Thursday 8 January 2015

Comments on Draft National Policy Guidelines on Water Sharing/Distribution among States (2013)

It is argued that since neither the river board’s act nor the river disputes act of 1956 say anything about water sharing/distribution such a policy is needed. It is only recommendatory in nature.
The document defines several concepts in water sharing, details out the principles for water sharing and the guidelines for what it terms as equitable sharing of waters and finally outlines the mechanism for monitoring, administration and conflict resolution.  Without going into a clause by clause analysis of the document, here we would like to state some of our broad concerns around what gets conveyed as the essence of the draft policy guidelines.


Its broad objective as laid out in the document states the following
 “Developing the waters of inter-State rivers for the betterment of the population of the co-basin States/Union Territories such that developments are not detrimental to the interests of one another and are guided by national perspective”-The overarching concern is the national perspective and a very broad notion of what comprises betterment of the population. There is no mention of either sustainability or equity in explicit terms either here or in the document elsewhere. The question of water for environmental flows is thus completely sidelined, just as the equity issue is.

In its principles it lays emphasis on sharing of interstate waters through a quantification of water of the basin. While this could be seen as a positive step, it remains non committal on whether the entire quantities would be shared or certain specified quantities could be shared.  The principles outlined include concepts such as equitable apportionment, right of water use, autonomy for the states to allocate their share of the water to the different uses within the state, import and export of water, long distance water sharing etc.
Autonomy of the state in deciding allocations for particular uses is welcome, but it needs to be within a legal framework of priorities set at the national and state level.  These priorities have to include the right to basic water for all. 

A reading of the principles of import export of water and long distance water transfers leaves us with an impression that the draft policy guidelines are mainly about creating a favourable environment for the broader project of inter-linking of rivers.  

The policy guidelines explicitly state that existing uses and existing inter-state arrangements would be protected and accommodated. While the concern to recognize existing uses and sharing arrangements is welcome, it will reassert the current inequities and may also close possibilities of opening up spaces for more equitable sharing of waters and allocation for different uses. 

The most important section is one that provides guidelines for equitable sharing of waters and this includes physical features such as drainage area in a state, temperature, and vegetative cover etc, current requirements of water in the co-basin states, practicability of using the water share demanded and availability of alternative sources for supplementing the water demanded.  

None of these guidelines talk about either people living in the basins or the environments. The assessment of requirements of the water within a basin is based on the current uses and not on what ought to be the uses keeping in mind the sustainable use of the resource and the equitable sharing of water.  

Lokabhimukh Pani dhoran sangharsh manch believes that setting water priorities for the different uses of water should be based on the principles of sequentiality and proportionality. So for example sequential principle would mean that basic domestic water requirements (water for drinking and cooking, cleaning, sanitation) will be met first for the entire population of the basin and only once these are met shall we move on to the next priority which is water for livelihoods and then the next priority which is environmental flows. Proportional sharing is applied to uses that extend beyond the above mentioned uses (norms would of course have to be reworked in a distress situation) such as commercial farming, industries etc.  The point being conveyed here is that inter-state water sharing will also have to consider alternative paradigms and not base its equitable sharing/distribution by studying the current use patterns which are largely inequitable and embedded within the unsustainable resource use paradigm.   

On a concluding note the overt emphasis on interlinking of rivers at the cost of water for people and environment needs to be reconsidered by reorienting the guidelines for equitable sharing to bring people and environment to the centre.


Lokabhimukh Pani Dhoran Sangharsha Manch 




No comments:

Post a Comment