Socio-Economic, Institutional And Environmental Aspects; New Delhi,
November 27-30, 2000.

Delhi Declaration


INTRODUCTION

Water is life. Both the natural and human systems are critically dependent on water. It is the primary requirement for not only the survival of human beings, but also for their socio-economic development and a healthy ecosystem. In addition, access to water plays a critical role in poverty alleviation and food security, both local and national. And yet there are reports of a looming water crisis arising out of serious demand supply imbalances, specially in the developing world. The prevailing trends towards rising population, increasing urbanisation, spread of more water intensive life styles as well as agricultural technology sweeping round the world are going to make water resource even more scarce unless timely action is taken. How to manage water has thus emerged as one of the great challenges of the 21st century.

Attempts to minimise wastage, conserve water and augment its availability have, therefore, to be pursued with increased vigour at all levels: local, national and international. And yet there is a stalemate. Many of the major water resources projects in the developing world are bogged down in endless controversies which are related mainly to socio-economic and environmental aspects of the prevailing technological interventions. At the same time, allocative efficiency as well as distributive justice also occupy a back seat in a number of developing economies. It was in this context that the Delhi based Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, which works under the overall guidance of Professor Kamta Prasad, the noted water resource expert and development economist, organised a landmark International Conference on Sustainable Development of Water Resources in New Delhi on November 27 to 30, 2000.

The Conference was attended by over 200 noted experts from different disciplines and different parts of India and 16 other countries, as per list provided in Annexure 4. Over 80 papers were presented. A lively discussion took place in every session as per details given in Annexure 2. The Conference had been sponsored by Government of India as well as several other national and international agencies as per list given in Annexure 3.

The International Conference was seized with major issues related to both the management and development aspects of water resources with respect to its multiple uses. It focussed on socio-economic, institutional and environmental issues pertaining to different technological options. The issues covered were among the most important ones for public welfare in India and the world as a whole. Many of the facts cited, examples given and suggestions made were in the context of South Asia or India where the conference was held and from where most of the participants came. Annexure 1 provides a brief summary of session-wise deliberations, while the recommendations are given below.

OVERALL APPROACH AND PERSPECTIVE

1. Water resource sector must receive the highest priority for survival and growth of mankind, socio-economic development and a healthy eco-system. This priority should be operationalised through allocation of adequate funds and through appropriate socio-economic, financial and institutional reforms and innovative approaches.

2. Attempts to minimise wastage and conserve water through more efficient management of irrigation systems at both macro and micro levels have to be pursued with renewed vigour. There is need for getting "more crop per drop" as put forward by Mr. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations. Quality of water use in household and industrial sectors should also improve. The task, however, is not quite easy. Formidable steps will be needed after so many years of carelessness. These include comprehensive financial and institutional reforms providing an appropriate policy framework with incentives and disincentives, support for NGOs and installation of devices like sprinklers and drip systems in areas where they become economically viable.

3. It would, however, be quite naive to assume that reduction of losses and water saving alone would be enough. Additional sources of supply of water (including additional run off capture) for its multiple uses would also be needed given the population and other pressures like urbanisation and change in life style. The water crisis is not simply a crisis of management but also of inadequate development in comparison to ever increasing requirements of water to meet the needs of food security, electricity, flood moderation and drinking water etc. The focus, therefore, should lie on both management and development of water resources.

4. At the same time, reuse of waste water through waste water treatment plants and recycling should be promoted wherever there are symptoms of water scarcity. Appropriate technology, suiting local conditions and found to be economically viable, should be adopted for this purpose.

5. Much greater emphasis needs to be laid on role of human issues in water resources development like resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected people, human suffering due to drought and flood, participation of women in projects and democratic governance of the water sector.

6. The people-centred approach to water resource development implies that the people should be involved in such projects not merely in implementation but in planning and decision making also. The entire administrative culture of developing countries requires a thorough overhaul. The people-centred approach also implies adoption of the Gandhian concept of Sarvodaya, that is, the development of all and not only a selected few, as a criterion of project selection. This requires that appropriate projects for socio-economic development of those likely to be adversely affected by a major water resource project should also be developed preferably in advance or at least simultaneously.

7. There is an overriding need for sustainable development and sound environmental management of water resources which can be through several means like demand management, supply augmentation, control, management and protection of watersheds, preparation of national plan for managing consumption, treating water as an economic commodity, increasing awareness about water quality, and strictly observing environmental considerations. The aim should be towards sustainable long term resource enhancement rather than mere short term exploitation.

8. The question of sustainability is not only a matter of adequate water availability but also one of maintaining the water quality. Hence, a war should be declared on the increasing menace of water pollution. Effective measures should be taken not only to stop the on-going deterioration of both surface and ground water quality but also to improve it further. For this purpose, special attention needs to be paid to control urban wastewater and industrial effluents which are the prime causes of water pollution. Pollution from other sources would also need to be controlled. Both the pro and anti-dam lobby should join hands together to fight the common enemy.

9. Sustainable management of water resources with due respect to ecological, economic and ethical sustainability requires a holistic and integrated approach involving engineering, socio-economic and environmental aspects. All the problems should be looked at in their totality. Development of hydropower, lowering of ground water table and devastations faced by people due to floods have to be examined in an integrated manner. Similarly, traditional system of water management through ponds and small tanks should be integrated with canal irrigation. An integrated approach would minimise the usual conflicts among the multiplicity of agencies working in the water sector, each having different goals, motivation and dynamics.

10. It is important to avoid prejudices, polemics and rhetoric. Dispassionate analysis without any preconceived notion is the key towards arriving at a solution in respect of projects. The dangers of extrapolation without rational thinking should be avoided. Rather than considering one versus another, the approach should be big and small, accommodating both, as per the needs and demands of the situation in specific areas.

TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS

11. No single technological option, whether large or small dam or tubewell, is in a position to offer economically viable option for all parts of a large country like India. This is because locational factors have a dominating influence on water resource projects. Site conditions at certain places may be favourable for construction of only large dams or only small dams or only tubewells in which case the question of choice does not arise. Alternatively, site conditions may exclude certain options. Tubewells can not be an option where ground water is brackish, as in Sindh in Pakistan, or where water table is located at exceedingly deep aquiferes as in several arid areas. Much of the land in India has to depend on alternative sources even if all the proposed dams are built. The same argument applies to each of the other alternatives. Hence, there should always be a search for area specific optimum mix of different scales and types of projects.

12. There is complementarity between two or more technological options, for example, that between canals and tubewells. The seepage of canal water increases the water table tapped by tubewells, so that the latter supply additional water which compensates the frequent insufficient supply of canal water as in Punjab in India.

13. Alternatives to be compared must be brought to equivalent footings with respect to end results. Thus, if the effects of a large dam are to be compared with those of a small dam, then these should be compared with the effects of a large number of small dams irrigating more or less the same area and producing more or less same amount of hydro-electricity. As one author (Cosgrove) reported, environmental impact per unit of electricity production can often be smaller for large than for small dams. Alternatives are always welcome, but their efficacy must be proved scientifically on comparable basis.

14. Scientific comparison implies comparison of representative cases and not extreme cases. Hence, one should avoid the general tendency to quote extreme cases by the respective proponents of both the small and large dams. This results in generation of much heat without light. Every effort should be made to remove the paucity of information on socio-economic and environmental aspects of completed water resource projects. This paucity is a major reason for unscientific comparision as well as prevailing controversies.

15. Conflicts may arise not only between large and small projects but between different types of small projects among themselves as for example between tubewell and tank irrigation in Tamil Nadu in India which was brought out by Palanisami.

16. Judgement on any technology such as large dam or tubewell should be made on a comprehensive analysis of all its impacts, direct as well as indirect, primary as well as secondary, favourable and unfavourable. In the case of tubewells, for example, their favourable effects in reducing water logging and flood and their suitability for reducing rural poverty should not ignore the unfavourable effects of over extraction and of the pressure for energy supply which would include hydro-project itself, apart from thermal and diesel both of which have adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, their inappropriateness in areas having brackish water or water available at very deep aquiferes may also be noted. The impact of rainwater harvesting should take into account the favourable or adverse impact to be produced from preventing the flow of rain water from or to some areas. Watershed development must take into account the high cost involved in it. As regards hydro power, its advantages in reducing import of crude oil or gas and in consequent saving of foreign exchanges as well as in saving coal or reducing the environmental pollution associated with thermal plants should be taken into account, along with their much publicised adverse effects. The proneness of small tanks or wells to dry during periods of acute or prolonged drought could be another consideration favouring big dam based large projects which provide perennial sources of water.

17. New approaches and new technologies should be welcome. But their implications should be examined carefully under diverse situations. It is, however, not advisable to halt water resources development through the conventional methods including the dams without establishing the efficacy of the alternatives in specific areas under consideration.

18. No single-track water development policy would be adequate and appropriate for diverse conditions prevailing in different countries or different parts of a large country. We should deal with problems which are peculiar to a particular place in a particular manner. There are no universal solutions with respect to technology. While science is universal, technology is local or regional. What is needed is a judicious combination of different technologies for best possible utilisation of rain, surface and ground water. There should be an optimal mix of big and small dams depending on their comparative advantages and costs. Hence, much of the prevailing controversy between big and small dams is unnecessary.
19. Large and small projects, as also canals and tubewells, should be viewed as not one type model against another but complementing each other depending on circumstances prevailing in specific areas. Traditional irrigation schemes should be upgraded and/or rehabilitated. Rain water harvesting and small dams could be preferred specially in drought prone areas. Big dams could be needed for moderating flood, generating electricity and meeting the needs of additional irrigation in areas having arid climate and limited water table. But big dams would require more careful planning and management so as to minimise their adverse effects.

20. Small schemes alone could not provide a sustainable solution since they would not adequately intercept the large quantum of rainfall available for exploitation on sustainable basis. Accordingly, each type of scheme should be evaluated in its own right and should be treated as complimentary to each other rather than a replacement of one another.

21. Storage of water is necessary for monsoon dominated countries characterized by considerable temporal variation of rainfall. This can be done through large dams, small tanks, ponds and ground water.

22. Rain water harvesting should be given high importance because the basic need of water for drinking and cooking purposes, can be met in most of the villages in a country like India through this. It has the additional advantage of providing local food security which is as important as national food security. This is also the best method for drought proofing. A participatory form of governance rather than a top down bureaucratic approach is essential for the success of rainwater harvesting schemes.

23. The planning of a dam cannot and should not be done in isolation. It has to be a part of the larger economic, social and environmental plan for the region and the country. The process for deciding whether a dam should be built in a particular location and with particular specification, should be a part of the process for deciding how to provide goods and services to the people of a region and to help solve some of their main problems.

24. Before a large dam is opted for, alternative option of several dams in series in the basin and corresponding benefits and costs should also be evolved and compared with a big dam option. Only when the large dam and reservoir option passes out the test that it should be recommended for further consideration and implementation. Large projects should not be undertaken without the fullest study of the likely consequences and implications of such interventions.

25. Rehabilitation, modernisation and replacement of all facilities, major to minor, is called for to ensure their sustainence. Such options, however, should be cost effective and should, therefore, be exercised on selective basis. Sustainability of tanks can be ensured by their multiple uses and ploughing back the income generated from the tanks themselves. Water balance studies would be prerequisite for any intervention in tanks.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

26. The recent trend towards awareness of environmental issues needs to be strengthened still further. But there are dangers in taking a narrow view of the environment by focussing on only one or a few aspects to the neglect of others. There is need for a holistic approach by taking both positive and negative impacts into account and bringing about a trade off on the assumption that there are manifold sources of human welfare and not one or a few.

27. The adverse environmental impacts of dams and other water resource projects must be taken care of at the initial stage itself through more careful planning.

28. Water and environment are interlinked. Hence, a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be made necessary and regarded as very important while considering any project for implementation. Adequate punitive measures against those responsible for initiating projects without such an assessment must be taken.

29. At the same time, EIA guidelines should be made more comprehensive and precise. In addition, There is need for better coordination and allocation of responsibilities among several agencies involved in environmental management.

30. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should not stop at boundaries. What happens beyond those boundaries is equally important.

31. The negative impacts identified by EIA study should be dealt with using the principles such as : prevent where possible, mitigate where unpreventable, and compensate for the residual effects, which could not be eliminated. In this manner, adverse environmental effects from any project can be minimised to a great extent.

32. The monitoring of environmental parameters must be rigorously undertaken during and after construction. NGOs and the affected public should be associated with this. Monitoring can be strengthered by fixing realistic norms and standards, providing training and allocating sufficient funds.

33. The environmental authorities must have the willingness and capability to withdraw environmental clearance from, and thereby stop construction of projects where the prescribed environmental conditions are not being complied with.

34. The earlier neglected aspect of rehabilitation should receive adequate attention. A satisfactory policy on this should be evolved and implemented rigorously. The aim should be to provide a package which can induce the PAP to move out without much hesitation. Plan for rehabilitation should generally be prepared before displacement. Displaced persons should have better land, better house and better living condition. The willingness of the host community to accept the displaced persons should also be taken into account. A development programme for them also is recommended.

PEOPLE’S PARTICIPATION

35. Any planning of projects should start with advance notice of that intention to all concerned. Here again, the prescription is valid for all cases: the people concerned (those who are likely to be affected adversely as well as those who stand to benefit) must be taken into confidence at the earliest possible stage; and this is even more important if different countries (or political units within a country) are involved. Planning should be a 'participatory' exercise ab initio.

36. Emphasis should be given on community based natural resource management for effective monitoring and implementation of projects. Social mobilisation is specially necessary for water harvesting.

37. The process of decision making should be transparent and have public involvement. Project formulation process should include institutionalized consultation with and participation by the people concerned and mandatory public hearings for major projects with significant environmental and/or human/social impacts. There should be a judicious combination of bottom up as well as top down approaches in project selection, implementation and management. The government departments and other stake holders should be involved in a holistic manner, thereby facilitating integration of all the components.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

38. While it is necessary to make the adjudication process smooth and fast, it is even more necessary to facilitate the process of settlement of disputes through negotiations and agreement. Some institutional means of assisting negotiations through 'good offices', conciliation, mediation, and so on, seem desirable.

39. The following principles need to be considered in deciding water allocation amongst States

i) The principle of equitable utilization.
ii) The principle of not causing appreciable harm to others.
iii) The principle of protection and preservation of ecosystem and of control of pollution.
iv) The principle of openness and exchange of data, information of future plans.

40. Both the upper and lower riparian areas/states/nations should respect the needs and rights of each other and utilise the watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner in a spirit of cooperation.

41. Bilateral water sector arrangements have proved to be successful in most cases. Regional/multilateral cooperation between riparian countries of transboundary rivers might also be promoted as and when considered useful by the concerned parties.

42. Conflict resolution process needs a shift from a purely legal to a humanitarian approach, based on peoples participation and cooperation, in which all stake-holders and partners (including the PAPs, who are the victims) should come together on one platform to find viable solutions.

43. The following package may be considered for discord management.

a) Establishment of participatory water management through committees for each type of use.
b) Establishment through a law, of basin level committees for tackling water related discords. An inbuilt mechanism for review and appeals would be required.
c) Acceptance of a national water code.
d) Formulation of appropriate guidelines for water allocation amongst States.
e) Establishing a mechanism for facilitating mediated settlement of water disputes or bringing about conciliation between parties.

44. The settlement of international water law disputes through treaties is the most efficacious medium of settlement of such disputes. The superiority, suitability and utility of this mode brings finality in the conflict resolution and stability in the international relations. This finality and stability help the smooth and speedy development of water resources. The mode is suitable both for international as well as intra-national conflict resolution.

45. Suitable monitoring and surveillance mechanisms at the technical and administrative levels are necessary to prevent violation of agreements by one party or the other. Joint measurements of discharge in the river Bhagirathi during the summer months by India and Bangladesh is a good example of such an arrangement.

RIVER BASIN ORGANISATION

46. There is need for creation of river basin organisations (RBO). States should be encouraged to form river basin organisations and the affected people should be associated with these boards. In course of time, the water users associations could also be integrated with river basin organisations.

47. Five phases of action might be taken for development of river basin organisations. These comprise of legal and regularity framework, state level and inter-state organisations and implementation and monitoring plan.

48. There is no single model for RBO which can be applied in all types of situations. Instead, a range of models may be developed to suit specific situations.

49. To start with, in some cases, instead of the entire basin, it may be advisable to look into a compact part as a pilot area, so that the integration of social, technical and environmental aspects can become feasible.

50. Projects pertaining to inter basin transfer of water should be entrusted to river basin organisations.

FLOOD AND DROUGHT

51. Floods in India and Bangladesh would be moderated if reservoirs are constructed and catchment area treatment undertaken in the upper catchments in Nepal. This would require regional cooperation and provision for adequate funding. Enhanced bilateral or regional cooperation can also play a significant role in improving flood forecasting and thereby reducing flood damages in Bangladesh as well as in the lower riparian states in India.

52. Measures suggested for flood affected areas include governmental collaboration with NGOs, drawing long term plan for disaster management, more emphasis on non-structural measures, better system for deciding the relief amount per family, setting up multi-purpose flood and cyclone centres, taking up plantation projects etc. People should also learn to live with floods where no solution is possible.

53. There is need for compilation of risk charts having physical, economic and social indicators.

54. A more landscape oriented synecological approach is needed for drought. Unlike in irrigated areas, in the upper catchment, the seasonal rainfall should be managed through biotic means to mitigate degradation and the advancement of desertification. A combination of local works like rain water harvesting, watershed development, desilting of tanks and ponds would help in drought management. People’s participation is more important than bureaucratic support for their success.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

55. Water may be a homogeneous commodity in the physical sense; but it is not so in the social sense with respect to its uses. Approach towards drinking water, for example, has to be different from that towards industrial water. Hence, whether water is an economic or social good or both would depend on the nature of water use, quantum of its use and identification of water users. A generalised statement serves no useful purpose.

56. Efficient functioning of the irrigation system for avoiding wastage of water and controlling demand requires an appropriate price policy. There is need for integrated pricing structures especially in groundwater extraction and wastewater disposal. This, in turn, would require significant changes in current laws, regulatory mechanisms, operational procedures and facilities.

57. The levels of overall pricing required to induce significant shifts in demand would, require substantial increases in overall water charges which may not be feasible. Full cost pricing of water in the irrigation sector for ensuring cost recovery which is essential for financial sustainability of the water sector is also not feasible. Hence, to start with, there should be full cost recovery for O&M only. In due course these may be raised gradually to full cost recovery.

58. In this connection, a knowledge of different cost concepts is essential to enable a more informed decision making for fixing the water tariffs to be charged from different users, extent of subsidies going to a sector, life line rates and other related matters. Instead of concentrating on ‘water rate’ it is more appropriate to consider "service charges" because no rates are paid for water.

59. Price alone is not the main issue in irrigation water. Availability of required quantity of water at the desired time to the farmers is even more important. Farmers are not averse to paying higher water charges provided supply of water is assured to them. There is, therefore, need to have a framework which holds service providers accountable to the users who pay for the service.

60. Inadequate funding is a major threat to the sustainability of irrigation and drainage system. Financial sustainability and transparency of overall operations would require the irrigation and drainage organisations to show a margin of profit. Privatization in irrigation may be encouraged with respect to both capital investment as well as operation and maintenance.

61. Private sector can be part of the institutional framework to provide water supply services in cities. The implementation of this would require sound regulatory mechanism and clear political commitments. This would also require a change in the perception that private sector harms the poor. Private sector can have partnership with NGOs, micro credit organisations and community associations to build social intermediate policies for the poor.

62. Drinking water is not only a matter of availability alone but also of access. How to deliver water to those who need it and yet evolve some kind of water pricing mechanism is a real issue. An important question that arises here is how to define and charge differential prices of drinking water for different sections of the society. How can one isolate the so called encroacher colonies from say relatively well-off colonies for the purpose of fixing differential water rates? Another question that needs to be addressed is the question of defining water rights. Without water rights, as also water security, having been defined properly, issue of water pricing and its enforcement may not be effective.

63. Drinking water belongs to a category which is different from other uses of water like that for agriculture, industry, navigation etc. It is more like a social good. Hence, there can be a dual water supply system, one for drinking purpose and another for other purposes.

64. Since the tanks are starved of resources for maintenance, two strategies are recommended. (i) Multi-uses of tanks and not only irrigation alone should be considered, (ii) Revenue from tax, fee etc. going to different agencies should be allocated to local panchayats/WUA, which should be higher than the current O&M budget allotment by the Government.

65. Project costs should be realistically estimated and based on actual surveys and investigations carried out in the project area.

66. There is need for compilation of facts and empirical information and wider national consultation on issues such as those relating to reasons for delays in completion of various projects, the extent of cost overruns of different projects and reasons thereof, the conflicts between different parties in execution of projects etc.

FARMERS PARTICIPATION AND ORGANISATIONAL ASPECTS

67. There is an urgent need for institutional reform in the entire water sector from the field to the national level. The emphasis should be on stakeholders participation. Promotion of water partnerships at local, national and global levels would help sustainable development of water resources. Conflicts relating to water resources development and management may also be tackled smoothly through these partnerships.

68. There is need for creation of water users associations at different levels in most of the irrigation projects for effective management of the system and distribution of water. Irrigation schemes, especially small holder irrigation should be gradually managed through farmers participation including their financial involvement. There should be a dialogue as well as collaboration between irrigation department, farmers and other stakeholders. In order to put this into practice, political commitment, legal framework, communication, institutional cooperation, training are needed. Consequently, role of the state in irrigation management should be redefined and farmer oriented institutional mechanism created.

69. Potential for water users association would depend on necessity (for food, fuel, fodder, irrigation) replicability, financial feasibility, training, and institutional development to plan, act, monitor and evaluate the process.

70. Maintenance of minors and field channels should not be considered as a responsibility of the state, but that of the farmers themselves. Farmers, therefore, should be educated on maintenance aspects. Farmers’ organisations should also be made responsible for collection of water charges/service charges and spend the same on proper maintenance of the system.

71. Improved irrigation scheduling, real-time irrigation scheduling, use of expert decision support system and application of GIS are important in irrigation planning and management.

72. There should be proper vertical and horizontal coordination among institutions dealing with drinking water, irrigation, water for industrial use and hydropower.

73. Integrated view of water resources would require multidisciplinary policy making, planning and executing teams in place of largely unidisciplinary civil engineering oriented teams which exist at the moment. It is particularly necessary that there is effective interface between hydrological and socio-economic planning units. Academic and scientific communities, environmental groups, representatives of project affected people should also be involved in management of water resources.

74. There is need for increasing understanding of the interaction between groundwater and food security at different levels in South Asia. Hence, it is important to have a detailed reliable data base on important parameters, such as long term water level trends as well as seasonal to multi-year water level fluctuations, which are important factors determining access to reliable ground water supplies. Transparency in ground water data and improvement in data collection and analysis should be improved. Time series data should be made available with quality. Over exploitation and water quality parameters are also needed to be examined in dealing with the groundwater issues.

75. Since improved water management technologies are available, it is important to take technology transfer in a massive scale, rather than concentrating only on further research. So there should be an increased emphasis on technology transfer through adaptive research methods on the farmers fields and on development and strengthening of extension organisation.

76. Attempts should be made to generate comprehensive data through studies on socio-economic and environmental impacts of dams and other water resources projects. Such studies should be initialed at the earliest possible. In this connection, these is need for obligatory financial closures of the projects so that complete idea about costs and benefits can become available.


International Conference On Sustainable Development Of Water Resources :
Socio-Economic, Institutional And Environmental Aspects; New Delhi,
November 27-30, 2000.
Annexure -1

DELIBERATION

The International Conference was divided into several sessions and sub-sessions which were chaired/co-chaired by eminent water resource experts. Every session had a coordinator cum rapporteur as per details given in Annexure – 2. Dr. P.N. Mathur and Dr. G.S. Shrotia functioned as chief rapporteurs. Over 80 papers covering different aspects of water resource management were presented in the conference. These were authored by senior professionals from different parts of the world. The papers presented dealt with a wide range of issues pertinent to the water sector. Presentation of papers in each session was followed by lively discussion for which ample time had been provided.

INAUGURAL SESSION

The Conference was inaugurated on 27th November, 2000 by Shri Arjun Charan Sethi, Hon'ble Minister for Water Resources, Government of India. The inaugural session was presided over by Dr. Bhishm Narain Singh, former Union Minister and Governor. His Excellency Dr. Harbert Traxl, the Austrian Ambassador and Mr. Z. Hasan, Secretary, Union Ministry of Water Resources also graced the inaugural session as Guests of Honour.

The welcome address by Prof. Kamta Prasad, Chairman, Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, set the overall focus and thrust of the deliberations. He made a brief mention of the seven realities which, if taken into account, would result in faster augmentation and better utilisation of water resources. These were:

1. Water is an economic as well as a social commodity.
2. Locational factors have a dominating influence on water resource projects.
3. Unscientific and generalised statements on the basis of few examples are unsafe to draw conclusions.
4. Development of all and not only a selected few should be the major criterion of project selection.
5. Involvement of people in planning, decision making and implementation is important. Corresponding changes in administrative culture is imperative.
6. There are several sources of human welfare and not one or a few.
7. Deficiency of data and scientific studies in water sector often results in avoidable controversies.

The inaugural address by Shri Arjun Charan Sethi, Hon'ble Minister for Water Resources, Government of India underscored the role of human issues in water resource development like resettlement and rehabilitation of the project affected people, human suffering due to drought and flood, participation of women in projects and democratic governance of the water sector. He drew attention to the need for developing suitable mechanisms for conflict resolution for sustainable development. The presidential remarks by Dr. B.N. Singh, former Union Minister and Governor drew pinpointed attention to the importance of water for the survival and growth of humanity. He hoped that the International Conference would come forward with new ideas and useful suggestions for reducing some of the prevailing conflicts related to water resources. Brief observations were made by His Excellancy Dr. Harbert Traxl, the Austrian Ambassador. At the end, Dr. C.D. Thatte, Member of The Organising Committee of the International Conference proposed a vote of thanks.

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Two key note addresses were presented by eminent personalities : Prof. Y.K. Alagh and Dr. Frank Rijsberman. Both of them provided a sound base to the various dimensions of a new paradigm for development and management of water resources. Dr. Alagh drew attention to the overriding importance of water resource for the overall socio-economic development of India in the coming decades and underlined the need for augmenting water resources to meet the challenge of emerging water scarcity on which he threw considerable light. He also felt that traditional system of water management through small tanks, bheels, jheels, bawls etc. needed to be integrated with canal irrigation. He laid considerable emphasis on efficient management of the irrigation system at the grass root level and lauded the performance of a few NGOs in this respect. It was essential to have an appropriate policy framework with incentives and disincentives along with support for NGOs and a mechanism for monitoring and follow up. There was also the need for a mechanism to deal with the ever-increasing conflicts between different water users. Drinking water was not only a matter of availability alone but also of access. How to deliver water to those who need it and yet evolve some kind of water pricing mechanism is a real issue.

Dr. Frank Rijsberman, in his keynote address, pleaded for a closer look at what we define as water scarcity. He said that the Falkmen's definition of average of availability alone was a limited indicator. It was essential that we consider both the absolute or physical scarcity as well as economic scarcity, which meant that there might be no or limited access to water although it might be available. He pointed out that water provided opportunities to co-operate and there was need to work towards it. We have to work together to develop collaboration and partnership to build secure and sustainable water in future. He also drew attention to different projections of future demand for water for irrigation. He made a case for departing from the assumption of 'business as usual.' There was need for institutional, technological and financial innovations. There was need to reduce the water demand by reconsidering the value system and the lifestyle. And there was need for getting "more crop per drop" as put forward by Mr. Koffi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations.

Maj. Shamsher Singh, Prof. Desarda, Prof. Gilbert Ettienne, Dr. H.R. Sharma and Dr. C.J. Perry made brief interventions drawing attention to several points. These included the need for recharging of the ground water and extracting it by the time tested bullock labour in case electricity was not available, licensing of all borewells as in Mauritius, developing local institutions and empowering them for management of water resources, need for augmenting water resources by all means to meet the food requirements of a rapidly growing population, need for raising productivity, a realistic view of small tanks which have a propensity to dry during acute drought, migration and human suffering due to water scarcity in drought years, the costs of delays in taking up big projects not only in economic but also in human terms.

Summing up the session, the Chairperson, Mr. Z. Hasan pointed out that we should not look at the problems in isolation. Need for development of hydropower, lowering of groundwater table and the devastations faced by the people due to floods have to be examined in an integrated manner. He pointed out that the drain on the country's foreign reserves could be checked if we could develop the hydropower potential in the country instead of importing the crude oil or gases. We had to deal with problems which were peculiar to a particular place in a particular manner. There could not be universal solutions. He pointed out that the repeated droughts in Gujarat had rendered all local efforts infructuous. Similarly, while most of Rajasthan faced severe drought situation, the areas covered by the Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana presented a picture of plenty.

SESSION ON WATER RESOURCES SECTOR IN THE COMING DECADES - NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND GLOBAL VISION

The first two presentations were on South-Asian perspective for water resources development and management made by Dr. M.A. Chitale and Dr. Q.K. Ahmed respectively. Dr. Chitale dealt with the prevailing problems related to water for health and industry, eco-system, competing demands for water, river basin management, problems dogging storage dams, ground water development, hydro-power, water-supply, gender issues, research and development, institutional reforms etc. Education and literacy, nutritional aspects, and poverty issues needed urgent attention. He specially mentioned about dependence of the region on monsoon for fresh water supply for various purposes, as well as requirement of irrigation for agriculture. It was mentioned that Global Water Partnership (GWP) was promoting inter-disciplinary network of water related stakeholders both areawise as well as theme-wise for South Asia.

Dr. Q.K. Ahmed laid emphasis on cooperation across countries in water management. Mentioning the successful bilateral cooperative water sector undertakings in South Asia, namely, Indus Basin Treaty, Bhutan-India cooperation in hydro-power generation and the Ganges treaty, he emphasized that there was scope for regional/multilateral cooperation also particularly in the Ganges-Brahmputra-Meghna region. He emphasized the necesssity of attention to agriculture in flood-prone areas of Bangladesh. Need for community participation in water management was highlighted.

Mr. S. Taniyama, presenting the Japanese scenario, drew attention to increasing demand for water, constraints in augmenting water supply resulting in need for reuse of water with the help of waste water treatment plants. Dr. A.H. Nazemi of Iran, gave an account of demand and supply scenario of water resources in his country. He advocated the need for sustainable development and sound environmental management of water resources through control, management and protection of watersheds, preparation of national plan for managing consumption, treating water as an economic commodity, increasing awareness about water quality, and strictly observing environmental considerations.

Mr. M.B.C.G.O. Futukamba presented the perspective of irrigation development in Tanzania. He highlighted the grossly inadequate development of the sector including the absence of adequate irrigation data for planning purposes. He suggested the involvement of private sector to undertake lage-scale irrigation development. Dr. H.R. Sharma of Mauritius presented a very optimistic picture of water management in his country. The legal framework and regulatory mechanism was quite satisfactory and both surface and ground water were being used quite optimally.

The paper "New Concepts of National Water Policy of the Russian Federation" by Belyaev Sergey and Chernyaev Alexander, which was not presented by the authors personally, focussed on a National Water Policy for the Russian Federation to promote and support sustainable water resources in the country. This policy had been officially approved and its mechanism for implementation was being developed.The features of the policy included basin-wise planning of water activities, cooperation of riparian Russian Federation constituents in the use, rehabilitation and protection of trans-boundary water bodies, long-term and short-term progress for regulation and monitoring of impacts of water bodies and public involvement in the process of decision making. The paper entitled "Water and Sustained Development - A Challenge for the 21st Century : The Case of Portugal" by F.D. Cravidao and Martia de Lurdes Mateus discussed the water resource scenario in Portugal in the context of the Framework Directive of the European Community which had been approved in July 2000. It was mentioned that Portugal did not presently have tax or tariff collection for water or disposing of wastewater but only for distribution of water to homes, factories or to agricultrual irrigation systems. The paper proposed sustainable management of water with due respect to ecological, economic and ethical sustainablity. Mr. Khurshid Najam of Ramsar Convention gave an account of the salient features of this global organisation in helping the wetlands.

The paper "Water Resources Sector in the Coming Decades - A Global Perspective" by Mr. William Cosgrove was presented by Mr. Frank Rijsberman. The paper discussed the World Water Vision that was presented in Hague in March 2000 dealing with the water scenario in the world in 2025. It was mentioned that all human needs in the year 2025 could be met in a sustainable manner while withdrawing and consuming only 10 percent more water than 1995 provided five actions were taken. These were : (1) involve all stakeholders in integrated water resources management; (2) move towards full cost pricing of water services for all human uses; (3) increase public funding for research and innovation in the public interest; (4) recognise the need for co-operation to improve integrated water resources management in international basin; and (5) increase massively investments in water. The paper also discussed uneven distribution of available water, surface and ground water quality, various uses of water for human use, eco-systems, bio-diversity under three global level water scenarios for usage : business as usual; technology, economics and private sector; and values and lifestyles. It was concluded that by changing the way we manage our water resources it would be possible to satisfy the life sustaining needs of the growing global population with an improved quality of life.

Conclusions and recommendations arising from the papers and discussions from the floor focussed on the following :

(1) Sustainable water resources development and management required a holistic and integrated approach. (2) Bilateral water sector arrangements had proved to be successful in practically all instances. Regional/multilateral cooperation between riparian countries of transboundary rivers might also be promoted as and when considered useful by the concerned parties. (3) The process of decision-making should be transparent and should have public involvement. (4) Suitable legislations should be enacted for management and protection of water resources. (5) Irrigation schemes, especially small holder irrigation should be gradually managed through farmers participation and financial involvement. (6) Reuse of waste water must be promoted wherever there were symptoms of water scarcity. Technology suiting local conditions must be adopted for waste water treatment. (7) Traditional irrigation schemes should be upgraded and/or rehabilitated. (8) Water harvesting technologies should be encouraged and promoted. (9) Privatization in irrigation should be encouraged with respect to investment, operation and management. (10) Proper water pricing, investment planning, improved water laws, institutional reforms, women's involvement, poverty issues and education and training, were some of the necessities in South Asia.


SESSION ON "CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE WATER SECTOR - INTERNATIONAL AND INTRA -NATIONAL : SEARCH FOR A VIABLE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK"

The session had five papers presented by 3 noted water resource planners, one eminent social scientist and one expert in water law. Mr. Ramswamy A. Iyer, the first speaker, mentioned that conflicts were caused by wrong principles being adhered to by policy makers, limited vision, lack of sensibility, inadequate understanding, ignorance, unwillingness to share information and politicisation. To overcome these problems, he suggested that there should be an integrated basin approach, pragmatic regional approach based on the principles of benefit sharing as well as sharing of knowledge and information.He highlighted the role of negotiations and agreement in settlement of disputes, apart from making the adjudication process smooth and fast.

Prof. R.R. Singh gave a brief account of the theory of conflict and stated that it was an outcome of scarcity. Thereupon he concentrated on socio-economic and equity related conflicts highlighting the divide between the 'eminent domain' and the 'people's domain'. He exhibited both the positive and negative aspects of conflict by using the impact parameters in terms of natural capital, financial capital, physical capital, human capital and social capital. Further by critically examining the NGO perspective on displacement and R&R issues, he concluded that irrespective of the sectors, people matter first in any scheme of development in a democracy.

Mr. A.D. Mohile in his paper "Discords and Accords : Water Conflict Management in India", critically reviewed the Indian situation in regard to the institutions, processes, and laws for managing water related discords in terms of matrix of conflicts. He felt that water related conflicts were inevitable but there was scope for better management of discords. Towards this end, he gave suggestion about principles for water allocations and how to deal with them. Finally, he suggested a 7 point package for discord management in terms of laws, improved processes, policies and institutions.

The legal aspects of water resource disputes were discussed by Prof. B.R. Chauhan who regarded a dispute settlement vision as a component of water development. He mentioned several methods of conflict resolution. But his preference was for agreement or treaty. Negotiations and diplomatic channels provided an aid to this.

Mr. P.L. Diwan in his paper emphasised that conflicts in water sector were among the major causes of slow economic development in many developing countries. He examined the causes and factors responsible for conflicts in relation to R&R issues and the conceptual differences between big versus small dams. He argued for a resolution mechanism at design, planning, execution and operation levels, through suitable monitoring and surveillance mechanism, grievance redressal, legal framwork, a think tank, a well-designed R&R policy, and above all a re-organisation of Government institutions with respect to peoples participation in water management.

In response to the papers presented by the learned authors, a number of comments were received from the floor of the house. Participating in the debate, Mr. S.D. Sinha argued for a bottom-up approach to resolve the conflicts. He further objected to the present practice of river water management whereby a large part of the water flow in the river was diverted through canals, which created problems for the people downstream. This also resulted in reduction in ground water table in the vicinity of the river which led to conflicts. Dr. C. Perry too supported a bottom-up approach citing some examples from Pakistan. Prof. Desarda argued that genesis of the water conflict lay in the way development was perceived by the planners. As a solution, he emphasised on equity and sustainability, agro-climatic approach, proper land use policy, gender and justice issues. In addition, there were comments made by Mr. Mohankrishnan, Mr. Khan, Mr. Onta, Ms. Iyla Mehta, Mr. D. K. Das, Mr. B.K. Singh, Ms. Simi Kamal, Mr. Aslam, Dr. Sharma, Dr. B. Rath and Dr. G. Chapman.

In his chairperson’s remarks, Dr. Thatte drew attention to major causes of conflicts and how to cope up with them. He pointed out that there were both success and failure stories associated with conflicts resolution processes and mechanisms. He opined that conflict resolution process needed a movement from legal to a humanitarian and cooperative approach in which all stake-holders and partners (including the PAPs, who are the victims) should come togethter on one platform to find viable solutions. To make the resolution a success, the mind-sets of the stake-holders including the project managers must change at the outset. The modus operandi of conflict resolution required that in addition to people’s participation, there should also be a change in laws and institutions.

SESSION ON "DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER BASIN ORGANISATIONS"

Three papers were presented in this session. The chairperson, while introducing the topic, emphasised that integrated development needed an effective organisational set-up so that the visions/programmes could become implementable.

The first paper, presented by Mr. N.V.V Char focussed on South Asian countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Mr. Char indicated five phases of action to be taken for development of river basin organisations (RBO). These consisted of legal and regulatory framework, state level and inter-state organisations and implementation and monitoring plan. He also gave details of the structure and functions of RBOs and gave country specific suggestions for modifying the existing institutions in South Asia to enable them to fuction as effective RBOs. He agreed with the prevailing view that there was no single model for RBOs which could be applied in all circumstances. Instead, a range of models might be developed to suit specific situations. He ended his presentation by reiterating the recommendations of the South Asian Regional RBO workshop held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, on July 18 and 19, 2000.

Mr. D.C.S. Elakanda presented his paper on "Sri Lanka Experience in River Basin Management and Proposals for SA-RBO Network". He depicted how basin management was implemented in Sri Lanka since 1947. The Mahaweli Ganga Authority was explained in different perspectives. The principles of basin management in general and in South Asian context in particular, and how did these translate into services, the need for establishing sustainable links with other agencies and the partners were briefly explained. Suggestions were made to hold workshops in all the South Asian countries. Suggestions for identifying pilot river basins, for development of a core group of professionals in South Asia, for exchanging professionals/experts and experience between member countries were made.

The last paper of this session was presented by Mr. Suresh Chandra on "Development of Narmada Basin Organisation". He described inception of Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal and its directives in 1979 for Narmada River Development Planning and Management of the available water resources of the basin as a single hydrological unit as well as follow up measures taken. The concept of implementation, management and operation of various multi-purpose projects in Narmada Basin considering Narmada as a hydrological unit was highlighted. Mr. Chandra also explained the organisational setup of Narmada Control Authority and concluded that it could be considered an ideal model of a River Basin Organisation.

Intervening in the discussion, Prof. R.R. Singh pointed out that resettlement was one of the major issues in Narmada Basin. This important social component needed to be dovetailed in the basin development by Narmada Control Authority. Mr. S.W.K.T. Samaranayake, appreciated the Mahawali Ganga model for the early actions taken in land settlement. He sugested that other basin development agencies might follow the Mahawali model of Sri Lanka, Mr. N.P. Jain suggested that instead of looking into the entire basin, we could look into a compact part as a pilot area. Then the integration of social, technical and environmental aspects would be feasible. Dr. Lyla Mehta, wanted to know how detailed was the plan of Narmada Control Authority in addressing health problems and other socio-economic aspects. Mr. Walia indicated that states were to be encouraged to form River Boards and that the affected people should be the members of the River Development Board. Prof. Desarda stressed the importance of participation of beneficiaries in overall economic development.

SESSION ON "BIG v/s SMALL PROJECTS CONTROVERSY"

The session spanning across the lunch break commenced at 11:00 A.M. and ended at 4:00 P.M. on 28.11.2000. In all 8 papers were presented during the session which was followed by lively discussion on the subject. The 9th paper circulated could not be presented since the author was not present. The papers covered both the sides of the coin regarding comparative evaluation of big and small dam projects.

Professor Gilbert Etienne presented an Asia relevant view in respect of the impact of several reservoir schemes implemented in countries like Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China etc. He lucidly brought out that even though the projects might be slow starters and encounter difficult periods of adjustment by the user community as well project authorities in the areas for funding, water logging due to excessive application etc., the long term benefits and economic upgradation of the command area did offset the teething troubles. The benefits far outweighted the prices paid for them. There was no alternative to major works in areas having very arid climate and limited water table. Reduction of losses and water saving were not enough. Additional sources of irrigation were also needed. This would involve large scale projects. He advocated shunning the prejudices and polemics and made a plea for thinking dispassionately about the projects in general. Moreover, there was often some complementarity between large and small projects and between canals and tubewells. He, however, felt that the earlier neglected aspect of rehabilitation should receive adequate attention.

Dr. NMP Verma brought out both positive and negative effects of dam projects. Special precautions were needed to avoid common pitfalls of R&R. Large and small projects had to be viewed as not one type model against another but complementing each other depending on circumstances prevailing in specific areas. Rain water harvesting and small dams could be preferred in drought prone areas. Big dams could be needed for moderating flood, generating electricity and meeting the need of additional irrigation. But big dams would require more careful planning and management so as to minimise their adverse effects.

Mr. R.S. Goel highlighted the inevitability of large projects to tide over difficult periods and to achieve sustainable development. With 1/3 territory of India as drought prone and 1/8 territory being flood prone, stoppage and slowing down the development in Water Resources field without professional analysis was not advisable. Small schemes were not in a position to substitute the need for large water storages but could at best complement the large projects. Beneficial aspects of environmental impacts of river valley projects were discussed by him. Moreover with proper mechanism of environmental impact assessment, adverse effects from future projects could be minimised to a great extent. The case was illustrated by his study of Ramganga dam command area indicating benefits of the projects actually accruing

Mr. Shekhar Singh indicated several inadequacies of dams with respect to their impact on the environment. He, therefore, attempted to explain possible approaches to make large projects more friendly to the environment. The issues related to the assessment process were discussed and it was emphasised that appropriate and meticulous collation of data was the key to a proper assessment and knowledge based clearance of projects. He emphasised that the assessment should precede actual commencement of a project. The system of "pari-passu" clearance and its pitfalls were also discussed by him. The key lay in meticulous and painstaking collection of relevant data and its dispassionate presentation by experts. He also emphasised the need for ex-post assessment of old projects and learning from the experience. The Ministry of Environment and Forests must have the willingness and capability, as was implied by the law, to withdraw environment clearance from, and thereby stop construction of, projects where the prescribed environmental conditions were not being complied. He was also of the view that the planning of dam should not be done in isolation but it should be part of the larger economic, social and environmental plan for the region and the country.

Mr. T.P. Singh presenting his joint paper with Dr. B.K. Mittal brought out the benefits from a large project like increase in food production, improved flood protection, more hydro-electricity and larger supply of drinking water.

Ms. Lyla Mehta brought out the results of her sociological analysis in rural Kutch region of Gujarat in India in the context of possible impact of Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) on the same. According to her, SSP was made out by state machinery to be the panacea for Kutch. But she asserted that in reality Kutch stood to benefit very marginally from it. Moreover, bulk of the benefit in Kutch would be derived by the better-off sections of the society. The author emphasised on locally appropriate solutions and good water management as well as land use practices which could alleviate scarcity to a good extent. She felt that such schemes were not taken up in Kutch region and elsewhere in Gujarat because of the diversion of state funds to SSP.

Mr. M. Gopalkrishnan explained that the large dams like Bhakra Nangal and Hirakud had transformed the arid areas of Punjab, Haryana and especially Rajasthan as well as Orissa. His paper went at length to illustrate the beneficial aspects of storage dam and made critical observation on the findings and recommondations of the World Commission on Dams. He observed that small projects per-se could not adequately intercept the large quantum of rainfall available for exploitation on sustainable basis. Small schemes could not provide a sustainable solution. Accordingly, each type of scheme should be evaluated in its own right and should be treated as complimentary to each other rather than a replacement of one another.

Dr. Rajkumar Sen drew attention to utter lack of data on ex-post benefits and costs of big dams which had ushered in a new irrigation system but which had also marginalisid the decentralised traditional irrigation system prevailent earlier. The optimal policy for large dams in future was suggested by him. The importance of a precursor study of the effects from a proposed project should be made available to the public. The aim should be towards sustainable long term resource enhancement rather than short term exploitation. There should be an optimal mix of major and minor dams depending on their comparative advantages and costs.

A very lively discussion took place on the floor of the house. The issue of R&R evoked considerable attention by various speakers. It was expressed that all concerned should shoulder the responsibility and the responsibility should lie not only on the government but also on other interested NGOs and parties interested in the projects. It was also felt that rehabilitation meant full share in the development distributed equitably to all the beneficiaries including those who were displaced The need for setting up of a group on "Friends of Hydro Projects" was suggested to place a balanced view. Recharge of ground water and improvement of bio-mass were suggested as sustainable measures for water conservation.

The importance of avoiding polemics and rhetoric was stressed again and again. It was opined in general that dispassionate analysis without any preconceived notion was the key towards arriving at a solution in respect of projects. Rather than considering one versus another, the approach should be big and small accommodating both as per the needs and demands of the situation. The dangers of extrapolation without rational thinking were also highlighted. This led to erroneous conclusions and undue alarm. Attention was also drawn to lack of comprehensive data and studies on socio-economic and environmental impacts of dams. Such studies should be initiated at the earliest possible. Need for obligatory financial closures of the projects was also stressed so that complete idea about costs and benefits could become available.

In the summing up remarks by Professor P.V. Indiresan, the chairperson, the differences between natural science and social science perspectives were discussed very extensively. The approach of taking up a micro level study and applying the same all across a large area were discussed and pitfalls were pointed out. It was stressed that the options available were limited as nature did not allow a completely free choice. In view of this, the need to hear every side of opinion and honouring the final decision arrived at by the community was the solution for such themes.



SESSION ON MANAGEMENT OF FLOOD AND OTHER DISASTERS IN SOUTH ASIA.

There were six papers dealing with floods in India and Bangladesh and one with drought in Sri Lanka. Of these, one paper on Management of Water-related Disasters in the context of Himalayan Mountain Region of India could not be presented as none of the two authors were present.

Mr. R.P. Singh presenting a joint paper with Mr. S.B. Srivastava gave a brief overview of floods in India, their causes and measures taken up for their management including the approaches recommended by various committees. He concluded that the problem of flood was still very grave in the country. Most of the known and tried methods of flood management were not effective in dealing with major floods. Hence, there was need to supplement them through non-structural measures. People should also learn to live with the floods where no solution was possible.

Dr. A.H. Ahmed’s presentation was focussed on the flood problem in Bangladesh which is one of the countries most vulnerable to floods. After giving a brief overview of floods and mitigation measures considered, he underlined the need for an effective flood forecasting system. This would require real time data from a large number of river stations located in upstreem area most of which are in India or Nepal. He, therefore, concluded that enhanced regional cooperation could play a significant role in improving flood forcasting and thereby reducing flood damages in Bangladesh as well as in the lower riparian states in India.

Mr. M.U. Ghani dwelt on the socio-economic and environmental issues of a major flood control project namely the Kosi project in Bihar state of India. He gave a brief account of both the favourable and adverse impacts of the project from socio-economic and environmental angles. The experience of this project indicated that flood management practices as developed so far were inadequate to contain widespread damages resulting from major floods. In this context he suggested that many of the problems would be reduced if reservoirs were constructed and catchment area treatment undertaken in the upper catchments in Nepal. This would reqire regional cooperation and provision for adequate funding.

Dr. Binayak Rath’s presentation dealt with problems of flood and cyclone in coastal areas of Orissa state of India. He gave a brief account of these disasters in historical perspective and the policies adopted by the government for the purpose. According to him, structural measures to mitigate the flood and cyclone damages had hardly borne the desired results. Participation of the people was found to be missing in drawing the R&R policies in Orissa. His suggestion included governmental collaboration with NGOs, drawing long term planning for disaster management, more emphasis on non-structural measures, better system for deciding the relief amount per family, setting up multi-purpose cyclone centres, taking up plantation projects etc.

South Asia Technical Advisory Committee (SASTAC) of Global Water Partnership (GWP) presented a concept proposal of its proposed associated programme on flood management to reduce flood vulnerability in South Asia. The programme would be operated through Bangladesh Water Partnership in association with Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad. Relevant features of the proposal like overall objectives, output and impacts, activities, inputs and management, work plan and budget were presented by SASTAC.

Dr. Anoja Wickramasinghe presented a broad analysis of droughts experienced by the people in the Maha-Oya catchment in central highlands of Sri Lanka. She gave empirical data to show that the droughts were more due to changes in the landscape than due to changes in the rainfall regime. Traditional farming practices had been replaced by commercial crops. The planting of tobacco, destroying of forests, clearance of tea and logging of trees had created devastative effects. She, therefore, pleaded for a more landscape oriented synecological approach. Unlike in irrigated areas, in the upper catchment, the seasonal rainfall should be managed through biotic means to mitigate degradation and the advancement of desertification.

The discussion that followed laid emphasis on giving urgent attention to flood, drought as well as cyclones which affect the well being of public. The role of flood forecasting and regional cooperation for dealing with flood was underlined. Participants felt concerned about the tendency of flood damages to continue unabated despite measures taken so far. It was also felt that non-structural measures should receive higher attention and flood control measures should be integrated with those of development of the concerned areas.

SESSION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

This session was divided into three sub-sessions. In all ten papers were accepted for presentation in this session. However, only eight papers were presented as the authors of the remaining two papers could not attend the Conference. The papers presented dealt with issues which included costs, prices and value of water in alternative uses, the role of water pricing in improving use efficiency, water markets, cost appraisal of river valley projects, integrated water resource management, and public-private partnership in meeting drinking water requirements of the urban poor.

Sub-session I

In sub-session I three papers were presented. The first paper by Dr. Ramesh Bhatia presented various cost concepts and suggested that sustainable and efficient use of water would require the tariffs to match not only costs of supply (i.e. O&M and capital costs) but also opportunity costs, economic externality costs, and environmental externality costs. The paper presented some empirical results to illustrate that tariffs in irrigation, urban and industrial sectors were far below the full cost. The need for integrated pricing structures especially in groundwater extraction and wastewater disposal was stressed. The second paper by Mr. C.J. Perry suggested that introducing water pricing for the purpose of controlling demand required significant changes in current laws, regulatory mechanisms, operational procedures and facilities. In addition, the levels of overall pricing required to induce significant shifts in demand would require substantial increases in overall water charges. The third paper by Mr. Peter S. Lee discussed a framewwork for financial sustainability of irrigation and drainage. The paper suggested that inadequate funding was widespread amongst irrigation organisations, adequate funding was likely to be associated with organisations that charge users for service provided, and that the financial sustainability and transparency of overall operations required the organisation to show a margin of profit.

The various cost concepts and their relevance in fixing the water tariffs in alternative uses, as suggested in the paper by Dr. Ramesh Bhatia, evoked many questions and an interesting discussion followed thereon. Some opined that opportunity cost in the case of water was more of a theoretical concept and had little policy relevance. Similarly, the concept of environmental cost conveyed different meanings depending upon how one looked at it. For example the environmental cost gave a different connotation if the word ‘user’ was replaced by ‘consumer’ or ‘beneficiary’. This, when extended further to distinguish between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ beneficiaries, confounded the concept still further.

On the question of pricing of water, it was pointed out that the more important question that needed to be addressed first was the question of defining water rights. Without water rights, as also water security, having been defined properly, issue of water pricing and its enforcement could not be effective.

It was pointed out that, if water were to be charged on the ‘full cost’ recovery basis, it would have serious socio-economic implications such as on employment. It was also emphasised that in India where even the full O&M cost could not be recovered how could one consider recovering the full economic cost? Another important question that needed to be addressed in this context was the question of affordability of water by the users and its equity implications. In this context it was mentioned that when one considered raising the price of water, life line rates for the poorer sections of the society would need to be defined. The important question that needed to be discussed in this regard was how to target the subsidies to select groups only.

It was mentioned that in India in the irrigation sector, water price was determined not only on the basis of pure economic considerations but on social considerations as well. It was, however, also pointed out that there was enough empirical evidence to show that farmers were not averse to paying higher water charges provided supply of water was assured to them.

On the question of assigning a marginal value (MV) to water, it was emphasised that this value should not be measured without reference to the time factor. For example during the period of floods the MV of water might be zero but during the periods of drought, the MV of water might be very high.

One of the participants was of the opinion that even if price for irrigation water was to be raised, the demand for water in the agricultural sector would not fall. It was, however, argued that as a result of raising the price of water to reflect its full user cost, one could expect a reduction in water demand in industry. This reduction in demand, it was clarified, was expected for fresh water and not for demand of water per se.

On the relevance of different cost concepts put forward, it was clarified that the purpose was to know at the first instance as to what it would cost to make water available. Such a knowledge was essential to enable a more informed decision making for fixing the water tariffs to be charged from different users, extent of subsides going to the sector, in deciding about life line rates and other related decisions. It was mentioned that there were, however, certain uses where even this full cost could be recovered and should, therefore, be charged.

On the question of subsidy and social needs, it was argued that some one had to provide subsidy to keep the system running. The main issue in irrigation water was not price alone but the availability of required quantity of water at the desired time to the farmers. The contract between user and the water supply agency should include this conditionality.

The Chairperson in his concluding remarks observed that the techniques of Benefit-Cost analysis as developed by Little and Mirlees, and some additionalities in the technique propounded by UNIDO, did not develop very much excepting some tinkering here and there. When we brought externalities into the picture, the analysis became very complicated. The valuation of indirect benefits was very difficult and the important issue one faced was how far could one go in measuring and quantifying these externalities. On the question of water pricing and subsidies, he remarked, there were different views.

Sub-session II

In the second sub-session also three papers were presented. The first paper by Dr. Marie-Helene Zerah discussed about public-private partnership in providing water supply to the urban poor. The paper examined how the private operators in three foreign countries had attempted to find innovative ways to provide drinking water to low income households. Based on the lessons drawn from the three case studies presented, the paper suggested that private sector could be part of the institutional framework to provide water supply services in Indian cities. The implementation of this, the paper argued, would require clear political commitments. The second paper by Mr. L.V. Kumar discussed changing water markets in India. The paper dealt with a number of important issues impinging upon water sector. The issue discussed included value and pricing of water, bankable water sector projects, funding of irrigation projects and regulatory framework for work. The third paper, presented by Mr. R.S. Goel gave a critical review of preparation and appraisal of cost estimates of river valley projects. The paper critically examined the process of formulation and appraisal of and shortcomings in cost estimates of river valley projects. The paper also discussed several important points for effecting economy in the project costs and in preparing more realistic estimates of the same.

In the discussion that ensued, it was pointed out that in the case of urban water supply an important question that one faced was how to define and charge differential prices of water for different sections of the society. In the case of drinking water supply, for example, how could one isolate the so called encroachers colonies from say relatively well-off colonies for the purpose of fixing differential water rates. It was clarified that the regime of differential prices did exist currently in the country – the industry paid a price different from that paid by households. The important question that needed to be debated was : what was a good water tariff policy? Unless the tariff policy was carefully worked out, the better paying customers of the municipalities might invest in their own water supply systems and in the process make municipalities worse off. However, if one were to recognise that water was a fundamental right of each citizen, provision of subsidy on water for some sections of the society became an essential component of the tariff policy.

On the issue of increasing water tariff and the resistance of the consumers to such an increase, it was pointed out that the consumers were not always averse to paying a higher price for water. A number of studies were available which showed that while there was a willingness to pay on the part of households, there was a lack of willingness to charge on the part of the municipalities. In the case of public-private partnership in urban water supply, the important question one faced was how could one divide producers and distributors of water.

On the question of water markets and trading of water, a query was raised as to whether this type of water trade could be implemented in the long run. It was pointed out that this type of trading could have international problems as the water flows from one country to another. It was opined that this type of trading could possibly take place during certain periods of the year when there was surplus water available.

It was felt that there was a need for compilation of facts and empirical information and wider national consultation on issues such as those relating to reasons for delays in completion of various projects, the extent of cost overruns of different projects and reasons thereof, the conflicts between different parties in execution of projects etc.

Elaborating on some of the reasons for cost overruns, the author of the third paper informed the house that the cost overruns occurred on account of several interacting factors like delays in land procurement, entry of new organisations, revision of cost estimates by the project authority itself etc. The house was informed that the Planning Commission had done some work on the reasons for cost overruns and had estimated that while price rise accounted for 8 to 12 percent, the two important factors for cost overruns were design deficiency and non inclusion of or insufficient provision for unseen costs such as for rehabilitation, environment protection etc.

It was suggested that consultation with the local people at the stage of planning the project was an important way of moulding public opinion in favour of the project. A bottom up rather than top down approach was likely to yield better results. However some participants felt that there was a role for both the approaches - the top down and bottom up. These approaches must meet but the important question that needed to be probed was where do these meet?

Sub-session III

In the third sub-session, two papers were presented. The first paper by Dr. Nanda Abeywickrama dealt with the important issue of demand management of water resources in Sri Lanka on the principles of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). The paper was based on the Sri Lanka Water Vision 2025 and the Framework of Action on the Vision. The challenge for policy makers in Sri Lanka, it was emphasised, was to manage demand for water in a situation of scarcity amongst plenty. Giving an economic value to water without sacrificing social and environmental imperatives was a challenge for both government and for society. Good governence was a pre-requisite. He also favoured a dual water supply system, one for drinking purpose and another for other purposes. The second paper in the session was presented by Dr. Graham Chapman. The paper presented conflicting paradigms in scientific and social analyses of multi purpose river projects in South Asia. The paper showed how the development and management of water resources on a large scale was bound up not just with the political but also with the intellectual climate of the area.

During discussion, it was emphasised that there was a greater need for wider consultation with the farmers at all levels of planning and execution of an irrigation project. The Chairperson citing the case of Sri Lanka remarked that the country had succeeded to a large extent in achieving social goals. It was felt that social scientists and engineers should work together and bring into focus each other’s perspective and learn from each other’s experience.

SESSION ON INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ASPECTS – PROMOTION OF WATER PARTNERSHIPS

This session had eleven papers and was conducted in three sub-sessions.

Sub-session I

Four papers were presented during the first sub-session. The first was a theme paper on water partnerhsip by GWP-SASTAC. Other three papers focussed on participatory water resource/irrigation management.

The paper on Water Partnership noted that management aspects were multiple and varied from water resource management to financial cost and the involvement of people. Water was not only a resource but also an economic good. Therefore, integrated strategy that ensured water for people, food, nature, industry, agriculture, etc. was essential. Importance of network and networking at national, area/regional and global levels was stressed. Operational agencies, stake holders & interdisciplinary advisory committees should be involved. At operational level the maximum area that could be covered under the hydraulic area was mentioned. It was pointed out that area covering more than 20000 km2 could not be handled, and also less than 1000 km2 was inadequate.

Dr. V.S. Dinkar presented the joint paper with Mr. M. Sivadas. He gave an overview of participantory irrigation management (PIM) in the world and particularly in India. Thereafter, he threw considerable light on the future potential for PIM in India after examining its strengths and weaknesses. He gave several suggestions for making PIM effective. The next presentation by Mr. M.R. Baig discussed several issues related to functioning of PIM in India. He considered PIM quite useful for a country like India and gave suggestions for strengthening it so that it could make rapid progress. The third paper on the same subject was presented by Mr. Turabul Hassan. He presented a case study of PIM in Sree Rama Sagar Project of Andhra Pradesh in India. Starting with a historical note he brought out different steps taken up in the above project from the initial phase to the present day period. There was considerable overlap between these three papers. Hence some of the major points emerging from them and which were more or less common between them are given below

Organisational requirements, and also the collaboration between irrigation department, farmers and other stakeholders were noted as key elements. In order to put things into practice, political commitment, legal framework, communication, institutional cooperation, training and discussion were needed. Examples were given from various countries (Nepal, Pakistan, India, Turkey etc.)

Potential for PIM depended on necessity (for food, fuel, fodder, irrigation) and replicability. It was also noted that future potential would depend on financial feasibility, training, and institutional development to plan, act, monitor and evaluate the process.

Cost recovery was considered essential for the sustainibility but it was proposed that instead of concentrating on ‘water rate’ it was more appropriate to consider "service charges" because no or low rates were paid for water. It was also noted that farmers participation led to many problems when large number of farmers were involved and consisted of diverse groups. The paper writers stated that maintenance should not be considered as a responsibility of the state. Farmers, therefore, should be educated on maintenance aspects. Poor operational procedures, social attitudes towards roles of various stake holders were constraints. During the discussion, the following points were also mentioned.

1. Farmers should be involved to change the system and ensure a farmer oriented mechanism.
2. Role of the state should be redefined.
3. To increase efficiency, water charges/service charges should be paid and farmer organisatons should help collection of service charges.
4. Various sectors and agencies must work together to enhance yields/income so that farmers could be enabled to pay the water charges.
5. Partnership should be built from the grass root level.
6. In the process of institutional building process, farmers problems related to labour cost and training should be considered and attempts must be made to address them.

Sub-session II
Papers on the same theme continued in this sub-session also.

Three papers were presented and all of these covered experiences gained from different areas (India, Madhya Pradesh, and Sri Lanka). The first paper presented by Dr. J.S. Samra clearly explained the procedures followed in participatory watershed management in India. Key elements needed were entry point activities, transparency, contribution, community organisation, womens’s participation, common/private resources and equity. Farmers contributions were mostly in the form of labour except in few cases. Village institutions were area specific and related to lift irrigation, canal irrigation, village development, self-help etc. Groups were target oriented. Madhya Pradesh case study on PIM presented by Ms. Amita Bhaduri revealed that existing Panchayat system was an advantage. Village organisations were exclusively involved in distribution of water, collection of charges, resolution of conflicts etc. Sri Lanka case study by Dr. Samaranayake highlighted some additional points. The two main ones were:-

1. Need for dialogue, collaboration between farmers, technical experts (engineers) and the offiicers.
2. Need to harmonize engineers technology (knowledge) and farmers experiences and knowledge. Acknowledgement for farmer’s knowledge encouraged them to come forward.

Discussion was focussed an various socio-economic and technical issues in promoting farmers organisation. Common forum to deal with them was essential. Government would however, continue to play a key role because institutional changes needed time. The problem was that in many areas, states had failed to secure participation. In final discussion, the Chairperson pointed out three specific areas related to technology, leadership and coordination in the process of institutional building.

Sub-session III

This part was focussed on institutional reform needed for a more efficient planning, implementation and management of water resource sector for a developing country like India. The ball was set rolling by Mr. V. Ramachandran, the first speaker, who unfolded proposals for a series of reform at different levels, from local to national, from empowering water users associations and village committees at local levels to basin authorities at the basin level and multi-disciplinory planning agencies at the national level. The paper by Mr. P.C. Lau and others examined the institutional reforms considered useful for promoting inter basin transfer of water in India which in most cases would also involve inter-state transfer of water. The paper recommonded formation of river basin organisation as a viable institutional mechanism. Mr. Dragan Hranisavljevic of ASTRAN, Malaysia presented a joint paper explaining the approach to integrated water resource management as developed by Lyonnoise des Eaux. reportedly the world’s largest private water supply and waste water supply operator. Another joint paper was presented by Mr. S. J. Sahastrabudhe. He spoke on the need for performance based adaptive management for filling and release policy for optimal operation of a reservoir in place of the prevailing thumb rules like 75% annual dependable flow by preparing conventional working tables. He also reported a case study wherein the performance parameters were incorporated while determining the optimal release policy for a reservoir.

The important points mentioned by paper writers received support from those who participated in the discussion. The need for institutional reform at different levels and for taking an integrated view of water resources along with a multidisciplinary policy making and planning team in place of largely unidisciplinary civil engineering oriented team was emphasised by many. Several speakers stressed upon the need for creation of river basin organisations and water users associations at different levels. In course of time, the water users associations could also be integrated with river basin organisations.

SESSION ON AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

This session was conducted in three sub-sessions. There were nine papers in this session. One paper writer, however, was not present. Hence only 8 papers were presented. Besides there was a special presentation by Mr. Chandi Prasad Bhatt, a noted social worker and environmentalist from India.

Sub-session I

Prof. P.B.S. Sarma presented his paper on "Role of Water Management in ensuring food security in India." He stressed that a paradigm shift in soil and water management research was necessary. There was a need to integrate traditional technologies with the latest technologies so as to improve the crop productivity with the given quantity of water. Improved irrigation scheduling, real-time irrigation scheduling, use of expert decision support system and application of GIS were considered important in irrigation planning and management. Besides improvement in irrigated agriculture, improvement in rainfed agriculture was also considered important.

Dr. Marcus Moench, in his paper "Groundwater and food security in India", explored the changes in access to groundwater for different sections of society and the implications for the food security of vulnerable populations. He demonstrated that groundwater over exploitation and water level declines were serious consequences. Long term water level trends and seasonal to multi-year water level fluctuations were important factors determining the access to reliable groundwater supplies. He finally emphasised on the need for increasing understanding of the interaction between groundwater and food security at different levels in South Asia. It was important to have detailed reliable data base on important parameters such as long term water level trends as well as water level fluctuations besides the existing cropping pattern adopted in different situations by the farmers.

The major discussion was how the modern technologies would be transferred to farmers. Since improved water management technologies were adequately available, it was important to take technology transfer, in a massive scale, rather than concentrating on further research. So there should be shift from research to technology transfer through adaptive research methods in the farmers fields. The Water Users Associations might be made mandatory in most of the irrigation projects for effective management of the system and distribution of water. Transparency in ground water data and improvement in data collection and analysis should be improved. Time series data should be made available with quality. Over exploitation and water quality parameters were also needed to examine in dealing with the ground water issues.


Sub-session II

Presenting his paper, Dr Jacob Burke of FAO, Rome indicated that the imperative for infield irrgation efficiency had been affected since the command area authorities as well as extracting mechanisms (power utilities) decided the physical and economic management of the resources. Because of this approach, the resource base had been degraded or damaged. Hence, there was need to have more flexible approach to natural resoure management involving both natural parameters and socio-economic settings. He highlighted that even conservative farmers could be capable of spreading the risk when the managers of resources failed to provide a reliable service. Also there was a need to analyse the impacts of power sector reform as introduced in Andhra Pradesh. The energy prices and the development of local energy supply systems should be used as major tool for ground water management. There was need for overall basin coordination through a strong institution to ensure that clear hydraulic and economic criteria could be applied.

Mr. Kezeng Jamtsho presented a peper on "Water Resources and Emerging Issues in Bhutan". He indicated that water shortages in Bhutan were also common. This was due to poor planning of the watershed activities. He stressed the importance of community based natural resource management system for effective monitoring and implementation of projects. It was considered important to formulate a National Water Policy for Bhutan. The need for coordination of all watershed projects was also mentioned.

Prof. K. Palanisami highlighted the importance of tank management by the local village communities. In his paper "Sustainable Management of Tank Irrigation System in South India under Varying Institutional Landscape", the existing status of tank irrigation in terms of performance and resource mobilization was analysed. Since the tanks were starved of resources for maintenance, two strategies were recommended. (i) instead of irrigation, multi-uses of tanks should be considered for improvement, (ii) the revenue criterion of tax, fee etc.. going to different agencies should be targetted to local panchayats/WUA, which would be higher than the currrent O&M budget allotment by the Government.

Intervening in the discussion, participants felt the need for undertaking case studies in different locations to find out the extent of risks to which the farmers were exposed due to whimsical functioning of those affecting supply of water or energy sources. In the case of Bhutan, need for water balance studies and examining legal aspects of water distribution were pointed out. A question was raised regarding the appropriate method for minimising water losses in tanks and specially whether it could be done by deepening them. Rehabilitation option for tanks should be cost effective and should, therefore, be exercised on selective basis. Sustainability of tanks could be ensured by their multiple uses and ploughing back the income generated from the tanks themselves. Instead of package modernization, selective (priority) modernization options should be introduced. Water balance studies would be pre requisite for any intervention in tanks.

Sub-session III

This sub-session started with a special presentation on the famous Chipko Movement in Uttaranchal Pradesh in India by Mr. Chandi Prasad Bhatt who was himself a leading figure of the movement. He made the point that hills from where rivers originate should be taken care for improvement. Watershed development activities could be planned. Both upper catchment and upper streams should be considered while examining measures to reduce siltation in canal/rivers due to heavy felling of trees. Land slides and rehabilitation of people affected should be considered while evolving strategies for hill improvement programmes. The special presentation by Mr. Bhatt was followed by a brief discussion. It was pointed out that the impact of people’s movement on watershed would depend upon the leadership of the movement. Engineering projects alone would not be successful in ecologically sensitive areas. Hence holistic view should be taken by integrating engineering, socio-economic and environmental aspects.

Professor Bishwanath Goldar presented his joint paper with Kanchan Chopra on "Sustainable Development Framework for India - the Case of Water Resourcs". The paper laid considerable emphasis on water quality and pleaded for declaring a war on water pollution. He highlighted that interaction between the qualitative and quantitative dimensions would result in shortages and pollution levels which would threaten sustainabe supplies. Three scenarios were projected to indicate the direction of the intervention required for sustainable management in the next two decades. Accordingly, the necessary strategies included (i) increasing the water use efficieny in agricultural sector, and (ii) improving the quality of water use in household and industrial sectors. Thus both demand management/recycling technology and supply management/additional run off capture were important.

Dr. S.P. Andy presented his joint paper on assessment of tangible and intangible environmental impacts of water resources projects. He argued that besides beneficial effects, water resources projects had some adverse impacts on environment, which he mentioned. Hence he emphasised that both should be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively for sustainable use of the water resources. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was considered utmost important while considering the projects for implementation. The negative impacts identified by EIA study could be dealt with by using the principles such as : prevent where possible, mitigate where unpreventable, and compensate for residuel effects, which could not be eliminated.

Ms. M. Zimina presented the joint paper, "Dynamics of Structure of the marine coastal algal community under anthropogenic influence in the area of Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant". She dealt with water quality due to nuclear radiation. She explained that significant risks of non-radiation character from the nuclear power plant was evident for the marine coastal eco-system, because of chemical contamination from the territory of the bay drainage basin.

Discussion on the papers threw up several points of which the following were more important. Water saving through improved irrigation methods should be considered while calculating the demand side projection. Since all the future non-agricultural demand would be going from agricultural side, the projection should be able to consider the future pattern of use. Bottom up approaches should be followed in the project selection, implementation and management. The government departments and other stake holders should be involved in a holistic manner thereby facilitating integration of all the components. Environmental Impact Assessment should be important for all projects to assess the quality and quantity impacts of the projects. Water and environment are intelerlinked and a holistic/integrated view should be taken up for all projects.

SESSION ON INDIA WATER PARTNERSHIP

Initiating the discussion, Dr. M.A. Chitale, Chairman SASTAC-GWP gave a brief overview of the objectives, activities and functioning of GWP as well as SASTAC. Thereupon, representatives of country water partnerships from South Asia offered fraternal greetings and highlighted important features regarding functioning of water partnerships in their respective countries. The representatives included Mr. H.R. Khan from Bangladesh, Mr. I.R. Onta from Nepal, Ms. Simi Kamal From Pakistan and Mr. Nanda Abeywickrama from Sri Lanka.

Mr. P.L. Diwan member TAC of GWP who had been looking after the work of India Water Partnership (IWP) gave a brief account of the activities unertaken so far by IWP. These included the preparation of India Water Vision and Framework for Action. This was followed by a presentation by Professor Kamta Prasad, Chairman of the Committee on Governance Structure of India Water Partnership, who was also presiding over the session, on the proposed future setup of India Water Partnership. He mentioned that IWP would be an autonomous registered society of government and non-government institutions, intersted in water resources. The session concluded with a presentation on river Saraswati by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman.

SESSION ON INDIAN EXPERIENCE OF DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES – LESSONS, CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, OPTIONS AND VISION

There were 11 papers under this theme covering a wide spectrum of various issues related to Indian experience of development and management of water resources. These were discussed in two sub-sessions. Nine of these were presented by their authors who were present.

Sub-session I

The first paper in the sub-session was presented by Mr. R.S. Prasad who highlighted the fact that a good quantity of country’s water resources had been harnessed because of which the problem of food deficits from which the country suffered in 1950s and 1960s had been tackled successfully. This had enabled the rapid expansion of urban and industrial sectors and enhancd the availability of drinking water in villages. Some changes and mid-course corrections might be needed in policy, planning, development and management of water resources but he stressed that it may be a grave error to halt water resources development through dams and the conventional methods without establishing the efficacy of the so-called and much publicised alternatives. He mentioned that water resources development in India was plagued by three Cs i.e. conflicts, controversies and contentious issues and that a distinction was required to be made between the genuine issues and the pseudo issues. The paper also presented an agenda for carrying out reforms in the water sector and discussed the options available. A discrete combination of large and small dams for maximising utilisation of water was recommended. Need for data and studies was also emphasised.

Mr. T.S. Bhathija, presented his joint paper with Mr. R. Ghosh. He focussed on constitutional provisions governing water resources sector in India. The states could not by themselves take up new projects of an inter-state nature without the consent/concurrence of other states, even though water was a ‘state’ subject as per the Indian constitution. Similarly, inspite of best efforts, the centre often found itself helpless in its efforts to expedite agreements. It was, therefore, considered desirable to review constitutional provisions and their limitations. He further stated that India shared borders with Nepal, Bangladesh and China. India should, therefore, actively participate in the deliberations of UN Law Commission which would be helpful in the long run not only for international rivers but also for major river basins in the country.

The paper on Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Ravi Basin - a case study of Chamera Stage-II Project (H.P.), India by Mr. Yogendra Prasad and Mr. V.B. Bhatt was presented by Mr. Bhatt. He stated that all major anticipated environmental degradation problems had been addressed carefully in the pursuit of sustainable development with regard to Chamera Hydroelectric Power Project Stage-II. When completed, the power would serve its intended purpose of power generation with minimum unintended negative environmental impacts. Suitable environment management plans had been prepared to mitigate the negative environmental impacts. He mentioned that Satellite Remote Sensing techniques had also come out to be an excellent time and cost effective tool which not only gave early result but also allowed for conducting pre and post project scenario studies at a later date due to repetitive nature of data acquisition.

The paper entitled ‘Sustainable Development of India’s Water-Some Policy Issues’ by Dr. Mahesh C. Chaturvedi, highlighted the fact that a revolution or quantum jump was needed in the objectives, policies, technologies and management of water resources in India and the first step in this context was ideological. Sustainable development required an urgent endeavour to achieve leadership in science and technology and the task would have to be carried out by the Indian scientific community.

Sub-session II

Ms. Indira Khurana, while presenting her paper, highlighted the fact that although the government had invested heavily on water resources development, yet a large part of the country remained drought-prone because no specific effort had been made to drought-proof the rainfed areas which suffered from high rainfall variability from year to year and season to season. She stressed the need for giving the highest priority to rain water harvesting because the basic need of water for drinking and cooking purposes, could be met in all the villages in India through this. It had the additional advantage of providing local food security which she considered as important as national food security. This was also the best method for drought proofing. She further stated that a participatory form of governance rather than a top down bureaucratic approach was essential for the success of rainwater harvesting schemes.

The next paper was on ‘Interstate Coordination in Impementing a Mega Project for Water Supply : the Telugu Ganga Project’ authored and presented by Prof. A. Mohanakrishnan. The paper analysed the experiences of the Telugu Ganga Project for transfer of drinking water over long distances covering another state. Goodwill, inter-state parleys and agreements were necessary to plan and execute such mega projects. The author showed how suitable institutional machinery was created to coordinate and monitor the project. A number of challenges both technical and administrative were posed during implementation but they were met through mutual consultation. Simultaneous flow of benefits as the work proceeded also helped. The paper mentioned several instances of good coordination between the two states of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and goodwill and magnanimity displayed by each of them in getting this mega project to function. This project could be a model for inter-state coordination in the development and management of water resources in any country.

The next paper by Mr. N.K. Mehta highlighted the role of computer technology in monitoring and decision making for the irrigation systems. He illustrated this with the Bhadra Reservoir Project in Karnataka where it had already been applied. The author mentioned several advanatages like an increase in efficiency of water use by estimation of crop water demands, improvement in operational procedures, providing flexibility in water allocation through mid-term review etc. In long term, the system could work as an advisory system provided it had been calibrated and established on the specific project.

The paper presented by Professor H.M. Desarda made a strong case for the ingenious systems and methods of harnessing, harvesting and husbanding the water-resources. They were community-based and collectively managed. The hallmarks of these systems were : caring, sharing and conserving. Many of them were allowed to go into disuse on account of neglect and the lack of maintenance and particularly resources-squandering growth patterns. Therefore, the need of the hour was a movement for water literacy and the water culture which alone would pave way to the sustainable development of water resources.

Mr. Rakesh Hooja, the Co-chairperson, underlined the importance of participatory approach to irrigation management in India. He highlighted his own experience of dealing with this subject in Rajasthan. While concluding the discussion, Chairperson, Mr. S.D. Sinha also presented brief highlights of his paper ‘Management of Water Resources to Provide Clean Water in A Sustainable and Ecologically Amenable Manner’. He questioned the usefulness of large projects and made a strong plea for small projects like wells and tubewells which, he claimed, would be in harmony with nature.

VALEDICTORY SESSION

The valedictory session started with a welcome address by Professor Kamta Prasad, chairman of the Institute for Resource Manangement and Economic Development, Delhi. Thereafter, Dr. P.N. Mathur, who was one of the chief rapporteurs, presented a brief report of the conference deliberations. He highlighted the major thrusts, main findings and important recommondations of the conference. He indicated that the extreme views did not find favour with conference participants who favoured an integrated and holistic approach to management and development of water resources. The objective should be to optimise the use of water resources by a judicious combination of different technologies and approaches suited to specific needs of specific areas. Thus both large and small dams or surface and ground water or rainwater harvesting etc. would be useful : some under one set of conditions, others under another set of conditions. In this connection, he made a special reference to the seven points made by Professor Kamta Prasad during the inaugural session of the conference and stated that these provided the guiding points for discussion and arriving at the consensus.

Thereupon, three participants coming from diverse fields and countries gave their impression of the conference. They were Dr. Peter Lee, Vice President of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Professor Ruddar Datt, Ex-President of the Indian Economic Association and Mr. Bjorn Guterstam, Network Officer, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm, Sweden. All of them, in their own manner, spoke very highly of the conference and rated it as one of the best on the subject matter ever attended by them. They were impressed by the very high quality of papers brought out in the conference proceedings, lively and enlightening discussion that took place in each and every session where considerable time was available for this purpose, absolute punctuality observed in the conduct of the all the sessions, free and unbiased discussion and excellent conference facilities including audio-visual and reprographic aids provided by the conference organisers.

This was followed by brief remarks by Professor Kamta Prasad wherein he stated that a report of the conference along with the Delhi Declaration containing the basic approach and recommendations would be finalised in due course. This would be sent to all the participants as well as the implementing agencies in India and abroad through the embassies located in Delhi. Copies would also go to international agencies. Thereupon brief remarks were made by the two guests of honour namely. His Excellency Mr. Mostafa Faruque Mohammed, High Commissioner of Bangladesh to India and Mr. D.P. Yadav, Ex-chairman IFFCO.

The valedictory address was given by the Chief Guest, Mr. Anna Hazare, Chairman, Hind Swaraj Trust, Rale Gaon Siddhi in Maharastra state of India who has gained world wide recognition for his pioneering work in watershed management. He gave a lucid account of the successful experiment made by him from the beginning. He showed how proper management of the watershed had brought about prosperity in the village resulting in improvement in quality of life. His was a story of all round success brought about by hard labour and dedication without any external aid.

Mr. Chaturanan Mishra, ex-Agriculture Minister, Government of India, who presided over the valedictory session, referred to the prevailing inadequate awareness about sustainable development in India specially in the government departments and industrial houses. He felt that there was need for global action for promotion of sustainable apprach to water resources. In particular, there was need for global fund. He drew attention to some of the criticisms levelled against water resources and felt that this was largely due to prevailing mismanagement in the water resource sector. Efforts should be made to overcome some of the known deficiencies to which attention had been drawn from time to time.

The session ended with a vote of thanks by Mr. A.K. Chakravorty, Director of the Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, Delhi.

International Conference on Sustainable Development of Water Resources

Annexure - 2

PROGRAMME


Sunday
26th November, 2000
14.00 hrs to 17.00 hrs Registration

Monday
27th November, 2000
8.00 hrs to 9.30 hrs Registration
9.30 hrs to 10.30 hrs Inaugural Session
Inauguration by Shri Arjun Charan Sethi, Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources, Govt. of India.
Chairperson– Dr. Bhism Narayan Singh, Former Union Minister and Governor.
Guests of Honour - (i) Dr. Harbert Traxl, the Austrian Ambassador.
(ii) Mr. Z. Hasan, Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.
10.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
11.00 hrs to 12.30 hrs Key Note Addresses – Towards a New Paradigm for Development and Management of Water Resources.
Coordinator and Rapporteur – A.C. Tyagi
Chairperson – Z. Hasan
Co-Chairperson C.J. Perry
Speakers (1) Y.K. Alagh (2) Frank Rijsberman
12.30 hrs to 13.30 hrs Lunch Break
13.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs Water Resource Sector in the Coming Decades – National and Regional Perspectives and Global Vision.
Coordinator and Rapporteur – K.N. Sharma,
Chairperson - Y.K. Alagh,
Co-Chairperson - Gilbert Etienne,
1. South Asia – (i) M.A Chitale, (ii) Q.K. Ahmed
2. Japan – S. Taniyama
3. Iran – A.H. Nazemi
4. Tanzania – MBCGO Futukamba
5. Mauritius – H.R. Sharma
6. Russia – Belyave Surges
7. Portugal – Fernando Gravidos
8. Ramsur Convention – Khurshid Najam
15.30 hrs to 16.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
16.00 hrs to 17.00 hrs Water Resource Sector in the Coming Decades continued.
9. Global Vision – Bill Cosgrove/Frank Rijsberman Discussion and Chairperson’s remarks.
17.00 hrs to 18.30 hrs Conflict Resolution in the Water Sector – International and Intra-national – Search for a Viable Institutional Framework.
Coordinator and Rapporteur – Binayak Rath
Chairperson – C.D. Thatte
Co-Chairperson – Graham P. Chapman
Papers by
1. Ramaswamy R. Iyer – Water : A Note Regarding Conflicts.
2. R.R. Singh – Conflict Resolution in the Water Sector, A Social Development Perspective.
3. B.R. Chauhan – Primacy of Treaties in Settling Internatiional and Intra-National Water Disputes.
4. A.D. Mohile – Discords and Accords – Water Conflict Management in India.
5. P.L. Diwan – Conflict Resolution in Water Sector Through Institutional Development

Tuesday
28th November, 2000 Development of River Basin Organisations.
09.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs Coordinator and Rapporteur – S. Sethurathinam
Chairperson – Nanda Abeywickrama
Co-Chairperson – Suresh Chandra
Papers by
1. N.V.V. Char – Sustainable Management of River Basins
- Developing and Strengthening River Basin Organisations.
2. Elakanda, D.C.S. – Sri Lanka Experience in River Basin Management and Proposals for SA – RBO Network.
3. Suresh Chandra – Development of Narmada Basin Organisation
11.00 hrs to 11.30 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
11.30 hrs to 13.30 hrs Big Vs. Small Projects Controversy – Criticality of Socio-Economic and Environmental Issues and the Way Out.
Coordinator and Rapporteur – A.B. Pandya
Chairperson – P.V. Indiresan
Co-Chairperson – Peter Lee
Papers by
1. Gilbert Etienne – Major Vrs. Minor Hydraulic Works : Some Critical Issues in Asia.
2. NMP Verma – Dams and Development in India : Some Social and Economic Implications.
3. R.S. Goel – Big Vrs. Small Dams Controversy : A Critical Overview of Socio-Economic & Environmental Concerns.
4. Lyla Mehta – The Production of Scarcity in Gujarat : Kutch and the SSP.
13.30 hrs to 14.30 hrs Lunch Break
14.30 hrs to 16.00 The above session continued
Coordinator and Rapporteur – A.B. Pandya
Chairperson – P.V. Indiresan
Co-Chairperson – Gilbert Etienne
Papers by
5. B.K. Mittal – Large Dams Making India Prosperous.
6. Sekhar Singh – Large Dams and the Environment.
7. R. Rangachari – Contributions of Large Dams in India.
8. M. Gopalakrishnan – The Role of Large Dams in India.
9. Raj Kumar Sen – The Big Dam Controversy in India and the Policy for the 21st Century.
16.00 hrs to 16.30 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
16.30 hrs to 18.00 hrs Management of Floods and other water related disasters in South Asia.
Chairperson – R. Ghosh
Co-Chairperson – I.R. Onta
Papers by
1. S.B. Srivastava – Floods in India and Their Management – An Overview.
2. A.U. Ahmed – The Role of GBM Regional Information Sharing Towards Flood Mitigation in Bangladesh.
3. M.U. Ghani – Socio-Economic and Environmental Issues of Kosi Project in Bihar.
4. Binayak Rath – Perspective Remedial Action for the Flood and Cyclone Disaster Prone Areas of Coastal Orissa.
5. J.S. Gardner and R.B. Singh – Management of Water-related Disasters in the context of Himalayan Mountain Region of India.
6. Global Water Partnership – SASTAC Document – Joint Activities to reduce flood vulnerability in South Asia.
7. Anoja Wickramasinghe – Anthropogenic Nature of Droughts and Desertification in Sri Lanka.

Wednesday
29th November, 2000 Three Parallel Sessions – one each on
9.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs (A) Socio-Economic Aspects.
(B) Institutionala and Management Aspects – Promotion of Water Partnerships.
(C) Agricultural and Environmental Aspects.
15.30 hrs to 16.00 Tea/Coffee Break
16.00 hrs to 17.30 hrs Meeting of India Water Partnership
17.30 hrs to 18.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
18.00 hrs to 19.30 hrs Cultural Programme – Kathak Dance by Ms. Shobana Narayan
Parallel Session (A) Socio-Economic Aspects
09.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs Coordinator and Rapporteur – R.P.S. Malik
9.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs Chairperson – G.S. Bhalla
Co-Chairperson – A.K. Chakravorty
Papers by
1. Ramesh Bhatia – Cost Price and Value of Water in Alternative uses : A Case Study of Subana Rekha River Basin.
2. C.J. Perry – Potential Role of Water Pricing in Irrigation: the example of India.
3. P.S. Lee – Frameworks of Financial Sustainability of Irrigation and Drainage
11.00 hrs to 11.30 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
11.30 hrs to 13.00 hrs Chairperson – Ramesh Bhatia
Co-Chairperson – Nirmal Sengupta
4. Marie-Helene Zerah – Early Outcomes of Public-Private Partnerships on Providing Water Supply to the Urban Poor : Lessons for India.
5. L.V. Kumar – Changing Water Market in India.
6. R.N.P. Singh, R.S. Goel and B.B. Haldar
- Preparation and Appraisal of Cost Estimates of River Valley Projects – A Critical Review.
13.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs Lunch Break
14.00 hrs to 15.30 hrs Chairperson – Q.K. Ahmad
Co-Chairperson - Ajit Sinha
7. Nanda Abeywickrama – Demand Management of Water Resource in Sri Lanka on the Principles of IWRM.
8. Graham P. Chapman – Conflicting Paradigms : Scientific and Social Analyses of Multi Purpose River Projects in South Asia.
9. Ayman F. Batisha, Mohammed Nour El-Din : Criteria for Sanctioning Water Resources Projects in a Fuzzy Environment.
10. Nabil Fawzy Nashed, Ayman F. Batisha, Mohammed Nour El-Din : Socio-Economic Issues Related to Large Irrigation Structures in Egypt.
Parellel Session (B) Institutional and Management Aspects – Promotion of Water Partnerhsips
9.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs Coordinator and Rapporteur – Anoja Wickramesinghe
9.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs Chairperson – V. Ramachandran
Co-Chairperson – Simi Kamal, Bjorn Guterstam
Papers by
1. R.S. Sontakke – Theme Paper on Water Partnerships
2. V.S. Dinkar and M. Sivadas – PIM – Its Future Potential
3. M.R. Baig – Participatory Approach to Management of Water Resources.
4. Sayad Turabul Hasan – Farmers’ Participation : Experiences in Sree Rama Sagar Project (SRSP) – AP
11.00 hrs to 11.30 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
Chairperson – Kamala Prasad
Co-Chairperson –H.R. Khan
5. J.S. Samra – Assessment of Participatory Process of Watershed Management in India.
6. Amita Bhaduri – Participatory Irrigation Management in Madhya Pradesh.
7. Sonia Daviila Pobleta – A Case of Integrated Water Resource Management : Mexico’s : Small Irrigation Units.
8. S.W.K.J. Samaranayake – Dependency Vs. Empowerment : Developing a Sustainable Management System Based on Farmer Participation.
13.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs Lunch Break
14.00 hrs to 15.30 hrs Chairperson – M.S. Reddy
Co-Chairperson – A.H. Nazemi
9. V. Ramachandran : Needed Institutional Reforms : An Outline
10. (a) P.C. Lau
(b) S.B. Suri : Institutional Framework for (C)P.R. Chopra Inter Basin Transfer of Water
11. (a) Dragan Hranisavljevic : Aspects on Integrated Water Resource
(b) Nyree Stenekes Management
(c) Matthew Inman
12. (a) C.D. Thatte : Sustainable Development of Water Resource-
(b) M.L. Kansal need for performance based Adaptive
(c) S.J. Sahastrabudhe Management
(d) Rofel Hmar
Parallel Session (C) Agriculture and Environmental Aspects
9.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs Coordinator and Rapporteur – K. Palanisami
09.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs Chairperson – J.S. Samra
Co-Chairperson – Jacob Burke
1. T. Haque – Strategy of Sustainable Agricultural Development in Rainfed Areas of India.
2. P.B.S. Sarma – Role of Water Management in Ensuring Food Security in India.
3. Marcus Moench – Groundwater and Food Security in India. Evaluating the implication of emerging over draft concerns.
11.00 hrs to 11.30 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
11.30 hrs to 13.00 hrs Chairperson – Punjab Singh
Co-Chairperson – Prem Vashistha
4. Jacob Burke – Land and Water Systems : Managing the Hydrological Risk.
5. K. Palanisami – Sustainable Management of Tank Irrigation Systems in South India Under Varying Institutional Landscape.
6. R.P. Awasthi and I.P. Sharma – Effect of Vegetative Measures on Soil and Water Conservation in Hilly Watersheds.
13.00 hrs to 14.00 hrs Lunch Break
14.00 hrs to 15.30 hrs Chairperson – K. Roy Paul
7. Special Address by Chandi Prasad Bhatt.
8. Kanchan Chopra and Bishwanath Golder : Sustainable Development Framework for India : The Case of Water Resources.
9. S.P. Andey and M.V. Nanoti : Assessment of Tangible and Intangible Environmental Impacts of Water Resources Projects.
10. L.M. Zimina, V.L. Zimin, V.N. Nikulina and T.N. Shchukina – Dynamics of Structure of the Marine Coastal Algal Community under Anthropogenic Influence in the Area of Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant.
15.30 hrs to 16.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
16.00 hrs to 17.30 hrs Meeting of India Water Partnership [Common Session]
Chairperson – Kamta Prasad
Speakers
M.A. Chitale
P.L. Diwan
Representatives from Water Partnerships of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Paper by S. Kalyanaraman – Status of research on and revival of River Saraswati.
17.30 hrs to 18.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
18.00 hrs to 19.30 hrs Kathak Dance by Ms. Shobana Narayan

Thursday
30th November, 2000
09.30 hrs to 13.30 hrs Indian Experience of Development and Management of Water Resources
Coordinator and Rapporteur – R.K. Gupta
09.30 hrs to 11.30 hrs Chairperson – A.D. Mohile
Co-Chairperson – P.C. Lau
Papers by
1. R.S. Prasad & R.K. Khanna – Indian Experience in Development and Management of Water Resources
2. Tushaar Shah – Wells & Welfare in the Ganga Basin : Essay on Public & Private Initiative.
3. Yogendra Prasad & V.B. Bhatt – Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Ravi Basin. A Case Study of Chamera Stage II Project (H.P.)
4. R. Ghosh and T.S. Bathija – Review of Constitutional Provision Covering Water Resources of India.
11.30 hrs to 12.00 hrs Tea/Coffee Break
12.00 hrs to 13.30 hrs Chairperson – S.D. Sinha
Co-Chairperson – Rakesh Hooja
5. Mahesh C. Chaturvedi – Sustainable Development of India’s Waters - Some Policy Issues.
6. Indira Khurana – Water Scarcity? Try Capturing the rain.
7. M. Mohanakrishan – Interstate Coordination in Implementing a Mega Project for Water Supply : The Telugu Ganga Project, Challenges Faced and Lessons Learnt.
8. M.S. Billore – Narmada Experience of Development and Management of Water Resources, Vision 2010.
9. N.K. Mehta – Irrigation Water Management For Bhadra Reservoir Project, Karnataka.
10. H.M. Desarda – Water Resources Development in India : Issues and Perspectives.
11. S.D. Sinha – Management of Water Resources to Provide Clean Water in A Sustainable and Ecologically Amenable Manner.
13.30 hrs to 14.30 hrs Lunch Break
14.30 hrs to 15.30 hrs Valedictory Session
Chairperson – Chaturanan Mishra, Ex-Union Agriculture Minister
Co-Chairperson – Kamta Prasad
Chief Guest – Anna Hazare
Chairman – Hind Swaraj Trust, Relegaon Siddhi (India)
Guests of Honour – (i) D.P. Yadav, Ex-Chairman, IFFCO.
(ii) Mostafa Faruque Mohammed,
High Commissioner of Bangladesh.
Presentation of Report – P.N. Mathur & G.C. Shrotia, Chief Rapporteurs
Vote of Thanks – A.K. Chakravorty.
International Conference on Sustainable Development of Water Resources

Annexure - 3
LIST OF SPONSORS AND CO-SPONSORS

1. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

2. Central Water Commission, Government of India.

3. Ministry of Power, Government of India.

4. Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.

5. Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

6. Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

7. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

8. National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd.

9. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Cooperative (IFFCO) Ltd.

10. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Government of India.

11. Indian Council of Social Science Research, Government of India.

12. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India.

13. The Ford Foundation.

14. Winrock International India.

15. Global Water Partnership.

16. International Water Management Institute. (IWMI).

17. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. (ICID).

18. Committee on Engineering and Environment of World Federation of Engineering Organisation.

19. International Development Research Centre.

20. Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd.

21. Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd.

22. Power Finance Corporation of India Ltd.

23. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Ltd.

24. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation.

25. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).
International Conference On Sustainable Development Of Water Resources :
Socio-Economic, Institutional And Environmental Aspects; New Delhi,
November 27-30, 2000.
Annexure -4

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS


(A) FROM INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

SL. NO.
NAME AND ADDRESS
1. His Excellency Mostafa Faruque Mohammed
High Commissioner of Bangladesh, New Delhi.

2. His Excellency Dr. Harbert Traxl
Austrian Ambassador to India, New Delhi.

3. Professor Gilbert Etienne
Emeritus Professor, Graduate School of Development Studies, Geneva.

4. Dr. Frank Rijsberman
Director General, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

5. Mr. P.S. Lee
Vice President, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, MOTT Macdonald, Croudon,
England.

6. Dr. M.A. Chitale
Chairman, SASTAC, GWP, C/o Water and Land Management Institute, Aurangabad, Maharashtra,
India.

7. Mr. Jacob Burke
Senior Water Policy Officer, Water Resources Development and Management Service, Land and
Water Development Division, Agriculture Department, FAO, Rome. Italy.

8. Mr. Shigetaka Taniyama
The Japanese Association of Rural Sewerage, Tokyo, Japan.

9. Dr. C.D. Thatte
Secretary General, International Commission on Irrigation Drainage, New Delhi.

10. Prof. Graham P. Chapman
Department of Geography, Lancaster University, Lancaster, U.K.

11. Dr. Q.K. Ahmed
Chairman, Bangladesh Unnayan, Parishad (BUP) Dhaka, Bangladesh.

12. Mr. J.K. Lorup
Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thempu, Bhutan.

13. Dr. Chris Perry
Rtd. Deputy Director General, International Water Management Institute, Colombo,
Sri Lanka, Now in London, U.K.


14. Eng. MBCGO Futukamba
Interim Secretary, Tanzania National Committee for Irrigation & Drainage, Dares Salaam, Tanzania.

15. Dr. Ahsan Uddin Ahmed
Head, Environment and Development Studies Division, Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad (BUP), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

16. Dr. S.W.K.J. Samaranayake
Executive Director, Institute for Participatory Interaction in Development, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

17. Dr. A.H. Nazemi
Department of Irrigation, University of Tabriz, Iran.

18. Mr. Gopal Dixit
Kathmandu, Nepal.

19. Dr. Tushaar Shah
Senior Advisor, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

20. Professor Fernado Delgada
Cravidos University, DTA Jevadi, Portugal.

21. Dr. EL. Tomalin
Lancaster, LAI 3 DD, U.K.

22. Dr. Dragan Hranisavljevic
Astran, Menara Keck, Seng, No. 203, Jalan Bukit, Bintang-55100, Malasiya.

23. Ms. Marie Helen Zerah
109, Anand Lok, 2nd Floor, Khelgaon Marg, New Delhi-110049.

24. Ms. Elizabeth Fazber
Programme Officer, International Development Research Centre, South Asia, Regional Office, 208,
Jor Bagh, New Delhi.

25. Ms. Fiona Curtil
Green Cross International, Geneva, Switzerland.

26. Mr. Sayed Nazam Khursheed
Ramsar Convention Bureau, Geneva, Switzerland.

27. Ms. Lyla Mehta
University of Sussex, Brighton BNI 9 RE, U.K.

28. Ms. Maria Delurdeo Roxo Matheus
Portugal.

29. Mr. G. Halivitigi
International Irrigation Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

30. Dr, M.S. Reddy
Ex-Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India and Member, SASTAC.

31. Dr. H.R. Khan
Vice President, Bangladesh Water Partnership and Member SASTAC.

32. Ms. Simi Kamal
Chief Executive, Raasta Development Consultants, Pakistan and Member SASTAC.

33. Mr. Nanda Abeywickrama
Senior Advisor, International Water Management Institute, (IWMI) and Ministry of Finance,
Colombo, Sri Lanka.

34. Sh. I.R. Onta
Co-Ordinator, Nepal Water Partnership, Jal Srot Vikas Sanstha, Kathmandu and Member SASTAC.

35. Mr. DCS Elakanda
Deputy Director (Engg./Environment), Mahaweli Restructuring & Rehabilitation Project,
Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka.

36. Mr. Barry Underwood
Agha Khan Rural Support Programme, Ahmedabad.

37. Mr. K.N. Sharma
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage, New Delhi.

38. Dr. S.A. Kulkarni
Director, International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage, New Delhi.

39. Mr. Kesang Jomtsho
Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thempu, Bhutan.

40. Mr. Durgkar Dukpa
GIS Officer, Ministery of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thempu, Bhutan.

41. Ms.Maloni Sommerville
International Development Research Centre, 208, Jor Bagh, New Delhi – 03.

42. Dr. H.R. Sharma
Head, Water Resources, Mauritius.

43. Mr. Nigol Kirby
Engg. Adviser, DFID India, New Delhi.

44. Mr. R.S. Sontakke
Programme Officer, GWP SASTAC, C/o Water and Land Management Institute, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India.

45. Mrs. V.S. Sahni
Co-ordinator, GWP-SASTAC, C/o Water and Land Management Institute, Aurangabad,
Maharashtra, India.

46. Dr. Shyamala Abeyratne
Winrock International, New Delhi.

47. Dr. Kihsuk Mitra
Winrock International, New Delhi.

48. Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj
Winrock International, New Delhi.

49. Mr. Sunandan Tiwari
Winrock International, New Delhi.
50. Mrs. Radhika Gupta
Winrock International, New Delhi.

51. Mr. Niraj Peter
Winrock International, New Delhi.

52. Dr. Anoja Wickramasinghe
Professor & Head of Geography, Department of Geography The University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

53. Mr. Bjorn Guterstam
Network Officer, GWP-Secretariate, C/o SIDA SE- 10525, Stockholm, Sweden.

54. Liudmila Zimina
Leading Research Scientist, Regional Environmental Monitoring Laboratory,
V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute, Saint Petersburg, Russia.




(B) FROM INDIA

SL. NO.
NAME & ADDRESS
1. Mr. Arjun Charan Sethi
Hon. Minister for Water Resource, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. Mr. Bhishma Narayan Singh
Ex-Governor & Union Minister, Government of India, New Delhi.

3. Mr. Chaturanan Mishra
Ex-Agriculture Minister, Government of India, New Delhi.

4. Dr. D.P. Yadav
Ex-MP & Ex-Chairman, Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi.

5. Prof. Y.K. Alagh
Ex-Minister of State for Power, Science & Technology & Vice-Chairman,
Sardar Patel Institute of Economic & Social Research, Ahmedabad.

6. Mr. Anna Saheb Hazare
Rale Gaon Siddhi, Parner Taluka, Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra.

7. Mr. Chandi Prasad Bhatt
Dashoti Gram, Swarajya Mandal, P.O. Gopeshwar-246401, Chamoli Distt., Uttrakhand.

8. Prof. G.S. Bhalla
Ex-Member Planning Commission, Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.

9. Mr. Z. Hassan
Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

10. Mr. B.N. Navlawala
Advisor (I&CAD), Planning Commission, New Delhi.


11. Mr. Ramaswami R. Iyer
Ex-Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India,
Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

12. Mr. R. Ghosh
Ex-Chairman, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

13. Mr. Pritam Singh
Ex-Chairman, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

14. Prof. P.D. Hajela
Ex-Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ex-President,
Indian Economic Association, New Delhi.

15. Professor Kamta Prasad
Chairman, Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, Delhi.

16. Mr. V. Ramachandran
Ex-Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala & Ex-Member,
National Commission on Water Resources Development Plan.

17. Mr. Arun Kumar
Ex-Additional Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

18. Mr. Rakesh Hooja
President, Indian Network on Participatory Irrigation Management and Vice-President,
Indian Water Resources Society, New Delhi.

19. Dr. B.K. Mittal
Member, (D&R) Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

20. Prof. A.P. Barnabas
Professor of Sociology (Retd), Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

21. Mr. Kamala Prasad
Ex-Irrigation Commissioner and Ex-Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

22. Dr. P.V. Indiresan
Ex-Director, I.I.T., Chennai.

23. Professor R.R. Singh
Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

24. Mr. A.D. Mohile
Ex-Chairman, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

25. Mr. R.S. Prasad
Member, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

26. Prof. Rudra Dutta
Ex-President, Indian Economic Association, Delhi.

27. Mr. Shekhar Singh
Faculty Member, I.I.P.A., New Delhi.


28. Sh. G. Prasanna Kumar
Director, Hayana Institute of Public Administration, Gurgaon, Haryana.

29. Mr. P.L. Diwan
Chairman and Managing Director, Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd., New Delhi.

30. Mr. Arun Gupta
Chairman & Managing Director, Nathpa Jhakri Power Coporation Ltd., New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

31. Dr. Kishan Lal
Acting Director, National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi.

32. Mr. P.C. Lau
Director General, National Water Developoment Agency, New Delhi.

33. Dr. Bishwanath Golder
Professor, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.

34. Dr. J.S. Samra
Deputy Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

35. Mr. K. Roy Paul
Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, New Delhi.

36. Prof. Nirmal Sen Gupta
Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.

37. Dr. A.K. Sinha
Prof .of Economics, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

38. Dr. Mrs. A. Chattopadhyay
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

39. Mr. A.C. Gupta
Commissioner (I), Ministry of Water Resources, 14, CGO Complex, New Delhi.

40. Dr. Binayak Rath
Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur-16.

41. Dr. B.R. Chauhan
Ex-Dean Law Faculty, H.P. University, Simla.

42. Mr. B.P. Verma
Ex-Deputy Advisor, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

43. Mr. B.S. Kalra
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

44. Dr. Biswajeet Chatterjee
Professor of Economics, Jadavpur University, Calcutta-700032.

45. Dr. Babu Ram
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

46. Mr. B.S. Ahuja
Commissioner (P.P.) Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
47. Mr. G.N. Kathpalia
Adviser, Water Resources, Surya Foundation, New Delhi.

48. Mr. H.M. Desarda
Ex-Member, Maharashtra State Planning Board, Aurangabad.

49. Ms. Indira Khurana
Coordinator, Resources Division, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

50. Mr. Inder Raj
Sr. JC(WH), Ministry of Water Resources, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi.

51. Dr. Jagpal Singh
Ex-Faculty Member, IIT, Delhi.

52. Mr. K.K. Aggarwal
Chief Engineer ENVTMAMT, C.W.C., New Delhi.

53. Mr. K.K. Nathan
Sr. Scientist, I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

54. Mr. M.U. Ghani
Director, Ganga Flood Control Commission, Government of India, Patna-I, Bihar.

55. Dr. M. Abdus Salam
Deptt. Of Economics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, (U.P.).

56. Mr. M.C. Jain
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

57. Dr. Man Singh
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

58. Prof. Mahesh C. Chaturvedi
Professor (Retd.), I.I.T., Delhi.

59. Mr. N.K. Mehta
Director, National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.

60. Dr. N.K. Chaudhary
Professor of Economics, Patna University, Patna.

61. Mr. N.P. Jain
Ex-Secretary, Government of India, E-50, Saket, Indore-452001.

62. Dr. O.P. Gaur
Former Chief Manager, IFFDC, Sarita Vihar, Mathura Road, New Delhi-19.

63. Dr. P.B.S. Sharma
Prof. Emeritus, I.I.T., Delhi.

64. Dr. Prem Vashistha
Director, Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, Delhi.

65. Mr. R. Sethuraman
Dy. Advisor, Central Public Health & Environmental Engg. Organisation, Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
66. Mr. R.N.P. Singh
Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

67. Mr. R.V. Godbole
Consultant, INCID, 301,303, Ansal Chamber, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-66.

68. Dr. R.K. Sen
Professor of Economics and Secretary & Treasurer, The Indian Economic Association (IEA), Calcutta.

69. Mr. Ram Bahal
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

70. Dr. R.P.S. Malik
Fellow, Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, Delhi.

71. Dr. Ramesh Bhatia
President, Resource and Env. Group, New Delhi.

72. Mr. R.S. Goel
Director, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

73. Mr. S.P. Kaushik
Secretary, Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi.

74. Mr. S.B. Srivastava
Chief Engineer, Flood Management, C.W.C., New Delhi.

75. Mr. S. Veeraswami
I.A.R.I., New Delhi

76. Mr. Suresh Chandra
Executive Member, Narmada Control Authority, Vijaya Nagar, Indore (M.P.).

77. Mr. V.B. Rama Prasad
Dy. Advisor, Central Public Health & Environmental Engg. Organisation, Min. of Urban Affairs & Employment, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

78. Dr. V.S. Dinkar
Commissioner (CAD), Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

79. Mr. V.K. Srivastava
Scientist (Retd), CSIR, Ghaziabad-201001.

80. Mr. Y.M. Nimgade
Retd. Scientist, 151, MIG, DDA, New Delhi.

81. Professor Parmatma Singh
Dean & Joint Director (Education), Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

82. Mr. P.C. Mathur
Commissioner (PR) Min. of Water Resources, New Delhi.

83. Mr. R.K. Khanna
Director (EA), CWC, New Delhi.

84. Mr. R.S. Ram
Director, C.W.C., New Delhi.
85. Mr. Sayeed Turabul Hasan
Chairman, Institute of Resource Development and Social Management (IRDAS), Hyderabad.

86. Mr. A.C. Tyagi
Jt. Commissioner (PP Division), Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

87. Mr. A.B. Verma
Chief Engineer (Retd), Government of U.P. Lucknow.

88. Mr. A. Mohankrishan
Adviser, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai.

89. Mr. L.V. Kumar
Consulting Engineer, New Delhi.

90. Dr. M.V. Nanoti
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur.

91. Mr. P. Mookerjee
NRL, IARI, New Delhi.

92. Dr. R.K. Sharma
Fellow (Retd), Agro-Economic Research Centre, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University, Delhi.

93. Mr. S.D. Sinha
Chairman, Pani Morcha, New Delhi.

94. Mr. T.S. Bhathija
Consultant, Consulting Engineering Services, New Delhi.

95. Mr. S.J. Sahastrabudhe
Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi College of Engineering, Delhi.

96. Mr. N.R. Tankiwale
G.M. Technical, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai-18.

97. Dr. V.K. Vashist
D-28, University Campus, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

98. Mr. Ganesh Pangare
Secretary, Indian Network on Participatory Irrigation Management, New Delhi.

99. Mrs. Rekha Bhagat
I.A.R.I., New Delhi.

100. Dr. K.S. Ramasastri
Scientist ‘F’ Jalvigyan Bhawan, Roorkee-247667.

101. Dr. V.S. Mahajan
Director, Centre for Indian Development Studies, Chandigarh.

102. Dr. G.C. Shrotriya
Chief Manager, IFFCO, 53-54, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

103. Dr. Mahendra Pal
Former Head of Division, Agronomy, IARI, Delhi.

104. Mr. P.K. Agarwal
Joint Project Director, IC Division, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.

105. Dr. Punjab Singh
Director (Acting), I.A.R.I., Pusa, New Delhi.

106. Ms. Amita Bhaduri
Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development, New Delhi.

107. Mr. S.B.Suri
Chief Engineer, National Water Development Agency, Saket, New Delhi.

108. Mr. P. R. Chopra
Director (Tech.}, National Water Development Agency, Saket, New Delhi.

109. Mr. H.N. Dixit
Suptdg. Engineer, National Water Development Agency, Gwalior.

110. Dr. N.M.P. Verma
Head of the Department of Economics, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow.

111. Mr. Parabrahmam
Member Secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation & Drainage, New Delhi.

112. Mr. P.V. Godbole
Consultant, WAPCOS Ltd., New Delhi.

113. Dr. A.K. Srivastava
Haryana Institute of Public Administration, Gurgaon.

114. Mr. M.P. Singh
Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi.

115. Mr. K. Ravindra Nath
Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi.

116. Dr. K. Palanisami
Director, Water Technology Centre, Tamilnadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore.

117. Mr. S.K. Duggal
Member, Irrigation, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh.

118. Ms. T.R. Indira
Chief Engineer, Central Kerala Water Authority, Jal Board, Tirnantha, Puron-695033.

119. Mr. R.K. Behre
Sub-Div. Officer, Sub-Div. No. 3, Narmada Valley Development Authority, Bhopal.

120. Mr. R.M. Pandey
Dy. Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.

121. Mr. Shamsher Singh
Dy. Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Co-opon., New Delhi.

122. Mr. R. Subramanian
C.E./PWD, Tamil Nadu.

123. Mr. P.V. Sahadevan
C.E./PWD, Tamil Nadu.

124. Mr. C. Seshachalam
C.E./PWD, Tamil Nadu.

125. Mr. S.K. Gupta
Bhakra Beas Management Board, Talwara Township.

126. Dr. S.K. Mohammed
N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajender Nagar, Hyderabad.

127. Dr. S. Kalyanaraman
Former Sr. Executive, Asian Development Bank, Saraswati Sindhu Research Centre, 5, Temple Avenue,
Srinagar Colony, Chennai-600015.

128. Mr. A.B. Patil
Assam.

129. Mr. Shankaragouda F. Patil
A.E.E. (KNNL), LI Sub Dn. No. 2, Naviluteertha, Distt. Belgaum. Karnataka.

130. Mr. S.P. Lampuse
Director General, Water and Land Management Institute, Aurangabad.

131. Mr. A. Muralidhar,
Dy. EE, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

132. Mr. G. Prasad
A.E.E., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

133. Mr. Hanumantha Rao
Dy. EE, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

134. Mr. K. Mohan Singh
Dy. EE, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

135. Mr. Bh. Rajeswara Rao
Dy. EE, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

136. Mr. A.R.N. Sarma
A.E.E., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

137. Mr. K.L.N. Sastry
A.E.E., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

138. Mr. P. Rajeshwar Reddy
AEE, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad.

139. Mr. Y.N. Apparao
Director, Nathpa Jhakri Power Coporation Ltd., New Shimla.

140. Mr. S.P. Singh
DGM, Nathpa Jhakri Power Coporation Ltd., New Shimla.

141. Mr. P.S. Khurana
C.E., Nathpa Jhakri Power Coporation Ltd., New Shimla.
142. Mr. S. Gopal Kapoor
Addl. SE, Nathpa Jhakri Power Coporation Ltd., New Shimla.

143. Dr. S.D. Rai
ADG(TC), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi-01.

144. Dr. B.R. Sharma
ADG, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

145. Dr. P.C. Bhatia
ADG, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

146. Dr. R.K. Mittal
ADG, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

147. Mr. M. Gopala Krishnan
CE, Central Water Commissioin, New Delhi.

148. Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Director, Central Water Commissioin, New Delhi.

149. Mr. P.N. Darde
G.M., National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

150. Mr. K. Rama Rao
C.E., National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

151.
Mr. H.R. Garg
C.E., National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

152. Mr. Anan Sen
Sr. Manager, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

153. Mr. Rajeev Jain
Dy. Manager, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

154. Mr. D.K. Dwivedi
Engineer, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

155. Mr. Vikram Ravuru
Engineer, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., Faridabad.

156. Mr. A.B. Pandya
Chief Engineer, Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd., New Delhi.

157. Mr. R.K. Gupta
Addl. Chief Engineer, Water & Power Consultancy Services (India) Ltd., New Delhi.

158. Mr. M.R. Baig
Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission, New Delhi.

159. Dr. S.D. Chamola
Professor Deptt. of Business Management, CCS Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar-125004.

160. Mr. R.C.R. Madan
50, Mall Apartments, Mall Road, Delhi – 54.

161. Mr. A.K. Singh
Director, Water Technology Centre, I.A.R.I., New Delhi-12.

162. Mr. A. Singh
Water Technology Centre, I.A.R.I., New Delhi-12.

163. Mr. Narayan Prasad
Department of Economics, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.

164. Mr. K.G. Wankhede
Indian Farm Forestry Dev. Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi-19.

165. Dr. B.M. Jauhari
Nehru Place, Ghaziabad-201001,(U.P.)

166. Professor J.K. Singh
Head of the Department of Economics, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

167. Dr. D.K. Das, Professor
Department of Economics, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

168. Dr. R.S. Nandal
CCS Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar.

169. Dr. A. Wahab
Department of Economics, A.M.U., Aligarh-202002.

170. Dr. Prakash Narayan Srivastava
Head of the Department of Economics, KNI, Sultanpur, U.P.

171. Mr. V.K. Bhatnagar
J.D. Statistics, Ministry of W.R., ShramShakti Bhawan, New Delhi.

172. Dr. Mahendra Pal
Consulting Engg. Services Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi.

173. Dr. R.N. Yadav
Principal, Purnia College, Purnia, Bihar.

174. Dr. S.C. Aggarwal
National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.

175. Mr. T. Datta Majumdar
WAPCOS Ltd., New Delhi.

176. Mrs. Rekha Bhagat
Sr. Scientist, Extn. Division, IARI, New Delhi.

177. Mr. L.M. Bhatt
Dy. Director, Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, Delhi.

178. Mr. A.K. Chakravorty
Director, Institute for Resource Management and Economic Development, Delhi.

179. Mr. S. Sethurathinam
Chief Engineer, WAPCOS (I) Ltd. New Delhi.

180. Mr. N.V.V. Char
Formerly Commissioner, Eastern Rivers, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.

181. Dr. T. Haque
Senior Fellow, National Centre for Agricultural Economics & Policy Research (NCAP), Pusa, New Delhi-12.

182. Dr. I.P. Sharma
Soil Scientist, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan, H.P.

183. Dr. P.N. Mathur
Former Joint Director, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi.

184. Mr. G.S. Patro
Power Finance Corporation, New Delhi.

185. Mr. Mahendra Ram
Central Water Commission, New Delhi.