expressinstinct.files.wordpress.com€¦  · Web viewDixit. Submitted by. Roshan Dawale (M2016WPG009) Introduction. Maval district location (sharingsmile.in) Maval taluka in Pune

Water policy and Governance

Centre for Water Policy, Regulation and Governance

School of Habitat Studies

Subject : Water Conflicts and Negotiations (WPG21)

“Micro level Water conflict over water use – A case study of Pavana Dam and rural livelihoods downstream Maval taluk (Maharashtra)”

Submitted to

Mr. Pranjal Dixit

Submitted by

Roshan Dawale (M2016WPG009)

Introduction

Maval district location (sharingsmile.in)

Maval taluka in Pune district of Mharashtra has in total 181 villages out of which 72 villages situated between the Pavana Dam and Ravet Weir (anicut near Ravet village). Pawana dam (18.6255° N, 73.7897° E) which was built in 1972 near Kale village in the same region with a catchment area of 113.36 km2 and Gross storage of 305 MMC. The dam has a irrigation potential 406.45 ha through reservoir plus 4129.08 ha from the river and the annual hydropower generation 14.21 million Units. The dam is a source of irrigation and drinking water (river) for the 72 villages in the Maval taluk. Moreover, Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) draws water from the Pavana River to meet the drinking water demands of rapidly urbanizing population, via Ravet Weir situated 6km upstream from PCMC.

A brief history and background of the conflict

The only source of water for irrigation to the villages was the water from the dam which was used through h lift irrigation. Also the water in the dam is discharged through the turbines so as to generate electricity. The rapid development of the PCMC, Dehu Road Cantonment Board, Talegaon Dabhade and two industrial areas of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) steadily increased water demands for non-irrigation use from the dam. Therefore, the water from the weir seems to be insufficient to meet these increased demands. Hence, in 2008 PCMC decided to lift the water directly from the dam, in order to provide drinking water to urban population under PCMC, with a closed pipeline system. This decision became the point of conflict and hence PCMC get an opposition from the downstream villages to the dam due to the threat they observed for the availability of water to them. Despite of the peaceful opposition from the locals in the region, the PCMC and government continued the

Map showing the area of conflict, located between the Pavana Dam and PCMC (FPDWCI, 2014)

work of laying down the pipes, ignoring the protests. Protests were continued in same manner, even the farmers halted the work at times, but there was no response in this regard from the government. The farmers decided to hold a “Rasta-Roko” on Pune-Mumbai expressway to seek attention of the government. But this intensified the conflict as the police turned violent on the protesters and took a toll of three people. Ultimately, the government halted the project considering the overall circumstances (FPDWCI, 2014).

Chronology of events

Year Event1999 The idea of closed pipeline system was proposed by the then Maval MLA

Mr. G. Babar, in order to save water from contamination and evaporation losses

2006 This idea get reflected in the City development Plan of PCMC

2008 a) The actual project work, laying down pipelines started by PCMC after getting the consent from the government, started

b) The project faced opposition from the villagers by halting construction work and damaging pipelines

2008/9 Several negotiations between state government and farmers (around nine times)

2009 Bhartiya Kisan Sangh filed case in high court which transferred it to MWRRA, but BKS moved against this and reach to supreme court. SC upheld the HC decision.

2010 a) MWRRA appointed Dispute resolution officer in the regards who concluded result in favour of pipeline construciton

b) farmers halted construction work at Bamnoli village two times

b) Rasta roko with MLA participation2011 Rasta Roko at Baur on Mumbai Pune expressway, turned into na violent

situation, three people were killed.2011 Intense debate around this conflict and the project get halted

2016 PCMc seeking permission for te project

Stakeholder’s analysis (Based on Buckles Framework)

Stakeholders in the conflict are

Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC)PCMC water Users (p)Farmers in Maval Taluka (F)Bhartiya Kisan Sangh (BKC)Gramsabha of 72 villages (GS)Maharashtra State Government (GOVT)MWRRAHigh Power Committee (HPC)Maharashtra Industrial Devrlopement Corporation(MIDC)Talegaon Dabhale Municiplal Council(TDMC)National Alliance for peoples movements(NAPM)

Interest Influence matrix (based on Reeds Model)

1. Dimensions of the problem

A) “Nature, boundaries and problem owner” Interplay

Ostensibly, the primary stakeholders in this conflict are PCMC and the Farmers in the Maval tehsil represented by the Bhartiya Kisan Sangh. This conflict can be referred as the “urban vs rural” discourse and its nature is of “priorities and interests”. This issue is between the PCMC who intended to provide the drinking water to the rapidly urbanizing population dependent on the PCMC and on the other hand the Farmers who lies between Pavana dam and Ravet weir. Therefore, it is a closed, Intra basin conflict. The principle stakeholders which stated above jointly owns the problem.

B) A complex system

The system in this conflict may be understood in terms of the requirements of the stakeholders. As PCMC intended to serve a total population of 1,729,359 (2011 census), it has built the Ravet weir. But the source got saturated due to the rapidly increasing population (More than 2 million) and different categories of users. PCMC needs the water to cater the demand beyond

the projected level of 2031, because demand of water in year 2031 at 185 litres per capita per day (lpcd)11 will be in the range of 550 to 575 MLD. There is a requirement of an additional storage of 54 MLD capacity at 33 percent of the total supply by 2031.And hence, stating the authority over the dam PCMC decided to lift the water directly from the dam through closed pipelines in order to reduce the burden of extra capacity. On the other hand, the Farmers in 72 villages of the Maval taluk are dependent on the water of dam and River both for irrigation and drinking water. The irrigation activities increased since the dam has been built. Further, there is no water entitlements because of the irrigation infrastructure and hence the Command and control area (FPDWCI, 2014). This makes the situation even more complex. There are another category of river water users which has been allocated the water according to MWRRA rules, as follows.

(FPDWCI, 2014)

If water is directly lifted from the dam, there will be a reduction in the hydropower generated. Additional electricity will be required to lift water from the dam through pipes, making this project economically less feasible. The dependable yield at Pavana dam, taking the rainfall data of the last 38 years into consideration, is 314.24 Mm3. However, the revised plan allocates 365.77 Mm3 against the original plan of 365.89 Mm3 for various uses. Thus, if both the reduction in water availability by 28.31 Mm3 and the increased allocation (of 28.31 Mm3) are taken together, there is a total deficit of 56.62 Mm3 18. After the pipeline project they will release 26,300 m3 per day (430 cusecs of water for 6 hours or 107.5 cusecs for 24 hours). The water requirement in the river for different uses is 0.9654 Mm3/day, and the water availability after the pipeline project is functional will only be 0.2613 Mm3 /day (MWRRA, 2012). The water in the river is used not only for irrigation but also for drinking and industrial uses in the region. Thus, the pipeline project would affect all parties around the river stretch from the Pavana dam to the Ravet weir. Also, as per the design of the pipeline project up to 191.625 Mm3/ year of water would be lifted from the reservoir, which reduces the water available in the reservoir (MWRRA, 2012).

Considering all of the above interrelated dynamics and attributing these to the existing conflict, it is understood that any interventions in the system will create more complex situation.

2. Stakeholder attributes that merit attention (power, urgency and legitimacy)

PCMC, in its city development plan it has proposed to lay down the closed pipeline. The corporation has claimed over the water from the dam and it has got a legitimate allocation from MWWRA. It also made its decisions and procedures legitimized through certain claims which seen vital and significant from a larger perspective. For example, the positive impacts of the closed pipelines such as, reduction in water, evaporation and seepage losses, construction in barren land to avoid the extensive use of land, reducing the water pollution and contamination, additional supply for electricity generation, additional storages for downstream villages as project work get over, and other such claims. Therefore it had power to include this as a part of its developments plan. The PCMC under JNNURM has attained urgency and started actual implementation of the project in 2008.

BKS, on the other hand, tried to legitimize its procedures and allocation through different sets of claims. These claims challenged the legitimacy of the claims of PCMC. The main argument of the organization was the reduction in the water availability for drinking and irrigation to the 72 villages, and this reduction in water availability will also reduce the quality of water in the river, thereby making it difficult to use the water for drinking. BKS didn’t took a extreme of opposition to PCMC, but it has addressed the drinking water norms (165 lpcd as against the usual norm of 135lpcd). Therefore, it demands to bring down the norm to 135 lpcd and also increase the water supply to rural areas to the same norm (as against the present supply of 70 lpcd). Moreover, the PCMC constantly gets water supply for 365 days, and the rural areas have to depend on rainfall for 75 days. It had also addressed the environmental concerns that it piped chanelling would adversely impact the environmental requirements, water quality, groundwater recharge and so forth. It has countered the legitimacy with the legality that there is no Environmental Impact Assessment done before the execution of the project.

State Governments had given an explicit consent to the project and exercised its structural and organizational power in a sense that it left no power to influence the process to the other stakeholder than the PCMC and manage the interactions between two stakeholders. The Legitimacy of this decision is questionable though.

3. Congruence problem

State Government of Maharashtra is responsible for any new development project within all of its boundaries and hence it has the power to make any changes accordingly. Government was an active stakeholder in sanctioning the new pipeline project under JNNURM. But the problem occurred or only seen as a problem when there were opposition and explicit movements around this issue. The state, of course has exercised its power without taking into consideration of its long terms implications. Their perception of welfare to all has fallen out of line with the perception of locals of Maval Taluk. Now, after the outburst of the farmers community over this decision certainly shaped the perception, though too late, of the state and made it to take some brilliant decisions which would change the perception of the BKS. However, the BKS, having certain unfavorable experience in past, was reluctant on these brilliant move of the

state. To put simply, state wanted to have an deliberation with the farmers organization in order to negotiate over the project and hence organized meetings for none times after 2008, but this didn’t turn into any fruitful outcome. The complexity around the issue accumulated. But again the formal negotiation process happened in 2011 through District collector results in a boycott by the framers organization.

PCMC, on the other hand wanted to negotiate on the basis of creating two new weirs, apart from the existing Ravet weir. But the stance was to do so after the successful completion of this pipeline project.

4. Social networks and multiplicity of roles within the institutions

The set of instructions and the behavior of individual actors change the nature of the conflict. If observed this conflict, the inception lies way back in 1999, when the then MLA (Shivsena) of Maval shown his interest and the idea was originally brought by him. The political position which held at that particular instance give him the decision making power or the authority to make certain decision. But when the conflict arise during actual project implementation phase, the then MLA (BJP) joined the protest along with the farmers. Therefore, the conflict can not only arise because of the individual stakeholders but also because of the “Authority” they holds, temporally. Moreover, the BKS is a daughter organization affiliated with the RSS (ratriya Swayamsewak Sangh).The former holds informal powers backed by the later and has shaped the conflict in their interests. Hence, the nature of this conflict also depends on the formal authority as well as the informal power which institutions possess. In 2011, when the “Rasta Roko” incident took place the police started to “laathi charge” the public and fired bullets on them. This signify that the contestation between the formal authority and the informal power intensify the conflict, which further can lead to the pulling back either of them. Here the state had to put stay on the project.

5) Stakeholders participation as “Social actors”

The group of farmers represented by BKS were/are active actors in the conflict. The strong claims and implications on pipeline project was known to them through even stronger social networks which BKS has provided. Hence, the actions and behavior of these social actors in the conflict was crucial and they had capacity to make decisions. Therefore, right from the starting process they consistently opposed the project, actively participated in collaborative decision making process, stand strong during the negotiations, actively and peacefully organized a movement (Though calling “raasta roko” as “peaceful” may be questionable). The concept of “marginalized stakeholders” in this conflict cannot be totally understood through the existing information. Because, the organization which has put forward this issue in public domain, National Alliance for Peoples Movement (NAPM), has actively took interest into the conflict since the 2011 incident and became a stakeholders in the conflict. Therefore, the regional disparities and social dynamics before this period had not reflected in their report. Though, the experts have fully analyzed the formal and informal institutional arrangements and their stance

which has affected the conflict. Therefore, the inclusion of low land holders, marginalized caste groups still is a question.

6) Choices of stakeholders to deal with social conflict

In this conflict the stakeholders have undergone through all the choices which may be considered to deal with the conflict such as decision-making, third-party, decision-making, and separate action

Joint decision making

This process was not successful at all, as discussed in earlier sections this did not lead to any fruitful outcome. The state government (authorities) tried to have dialogue for negotiation nine times and has been a failed attempt.

Third party decision making

This has played a very crucial role in the conflict as new set of implicit stakeholders have emerged and affected the conflict. After 2008 incident, the BKS moved to the high court which referred this to MWRRA. Challenging this decision of HC, BKS moved to Supreme Court which upheld the HC decision. MWRRA then appointed Public Dispute Resolution Officer (PDRO) to look into the dispute, which further favoured the project and hence BKS challengeg report and filed appeal to MWRRA, which observed following critical points which were strong enough to argue against,

The Authority observes that there will be some deterioration in the water quality due to loss in the dilution benefit after the functioning of the pipeline project. However all water quality parameters will not be affected, except BOD.

To improve BOD of the river, the environmental flow needs to be maintained. For this, 3.5 Mm3 of water shall be reserved at the end of February and will be released from March to May to improve the quality of water.

The per capita water requirement in urban areas is 135 lpcd. At present the PCMC is supplied with 187 lpcd of water. As a result, the allocations of 176.92 Mm3 of water to PCMC can be reduced by 15 to 20 Mm3. (MWRRA, 2012)

Further, Water resource Department (2012), another institution which affected the conflict had following stand,

According to the inflow data of the last 36 years (1976-2011) the average water availability at the dam is 369.45 Mm3 which on 75 percent dependability is 336.89 Mm3. There is a shortage of 32.56 Mm3 from the actual planning at 75 percent dependability. The total water use in the last 20 years by all the users is in the range of 135.75 Mm3 to 210.77 Mm3, which is less than the actual water availability at the dam. The kharif allocation from the dam is 93.55 Mm3, of which the actual requirement is 65.98 Mm3 as there are 75 rainy days. The WRD argues that the kharif water requirement in the downstream region of the dam can be satisfied as there is more water available during the monsoon period.20

The per capita norm considered for the allocation of water for domestic uses for the PCMC is 147 lpcd.21 The norm is adopted as per the guidelines of the Government of India.

Apparently, PCMC stand to this is divergent because it has made 15 lpcd norm as against what WRD has ruled. Therefore, there is a contestation for now in the ruling These two legal and administrative instruments. The intervention from them came much later.

Separate action(struggle)

Both of the stakeholders have adapted separate action which could be observed through the 2008 and 2011 incidents.

7) Negeotiations, “away from bargaining table”

Critically, the initial negotiation was a failed process between the principle stakeholders. The secondary level negotiations which involved the MWRRA and WRD have rationale and considered to be fair. But the guidelines of MWRRA have again referred the final order about the pipeline and the irrigation infrastructure to farmers, to WRD. The recent development suggests that PCMC is not giving a second thought about the pipeline project and seeking consent from the farmers of Maval. The increasing demand and dependency of water in PCMC, corporation has employed different measures such as cutting down water and rationing it. Despite all these fact there seems to have no such negotiations which could be attruibuted to the phenomenon “away from the bargaining table.

8) Collaborative process

For now, the pipeline project is on the halt following the decision of MWRRA and the farmers protest. There are no collaborative processes as such that ought to happen. Both the stakeholders are standing still on their original demand which fuel the conflict. Nor such interventions have been made through the formal or informal institutions in the conflict. The PCMC hence, making an alternative arrangement to provide water supply to its population by lifting water from the Bhama Askhed, Andhra Dam, rather than trying for the conflict resolution(IEN, 2017).

9) Dispute resolution: shift from “positions” to “Interests”

The conflict resolution process can be effectively happen when the stakeholders focus on the concrete interest rather than the positions (rights) they have been focusing on. The stance of the stakeholders in Pavana dam conflict suggests that there is a lack of such focus and hence the resolution process id getting affected.

Towards resolving the conflict

The things which would be considered during conflict resolution process are, Costs and benefits in the conflict from Stakeholder’s as well as Environmental perspective. In addition, factors such as Institutional Weaknesses, Techno-- economic Factors, Legal Factors, Political Factors and‐ Factors related to data and knowledge such as existence of authentic data, access to the authentic data, capacity to analyze and interpret and availability of knowledge and capabilities, need to be addressed (P. Waghle’s Review)

Discussion around these Factors

According to the actual project plans, there is an allocation of 96.5 MMC water for irrigation purposes from the dam (Mumbai High Court, 2009) which was reduced to 32.33 MMC in storage planning by WRD. Water from the dam is diverted for non-irrigation uses by the high powered committee of the state government and no explanation has been provided about how this water is diverted for non-irrigation uses without taking into consideration the consent of the farmers in the region.The WRD argues that the water requirement for irrigation from the dam and river is 22.01 MMC. However, reservations made from storage planning for irrigation uses are 32.33 MMC, more than the actual water requirement for irrigation. Further, the WRD says that there is an allocation of 315 MMC water for different uses from the dam as against total of 321 MMC. There is an availability of balance 6 MMC water for other uses. However, the water use from the dam never crossed 210.77 MMC. WRD argues further that the farmers in this region are selling their lands for farm houses and urbanization, and are not interested in agriculture (MWRRA, 2012). This reduction in the irrigation area has resulted in less requirement of water for irrigation. In contrast, the famers wish to continue farming but find it difficult to draw water due to the absence of an irrigation canal, and because lift irrigation is problematic due to constant load shedding (FPDWCI, 2014). This raises a doubt that the irrigation infrastructure was deliberately not constructed by the WRD, so that water could be diverted and used for non-irrigation purposes. There is a serious doubt about the figures related to water use and availability provided by the WRD, and that there is enough water in the dam. If this is true, then why did the irrigation share from the dam decline over the period when farmers were agitating for securing their irrigation water share? Such a proposal of the WRD to divert water will only aggravate the water conflict in the region. (ibid).

The stated rationale of closed pipeline system was to reduce the transmission and seepage losses, to avoid the reduction in water quality. However there does not seem to be any clear assessment of these losses in the non-monsoon and monsoon period. According to the MWRRA, WRD is responsible to supply allocated water to all users up to the Ravet Weir. However, even after the pipeline project becomes operational, a certain amount of water still has to be released downstream of the dam upto the Ravet weir to meet other existing uses. This will result in some loss due to transmission and seepage, and such loss has then to be accounted for by the non-PCMC users. The water in the river also recharges groundwater, on which most of the water users in the basin are dependent. (FPDWCI, 2014).

The objective of improving the water quality was also another objective. MWRRA accepts that the water quality in the river will be affected due to reduction in the water availability after the

functioning of the closed pipeline project, as less water would be available in the river for the dilution of pollutants and this will also affect the water supplied to PCMC. The MWRRA says that the water required for preserving the water quality in the downstream will be maintained by assuring environmental flow in the river during the lean period. This clearly shows that the water quality is compromised for the users of river water. 72 gramsabhas will be forced to depend on degraded water for drinking and sanitation purposes, depriving them of their basic right of access to safe and clean drinking water.

Further, 2011 shows that the issue is deeply politicized. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the then opposition party in the Maharashtra state assembly, seems to have a good presence in the rural region around the PCMC, while the Rashtrawadi Congress Party was the ruling party of the PCMC with an overwhelming majority. There was no demand from the people of the PCMC for the closed pipeline. However, the party in power asserted the need of such a closed pipeline project. The government and party in power failed to understand the opposition to the closed pipeline in the region. Thus, this issue has been given a political dimension due to the vested interests of the politicians, which has exacerbated the conflict further, without providing any effective solution.

A Step ahead

Following measures can be taken into consideration towards effective resolution of this conflict.

1) Initiating a dialogue between the people, the state government and the PCMC. The dialogue process can assist to ease the persisting tensions in this region. However, before the dialogue process, there is urgency for the state and WRD to come up with data about facts and figures about the water availability and use, and the reasoning for changes in the water allocations.

2) The WRD should explicitly explain the absence of irrigation infrastructure to deliver irrigation water as earlier proposed in the actual project plans.

3) The dialogue process should involve appropriate legal measures such as withdrawal of court cases against the agitators, which will help to build confidence among the people of Maval.

4) Alternative to this project, the use of water from the river can be a better option as it will satisfy the needs of all the users around the river and the PCMC. The PCMC first needs to take initiatives to curtail the growing demand of water in its area and prevent the excess use of water with some schemes and techniques.

5) Joint monitoring of water quality in the river can be done by villagers, state pollution control board and the PCMC. Subsequently, there is a need to have a fresh look on the water required for irrigation, especially when sugarcane is a major crop. Therefore, there is need to use water more efficiently and suggest a change in the copping pattern such that less water is required. Farmers can use efficient irrigation techniques, with aid from the state government.

6) For water requirement in peri-urban areas and the surrounding rural areas of the urban settlements a different policy approach need to be followed. Per capita water use criteria in such areas need to be assessed.

7) The rural region of Maval is experiencing more industrial and infrastructural development, which is increasing migrant population in a rapidly. There is a need to assess the water demands of the rural region in this context and change the present water allocations.

**************

References

Joy, K. J., Paranjape, S., & Bhagat, S. (Eds.). (2014, January). Conflicts Around Domestic Water and Sanitation in India: Cases, Issues and Prospects. Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India.

Allocations : The water from the river is mainly allocated for drinking water use, irrigation and industrial use. The allocation of water for non-irrigation purposes was changed a number of times, first by the Water Resources Department (WRD) and later by the High Powered Committee of the Maharashtra state government. There is an absence of allocation for hydropower generation as there is no direct

Buckles, D. (Ed.). (1999). Cultivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. Idrc.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., ... & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1933-1949.

Gujja, B., Paranjape, S., Goud, V., & Vispute, S. (2008). Water conflicts in India: A million revolts in the making. K. J. Joy (Ed.). New Delhi: Routledge.

Mumbai High Court, (Des 2009), Public Interest Litigation no. 52 of 2009, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh and others Vs Union of India and Others.

MWRRA (Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority), 2012, Dispute relating to issuance or delivery of entitlement to water user associations from Pavana dam – Appeal filed by Bharatiya Kisan Sangh and others under section 22(3) of the MWRRA Act 2005 against the order of the Primary Dispute Resolution Officer, No.MWRRA/(352/2010)/Pavana/EER/311

WRD, 2011, report on Benchmarking Irrigation Systems in Maharashtra State, 2009-2010, Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra

P. Waghale - “Resolving Water Conflicts: A Review Paper” based on Review of Cases of Water Conflicts Documented by the Forum on Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India.

Web resources

http://waterconflictforum.org/books-reports

https://www.pcmcindia.gov.in

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pune-pavana-dam-crosses-90-per-cent-mark-pimpri-chinchwads-water-crisis-over-2958899/ (Accessed on 12/9/2017)

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pavana-dam-level-low-pimpri-chinchwad-water-pune-2825032/ (accessed on 12/9/2017)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/PCMC-to-consider-local-mood-on-water-pipeline/articleshow/55589315.cms (Accessed on 15/9/17)

http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/city-gets-light-showers-dam-levels-look-up/ (Accessed on 15/9/17)

http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=Pawana_Dam_D03199

http://censusindia.gov.in/

www.sharingsmile.in

Allocations : The water from the river is mainly allocated for drinking water use, irrigation and industrial use. The allocation of water for non-irrigation purposes was changed a number of times, first by the Water Resources Department (WRD) and later by the High Powered Committee of the Maharashtra state government. There is an absence of allocation for hydropower generation as there is no direct