Technical Exchange on the Development of Integrated Water Resources Management Plans in India, 13-14 Feb 2017, Hyderabad

Notes and conclusions

Background A technical exchange on the development of IWRM plans for the three river basins, namely Krishna, Godavari and Mahanadi, was organised in association with the MoWR, RD & GR, GoI (including its allied agencies such as CWC, NIH, CGWB etc.) and participating State Water Resources Departments under the aegis of IEWP. The aim of the technical exchange was to provide practice-oriented support in IWRM governance for the above-mentioned river basins and support the competent national authorities and the respective State governments to approach the development of the IWRM Plans for the river basins.

Proceedings Day 1 Introduction by Ms. Faergemann (EUD):

Introduction to the European Union (EU) and the India-EU Water Partnership (IEWP)

Why are we having the technical exchange

What are the expectations A presentation was provided by Ms. Moren-Abat from the European Commission on the key Water Framework Directive elements relevant for India.

Introduction by Dr. Sankhua (CWC):

How to solve the problems of IWRM in the basins and nationally

This exchange is forum for discussion

Presentation of the three basins and the plan to do IWRMPs

Description of objectives

Macro and micro level needs to be considered

Which are the main challenges of IWRMPs

The power point presentation includes more details and illustrations.

Sessions on: 1] Identifying existing challenges, sectoral drivers and key water management issues - Data availability and governmental management to assess pressures and impacts:

In these sessions, two impulse presentations were made by the EU expert (Bassi & Benítez-Sanz) on: 1] Approach and benefit to identify Key Water Management Issues for the national and basin-wide level; and 2] IWRMP data needs to assess impacts and how to tackle and administer information shortcomings. Thereafter, plenary discussions on the “Overview on existing key water management issues, key ecosystem services and the related sectoral drivers in the three river basins of Krishna, Godavari and Mahanadi” and “Reflection of key data gaps in the three river basins” were organised. For the discussions, three groups, one for each basin, were formed. The following shows the results for each of them as well as outcomes are summarised in an excel table.

In the first discussion, it is again obvious that water quantity issues take a key role; water quality aspects are usually mentioned when asked for.

During the second discussion, respective pressures and impacts are being discussed for three basins including a demonstrative example regarding the DPSIR method, explaining how Drivers and Pressures affect the Status of water bodies causing Impacts, and how Responses can address the Drivers, Pressures, Status and/or Impacts. The model helps to better understand complex problems as well as causal relationships, and to identify cost-efficient measures:

In the discussion, the concept seems well received and understood and can be considered as a useful tool to be implemented within the RBMPs.

Session on Future Infrastructure Projects:

An impulse presentation on “Future infrastructure development, their cumulative contribution and management in the EU” was made by an EU expert (Vogel). Thereafter discussion was organised to “Identify key future developments in relation to sectors in the three river basins of Krishna, Godavari and Mahanadi”. All these basins presented details on the planned Future Infrastructure Projects (FIPs).

Krishna FIPs:

Key FIPs relate to irrigation plus one 1 inter-basin transfer (Godavari to Krishna)

It is stated that groundwater projects are not known as it is not regulated

Link to increase of pollution pressures in future

Godavari FIPs:

Water resource development plan is in place

FIPS include: Lift irrigation schemes; and planned water infrastructure for socio-economic development, Food security, Avoid migration, and Flood protection

Overall discussion:

The identification of new pressures or Future Infrastructure Projects shall not be limited to water-related initiatives; e.g. energy and urbanisation – like developing the new capital city of AP – shall be also considered

Because of the Future Infrastructure Projects the following will happen:

Decrease of water discharge means an increase of stress and pressures

Pressures will increase on the Delta

Water pollution will also increase Proposed solution for pressures

Inter-basin water transfer

Improving irrigation efficiency

Modernisation of water conveyance and supply infrastructure

Coordinated implementation of FIPs was mentioned as important; and also need for holistic planning through considering FIPs in overall picture of planned and existing pressures/impacts was recognised.

Day 2

The day started with short wrap up in the beginning of the day: Morning summary of KWMIs, existing and future pressures in a table (see below). Participants were requested to provide missing information and links in this table, and the tables shall be further developed after the meeting. Discussions were also held on the role and meaning of FIPs in RBMP through sharing of example of construction of new capital city in Krishna basin.

Session on Identifying possible conflictive challenges on the national/State/Inter-State level and between sectors :

An impulse presentation on “Conflictive threats to effective water resources governance and the development of IWRMPs in the EU” was provided by an EU expert (Hernández-Mora). The presentation was very well received and provided a good basis for break out groups. The following conclusions have been achieved in the groups:

Overall discussion on conflicts, reason and legal context in plenary - conclusions:

Large number of regional political parties and changing politics will pose challenges to have management plans;

There should be an independent body on the central level to neutrally regulate these issues – it is a need of time;

Some functioning mechanisms are in place. Still not the entire frame;

Statement: ‘In India we need to think where to go and what steps to take to get a mechanism in place that will work.’

Comparison with Spain: Many actions in Spain took place within the State.

Conflicting challenges in managing water on state and inter state level?

Dispute solution tribunal in place between states

Established by central government

Not clear in how far the tribunal is functioning as of today

Many challenges in place – discussed case in Krishna basin that allows overall conclusions:

Upstream state needs to provide water to downstream (even if it is not there);

Upon request a board is brought in to place to regulate how allocation will be done – high level process; two members per state;

No ratio for distribution is defined – this is a problem;

Data from central government

Demand comes from the States

Board has technical staff from the States

States finance the technical staff;

Key Problem: data for utilisation is lacking; no monitoring

Utilisation decision is based on demand of projects (irrigation and drinking water);

Factual consumption is not;

Only 10% is calculated to come back to the river (return flows)

Possible solutions discussed:

Command area improvement – how is water being used? New mechanisms need to be introduced and applied;

Improvement of monitoring;

Conclusions - Needs for improvement by State:

Mechanism is needed to quantify yields – this has been done by commission. However, there are yearly variations; based on current reservoir storages;

Telemetry has been improved in the main reservoirs and the small ones – data then goes to central government

The above results in significant data gaps on water used and available in the beginning of the process;

MoUs signed that States will share data with central government – this process only started this year;

Validation of data is an issue – primary validation = easy; secondary validation is challenging;

Information will be available online;

Based on HP1 and HP2 model;

Groundwater is stated not to be an issue in the basin – can be used in case of emergency; quality of GW is an issue;

Common standards/methods are needed to tackle demand and use;

Key conclusions on this session:

Solving intra-state issues and problems will pose a key challenge;

Cooperation between States is good and can also be regulated by law;

Focus should be on Long-term planning;

Stakeholder involvement will be a critical issue;

In India stakeholders are involved before the rainy season a soon as water availability is known;

Learning from each other;

Session on finding practical solutions for all governance levels considering benefit sharing and trade-off options

At the start of this session, an impulse presentation on “Potential and possible power of benefit sharing and trade-offs to address conflictive issues on the basin-wide scale” was made by an EU expert (Schmidt). Thereafter discussions were held on the importance of benefit sharing in resolving water conflicts. It came out clearly during the discussions that as a first step it is important to identify the benefits that can be of common interest to riparian States. Thereafter, deliberations should be held in order to quantify these benefits and leverage them for facilitating cooperation over water sharing among riparian States. However, presently there is lack of clarity with the States on the set up of this process and its effectiveness in resolving water conflicts. States have shown their interest in understanding the benefit sharing and trade-off concept in more detail and their potential in resolving water conflict through case studies.

Next steps

The following list of possible follow up activities was discussed during the concluding session of the workshop, and shall be considered for developing further activities that involve the IEWP:

Information and capacity building on how to apply the Integrated Water Resource Management concept in practice;

Insights on how to prepare and plan in advance;

Assessment and discussion about which Law enforcement and improvement might be needed;

Success stories should be used and looked for (from both India and European Union);

Insights and experiences on water allocation and water market improvement (note a specific workshop with presentations was held previously);

Detailed assessment and discussion on the Terms of reference for the consultancy studies – related meetings are planned;

Provide and discuss further the case studies on trade-offs and benefit sharing;

Information on ways to identify solutions for the demands of water uses

Data sharing and data improvement (note a presentation was provided on this topic by Bo Jacobsen at a previous workshop on river basin planning and governance);

Apply a stepwise approach aligned to ToR of the consultancy studies, and basin by basin. Exchange knowledge between the three basins to achieve best possible results.

Further, it was suggested by CWC that IEWP experts and peers will be consulted and involved

in the capacity building workshops that are planned by the MoWR, RD & GR, GoI for the Krishna, Godavari and Mahanadi basins from autumn 2017 onwards.