Applying the Water Diplomacy Framework to the Narmada River Basin conflict

From AquaPedia Case Study Database
Jump to: navigation, search

About this Article
Contributed by:Rachel Finkelstein


Article last edited 23 May 2014 by Rachel
Article originally added by Rachel

What is an ASI Article? Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case by linking a case to an ASI article. These ASI articles are protected, so that each person who creates a section retains control of their own content. Please use the discussion page for commenting on this article. Learn More

This article is linked to Conflicts over development in India's Narmada River Basin


1. Have all the right parties been included adequately?

The initial binding award, by which all further decisions have been made, was made by a tribunal comprised solely of judges, without any input from the states involved or the affected populations. The Grievance Redressal Process set up by the states does not adequately provide a mechanism for affected populations to be included, as it requires formal written legal statements from communities without the capacity to participate in this way. The process also did not recognize special protections for Scheduled Tribes as stated in the Indian Constitution.

2. Was joint fact-finding or other fact-finding undertaken?

No. The research that forms the basis of the plans did not include input by any stakeholders.

3. Have there been occasions for professional-neutral facilitation of joint problem solving during which “inventing without committing” has been encouraged?

No.

4. Has there been a search for non-zero sum options or packages that link issues creatively or build on possible technology innovation?

No.

5. What consideration has been given to collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? And, what efforts have the parties made to review and adjust the solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?

Very little. The estimates of river flows and power generation potential made by the Tribunal in the 1970s are binding, and despite recognition by multiple government entities and experts that the estimates are overstated and otherwise flawed, they cannot be revised. The states were encouraged to revise their resettlement and rehabilitation packages to make them more humane, but were not required to do so by law, and there is no established process for updating plans or policies other than reevaluating environmental and resettlement issues concurrently with the Narmada Control Authority’s required approvals as the dam is raised in 5 meter increments.

6. What effort has been made to encourage institutional capacity building or organizational learning?

Very little. India still does not have a national policy on resettlement and rehabilitation.

7. Did the decision(s) or solution(s) presented in this case have political credibility and why?

Indians are very divided on the issue. Many viewed the protest activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan as a small group of activists getting in the way of water that is desperately needed by drought-prone areas in Gujarat and Rajasthan. However, many Indians, along with the majority of international parties (including the World Bank), agree that the implementation process of the project was extremely problematic and based on faulty information.

8. How was the decision/solution implemented?

The Tribunal’s award is implemented by the Narmada Control Authority, which has representation from each state involved. It does not include input from any impacted communities or related organizations.

9. What metrics were used to measure the effectiveness of solutions and/or decisions?

The Interstate River Water Dispute Act was revised in 2002 to include a requirement for data tracking and sharing, but states that Tribunal Awards given before that revision are exempt. Since the project is not yet completed, there has been no evaluation to measure whether the dam has met its expected irrigation, drinking water, and hydropower targets, the impacts or extent of displacement caused by the dams, nor the environmental impacts.