<p>In a landmark verdict today, the Supreme Court has reduced the allocation of the Cauvery Waters for Tamil Nadu from 192 TMC, as allocated by the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award in 2007, to 177.25 TMC annually.&nbsp; This thousand million cubic feet of water is to be released from Billigundulu, the last measuring station in Karnataka on the Cauvery, to Mettur Dam, which is the first measuring station in Tamil Nadu on the Cauvery river. It is a historic judgment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The judgment is historical on two counts: first, it marks the culmination of the centuries-old inter-state water dispute that has been an epitome of hostile hydropolitics. Second, it sent a signal to the agricultural economy to efficiently use water and practise crop diversification. The principle followed here, though apparently seems like &ldquo;robbing Peter to pay Paul&rdquo; (by reducing 14.75 TMC water for Tamil Nadu and providing the same to Karnataka for its burgeoning urban water use), recognises a bigger global phenomenon of intersectoral water conflicts: agriculture versus urban water demand.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In a 2009 paper co-authored with Jayanta Bandyopadhyay in Water Policy, I argued that around 85% of the waters of the Cauvery basin go for agriculture, with paddy emerging as the most dominant crop in the basin. While the Tamil Nadu delta has been historically cultivating paddy, Karnataka started developing their irrigation potential in the 1960s onwards.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The minimum support prices (MSP) of rice between the 80s and 90s were increasing at a faster rate vis-&agrave;-vis the drier alternative crop, namely, Ragi. Farmers, therefore, were incentivised to shift to water-consuming crop, for instance, from Ragi to paddy. However, the data over the last 10 years reveals that there has been an overall decline in acreage in the basin, and more so in the Karnataka part, in response to a reversal in the MSP movement. But, the traditional sugarcane agriculture in the delta regions still continues.&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Who owns the Cauvery water?</strong></p>

<p>There are three extreme principles of water allocation based on divergent definitions of property rights: Harmon, History and Hobbes. The Harmon doctrine states the primary rights of water are bestowed on those who own land at the source of the water. History confers primary rights to historical users of water irrespective of their geographical location. Hobbes identifies rights as the final result of awards obtained through negotiations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tamil Nadu, given the long history of water use especially in the delta regions, has been advocating its position in terms of History. While the basin area&#39;s contribution to the river flow should also be an important variable to be taken into consideration, the principle of prescriptive rights given in the 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore also translates to the principle of prior appropriation or the doctrine of history as the basis of property rights definition.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Karnataka has always maintained that a downstream state cannot make a claim when there is a scarcity of water and inadequacy in the upstream areas. At the same time, upstream development should not be compromised because of downstream concerns. This implies that Karnataka has been exercising the Harmon doctrine for its property rights.</p>

<p>The divergent definitions of property rights are amplified by the fact that the subject of water falls in the State list, subject to the provisions of 56 (i) of the Indian Constitution. Even the provisions of the Interstate Water Dispute (ISWD) Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2002 merely talk of setting up tribunals for adjudications and declaring awards. In view of global standards on water governance, this is insufficient. One can perceive that Hobbesian modes of negotiations are failing. Besides, it has exposed the failings of a state-led, &lsquo;decentralised&rsquo; approach.</p>

<p>Interestingly, much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a &ldquo;national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it&rdquo;.</p>

<p><strong>A holistic understanding is needed</strong></p>

<p>The verdict, therefore, presents an unprecedented benchmark in Indian water governance by seeking a departure from age-old policies. There are many solutions for managing agricultural water, such as crop-diversification through minimum support price, regime change in favour of drier crops, promoting water-use-efficiency through technical and institutional measures, imports of agricultural crops from water-rich regions, among others. But, the basic human needs should be met first.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, there is one more thing that remains to be taken care of, i.e. the cause of the ecosystems. The CWT award in 2007 was thoroughly based on reductionist &ldquo;arithmetic hydrology&rdquo;, and not on holistic eco-hydrology. The arithmetic by way of which this 50% dependability of water is arrived at depends on past precedence of estimates conducted by engineers like K.L. Rao.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The CWT seemed to be oblivious to the challenges by possible impacts of global warming and climate change that can result in variability in water availability. That award reserved the &ldquo;quantity &hellip; for environmental protection&rdquo; and &ldquo;quantity determined for inevitable escapages to the sea&rdquo; as 10 TMC and 4 TMC respectively, none of which adhere to any scientific assessment of the ecosystem-based water usages in the basin.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The present verdict does not have the cause of the ecosystem in its scope. But, ecological scientists must advocate for a more scientific approach for the cause of the ecosystems for life in the basin. The resolution mechanism worked out by the Cauvery Water Tribunal has been based on myopic number-games for sharing the waters, without much consideration about the broader institutions, economics, ecology, hydrology, and holistic understanding of the conflicts. There is a need to correct that.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em></p>


Much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a “national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it”.

In a landmark verdict today, the Supreme Court has reduced the allocation of the Cauvery Waters for Tamil Nadu from 192 TMC, as allocated by the Cauvery Water Tribunal Award in 2007, to 177.25 TMC annually. This thousand million cubic feet of water is to be released from Billigundulu, the last measuring station in Karnataka on the Cauvery, to Mettur Dam, which is the first measuring station in Tamil Nadu on the Cauvery river. It is a historic judgment. The judgment is historical on two counts: first, it marks the culmination of the centuries-old inter-state water dispute that has been an epitome of hostile hydropolitics. Second, it sent a signal to the agricultural economy to efficiently use water and practise crop diversification. The principle followed here, though apparently seems like “robbing Peter to pay Paul” (by reducing 14.75 TMC water for Tamil Nadu and providing the same to Karnataka for its burgeoning urban water use), recognises a bigger global phenomenon of intersectoral water conflicts: agriculture versus urban water demand. In a 2009 paper co-authored with Jayanta Bandyopadhyay in Water Policy, I argued that around 85% of the waters of the Cauvery basin go for agriculture, with paddy emerging as the most dominant crop in the basin. While the Tamil Nadu delta has been historically cultivating paddy, Karnataka started developing their irrigation potential in the 1960s onwards. The minimum support prices (MSP) of rice between the 80s and 90s were increasing at a faster rate vis-à-vis the drier alternative crop, namely, Ragi. Farmers, therefore, were incentivised to shift to water-consuming crop, for instance, from Ragi to paddy. However, the data over the last 10 years reveals that there has been an overall decline in acreage in the basin, and more so in the Karnataka part, in response to a reversal in the MSP movement. But, the traditional sugarcane agriculture in the delta regions still continues. Who owns the Cauvery water? There are three extreme principles of water allocation based on divergent definitions of property rights: Harmon, History and Hobbes. The Harmon doctrine states the primary rights of water are bestowed on those who own land at the source of the water. History confers primary rights to historical users of water irrespective of their geographical location. Hobbes identifies rights as the final result of awards obtained through negotiations. Tamil Nadu, given the long history of water use especially in the delta regions, has been advocating its position in terms of History. While the basin area's contribution to the river flow should also be an important variable to be taken into consideration, the principle of prescriptive rights given in the 1924 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the Princely State of Mysore also translates to the principle of prior appropriation or the doctrine of history as the basis of property rights definition. On the other hand, Karnataka has always maintained that a downstream state cannot make a claim when there is a scarcity of water and inadequacy in the upstream areas. At the same time, upstream development should not be compromised because of downstream concerns. This implies that Karnataka has been exercising the Harmon doctrine for its property rights. The divergent definitions of property rights are amplified by the fact that the subject of water falls in the State list, subject to the provisions of 56 (i) of the Indian Constitution. Even the provisions of the Interstate Water Dispute (ISWD) Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2002 merely talk of setting up tribunals for adjudications and declaring awards. In view of global standards on water governance, this is insufficient. One can perceive that Hobbesian modes of negotiations are failing. Besides, it has exposed the failings of a state-led, ‘decentralised’ approach. Interestingly, much in departure to this existing thinking of water being State subject, thereby, leading to divergent definitions of property rights, the Supreme Court has observed that water of the Cauvery river was a “national asset and no single state could claim ownership over it”. A holistic understanding is needed The verdict, therefore, presents an unprecedented benchmark in Indian water governance by seeking a departure from age-old policies. There are many solutions for managing agricultural water, such as crop-diversification through minimum support price, regime change in favour of drier crops, promoting water-use-efficiency through technical and institutional measures, imports of agricultural crops from water-rich regions, among others. But, the basic human needs should be met first. However, there is one more thing that remains to be taken care of, i.e. the cause of the ecosystems. The CWT award in 2007 was thoroughly based on reductionist “arithmetic hydrology”, and not on holistic eco-hydrology. The arithmetic by way of which this 50% dependability of water is arrived at depends on past precedence of estimates conducted by engineers like K.L. Rao. The CWT seemed to be oblivious to the challenges by possible impacts of global warming and climate change that can result in variability in water availability. That award reserved the “quantity … for environmental protection” and “quantity determined for inevitable escapages to the sea” as 10 TMC and 4 TMC respectively, none of which adhere to any scientific assessment of the ecosystem-based water usages in the basin. The present verdict does not have the cause of the ecosystem in its scope. But, ecological scientists must advocate for a more scientific approach for the cause of the ecosystems for life in the basin. The resolution mechanism worked out by the Cauvery Water Tribunal has been based on myopic number-games for sharing the waters, without much consideration about the broader institutions, economics, ecology, hydrology, and holistic understanding of the conflicts. There is a need to correct that. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Cauvery is a national river, no state owns it

<p>The popular belief of diminishing per capita water availability, due to the burgeoning population, has been driving the water governance paradigms in the developing world, including South Asia. Governments, therefore, with the concern of feeding the burgeoning population, as also to meet the urban water needs, have resorted to large-scale diversionary projects in the form of large dams, water transfers, and other forms of structural interventions over water. From the 1920s to 1960s, the USA and the EU showed this path to the rest of the world.</p>

<p>The Hoover Dam, Central Arizona Project, the Tennessee Valley Project, etc bore ample testimony of structural engineering excellence that intervened over hydrological flows. Such large constructions in the developed world gained instant popularity as they brought water to drier parts of a nation, generated hydropower, helped agricultural expansion, resolved drinking water problems, and were projected by populist governments as &ldquo;harbingers of progress&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Developing and underdeveloped world followed suit. In large parts of the developing world, in which South Asia prominently features, it was the British who brought the engineering knowledge to govern waters. But, over time, the perception of water governance changed in the developed world, with US and EU being the pioneers in this domain. A deeper thinking made them realise that water conflicts, more often than not, have been results of this constructionist paradigm.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Environmentalists have been vocal about the livelihoods problems that have been an outcome of the ecosystem damage through the losses in ecosystem services. This led to a trend in the western world to decommission dams. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. Rehabilitation and livelihoods losses even during the construction phases have been sources of social conflict, the costs of which are often not taken into consideration while carrying out impact assessment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, this realisation hardly dawns on the developing world. Agricultural expansion during the last century has caused widespread changes in land cover, watercourses, and aquifers, thereby degrading ecosystems, and restricting their ability to support some services including food provisioning. Ecosystem services are the services provided by the ecosystem to the human community free of cost, for e.g. food, fish, water, carbon sequestration, micro-climate regulation, tourism, etc.</p>

<p>As per the <i>Millennium Ecosystem Assessment</i>, food provisioning is one of the critical provisioning services of the ecosystem. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, than their incomes. Therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as &ldquo;GDP of the poor&rdquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as &ldquo;GDP of the poor&rdquo;.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as ?GDP of the poor?." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In the developing world, the management policy of many agro-ecosystems has essentially been based on the premise that they are delinked from the broader landscape. There has been scant recognition of the ecological components and the processes that support the sustainability of such agro-ecosystems. As a result, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem has been defied by traditional agricultural and water management regimes. Some ecosystems, therefore, were made to cross the ecological thresholds, leading to a regime change in the ecosystem and their concomitant services. The resultant reduction in the ecosystem&rsquo;s resilience also restricts the sustainability of its food provisioning service.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, beyond a point, even the water supply augmentation plans (through dam constructions), and land-use change (through bringing more land under agriculture by cutting down forests or filling wetlands), do not work and can have a negative impact on food security, with the impacts intensified by climate change. Interventions on hydrological flows and concomitant large-scale land-use change have intervened into the ecosystem functioning, thereby impeding on the ecosystem services.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>The Reductionist Engineering Paradigm</b></p>

<p>While South Asia and large parts of developing world still adhere to its archaic notions of water resource development, entirely based on the reductionist engineering paradigm, this paradigm is an integral component of the colonial legacy being introduced and formalised under colonial capitalism in South Asia leading to a &lsquo;metabolic rift&rsquo; between human and nature.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The British engineers, who brought their European engineering knowledge to its colonies, hardly had any idea of the rivers of South Asia, like the Ganges and Brahmaputra. The hydrographs of most European rivers were almost horizontal lines, hardly revealing any seasonal pattern. There is definitely no concept of &ldquo;drought&rdquo; (or lean season flow) and &ldquo;floods&rdquo; (peak flow) in this paradigm of &ldquo;arithmetic hydrology&rdquo;. When monsoon occurred in the Indian sub-continent, and submerged the Ganges or the Cauvery floodplains at its own usual wont, it was thought of as an aberration, and not an integral component of the global eco-hydrological cycle, as this understanding existed among the engineers.</p>

<p>Therefore, most &lsquo;structural&rsquo; interventions in the colonial and post-colonial era were conceived of from the perspective of irrigation, and to a smaller extent, hydropower. Hardly these designs took into consideration the concerns of a) eco-hydrology, treating floods and droughts as integral components of the eco-hydrological cycle; b) hydro-meteorology, understanding the relation between meteorological variables and extreme events; c) seismic science, making the structures resistant to earthquakes, and d) sediment science, and understanding that water and sediment flow together. European rivers, unlike The Ganges-Brahmaputra in India, or the Yellow river in China hardly carried sediments. The British hardly understood that sediments have important ecosystem functions like soil formation, and enhancing soil fertility.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>The Changing paradigm</b></p>

<p>However, the global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management. In the present age of <i>anthropocene</i>, where humans dictate the pathways for biodiversity, it is increasingly felt that conservation is no more an ethical or a normative concern based on our ingrained value system. Rather, it is a very selfish human need.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Humans realise that only with adequate conservation mechanisms of the ecosystem, the sustainability of the human society, polity, and business can be ensured. Demand management of water leading to keeping water in-stream is more beneficial from ecological and economic perspectives, given their important roles in providing food security and ecological sustainability. The bigger concern is always with downstream impacts. The way Central Arizona Project in US destroyed the paddy fields of the coastal Mexico, and the Farakka barrage destroyed the Indian Sundarbans Delta are cases in point.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>Way forward</b></p>

<p>There is no doubt that the water governance policy narrative has to change globally. But, there have to be region-specific alternatives. EU and USA have gone ahead with understanding their priorities, but neither sediment, nor floods have really been the cases of concern for them as they have been for China and India. But EU and USA have shown to the developing world that demand management with basin as the unit of governance (also known as Integrated River Basin Management or IRBM) has to replace the age-old constructionist regime. A similar principle has to be in place for developing world, but a different set of knowledge base needs to be created for these principles being in place. China has developed its own set of ecologically informed engineering while designing its dam on Yangtze. The design helps in flood control, and also uses the peak flow to use the sediments effectively for downstream floodplain cultivation. India also needs to develop similar knowledge on fluvial geomorphology, by understanding sediments, floods, hydraulics, and seismic science. IRBM needs to be the new global pledge on this World Conservation Day.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


Based on reductionist engineering paradigm, current water resource development plans delink humans and nature

The popular belief of diminishing per capita water availability, due to the burgeoning population, has been driving the water governance paradigms in the developing world, including South Asia. Governments, therefore, with the concern of feeding the burgeoning population, as also to meet the urban water needs, have resorted to large-scale diversionary projects in the form of large dams, water transfers, and other forms of structural interventions over water. From the 1920s to 1960s, the USA and the EU showed this path to the rest of the world. The Hoover Dam, Central Arizona Project, the Tennessee Valley Project, etc bore ample testimony of structural engineering excellence that intervened over hydrological flows. Such large constructions in the developed world gained instant popularity as they brought water to drier parts of a nation, generated hydropower, helped agricultural expansion, resolved drinking water problems, and were projected by populist governments as “harbingers of progress”. Developing and underdeveloped world followed suit. In large parts of the developing world, in which South Asia prominently features, it was the British who brought the engineering knowledge to govern waters. But, over time, the perception of water governance changed in the developed world, with US and EU being the pioneers in this domain. A deeper thinking made them realise that water conflicts, more often than not, have been results of this constructionist paradigm. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. × Environmentalists have been vocal about the livelihoods problems that have been an outcome of the ecosystem damage through the losses in ecosystem services. This led to a trend in the western world to decommission dams. Around 500 dams have been decommissioned in the US and Europe in the 1990s, noting the extensive ecosystem damages and potential for conflicts. Rehabilitation and livelihoods losses even during the construction phases have been sources of social conflict, the costs of which are often not taken into consideration while carrying out impact assessment. However, this realisation hardly dawns on the developing world. Agricultural expansion during the last century has caused widespread changes in land cover, watercourses, and aquifers, thereby degrading ecosystems, and restricting their ability to support some services including food provisioning. Ecosystem services are the services provided by the ecosystem to the human community free of cost, for e.g. food, fish, water, carbon sequestration, micro-climate regulation, tourism, etc. As per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, food provisioning is one of the critical provisioning services of the ecosystem. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, than their incomes. Therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as “GDP of the poor”. It has now been realised that the poor depend more on these ecosystem services, therefore, the ecosystem services have also been classified as “GDP of the poor”. × In the developing world, the management policy of many agro-ecosystems has essentially been based on the premise that they are delinked from the broader landscape. There has been scant recognition of the ecological components and the processes that support the sustainability of such agro-ecosystems. As a result, the carrying capacity of the ecosystem has been defied by traditional agricultural and water management regimes. Some ecosystems, therefore, were made to cross the ecological thresholds, leading to a regime change in the ecosystem and their concomitant services. The resultant reduction in the ecosystem’s resilience also restricts the sustainability of its food provisioning service. Unfortunately, beyond a point, even the water supply augmentation plans (through dam constructions), and land-use change (through bringing more land under agriculture by cutting down forests or filling wetlands), do not work and can have a negative impact on food security, with the impacts intensified by climate change. Interventions on hydrological flows and concomitant large-scale land-use change have intervened into the ecosystem functioning, thereby impeding on the ecosystem services. The Reductionist Engineering Paradigm While South Asia and large parts of developing world still adhere to its archaic notions of water resource development, entirely based on the reductionist engineering paradigm, this paradigm is an integral component of the colonial legacy being introduced and formalised under colonial capitalism in South Asia leading to a ‘metabolic rift’ between human and nature. The British engineers, who brought their European engineering knowledge to its colonies, hardly had any idea of the rivers of South Asia, like the Ganges and Brahmaputra. The hydrographs of most European rivers were almost horizontal lines, hardly revealing any seasonal pattern. There is definitely no concept of “drought” (or lean season flow) and “floods” (peak flow) in this paradigm of “arithmetic hydrology”. When monsoon occurred in the Indian sub-continent, and submerged the Ganges or the Cauvery floodplains at its own usual wont, it was thought of as an aberration, and not an integral component of the global eco-hydrological cycle, as this understanding existed among the engineers. Therefore, most ‘structural’ interventions in the colonial and post-colonial era were conceived of from the perspective of irrigation, and to a smaller extent, hydropower. Hardly these designs took into consideration the concerns of a) eco-hydrology, treating floods and droughts as integral components of the eco-hydrological cycle; b) hydro-meteorology, understanding the relation between meteorological variables and extreme events; c) seismic science, making the structures resistant to earthquakes, and d) sediment science, and understanding that water and sediment flow together. European rivers, unlike The Ganges-Brahmaputra in India, or the Yellow river in China hardly carried sediments. The British hardly understood that sediments have important ecosystem functions like soil formation, and enhancing soil fertility. The Changing paradigm However, the global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management. In the present age of anthropocene, where humans dictate the pathways for biodiversity, it is increasingly felt that conservation is no more an ethical or a normative concern based on our ingrained value system. Rather, it is a very selfish human need. The global paradigm for water governance is changing. It is increasingly felt that water management should not be irrigation-centric, but the river basin should be the unit of management × Humans realise that only with adequate conservation mechanisms of the ecosystem, the sustainability of the human society, polity, and business can be ensured. Demand management of water leading to keeping water in-stream is more beneficial from ecological and economic perspectives, given their important roles in providing food security and ecological sustainability. The bigger concern is always with downstream impacts. The way Central Arizona Project in US destroyed the paddy fields of the coastal Mexico, and the Farakka barrage destroyed the Indian Sundarbans Delta are cases in point. Way forward There is no doubt that the water governance policy narrative has to change globally. But, there have to be region-specific alternatives. EU and USA have gone ahead with understanding their priorities, but neither sediment, nor floods have really been the cases of concern for them as they have been for China and India. But EU and USA have shown to the developing world that demand management with basin as the unit of governance (also known as Integrated River Basin Management or IRBM) has to replace the age-old constructionist regime. A similar principle has to be in place for developing world, but a different set of knowledge base needs to be created for these principles being in place. China has developed its own set of ecologically informed engineering while designing its dam on Yangtze. The design helps in flood control, and also uses the peak flow to use the sediments effectively for downstream floodplain cultivation. India also needs to develop similar knowledge on fluvial geomorphology, by understanding sediments, floods, hydraulics, and seismic science. IRBM needs to be the new global pledge on this World Conservation Day.

The liquid mosaic: A pledge for water on the World Conservation Day

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Nilanjan Ghosh

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.