By: Kamal Devkota
Who is the authorized body to make decisions for the provision of water to both upstream and downstream communities? Is it the central government, local government, local people, or so-called experts? What is the widely accepted and legitimate process to address the needs of up and downstream communities? These questions were raised by the local leaders from Dhulikhel in Kavre district during a recent program on water security, ecosystem services and livelihoods.
Questions emerged after upstream villages affected by Asian Development Bank-supported Kavre Valley Integrated Drinking Water project put forth several demands to project implementers in 2014. The locals’ efforts at engaging with management decisions and donors are welcome. The questions are important also because water distribution issue will prove problematic in federal structure that Nepal is going to adopt.
Construction of Melamchi Drinking Water Project was interrupted several times due to the demands from local and downstream people, who claimed to be the victims of the project. They claimed that their irrigation systems and other means of livelihoods like fishery will be affected once Melamchi water is diverted to Kathmandu. Similarly, dispute amongst upstream people of Bhundi Khola and Dundiya Khola and people from Baglung Municipality in western Nepal took a long time to resolve. The Sabra Khola Drinking Water Project in Ramechhap was contested in 2011 after upstream local people from Dura Gaun put several demands to the Swiss-supported project, claiming their preferential right to use water flowing in their territory.
Such activities not only inflate project costs but also cause delays in project implementation. The demand of water in small towns is high due to rapidly increasing population. Existing sources are not sufficient for everyone. People are compelled to move to surrounding regions in search of alternative sources. Once it is found, several obstacles come in the way.
The Water Resource Regulation 1993 provisions the District Water Resource Committee (DWRC), headed by a Chief District Officer, to register the water user committees tapping water from a particular source. Representatives from other line ministry organizations in the district like water, forest, agriculture and irrigation are members of the DWRC. The secretariat of this committee is also a part of the District Development Committee. This committee is the apex body in the district for granting permissions to local water user committees to tap water from a particular source.
A water user committee has to apply to DWRC for recognition of ownership of the water source with more than seven supporting documents, which are difficult for local groups to prepare. DWRC reviews this application before allowing for a survey. The user committee has to wait for 35 more days after the submission of the survey report followed by a public notice issued by DWRC if the work goes smoothly.
However, the DWRC rarely meets as members are usually busy with their own assignments. Sometimes meetings are not held for more than six months. In this case, a water user committee has to wait an extra six months stalling the prospect of tapping new sources.
Many people residing around sources of water and in downstream regions have been claiming that they have the preferential right to use water. Such claims have proliferated mainly after 2006 movement as well as several other identity-based movements. However, the Water Resource Act 1992 clearly mentions that the first priority for water should go to drinking and household use. Hence, there are conflicts between upstream and downstream groups.
The first negotiation between the Bhume Danda (upstream) and Dhulikhel (downstream) claimants for drinking water was held in 1985. These two Village Development Committees came to a mutual understanding after Dhulikhel agreed to build a school building at Bhume Danda against the water from Khar Khola at Bhumi Danda taken to Dhulikhel. No further commitments were made in this agreement. However, during the period between 1985 and 2011, Dhulikhel has contributed about 10.9 million rupees to various infrastructure projects such as school buildings and roads as well as to small drinking water projects and forest conservation to the upstream region.
Along with the political changes different interest groups emerged in the upstream Dhulikhel region and started putting demands one after another to Dhulikhel Drinking Water Users Committee. The Kavre Valley Integrated Drinking Water Project, which is supposed to supply safe drinking water from the source at Bhume Danda to Dhulikhel, Banepa and Panauti municipalities is also facing similar demands and challenges.
Due to political vacuum at the local level and no clear policy provisions to deal with stalemates, uncertainty over legitimacy and authority to transact and accord with up-and down-stream agendas exist. As a result, the very legitimacy of the original plans and agreements between up- and down-stream communities are a big challenge.
A deliberative platform for multiple stakeholders from up- and down-stream to discuss the possible effects and trade-offs brought by the planned water project is essential. Genuine concerns raised through such platform are to be properly addressed. However, again the question remains, who is to decide whose voice is genuine? How is action on their concerns to be mandated? The multiple stakeholder forums from both up- and down-stream could be the better option in this condition.
Payments for watershed services, a process for assessing the cost of water and its social and environmental importance through valuation techniques, may present a unique solution in some contexts. An indicator of legitimacy of the negotiation could be the participative, transparent, non-monetary valuation of watershed services and water demands and uses. However, the challenge is whether it is applicable in small projects.
Broadly, there are three approaches to negotiation: interest based, rights based and power based. While negotiating between up- and down-stream communities, it remains to be determined which approach is useful for a particular case. A clear policy provision is the ultimate solution for this issue. In the provision, the actors, institutions and process for the negotiation are to be clearly defined. Further, it should provision the alternative option of negotiation process at a time when there is no elected local government and decision making process has been affected.
Published in My Republica on 2014-11-25
http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=87287
