You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested.
While the historical, geographical and scientific facts involved in a water management problem or water conflict can often be attributed to well-respected sources and agreed upon by multiple parties, each problem can also have multiple facets and not all issues may be considered equally important by all parties. Certain perspectives may interpret the implications of neutral facts in a different way from others.
Because of this, each case study can be linked to multiple articles in which contributors can provide analysis or insights and synthesis different viewpoints or lines of evidence. Professionals, academics, and community-members who have some involvement with the case first hand might have different experiences or interpretations to share. The goal is to collect a wide range of knowledge on these cases, which requires incorporating multiple (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints into each case.
Each of these Analysis, Synthesis, & Insights (ASI) sections is protected -- only the user who created the section, official editors, and administrators have the ability to change the content in an individual ASI. Editors who take on the task of editing a user-contributed ASI section are committed to only adjust grammar and stylistic issues, and will avoid any changes that could lead to a different meaning or adjust content.
We suggest that anyone who would like to help improve an ASI section leave comments for the author and community on the discussion page for the specific ASI section. If you have questions about how this works, please refer to the help section or contact a site administrator.
Rachel Finkelstein Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.
Enter the contributor's name and (optional) link to a descriptive website, such as a professional bio or AquaPedia user page.
Link to Case Study :
Summary - Displayed only in Case Study:
Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab: Upload a File View all Files You can find or upload a file and then return here.
ASI - Extended Article Content '''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.
Practitioner Academic Participant Observer
Analysis Synthesis Personal Insights Professional Insights
Keywords
Help others find your ASI by providing keywords or short phrases. Selecting the arrow or entering a few letters will show you keywords others have used to describe their contributions
Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:
This is a minor edit Watch this page
Cancel