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.
Its broad objective as laid out in the document states the following
Lokabhimukh Pani Dhoran Sangharsha Manch
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