[Excerpts from a discussion on “Water Community”]

“24/7 Water Supply is too Expensive.”
Monday, March 02, 2009 12:07 PM

The quality of service in urban water supply in most Indian cities remains low, notwithstanding high subsidies and major investments in the sector. Leakage rates are high, most of the poor are not even connected to the water lines, and the rate of water borne disease is among the highest in the world. Further, despite high subsidies, when coping costs are included (household pumps, storage, and treatment, as well as lost time), the real cost to the consumer for this water is often higher than in other Asian countries that offer significantly better service.

To overcome these problems many organizations have sought to increase the water supply available through water tankers and public stand posts. Others have focussed on Point of Use (POU) in-home treatment systems or sought to develop self-sustaining water kiosk systems where residents can purchase 10 litre containers of water at a nominal price. You can read more on the debate at

http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/cr/res 16020901.doc

The discussion process
The pros and cons of a 24/7 water supply were discussed at the Water Community’s Annual Forum held on 23-25 July 2008 (for more details please visit ;

http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/environment/resource/annual_forum_2008.pdf;

PDF; Size: 600KB)

and it was felt that the discussion should be taken up by the Community. As a follow-up, this discussion will focus on the role of continuously pressurized (24/7) water supply. No longer a “pipe dream”, 24/7 water has been provided in the last few years in Navi Mumbai, Mysore, Badlapur, Hubli-Darwad and Jamshedpur.

Some of the preconceptions I would like to challenge and discuss in response to proposals for 24/7 water supply are:
• “24/7 water supply is wasteful as it requires too much water and would not be sustainable for most Indian cities”
• “24/7 water is too expensive for India. The poor can’t afford it and the rich don’t need it”
• “24/7 water supply, even if it could be achieved, would be inequitable to the poor, far better to ration water by hours of supply so that rich and poor alike have equal access”
• “24/7 water supply is a needless luxury good, no one needs water 24 hours per day”

I will like to discuss each of the issues around 24/7 water supply, given above, to determine if they are genuine obstacles, major but surmountable challenges, or only simple misunderstandings.

“24/7 Water Supply is too Expensive.”

Background: To the extent that continuous (24/7) water supply is even recognized as being technically possible, it is normally associated with wealthy countries like the U.S., Japan or the U.K. and/or wealthy individuals. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, 24/7 water is only possible for the rich.

This kind of thinking certainly has logical appeal. If 6 hours of water per day is barely affordable, for example, then obviously 24 hours per day would cost 4 times as much and would be well out of the reach of most people in a poor country like India. Perhaps one day when India also becomes a wealthy country then 24/7 water would also be possible.
I seek the Community’s inputs on the following:

1. What do families with and without a metered connection pay for water (including water bills plus in home storage, pumping and treatment)?
2. What does it cost (per kilolitre of water) to produce, treat, and distribute this water and how much is recovered through user fees?
3. What are the other implications of intermittent water supply, e.g., impact on health, incomes, standard of living, etc?
The results of this discussion will feed into the on-going policy debate at the Administrative Staff College of India and help us to develop a framework on continuously pressurized water supply for cities.

DAVID FOSTER
Centre for Energy, Environment, Urban Governance and Infrastructure
Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Email: dafoster@aol.com

Monday, March 09, 2009, 9:37 AM

I was fortunate to hear the presentation from David Foster on the Hidden Costs and benefits in Water Supply leading to the argument for cities to have 24X7 water supplies in India. The argument is well crafted – David Foster made us calculate how much does it cost for the poor to get water from a far off place (rather than having water from their tap – most probably 24X7) and the graph automatically calculated that rich are paying far less than the poor that poor pays more, that an improved water supply will decrease the health burden, etc.

Well, this argument is nothing new and anyone who is working in Urban WatSan wouldn’t differ from the argument that a larger proportion of poor person’s income goes in getting access to water supply and that there are many advantages for having water supply and safe sanitation bordering on health and other related benefits. However, there are issues of the affordability of the poor for an improved water supply. When David calculated the cost of water that poor pay using a simplistic estimate based on the cost of fetching water being equated with wage rate employment, one wondered how to calculate the opportunity cost of the poor from gainful employment.

People live in low income settlements without access to water and sanitation only because they can not afford to live in settlements where accessing these basic services cost. They can not afford largely because they do not have opportunity for gainful employment. How could we equate daily wage of a woman if there are no opportunities for her to be gainfully employed? There are other issues of city wide pipe systems not being strong enough to supply 24X7 water. Engineers at the workshop, debated that the infrastructure in Indian cities are not equipped to handle 24X7 water supply and that a superior system (city wide) needs huge investment where will this money come from? People like Dr. Avinash Jutshi and Dr. Kulkarni (of Bhagirathi) argued on these lines.

Another issue was the comparisons of Delhi and Paris which gets 250 and 150 lpcd respectively but the hours of water supply varies between one to 24 hours respectively. So a 24X7 water supply can happen even in 150 lpcd scenario and when Paris can do this, why cant Delhi? Now, there was almost an agreement that even the government system doesn’t know the calculation of water demand and supply in any city – I wonder who calculated 250 lpcd water supply in Delhi and how? Is it as simple as water supply divided by population? If yes, then what about productive use of water other than domestic sector? What about non-revenue water? Has that been taken into account? Organisations like Parivartan have argued that the total water supply in Delhi is much less than 250 lpcd as claimed and it is mainly due to accounted water. Does comparing two cities with different agro-climatic conditions, water availability and management scenarios and different history of economic development proves the case?

Despite these issues, I support David Foster’s argument that we need 24X7 water supplies for the obvious reason that there is no harm in thinking of a superior system. So where is the problem? Dr. Foster raised number of myths which go against the argument of having 24X7 water supplies. These myths are also listed in his 4 statements that he has provided us for discussion.

I asked him to let us know which cities in India or South Asia have implemented the idea of 24X7 water supply and what evidences we have if this has worked well there. From my understanding, I do not know any well operational city-wide initiative for 24X7 water supplies in India. JUSCO’s example was given as a passing remark where this has been achieved. Having been born and brought up and being connected to Jamshedpur, I do admire the status of basic services there, but we shouldn’t forget that it is a planned city where people are directly related to one establishment (Tata Group of Companies) and that makes the service much easy. However, even in JUSCO operated areas, the unaccounted water is about 20%. JUSCO doesn’t operate in entire Jamshedpur city but only in the areas which is controlled by Tata. The moment you go out of JUSCO area, there are problems of water supply. If JUSCO can make it happen in their area so efficiently and with profit, why can’t they extend the same services in areas outside Tata town? At a conceptual level and for academic discussions, 24X7 water supplies definitely is a good idea but the fallacy lies in the concerns that lead to non-operationalisation of this idea. 24X7 water supply in India is not devoid of issues of governance, inequity, urban planning, decentralization, integrated planning and urban poverty.

To many people I spoke to in the workshop, the apprehension was of the back door entry of privatization of utilities in the name of 24X7 water supply and the urban poor. I have very limited understanding on this issue, but I would like the group to keep me and others informed on the policy prescription that follows the agreement on a city-wide 24X7 water supply arrangement. I would be happy to know that the policy prescription of 24X7 water supplies actually doesn’t lead in favour of the privatization of utilities.

Further, Prof. Srinivas Chary of ASCI, who was chairing this interesting session, informed the group that the idea has been tried in Mysore, Latur, Hubli, and Dharwar (cities of India) and that it is working well. I should stand corrected if I got this wrong from Prof Chary but if it is true, I would be glad if the group shares their experiences and the nuances of how is this noble concept has been working in these cities and what benefits poor have been extended to.

ANJAL PRAKASH
SaciWATERs
Secunderabad

Thursday, 12 March 2009

The simple model Anjal is referring to is available at the same website that I mentioned earlier: www.indiawaterportal.org/blog/2008/02/09/ on-the-hidden-cost-of-free-water/. As Anjal rightly says, this is primarily a means of reminding the critics that so called “free water” can be pretty expensive. This is true whether the person carrying the water is a young girl who should be in school or an adult trying to exist on a severely limited income. The “opportunity cost” is simply your best estimate of what they could do with the time saved and its value.

Anjal is also correct in saying that there were serious questions as to whether Indian cities could provide the infrastructure for 24/7 water. When it was pointed out, however, that cities in Afghanistan, Cambodia and Uganda have provided this level of service, then most participants began to think that India could do this also. Likewise the examples from Jamshedpur, Hubli, and Navi Mumbai further caused participants to recognize that 24/7 need no longer be a pipe-dream.

Anjal was not alone in being surprised that Paris has long provided 24/7 service with only 150 LPCD while many cities in India produce far more than this and still provide only a few hours of service per day. This confirms that for most cities it is not the just quantity of water but the quality of the management.

Although there is still limited experience in India with 24/7 supply, experience from other countries clearly demonstrates that this service can be provided in old as well as planned cities, rich and poor communities, and in countries with both limited water supply and those with abundant water supply. Furthermore, even the limited experience in India already demonstrates that 24/7 supply can be provided in slum areas at affordable rates.

Finally regarding the question of links between 24/7 water supply and privatization, there are plenty of examples of both public and private 24/7 systems. The answer is that the hours of supply per day do not dictate the form of ownership. The highly regarded system in Singapore is public while the one in Paris is private. Most urban water systems in the UK are private while most of those in the U.S. are public. These decisions regarding ownership of water supply grew out of the local history, culture, and systems of governance but the real issue is not whether the system is public or private but, whether it is efficiently managed and provides safe, sustainable, and affordable water to all.

DAVID FOSTER
Centre for Energy, Environment, Urban Governance and Infrastructure
Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Email: dafoster@aol.com

Friday, March 13, 2009 5:02 PM

 On calculating how much does a bad water supply costs the poor, I have no disagreement. There is a large pool of literature especially from political economists critiquing opportunity cost theory and on the reductionist idea of equating things in mere economic terms. The point is that if we calculate the cost equated in economic terms, we cannot justify the equation because there is no definite cost that can be associated with a person without understanding the opportunity they have. For anyone who is not convinced that the poor pay more for basic services proportionate to their income, this argument is fine in a simplistic format just to make them understand, but there are problems in applying this argument for more concrete understanding of life and society. As I had previously stated, 24X7 Water Supply is a superior form of service and we should go for it. The question now is to see where and how do we do this and what safeguards the poor shall have in this ‘superior’ model of water supply. The hitch lies in there.

I am happy to hear that Afghanistan, Cambodia and Uganda have provided the 24X7 water supply probably to its urban centers. I have limited exposure in this particular area and so I need to know more on how it was achieved, for how long are they running it, and what implications it has on the poor. If the poor and the marginalized have got 24X7 access to water supply without ‘paying’ more than they used to pay before, I would be most happy to hear that. The problem is that most of the documents don’t give us a clear picture on how the poor have benefited by the water sector reforms in any of these countries. If you have literature that has supported this from the poor’s perspective, let’s share this in the public domain and further our discussion from there.

Each case, I am sure, will be unique with different political economy at play. Painting them with one 24X7 brush is something, I would be very careful about. Citing cases will not help unless each case is read and discussed. This is mainly because your argument is coming from poor’s perspective and not much on efficiency standpoint which was largely the case sometime before and have been contested quite heavily. I have already written about Jamshedpur’s case which I know about personally …this is quite different from the WSP’s documentation and portrayal of JUSCO’s case and this is the perspective one is talking about. I am not sure about Hubli and Navi Mumbai, so I had requested the group to give us a feedback especially from their professional experience in working closely at these places. We still don’t know what benefits the poor got in Hubli (Navi Mumbai will be a different case), Dharwar, Latur, etc.

On comparing Paris with New Delhi, the point was to be careful in assessment when two cities have different levels of economic development, agro-climatic conditions, and water use scenarios, etc. Paris can have 24X7 water supply because it is not New Delhi and vice versa. Why is Paris not New Delhi is a question well understood. The point is that each country is different (as they operate with different political economy) and within a country, each city is different. They need to be understood in a context. We do not have much success on 24X7 in India and we can only learn from other countries which match our criteria (definitely not Paris!). How do we do this? The answer is much localized especially in India where water is a state subject and each state has its own track record of service delivery. However, my question was also on the claim that “24/7 supply can be provided in slum areas at affordable rates” in India. We need to know the evidence of how it has been done. Since you are researching on this issue currently, I look forward to receiving some literature on this to examine how the poor has been benefited.

My point concerning the poor being benefitted is repeated because you are entering 24X7 water supply from this route so, I consider ‘benefits to the poor’ as the entry point and having 24X7 water supply to a limited area as the criteria of success. Let’s scan the interventions from this perspective and take the argument ahead. I am sure privatization agenda will have a lot to contribute against the “benefits going to the poor”. Finally, on hours of supply not being dictated by forms of ownership (read privatization),

I must inform the group about a study done by WaterAid in 2005, “Implementation of Asian Development Bank’s Water Policy in India”. A three-country study (Bangladesh, India, and Nepal) provided an independent input for the ADB’s own initiated Water Policy Implementation Review. WaterAid, as part of a “knowledge partnership” with ADB, conducted this study during 2005 (with funding support from ADB). I need not say here what ADB stands for in utilities all over Asia, as it is self evident. The study involved active engagement with a range of researchers, NGOs, sector specialists, and the ADB staff (so don’t reject this as critique by CSOs) in India. This study covered four Integrated Urban Development projects, at different stages of implementation, in three states (Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh) with a close look at the access of sustainable water and sanitation services for the urban poor. The study reveals a low level of implementation with regard to developing a comprehensive water policy, promoting accountability and autonomy of service providers and strengthening women’s ability to participate. Medium level of implementation is evident in participation of the poor and addressing their needs, optimization of agency functions, promotion of sustainable plans for capacity building, developing and adoption of water action agendas and encouraging involvement of civil society and adoption of cost recovery mechanisms.

The debt analysis of the cases shows that there is complete divergence between pre-feasibility projects and actual policies followed by the ULBs on tariff revision. Feasibility studies have made unrealistic projections and recommended tariff rises of nearly 8.4 times. Cost recovery on capital costs and O&M is being attempted, further burdening cities and overstepping ADB’s water policy regarding cost recovery. ULBs have not been involved in making financial projections.
Kindly check out the following documents for reference on the above: http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/adb_water_for_all  .pdf  and
http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/adbbook_1.pdf

ANJAL PRAKASH
SaciWATERs
Secunderabad

Call for papers for special issue of SAWAS (South Asian Water Studies)

www.sawasjournal.org 

Changing water governance in India: taking the longer view

 Guest editors:

P.P. Mollinga (ZEF, Bonn) and S.P. Tucker (Govt. of Andhra Pradesh) 

Background

The European Commission funded research project called STRIVER has over the past three years (July 2006 – June 2009) looked at issues of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water governance in the Tungabhadra sub-basin of the Krishna basin. On June 30, 2009, a seminar-workshop was held in Hyderabad discussing some of the findings of that research and other South Indian experience. Instead of focusing on the immediately pressing issues of today, the seminar-workshop deliberated on the longer-term scenario and trends in water governance in the present context of a fast-growing economy and globalisation. The following papers were presented. 

1.  
   1. IWRM in the upper-Tungabhadra basin: tanks and watershed management (Suhas Paranjape, Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management, SOPPECOM, Pune)
   2. IWRM in the lower Tungabhadra basin: canal irrigation and rainfed agriculture (Peter Mollinga and Rahul Pillai, Center for Development Research, ZEF, Bonn, and R. Doraiswamy, Jalaspandana, Bangalore)
   3. The appropriateness of the Water Disputes Tribunal framework: the case of Cauvery (Narendar Pani, National Institute of Advanced Studies, NIAS, Bangalore)
   4. Regulatory authorities for water resources: the case of Maharashtra (Subodh Wagle, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, TISS, Mumbai and Sachin Warghade, Prayas, Pune)
   5. Water sector reform in South India: the case of Andhra Pradesh (Sanjay Gupta, Irrigation & Command Area Development, I&CAD, Andhra Pradesh)

Following the discussion at the workshop-seminar a broader call for papers is released, inviting papers taking a longer view on water governance and management (reform) in India. The generic nature of the questions addressed will also make this discussion relevant for water resources governance in other South Asian countries.

 Call for papers

The aim of the call for papers is to compose a special issue or special section on longer-term perspectives on water governance and management (reform) in India. We are aiming for 8-10 papers, but as SAWAS is an e-journal, more papers can be included. The papers should not exceed 5000 words (including references and footnotes). We are inviting original, well argued and accessibly written analyses of water sector reform experiences, assessments of future developments, discussion of dilemmas and contradictions, accounts of policy processes and policy instruments, etc.

The following gives an impression of the thematic aimed at, but authors are encouraged to choose their own angle and emphasis.

 Integration by default: a changing context for water resources governance and management

The water resources governance and management scenario in India is undergoing structural change for at least three reasons. First, many basins are closing, that is, in the case of surface water, allocation equals or exceeds available water; in case of groundwater, extraction exceeds recharge. This means that changing water use is increasingly a process with zero-sum game features. This makes the allocation of water in space, in time, and over different sectors and social groups increasingly interlinked and complex. Second, India is changing through rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, giving rise to new priorities and demands in water use, and a changing economic and political role of agricultural water use. Third, though water resources management is inherently a localised phenomenon, increasingly, global ideas and concerns are entering Indian water policy and politics. Global discourses on the role of the market in water resources management, the need for ‘integration’ of uses and users, and notions of climate change and environmental flow are finding their way in, resonating with, or being opposed by different actors in the Indian water economy and polity. These three changes may produce an increasing number of water conflicts through which (new) arrangements will be negotiated. They also produce ‘integration by default’, different water uses, and users getting evermore connected, even if that is in an unplanned manner. The question is whether present policy responses to this changing context for water governance and management are adequate.

 Changing governance arrangements: experiences with reform

The present situation exhibits different approaches to water sector reform in different Indian States, which could be regarded as different ‘experiments’ dealing with the new demands on water resources management. Maharashtra has chosen the road of establishing a regulatory authority for water, taking energy sector reforms as an example. The MWRRA framework (Maharashtra Water Resources Regulation Authority) is now being taken over by several Indian states. Other South Indian states are taking different routes. Andhra Pradesh is continuing the irrigation/water sector reform started in the late 1990s with the establishment of Project Committees for canal irrigation, potentially creating an important new governance level for farmer irrigation management, and it is changing the professional make-up of the irrigation bureaucracy through an emphasis on multidisciplinary teams. In Karnataka, a different process of federation of Water Users Association is ongoing. The role of development funding agencies in these processes varies. Privatisation of water resources management has been talked about a lot, but there is little far-reaching practice as yet. The problem of regulating groundwater extraction remains unsolved. What is the learning that can be drawn from such processes of change and reform for the next, say, 20 years? Does the change in water governance and management have to be ‘big bang’ or ‘step by step’, and what are the eventual ‘tipping points’?

 The (ir)relevance of the Water Disputes Tribunal framework

An important question to ask is whether the arrangements for inter-state water allocation created in the 1950s through the Water Disputes Act suffice under the newly emerging conditions. Reaching for an agreement between and among States seems to be increasingly problematic, and the process seems to be increasingly prone to politicisation. What are the problems with the present legalistic and centralised framework that almost exclusively focuses on surface water? Does the agenda of the Tribunals need to be broadened, does the process need to be made more inclusive and/or decentralised, or will this only make matters more complicated? Does the very process of adjudication/negotiation need a review? Do we have the appropriate (hydrological) modelling tools for constructively negotiating basin-level water issues?

 Alternative water resources management paradigms

What overall concept or framework is required for thinking about a new water resources paradigm for the future? Can we rethink the multifunctionality of tanks and adapt it to the present situation, or is the decline of collectively managed tanks and the rise of individualised water control inevitable? Can tanks be usefully integrated into canal water supply systems? Are the distinctions between (canal, tank, and well) irrigated agriculture, rainfed agriculture, and watershed development based agriculture artificial, and are they just different ways of making agriculture production and the livelihoods based on them more robust and sustainable through using different forms of ‘applied water’? Should we rethink the notion of ‘storage’? Should we more seriously look beyond water and beyond the catchment? Are water conflicts more easily solved when the ‘basket’ of options for livelihoods and negotiation increase? Should we be looking at ‘problemsheds’ rather than ‘watersheds’, that is, include all groups involved in a water resources management issue even when they are based outside the catchment or basin?  Through what mechanisms can the many new ideas and concepts be tested and internalised into ‘business as usual’ water resources management and governance? What are the ‘clearing houses’ and ‘internalisation points’ for such a process of adaptation and change?

 The water resources knowledge system

What demands do the changes in water resources governance and management that are on the horizon imply for the water resources knowledge system? How do we make serious work of the need for a broader based professionalism in the water sector, starting from ideas of multi- and interdisciplinarity? Can this provide the necessary leadership for a ‘paradigm change’ in the water sector? How can more productive linkages be built between research and policy & practice – in a feasible, rather than utopian scenario? How will the water sector enter the era of the knowledge society?

Submission of papers

 Papers are to be submitted to Dr Daphne Gondhalekhar at ZEF, Bonn (daphneg@mit.edu) not later than September 30, 2009. The target is papers of maximum 5000 words. Papers will be peer reviewed. Accepted (and eventually revised) papers will be published in a forthcoming issue of SAWAS (South Asian Water Studies).

 

The Center for Development Research (ZEF)

SaciWATERs

www.sawasjournal.org

  

The first Hyderabad Youth Summit on Climate Change (HySoCC’09) was held in the Deloitte Campus in Gachibowli, Hyderbad on June 20-21, 2009. The summit was organized by the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) with the support of WWF-India, Deloitte and APEC. SaciWATERs was represented at the Summit by two young professionals Ms. Sreoshi Gupta, Research Associate, and Ms. Anu Maheshwari, Communication Specialist

The Summit brought together young students and professionals from across the city of Hyderabad to engage in a two day discussion on environment and climate change in Hyderabad.  This two day conference on June 20- 21, 2009 also brought together some experts and specialists in various fields of energy, water, waste, biodiversity, etc., to share their learning with the young audience. 

The vibrant group of 120 young participants from diverse backgrounds actively worked on the Hyderabad Youth Charter on Climate Change which was infused with bright ideas for alleviating the environmental problems being faced by the city and reflected the aspirations of the youth and young professionals regarding development related policy.

 

Interfacing Poverty, Livelihood and Climate Change in Water Resources Development: Lessons in South Asia

 May 4-6, 2009

Nepal, Kathmandu

The Fourth South Asia Water Research Conference was inaugurated by the Chief Guest, Mr. Shanker Prasad Koirala, Secretary at Ministry of Water Resources, Government of Nepal. The inaugural session was chaired by Dr. Upendra Gautam, Chairman of Nepal Engineering College. Prof. Deepak Bhattarai, Principal of NEC, welcomed the participants and Dr. Dibya R. Kansakar, Project Director, Crossing Boundaries Project, set the stage by presenting the conference agenda. Mr. Dipak Gyawali, NWCF, delivered a key-note address. The inaugural programme was attended by the conference participants and invited guests from various government, academic and research agencies in Nepal. Dr. Upendra Gautam concluded the formal session with a closing remark, while Mr. P. B. Adiga, the IWRM program coordinator at NEC offered vote of thanks.

This research conference focused on ways and means of interfacing the issues relating to poverty, livelihood and climate change with water resources agenda in the South Asian context. The conference papers were organized under 5 sub-thematic sessions;

1. Increasing access, equity and productivity of land and water to combat poverty and diversify livelihood opportunities
2. Promoting multiple water-use systems while ensuring secured access and equity
3. Land and water resources degradation and resulting threats to ecosystem services and livelihood
4. Climate change and adaptation vis-à-vis poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement
5. Reforms in policy and institutions to prepare for future

 There were two additional sessions dedicated exclusively for the papers by SAWA fellows. A total of 26 research papers were presented in the conference, including the 5 papers by SAWA Fellows selected for presentations in the conference. The papers by SAWA Fellows were evaluated for the award of “Best SAWA Fellow Paper” by a jury consisting of Dr. Hari Krishna Shrestha, NEC, Mr. Ajay Dixit, NWCF, and Dr. Chanda Gurung Goodrich, SaciWATERs.  This award carried a cash prize of US$ 150 and a citation. Ms. V. Veeralakshmi from CWR, Anna University, won this award for her paper entitled “Policy Adaptation to Changing Scenario in Chennai City Water Needs”, which was co-authored by N.K. Ambujam and K. Karunakaran (India).

At the concluding session, on May 6, 2009, Mr. Ajay Dixit, NWCF, highlighted the interdisciplinarity nature of water issues and presented ideas for future research endeavors in this sector. Dr. Dibya Kansakar highlighted the conference deliberations while Dr. Hari Krishna Shrestha, NEC, thanked everybody and closed the conference. The key-note paper by Mr. Dipak Gyawali and summing up of the conference papers and the ideas for ways forward in interdisciplinary research in water sector presented by Mr. Ajay Dixit were the highlights of the conference.

 Co-organizers:

1. Nepal Engineering College 

    Changunaryan, Bhaktapur

    P.O. Box 10210, Kathmandu, Nepal  

2. Nepal Water Conservation Foundation (NWCF)

     GPO Box 2221, Kathmandu, Nepal

With Support of:

 South Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water Resources Studies (SaciWATERs) Hyderabad, India

 

 

CB NEWS Vol. 24

 The 24^th Volume of the CB NEWS is out now. It features highlights of the participation of the Crossing Boundaries team at the World Water Forum 5, Istanbul, 2009. It also brings to you consolidated reports of the recent Staff Training Programme and Reader Workshop organised by SaciWATERs.

 

Download the PDF here

Upscaling the IWRM Education in South Asia : Which Boundaries to Cross?

Prof. Janakarajan, President, SaciWATERs

Side Event titled Upscaling IWRM Education in South Asia: Which Boundaries to Cross?"

Side Event

The side session organized by SaciWATERs at the World Water Forum 5 called for generating visible demand for interdisciplinary studies on water in South Asia with a focus on creating a cadre of women water professionals to combat the ‘masculinity’ of current water sector

The side event titled Up-scaling IWRM Education in South Asia: Which boundaries to cross? was organized by SaciWATERs for the Crossing Boundaries Project in Feshane Lale Hall 5 at the World Water Forum 5, Istanbul, Turkey. The session evaluated the current status of water resources education, assess the demand for interdisciplinary water professionals and identify challenges, opportunities, and new initiatives in the realm of higher education for water resources in South Asia through the findings of the study titled “Strengthening IWRM Education in South Asia; Which Boundaries to Cross?”. Prof. S Janakarajan, President, SaciWATERs, welcomed the panel members and the session speakers and briefly described the purpose of the Crossing Boundaries Project, an endeavour of SaciWATERs with six partner institutions in four South Asian countries, to bring a paradigm shift in water resources management education in South Asia. Dr. Peter Mollinga, Convener, SaciWATERs, initiated the session by briefing the participants on the objectives of the study which was to review the progress of the Project’s initiative and to determine whether higher education system in South Asia was responding to the reforms generated by the Project.

Dr. Vishal Narain, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Governance, Management Development Institute (MDI), Delhi, further elaborated on the findings of the Study in North India by tracing the changing perceptions of IWRM among water professionals and emphasized the fact that though there is a demand for IWRM water professionals in the Government sector, a visible demand still needs to be created. Dr Nimal Gunawardena, Professor, Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, and Steering Committee Member, Cap-Net, Sri lanka, followed with a brief presentation on the status of the IWRM Education Programme in the Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Ms. Nazmun Naher Mita, South Asia Water (SAWA) Fellow, Masters in IWRM, Institute of Water and Flood Management (IWFM), Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, Bangladesh, shared her personal experience of being one of the first female students to take up the IWRM course in South Asia with the help of SAWA Fellowship provided by the Crossing Boundaries Project.

SaciWATERs at WWF5

Following this, the three panelists, Dr. Shahbaz Khan, Chief, Sustainable Water Resources Development & Management Section, Division of Water Sciences, Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO, Paris, France, Dr. Paul Taylor, Director, Cap-Net, Pretoria, South Africa, and Dr. Joke Muylwijk, Executive Director, Gender & Water Alliance, The Netherlands, provided their comments and insights on the study. Dr. Khan shared his vision of IWRM programme gaining a stronghold in the higher education sector. However he also expressed his disappointment in the Draft Istanbul Ministerial Statement of the World Water Forum 5, 2009 which he regretfully pointed out, focused on the technical aspect of water management ignoring the socio-cultural constraints of implementing a change. He emphasized the urgent need to press the interdisciplinary approach to water resources management. Dr. Paul Taylor, congratulated SaciWATERs and the partners of the Crossing Boundaries Project for the remarkable progress made in promoting IWRM Education in region and further emphasized the need for capacity building of higher level water professionals. Dr. Joke Muylwijk lauded the report but also pointed out the lack of comprehensive gender-segregated data. The participants of the session followed with various questions and comments on the issues of gender, capacity building of not only technocrats but also of social scientists and extending the programme to other countries of South Asia especially Pakistan.

 

SaciWATERs is organizing a Side Event titled “Up-scaling IWRM education in South Asia: which boundaries to cross?” at the World Water Forum, Istanbul 2009. The session seeks to evaluate the current status of water resources education, assess the demand for interdisciplinary water professionals and identify challenges, opportunities and new initiatives in the realm of higher education for water resources in the South Asian region. The session will consist of three components – first, assessment of the status of higher education for water resources in the region. The second component assesses the demand for water professionals with an IWRM type profile. The third component of the session will deal with the experience of implementing a water resources education program in South Asia, potential of furthering such initiatives and likely constraints. It shall also discuss how higher education in South Asia’s water resources knowledge system has responded to the changing societal demands on water resources use, management and governance practices and approaches through the findings of the study on the status of water education in South Asia titled “Up-scaling IWRM Education in South Asia: Which Boundaries to Cross?“     For more information, please download the information flyer click here For downloading the Consolidated Education Study Report click here

The SaciWATERs‘ Crossing Boundaries Project Newsletter is published quarterly. It aims to share the initiatives undertaken by SaciWATERs and the Partner Institutions in order to fulfill the objectives of the Crossing Boundaries Project. It also seeks to share our ideas, goals, concerns and research with our partners, civil society organizations, international NGOs, UN agencies and other important players in the water policy sector.

The 23rd issue of CB NEWS brings to you events organised by SaciWATERs from October 2008 to April 2009. It also features highlights of the events SaciWATERs shall be participating in at the 5th World Water Forum, Istanbul, 2009.

Download the PDF here

 

The International Conference on Water Resources Policy in South Asia was held in Colombo from December 17-20 at the Taj Samudra. The conference inauguration took off with a grand opening in the presence of 150 guests including special invitees from Sri Lanka. The programme began with a short speech from the Convener, Dr. Peter Mollinga, who laid out the objectives of the Crossing Boundaries Project at SaciWATERs  and the importance of the conference in trying to bring people from all walks of life together on a common platform to hear about their views on various issues related to the water resources situation in South Asia and its policy implications. Prof. Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, President of SaciWATERs , Hyderabad Board welcomed all the participants and the keynote speakers, Dr. Amita Baviskar, Dr. Madar Samad to the conference. He also provided the regional relevance of the conference to the participants. Dr. Amita Baviskar spoke about ‘putting cultural politics into Water Policy’ while Dr. Samad spoke in the context of “Building a Resilient Water Economy in South Asia through Better Agricultural Water Management”. Prof. Munasinghe, another keynote speaker was unable to attend the conference but had sent his recorded speech – Sustainable water resource development and climate change – an integrated policy framework. This was followed by a brief explanation about the e-journal South Asian Water Studies (SAWAS) and the details of the website by Prof. Vishwa Ballabh, who spoke on the importance of the website in trying to disseminate knowledge and information about the water sector to the larger masses and urged all water professionals to contribute and actively involve themselves in this endeavor. He also highlighted the main features of this website which was inaugurated shortly afterwards by Dr. Baviskar. The e-journal is hosted by SaciWATERs . The book on “Droughts and IWRM in South Asia” was released right after this event by Dr. Samad. This was followed by a cultural programme by an amateur cultural troupe who sang water songs in Singhala and English. This was followed by dinner.

 

The next three days of the conference were characterized by about 80 presentations by persons in various capacities from universities, research institutes and civil society organisations. The second day had two special sessions, one where world experiences were presented by three women water professionals working in Chile, South Africa and European Union. Another session brought bureaucrats from Srilanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan on a common platform for a panel discussion after which the discussion was open to the floor for further interaction. The third day was characterized by 4 parallel sessions, where a wide range of issues were presented and discussed.

The last day of the conference was featured by a special discussion on Water Education Policy in South Asia, where studies conducted in the partner institutes and those conducted at the regional level were presented. The purpose of the session was to realize the status of water education in South Asian institutes and to what extent the pattern and curriculum aims at an IWRM approach. The session was open to debate and discussion when feedback was sought from all participants regarding what could be the next step forward or what kind of education policy should be attempted at to achieve an IWRM paradigm. The last session was conference plenary which summed up all the sessions in a nutshell and finally concluded with a vote of thanks by Dr. Dibya Ratna Kansakar (Executive Director, SaciWATERs ). He also announced the winner of the Best Young Researcher Paper, the prize for which was handed over by Dr. Peter Mollinga to Ms. Sonia Binte Murshed of Bangladesh.

- A report by Sreoshi Gupta, SaciWATERs