusisjflawed basis for decision-making bea(i) it is susceptible to manipulation (care usually understated and benefits o%stated); (ii) it is necessarily incand inadequate (not every aspect ordMnsion can be brought within the an*fthe calculus); and (iii) it is morally1**

Economic and Political Weekly December I2.-'I

(the infliction of misery on some people isoften sought to be justified on the groundthat a larger number elsewhere willbenefited).

Pious declarations about giving theproject-affected persons a share in thebenefits downstream are rarely translatedinto practice. References to 'stakeholderparticipation' have now become fashio-nable, but it is doubtful if this indicatesany depth of concern about such matters.Indeed, the very term 'stakeholder' isironic: in what sense can the hapless com-munities uprooted from their centuries-old habitats fortheconstructionof projectsbe regarded as 'stakeholders' in thoseprojects, when they are in fact the victimsof the projects?

Finally, these are the benefits (directand indirect) of a project which are heldto justify the costs (financial and social);and that justification (i e, the case for theinfliction of misery on people and damageon the environment) tends to getundermined by the fact that the costs arecertain to be incurred and are almost alwayshigherthan projected, whereas the claimedbenefits are often problematic and may not

• be fully realised.

•-.' V I

I In this context it is necessary to takenote of some apparently clinching argu-ments in favour of large projects.

A point made by some supporters ofsuch projects is: yes. doing things has acost; but there is also "the cost of not

; doing'. This argument is often reinforcedi by the rhetorical question: where the' country would have been without BhakraNangal? Many find this line of argumentpersuasive. However, this is not a new or

i additional argument, but only a familiar; one in a different form. "The cost of notdoing" means merely that in the absenceof the project certain benefits would notbe available. This is nothing more than theold argument that the benefits justify the

1 costs: we have already dealt with this.Further, it is fallacious to equate the non-undertaking of a large project with "notdoing'. The choice is not between "doing

r.aproject' and "not doing anything': thereare other things (such as demand manage-

' "tent, conservation, local water-harvesting,jj 'etc) that can be done. As for the question' of what we would have done withoutBhakra Nangal. it is a hypothetical one towhich only a speculative answer can begiven. We know the Bhakra Nangal'scenario' because that is what actuallyhappened: we do not know what thealternative history would have been.However, we need not readily assume that

il would have been one of an absence ofdevelopment on the agricultural front.Understandably, data and information areavailable only in respect of the route (oflarge projects) actually taken, and not inrespect of the alternative routes that havenot been explored. All that one can do isto point to the successful instances ofwatershed development and socialtransformation and say that there is noreason why these cannot be replicated inlarge numbers.

Another seemingly powerful argumentis that even if there is no need for largeprojects for irrigation, they are definitelyneeded for the generation of hydroelectricpower, that given the magnitudes ofdemand projections large additions togenerating capacity are called for; that asuitable thermal-hydro mix is required formaintaining a proper balance betweenbase-load and peaking capacities; and thathydroelectric power is 'clean', i e it doesnot create the kind of pollution that isincidental to coal-burning. Certainly, boththe power shortage problem and the peakdemand problem need to be dealt with; butcentralised generation in large projects isnot the only answer to those problems. Ithas been argued (by A K N Reddy andGirish Sant. among others) that througha combination of demand management,energy-saving, technological improve-ments, and getting more generation out ofcapacities already installed, the need foradditions to capacity can be greatlyreduced: that significant additions can bemade through extensive decentralisedgeneration; and that if this approach wasadopted very few large projects would beneeded. This proposition, which runscounter to the establishment view, has notbeen given serious consideration. As forhydro power being "clean", the falla-ciousness of that argument has beendefinitively brought out in PatrickMcCullys Silenced Rivers. While theoperation of a hydroelectric station maynot emit harmful g as esorspread paniculatematter as coal-burning does, the constru-ction of the project and the existence ofthe reservoir itself have a whole range ofsevere environmental consequences, aswe have already seen: such a project canhardly be described as 'clean'.

It is also argued that the big cities(Delhi. Mumbai, Calcutta. Chennai) arevery short of water and that only largeprojects can meet their needs. This is anunexamined assumption. There is enor-mous scope for the augmentation ofsupplies to such cities through local efforts(in addition, of course, to proper demandmanagement). Realising that the prospects

of water from distant projects are remoteand uncertain, Delhi is now seriouslyexploring the possibilities of local aug-mentation through increased storage inexisting channels such as the NajafgarhNalla, re-activation of old and disusedwater-bodies such as the one at Hauz Khas,roof-top collection of rain-water, and othersimilar means. The ideaofroof-topcollec-tion also seems to be catching on inChennai.

The proposition that the future needs ofwater, food and energy can be met throughalternative means and that large dams arenot required is confidently asserted bysome, but it cannot be said to have beenfully established: further work on this isnecessary. Indeed, this is the crucialquestion for consideration. However, thosewho are against large dams would say thati n any case dams do not serve the projectedpurposes but do far more harm than good,and that the establishment of alternativescannot be a pre-condition for rejectingsomething we know to be bad. That is anargument that deserves the most carefulconsideration.

vnAt this stage it may be useful to refer

to rny association with two major projectreview committees. I was a member of the'FiveMemberGroup' set up by the ministryof water resources in August 1993 to gointo several issues raised by the NarmadaBachao Andolan; it submitted its reportin April 1994. and then, on the directionsof the Supreme Court, a further report oncertain specified issues was submitted (byfour members) to that Court in April 1995.I was also a member of the High LevelExpert Committee (set up by the ministryof power in 1996) on the environmentaland rehabilitation aspects of the TehriHydro-Electric Project: the committeesubmitted its report in September 1997.I learnt a great deal from my work on thesetwo committees.

Such reviews have to proceed againstconsiderable resistance. There is a tendencyto treat the project as sacrosanct and tokeep on saying that while social andenvironmental issues should be lookedinto, the project must go on and must notbe disturbed. It is of course possible tounderstand the consternation and dismaythat project planners and managers feelwhen basic questions are raised at a latestage. One can also appreciate the pointoften made that the processes of appraisaland review must come to an end at somestage: that there should be some finalityto investment decisions; and that a projectshould not thereafter be subjected to the

i I

Economic and Political Weekly December 12. 1998 3201

uncertainties of repeated reviews of afundamental nature, eachonenecessitatinga suspension of work on the project.However, if in fact the doubts raised andquestions asked are of a serious and sub-stantive nature and satisfactory answersare not forthcoming, and if there is reasonto believe that these had not been ade-quately examined in the earlier processesof appraisal, should one rule out a freshexamination on the ground that thereshould be "finality at some stage"?

It is often claimed that the Sardar SarovarProject is one of the most elaboratelystudied of projects, but nevertheless notall the environmental impacts andramifications of the project are knowneven now: for instance, the impact ofreduced flows downstream of the dam (onthe occupations of fishermen and boatmen,on downstream aquatic life and ripariancommunities, and on estuarine conditions)had not been adequately studied earlier.Again, while in general terms it was knownthat wildlife would be affected by thecreation of the reservoir and that measuresmust be taken to minimise hardship, notenough preparatory work was done inadvance. On the question of seismicitysome work was done in the early stagesof planning based on the prevailing stateof knowledge, but after the Latur earth-quake this has become an aspect whichneeds to be further studied. Similarly, in(he case of Tehri not enough work hasbeen done on issues such as impact onflora and fauna, waierqualiiy. rim.stability,etc: and on the seismicity aspect, whichwas referred to a separate expert commit-tee, a difference of opinion among theexperts continues.

The pan passn condition which wasintroduced when the Sardar Sarovar andNarmada Sagar projects were given con-ditional clearance has been misinterpretedand has not really worked. The originalintention was that construction workshould not proceed ahead of environmentaland rehabilitation measures, but a commonargument is that in such projects of longgestation there is plenty of time for en-vironmental and rehabilitation measures,and that these can be taken up in duecourse in the light of the progress on theconstruction front. Thus, instead of pro-gress on the environmental and humanremedial measures determining the paceof project construction, the relationshiphas been reversed.

(The resistance of the engineeringestablishments to environmental concernsis illustrated by the tendency to quibbleabout catchment-treatment work: projectauthorities agree that this is necessary but

3202

are reluctant to undertake it as part of theproject: they argue that the cost of suchwork should not be debited to the project.They try to make a specious distinctionbetween 'directly' and'indirectly' drainingcatchments, i e. the immediate catchmentwhich drains direct into the reservoir andthe catchments further upstream whichdrain into the river or a tributary andeventually into the reservoir).

Turning to the human aspects, we onceagain find that the impact is never fullyknown in advance. For instance, in theSardar Sarovar Project, the NarmadaTribunal had estimated that the number offamilies affected by submergence wouldbe around 7.000: the number is now putat 43,000 families, and this is not a finalfigure. Besides, this is only the numberof families in the submergence area; othercategories affected by the project such asthose who come from outside to providesupplies and services to people in thesubmergence area and who stand to losetheir livelihoods are not included in thisnumber, nor is the category of canal-affected people. Moreover, some of theenvironmental remedial measures such ascompensatory afforestation and catchment-treatment, and even the resettlement ofproject-affected persons (PAPs). could inturn have an adverse impact on peoplealready living in the areas chosen for suchpurposes, and could lead to what is referredto as "secondary' displacements (and thesecould result in further displacements!)Thus, the number ot project-affectedpersons (PAPs) keeps growing and is neverfinally known.

Further, there are serious deficienciesand failures in the implementation of therehabilitation package. There is not enoughland for the "land for land' principle; the'cluster'approachof keeping communitiestogether is not easy lo implement: somefamilies get pushed into distant areas: therelationship with the host community inthe resettlement areas is uneasy; somegroups arc forced into totally unfamiliarways and environments: and so on. Morethan anything else, the implementation isoften marred by bureaucratic sloth,inefficiency and callousness. There areoften considerabledelays in compensationpayments, the giving of title to land or theprovision of promised facilities in therehabilitation areas. When difficult issuescome up. there is a tendency on the partof the administration to find short-cuts orsimplistic answers. When serious problemsarise, there is first a tendency on the partof the administration to deny that theyexist; then belatedly they are recognised;and still later some kind of half-hearted

solution is found: it is generally a case oftoo little and too late.. An effective grie»vance-redressal machinery is absent; andwhen resistance to displacement develowbecause of hardship, the state tends'toreact with incomprehension and forced-

It was because of all this that sonjecritics (for instance, the controversialMorse Commission, i e. the IndependejaReview set up by the World Bank on theSardar Sarovar Project) go so far av(omake the general statement that rehabili-tation is impossible. Without necessarilysubscribing to that sweeping statement, itmust be conceded that resettlement andrehabilitation in the case of such largeprojects certainly present enormous dif-ficulties. Even in the SSP. despite arehabi-litation policy which marksagreat advanceon earlier projects, resettlement/rehabilita-tion has run into serious problems^ndmuch hardship has been suffered byjheaffected people. As for Tehri. 15 yearsafter displacement the original PAPs hayestill not been properly rehabilitated andarc living in miserable conditions. (Thejeis also much taik of corruption, (hough onedoes not know the precise extent ofjuincidence). 'a\"&\

The state suffers from an inability tpwork closely with the people or with theNGOs representing them. The generalgovernmental attitude is well-illustratedby the belated and grudging response.toMedha Patkar' s and S underlal Bahuguna' scritiques (of the Sardar Sarovar and TehriProjects respectively), and the disingenihous manner in which review committeesin these two cases were set up:Jippe$initially held out of extensive discussion*were belied, and the scope of the reviewwas severely restricted. (Even the .won}"review' was carefully avoided in the$$P

case!). ••'*•**.It may be added that despite muchjajfc -

of integrated planning for a hydrology?unit such as a basin or sub-basin, planningin this country continues to be essenifiproject-based. The basin merely pra background for this, and the lof integration' is merely a form gin the direction of currently fashiojtafc|eterminology. Planning understod ^Cabove lines tends to remain in theof the state, i e. bureaucrats,and ministers: there is hardly anythis kind of approach for participcommunity-based planning.

VIII

As mentioned earlier, severalcriticism have converged into amovement against such projects^within the countries concerned and

Economic and Political Weekly December 12.M

nationally. There is a sharp polarisationof attitudes on this matter. Unfortunatelythe debate between the 'pro-dam' and•anti-dam' points of view is marred byhostility and prejudice on both sides. Thereis an impasse on this issue.

The pressure of the anti-project move-ments, the sharing of some ot'theirconcemsby certain governments, the desire of bothgovernments and the dam-building andequipment-supplying industries to bringthe uncertainty surrounding such projectsto an end. and the World Bank's owndesire to obtain a clear mandate on thismatter, led to an unprecedented consulta-tion conference at Gland in Switzerlandin April 1997. Following that consultation,the World Bank and the World Con-servation Union (IUCN) have togetherestablished a World Commission on Dams(WCD) with a composition reflectingdifferent concerns and interests. Thecommission has begun its work and isexpected to submit its report in the year2000. One wonders whether the WCDwill lay the controversy to rest with adefinitive pronouncement or confound theconfusion further with a split report. (TheWCD had to abandon a public hearingplanned in India because of objections by' the government of India at the instance ofthe Gujarat government which did not

'want the Sardar Sarovar Project to bej discussed- hardly a promising start to theiwork of the commission.)

IX

; The feeling that changes are needed inthe prevailing approaches and attitudes towhat has come to be known as water

iresoureesdevelopment'(WRDthad begun:to emerge even in the 1980s when the'country's National Water Policy (NWP); was being formulated. The NWP (in thei initiation and drafting of which I played• acertain role as secretary, water resources,j in the government o( India in 1985-87),was intended among other things to be the

; first step in a reorientation in sectoralthinking from an excessive preoccupation

', with "major irrigation" and with large, projects towards a concern with issues of.. resource policy and management. (This" was also the intention behind the renaming;0f the erstwhile department of irrigation• as the ministry ol water resources in 1985).: However, the entrenched attitudes weretoo strong for the kind of re-orientation

. that was envisaged, and the NWP itself.though it was intended to chart a newcourse, did not manage to shake itself freeof the old ways of thinking.

In subsequent years, the growing salience•.of the new concerns, (he gathering strength

of anti-project campaigns, and the re-discovery of value in the old traditions ofwater-harvesting and management, com-bined to make the case for a change in theapproach to water planning more per-suasive. This was reinforced by the wideacclaim gained by certain successful localinitiatives in watershed development andsocial transformation. Ralegaon Siddhi.Sukhomajri, Tarun Bharat Sangh, and soon. have been written about and discussedextensively. Local water harvesting andconservation ('catching the raindrop as itfalls') and watershed development havebeen strongly urged by many, and theseideas have begun to make headway. TheCentre for Science and Environment(CSE). New Delhi, has brought out avaluable book entitled Dying Wisdomwhich gives an account of diverse traditionsof local water harvesting and community-management of common resources, andmakes a strong plea for the restoration ofthoseold systems. At anational conferenceon water harvesting organised by CSE atDelhi on October 3-5.1998. many instancesof efforts at water harvesting and con"servation in different parts of the countrywere presented and discussed, and fourquite remarkable people who havesignificant achievements to their creditwere honoured by the president of India.

However, there is another trend whichgoes counter to this. In recent years, arecurring theme in water studies is theimminent water crisis. The thesis is thatwi th finite supplies and a growing demand(because of the growth in population,economic development, etc) the pressureon the available supplies of water willincrease enormously, and that theconstraint will become very severe in thenext decade. Many seminars and con-ferences have been held on the subject,and agencies such as the World Bank andthe ADB are much exercised by the grimprospects which have been put forward.The projection of a water crisis leads to(he postulation of large projects as thesolution.4

Thai these two approaches are divergentis not always recognised. The advocacyol small local water harvesting or watersheddevelopment schemes on the supply side,combined with demand management andeconomy in water use. is often receivedwith nods of agreement, but this apparentacceptance is misleading. The inclinationof most policy-makers and planners istowards large-scale, technology-driven,engineering-dominated, non-participatoryprojects rather than towards local, small-scale, people-centred,' participatoryschemes and activities. They woulddoubt-

Economic and Political Weekly December 12. 1998

less say that there is no conflict betweenthe two and that both are necessary, buttheir preference is clearly for big projects.Gigantism continues to hold sway in thisas in other fields. In this view water-harvesting and watershed developmentschemes are seen as being at best minorcomponents of overall planning; it is feltthat they cannot possibly be substitutes forlarge projects. The fact that cumulativelya large number of local efforts could makean enormous difference to ihe overall pic-ture is rarely recognised. The whole weightof bureaucratic, engineering and politicalopinion isagainst taking these possibilitiesseriously and examining them.

X

Before drawing the threads of thisdiscussion together and formulating someconclusions, a brief digression to take noteof certain related matters seems necessary.

The first point is that there has beensome talk of late about a national waterpolicy", and this has also figured in thenational agendaof the ruling coalition: butthere is some confusion here. There isalready a national water policy adopted bythe National Water Resources Council inSeptember 1987, and what is needed is areview and reformulation of that policy.Farther, the current talk about a nationalwater policy is in the conicxt of an inter-state dispute over river waters - the Cau-very dispute - and what is envisaged is aset of principles on water-sharing. Thiswi II not amount to adeclaration of resourcepolicy.

Secondly, there is a tendency to ex-aggerate the importance of what is knownas participatory irrigation management'or "irrigation management transfer". Thisis a movement for the transferof the respon-sibility for the distribution of irrigationwater and for the operation and main-tenance of irrigation systems at a certainlevel from the state to fanners" associations- a very desirable development and amajorreform in the irrigation sector, but not ananswer to all the ills of the sector, andcertainly not a matter of resource policy.

A third red herring is the plea for theproper pricing of water. Pricing is indeedvery important, but the whole question ofresource policy and planning cannot bereduced to that of pricing. Allied to theadvocacy of 'getting prices right" is theproposition that "water is an economicand social good" - a theme on whichseminars and conferences are organised.Yes. indeed water is an economic andsocial good - if we are thinking of the useof water for irrigation orpower-generationor for process or cooling purposes in

3203

I i

.1

industry. But water for drinking andwashing is a basic human (and animal)need, and in this context it would be wrongto describe it as a 'social or economicgood': it is a basic human (and animal)right. (I am not suggesting that it shouldtherefore be a free good.) Sustenance ofaquatic and riparian life and the naturalenvironment is also among the primefunctions of water, here too it is hardlyan 'economic' good. Besides, even incontexts where such a description wouldbe right, we must be wary of bringingabout the transformation of water into acommodity: that danger lurks behind thenotion of water markets, though these mayhave a role to play within a framework ofcareful regulation.

XI

In the light of the foregoing discussion,what re-orientations are needed in relationto water policy? I would propose thefollowing.

(i) Reversing the usual approach ofproceeding from projections of demand(as if demand were autonomous andsacrosanct) to supply-side solutions, we

must proceed from limited availability tothe response of demand-management andresource conservation. Such a reversalbecomes even more imperative as waterwhich is a scarce resource becomes stillscarcer.

(ii) Water-resource management ratherthan development should become thewatchword for the future. Economy in theuse of this scarce and precious resourceand the conservation of available supplieswill have to be central to planning. (Thiswould include increased efficiency andavoidance of waste in all uses, recyclingused water, maximising utility per unit ofwater, and so on. It would also include thecareful management of ground water so asto maintain quality, limit extraction to therechargecapability, prevent mining exceptin emergencies and under controlled con-ditions, and avoid the incursion of salinityfrom the sea in coastal areas. That subjecthas not been gone into in this paper.)

(iii) Supply-side responses are not to beruled out, but they need not mean onlylarge projects. Significant augmentationis possible through local water-harvestingand water-management. The focus should

shift from the basin or sub-basinsmall watershed (which is also a y i ological unit). Water planning shouldj*essentially local. The effort should bejjomake each locality manage its own Watq-needs through water-harvesting.\jia&conservation schemes. Thethnist in futureplanning in respect of water must3hetowards bringing about a vast networfcofthousands of local initiatives. (As meo-;

tioned earlier, there have been some sue-cessful instances of local water managb.ment and social transformation, but thesehave remained isolated examples. lttfinecessary to identify the factors whichmake for success or failure, and thosewhich facilitate or inhibit replication.)^

(iv) Traditional systems of watermanagement which have fallen intodisuseneed to be revived and strengthened. ThS'must be another 'thrust area' in futureplanning. Similarly, the restoration,;pfdefunct water-bodies and the rehabi Illationand preservation of wetlands should,betaken up as urgent tasks. •'if'oJr

(v) Large projects, if considered neces-sary at all. must be regarded as projectsof the last resort, to be undertaken only"

•s.Y

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF APPLIED ECONOMIC RESEARCH"Parisila Bhawan", 11 Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi - 110002

The Position: Chief Economist/Principal Economist,Agriculture and Rural Development Programme Area.

NCAER has a vacancy for the position of a Chief Economist/Principal Economist in Agriculture andDevelopment Programme Area. The Council has been conducting studies on various aspects of Agriculture, IrrigationJfand other allied subjects. The incumbent is expected to contribute/lead the Council's activities in these fields. , ' . J |

Chief Economist is equivalent to a Senior Professor level position; Principal Economist is equivalent to a,-|Senior Associate Professor/Junior Professor level position. Only one appointment will be made. The level wilt jdepend on suitability and qualification. l '

Qualification: Ph.D. in Economics/Agricultural Economics from a reputed Indian or Foreign University.

Age Limit: 45 years - Relaxable in exceptional cases.

Experience: Must have a minimum of 10 years research experience in designing, organizing and executing^research activities in Agricultural Economics either in a University, Research Institution ortiGovernment Department. Candidates should have capabilities to guide other colleaguesorganizing and conducting Agricultural Research. Must have ability to write clearly and succinct!Must be familiar with leading software packages for data analysis.

Salary: The NCAER pays competitive salaries. Gross salary for the Chief Economist will be in the ran*of Rs. 28,900 - 37,900 per month and for the Principal Economist it will be Rs. 23,300 - 31,3<per month. This includes allowances such as Flexible Pay, House Rent allowance, PerformanceVariable allowance, medical reimbursement and transport reimbursement as per the Council'srules. In addition there are provisions for the usual benefits such as provident fund contribution^and gratuity as per the Council's rules. Interested candidates may write to the Registrar for detajjj"of the pay compensation package.

Applications with particulars of qualifications and experience together with copies of published papers/reporshould reach the Registrar & Secretary at the above address by January 15, 1999.

3204 Economic and Political Weekly December 12, k

after examining all otherpossibilities, andafter a stringent scrutiny.

(vi) In sectoral planning, whether for bigprojects or small, whether for resourcedevelopment or management, the fullparticipation of the people and the NGOswith a good record of social mobilisationshould be ensured from the earliest stages.

(vii) Access to water has to be recognisedas a basic human and animal right. Therights of the community over commonresources, environmental water rights (i e.the role of water as the sustainer of thenatural environment of which it is a panand of" aquatic and riparian life), and the

.water rights of the river (or aquifer) itselffor the maintenance of its quality andintegrity, also need to be recognised. Atthe same lime, water has to be regardedas an economic and social good in the

• context of irrigation, industrial use, etc.Principles to govern the relative prioritiesof different demands and the snaring ofwaters by different users need to be laiddown. A comprehensive water law needsto be formulated on this basis.

Such a re-orientation cannot be easily• brought about. However, the effort needsto be made. It is here, and not in grandiose

• projects, that the answer to future needsis to be found: and here, and not elsewhere,lies the route to true "sustainability". Theelaboration of that theme will necessitatean examination of what constitutes•development", but that cannot be under-taken within the ambit of this paper.

Notes

[I am grateful 10 Himanshu Thakkar for goingthrough the first draft of this atiicle and providingme with some useful comments]I This has been much quoted but his later doubts

and cautionary remarks aboutsuch projects arenot often referred to.

• 2 "I do not know much about gods, but I thinkthat the riverIs a strong brown god - sullen, untamed andintractable.

Patient to some degree, at first recognised asa frontier:

Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor ofcommerce:

Then only a problem confronting the builderof bridges

The problem once solved, the brown god isalmost forgotten

By the dweller* in cities - ever, however.implacable.

Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer.reminder

Ol what men choose to forget. L'nhonoured.•liipropitiated

By worshippers of the machine, but waiting.watching and waiting."

- T S Eliot. Fiiur Quartetsy The disenchantment with embankments as a

me!hod of flood-control and the emergence of:i strong popular movement against them tendsto reinforce the anti-project movement. The

question of flood control is a complex anddifficult one: it has not been deal! with in thispaper.

4 A related theme is ihe likelihood of con-flicts arising from the competition for scarcenatural resources and the security implica-tions of such conflicts. That debate falls out-side the scope of this paper, but the interestedreader is referred to my article entitled 'ScarceNatural Resources and the Language ofSecurity' inlhe Economic and Political Weeklyof May 16. 1998.

ReferencesAsian Development Bank (1998): The Bank's

Polity on Water: Working Paper. August.Harh Mukti Abhiyan (1997): Proceedings of the

Second Delegates Conference, Patna.Biswas. Jellali and Stout (1995): Water for

Sustainable Development in the21st Century.Oxford University Press. Delhi.

Biswasand Thanh! 1990): EnviniinneimillySiHiiiilWater Management. Oxford University Press.Delhi

Centre for Science and Environment ( W&2Y. Stateof India's Environment: The First CitizensReport. New Delhi.

- (1985): Suite of India's Environment: TheSecond Citizens' Report. New Delhi.

- (199 \):State of India s Environment: The ThirdCilinens' Report: Floods. Floodplnins andEnvironmental Myths. New Delhi

- (1997): Dying Wisdom: Rise. Fall and Potentialot India's Traditional Water HarvestingSystems. New Delhi.

l.):ilye. K R (1994): Nannada-Oulline of anAlternative, notes for presentation to the FiveMember Group on various, issues relating tothe Sardar Sarovar Project. Report, vol II(Appendices).

Dhawan. B D (1993): 'Indian Water ResourceDevelopment for Irrigation: Issues. Critiquesand Reviews.

- (ed)( 1990): Big Dams. Claims. Counterclaims.Commonwealth Publishers. New Delhi.

Dreze. J. Meera Samson and Satyajit Singh (eds):The Dam and the Nation: Displacement andResettlement in the Nannada Valley. OxfordUniversity Press. Delhi.

Gaur. Vinod K (ed) (1993): Earthquake Hazardand the Large Dams in the Himalaya.INTACH New Delhi.

Goldsmith. E and N Hildyard (1984): The Socialand Environmental Impacts of Large Dams.Vols I and 2. Waderbridge Ecological Centre.Cornwall.

Government of India (1987): Nutinnai WaterPolicv. Ministry of Waler Resources.

- (1993); Reassessment of Water ResourcesPotential of India. Central WaterCommission.

- (1992): Report of the Committee on the Pricingof Irrigation Waler. Planning Commission.New Delhi.

- (1992): Guidelines for Watershed Conservationand Development Programme. CAPART.November

(1994): Report of the Five Member Group onVarious Issues Relating to the Sardar SarovarProject, Ministry of Water Resources.

- (1995): Further Report of Ihe FMG on CertainIssues Relating to the Sardar Sarovar Project',(unpublished).

- (1997): Report of the Expert Committee onIhe Envimnmental and Rehabilitation Asepclsof iheTehri Hydro-Electric Project'. Ministry

of Power. New Delhi I unpublished).HIMALII99X): Fantastic Dams' (special issue).

vol I I. Number 3. South Asian Maga/me.Kathmandu. Nepal

Indian National Academy of Engineering! 1990)Water Management: Perspectives. Problemsand Policy Issues. New Delhi

Indian Water Resources Society i 1997) RiverBasin Management: Issues and Opiums.New Delhi

- (1998): Five Decades of Water ResourcesDevelopment in India. New Delhi.

International Conference on Water andEnvironment (1992): Dublin Statement.Dublin.

Jayal. N D (1993): Ecology and Human Rights.INTACH.

McCully. Patrick (1998): Silenced Rivers: TheEcology and Politics of Large Dams. OrientLongman (India).

Mishra. Dincsh Kumar (1990) llarh se mist -Sinchai sc past: Utlar Biliarki Vvutha Kalhu(Hindi). Sainata Publications Patna.

Morse. Bradford and Thomas Berger (1992)Sardar Sarovar: Report of the IndependentReview.

Nehru. Jawaharlal (19X9): Modern Temples o\India: Selected Spceilies. Central Board ofIrrigation and Power. New Delhi. April

Pangare. Vasudha and Ganesh (1992): FromPoverty to Plenty: The Story of RnlegaonSiddhi. New Delhi

Paranjapy. Vijay (1990): High Dams on ilicNurmudti. INTACH. New Delhi.

Rao. K L (1975): India's Water Wealth: ItsAssessment. Uses and Projections. OrientLongman. New Delhi.

Reddy. Ainulya K N and Ginsh Sant (1994).Electrical Pan of the Sardar Sarovttr Project.submission to the Five Member Group on theSardar Sarovar Project (report of the FMG.Vol II. Appendices).

Shankari. Uma and Esha Shah (1993): WalerManagement Traditions in India. PPSTFoundation. Madras

Singh. Chattrapati (1991): Water Rights andPrinciples of Water Resources Management.Tnpathi (for the Indian Law Institute).Bombay.

Singh. Satyajit (1997): Taming the Waters: ThePolitical Economy of Ijtr^e Dams in India.Oxford University Press

Thukral.EG( \S>92): Big Dams. Displaced PeopleRivers of Sorrow. Rivers of Change. SagePublications. New Delhi

Vaidyanathan. A (1991): Integrated WatershedDevelopment: Some Major Issues. Society forthe Promotion of Wastelands Development.Foundation Day Lecture. May

Verghesc. B G (1994): Winning the Future.Konark. New Delhi.

Vohra. B B (1990): Managua: India's WaterResources. INTACH. New Delhi.

Water Nepal (1998): Special issue on water re-sources development, vol 6. no I. January-July. Kathniandu. Nepal.

World Bank (1991): India: Irrigation SectorReview, vols I and 2. July.

- (1998): Policy Paper on Waler ResourcesManagement. 1993.

- (1998): India - Water Resources ManagementSector Review. March.

World Bank and IUCN (1997): Large Dams:Learning from the Past. h>akim>iitlhe Future.Julv.

! • •

1 v

Econij and Political Weekly December 12. 1998 3205