This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sandy Bykowski, MPS and Ronald Fernandes Ph.D.
School of Public Service (SPS) DePaul University, Chicago 14. E. Jackson Blvd, Room 1602 Phone: (312) 362 8644 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paper presented at the ISTR conference in Istanbul, Turkey July 9, 2010 1
3 A large project versus small project approach focuses on the efficiency aspect of freshwater storage (what is the most cost-efficient way to collect and recycle water) but ignores crucial and 1 2 World Commission on Dams report. Sakthivadivel and Seckler.‘ While the literature tends to frame the issue of large top-down water projects versus smaller bottom-up projects as alternatives to freshwater storage (Keller. major engineering projects such as mega dams and dam-related flooding have displaced 40 to 80 million people. the cost-benefit analyses can be apples to oranges: the WCD points out that dams built for different purposes. big mega-dams (dams over 150 meters tall) have been the dominant practice of freshwater storage. According to the World Commission on dams.525 large. p 7 Agoramoorthy and Hsu.‖ )World Commission on Dams report. We argue that micro projects to enhance freshwater storage in underground aquifers combined with soil conservation techniques provide advantages that often surpass the benefits of larger structures such as dams. 70% of the irrigation projects were still incomplete. India currently experiences severe water shortages and is expected to face more serious shortages in the future. water supply or flood control.‖ India has. behind only China and the US (one-tenth of the 45. Small Size. Sixteen million Indian people have been relocated. and multiple controversies. the water table is sinking at the rate of one to two meters a year. 75% of these people were not ‗rehabilitated. as these projects frequently suffer from community resistance and protests. primarily for irrigation but also for municipal and industrial use. involve different components. 2000). carefully conceived and managed are beginning to show sustainable results that are superior to large or macro-interventions. The volume of ground water withdrawal.‖ building 4. ―have separate objectives. They appear to be costeffective as well.240 people. p 38) 3 . with many aquifers now seriously depleted. ―The growing rate of extraction of fresh water from rivers and lakes is matched by increasing extraction of ground water. over the last 50 years. been enamored with huge ―mega dams. Big Potential: Check Dams For Sustainable Development (Environment.to-oranges comparison which is both simplistic and ignores the social benefits that derive from smaller projects. July/August 2008) 3 Even in large scale dam projects. respond to different markets and are operated in different ways. whether for hydropower. we argue in this paper that such an approach creates an apples. each dam displacing an average of 31. microinterventions in water management. ―India has built more than 1500 large dams.000 mega dams worldwide).and medium-sized dams. In India. But their success has been questionable. exceeds long-term recharge rates. projects flooded over 11 million acres of forest land. Over the last several decades.‖1 In many parts of India.Small Water Projects Can Do Big Things: Watershed Management in India Introduction As the idea of civil society has taken root and grown in developing countries.2 Globally. ranking third in the world. post-independence. We will analyze the case of the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR) one of the largest organizations working in the fields of environmental management and participatory watershed development in India. As of 2004.
in the small village of Wankute. They also find a worsening of living standards in districts in which a dam is built. technically speaking. If it falls on public lands then the state is responsible. rainfall does not discriminate between public or private lands. If it falls on private property then the primary responsibility for its stewardship is on those who own the land. shows the impact a small scale watershed project can have on the economic and social well-being of a local community. 2000). The key question is: when a drop of rainwater falls upon the earth. We argue that the stewardship of rainwater is inherently the responsibility of those on whose lands it falls. in western Maharashtra. Maharashtra. in southwest state of Maharashtra in India. who has primary ownership rights to it? Answering this question leads us to doubt the basic premise proponents of large dams often use when they claim big projects are the most cost-effective means of freshwater storage (Keller. Opposition to large dams is a consequence of inadequate answers to the question of ownership. We also present an estimate of the costs involved in successful bottom-up approaches using the case of the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR) one of the largest NGOs in India working in the field of rainwater harvesting and environmental management. Smaller projects that ensure that the lands on which rain falls benefit directly from it reduce this inequality. Micro watersheds typically cover an area of 1000 hectares and in India may cover one to three 4 . flood and drought mitigation) to downstream lands. Sakthivadivel and Seckler. is simply an area of land on which rainwater falls and from which it drains to its lowest point. A visit to the village of Wankute. What accounted for the difference between the local reactions to these two types of projects? Is it the size of the projects? Is it that one was run by a small NGO and the other by a large government agency? Is there a difference in the ways the agencies treat the local communities that makes the villagers respond better to one than the other? We argue here that the most important factor in the success of a watershed project may be found in the difference between a large-scale ―top-down‖ project and a ―bottom-up‖ grassroots level approach. Therefore micro projects must necessarily include creating and strengthening institutional mechanisms that bring the public and the private together to act in their common interests. A watershed. In Kolhapur. In reality. Wankute completed their watershed development project in 2007 with the guidance of the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR) and the Jai Malhar Village Watershed Committee. local protests stalled the Uchangi Dam project for 14 years. damaged crops.fundamental aspects involving the stewardship relationship surrounding the ownership of natural resources such as rainwater and the institutional mechanisms that support this relationship. Large dams essentially ignore the fundamental inequality of the ownership and benefits from rain by allocating the costs (in terms of land submergence. At a micro level they also enable us to create institutional mechanisms for a more equitable distribution of access to rainwater which are perceived as such by the local population. water logging and displacement) on the upstream lands or the catchment area on which the rains fall and then allocating the benefits (in the form of irrigation. floods. villagers sought out the Watershed Organization Trust (WOTR) to come into their village and implement a watershed project. On the other hand. Duflo and Pande (2007) find that large dams build in Indian districts benefit downstream populations but harm those who live in the catchment areas districts by causing increased volatility of agricultural production and no appreciable productivity gains.
Like large scale government projects. One of these rejected proposals. rather than focus on designing dams.‖ Villagers argued that the land to be submerged was the ―most fertile land in their valley. WOTR Research Report. this compromise represented a victory for the villagers.5 In the example of the Uchangi dam project. Pune. They argued that for villagers to make an informed decision about this project they needed the technical specifics. submerged no homes (only low-quality farmland). but also a living space‖4. Science in Action: The Politics of Protest and Knowledge Brokering in India (Society and Natural Resources. 2005 6 Phadke. saving over 100 hectares from flooding.‖ The villagers also complained that the government ―lacked transparency. Redesigning the Uchangi Dam: Participatory Resource Mapping in Action 5 . Lalita and Huirem. which is also attractive to government planners. Villagers and NGOs had been denied crucial information about the dam. 4 Joshi. ―top-down‖ is a geological. and gullies to prevent the erosion of precious topsoil as well as conserve rainwater.‖6 The government revised their original plans after conducting a participatory analysis: they increased the number of villages who benefited from the dam. WOTR uses a ―top-down‖ philosophy: however. planting vegetation and using contour trenches. However. published by WOTR and German Agency for Technical Co-operation. India. the land. but their approach to the villagers whose lives are affected by the intervention. the agency rejected it because the smaller dams would not generate as much electrical power as the large dam. Ratna. For example. and lowered the height of the dam by two meters. WOTR starts a project at the top of the watershed to slow the rush of water on its way down to the valley. engineers could have addressed water conservation by planting less water intensive crops. which was more likely to accept it because of its commitment to and expertise in ―building large-scale infrastructure.‖ The pressure for large dam projects continues as well because large projects enable politicians and technocrats to maintain more control over resources. for example. Participation or Compromise True participatory research incorporates the villagers‘ know-how and expertise with the local area. check dams. According to Roopali Phadke‘s study. September 2009 (p 12) 5 Phadke. Major dams also generate large amounts of electricity. was to build three smaller dams rather than one large dam. This was more palatable to the government agency. Additionally. ―A watershed is not only a geographical area. villagers‘ objections were based on ―unnecessary displacement. This attitude shapes not only their technical approach. Several studies accuse traditional government watershed programs of defining ―participation‖ as convincing people to accept their predesigned project. given the other proposals that the villagers and their partner NGOs suggested (which the government agency rejected). and a lack of public disclosure of project details. Participatory Net Planning: Reflections and Learnings from the Field. Phadke hints that other potential alternatives were simply omitted from consideration. and the people. it seems that the villagers compromised more than the government agency did. not a political term: it means a ―ridge-to-valley‖ approach. limited benefits from the project. Yet the solution they chose still focused on dams. for WOTR.villages.
nor does it factor in the benefits to the local communities in social and human capital improvement and in a more equitable distribution of these benefits. The Alternative: Think Small Agoramoorthy and Hsu studied the political. p 13 6 .‖ The opinions of the farmers and other stakeholders was not sought and rarely considered. this does not take into account the other costs associated with large dams—the displacement of villagers. the cost would still end up being the same. And they are less expensive to build—around $1millionUS versus $1-$2billion for a mega dam. However. ―by reducing the need for locals to routinely oppose and delay the construction of water projects. p 13 Ibid. ―Moreover. since there is no sense of involvement. ―The primary stakeholder is presented with a fait accompli of measures that are determined in accordance with current scientific parameter and established technical norms and practices. social and environmental costs of mega dam projects. His/her concurrence is not required. maintained and continued post project…this explains why most projects. Their proposal is to avoid large dams altogether and build smaller check dams (small barriers using stones. used what it called a ―gross planning method. disputes arise.‖8 Phadke writes. the measures are badly done and more importantly. despite substantial funding and ―rigorous planning.‖ which they describe as a ―macro-approach‖ using ―surveying equipment for contour mapping of the watershed and use of standardized scientific and laboratory based technology and methods. cement. for instance.‖ either ―fail‖ or deliver disappointing outcomes.Even WOTR. the benefits of big dams are usually restricted to areas around the dams.‖7 This approach creates friction as ―there is a profound mismatch between what is sought…and what the farmers or stakeholders think ought to be done…. Mega dams create political issues as well as environmental ones—states end up fighting one another for access to the water. or concrete used to harvest rainwater). in its early stages. Assuaging protests is important because public opposition has created serious roadblocks to many major dam projects: as we mentioned.As a result. ownership or personal stake. this form of collaborative technology development can go a long way toward actually delivering water to where and when it is needed. or diverting it to urban areas for industrial use. One gets the feeling that the sole motivation for getting buy-in from the local farmers is merely to pacify the threat of protest so that the project can go on as planned without interference. only his/her acquiescence.‖ (p373). and advocate instead for smaller watershed management projects.‖ Some may argue that if 1000 small dams were required to capture the same amount of water as one mega dam. such as the protests that delayed construction on the Uchangi dam project for years. the structures and measures undertaken are rarely. work is often stopped. while smaller dams can be built across many rivers covering vast areas. But protests against big dams may not be the problem: maybe big dams are the problem. Check dams do not have the same deleterious environmental effects as the larger dams. Simply building check dams is not the solution to fundamental technical and social challenges related to dealing 7 8 Joshi and Huirem. if at all.
recognizing the heterogeneity of each community They work with farmers on interventions and technologies They choose the village. WOTR will not impose its will on the community. and villagers may not have the same cynicism towards these organizations that they often have towards government agencies. WOTR ultimately realized that village involvement was crucial to a water project‘s success. discusses integrating social organization with technical fixes. Watersheds remain the focus of technical intervention. If the community is not actively involved. p 17 7 . including the village watershed committee.with a watershed as a complete eco-system. In Wankute. since NGOs tend to be more flexible in their methodologies and are not as restricted by fixed models.10 All watershed projects WOTR implements goes through 2 phases – the ―Capacity Building Phase (CBP) and the Development Phase (DP). They screen the villages to determine its ability to work collectively One reason NGOs work so well is that they take a long time to develop relationships and build trust in the community. not the watershed. a dairy cooperative. as the unit of social intervention and planning (geographical watersheds often span several villages. eight women‘s self help groups. as the organizations work closely with the Gram Panchayat (local village council) to get community buy-in. making the political coordination of a project more complex). we spoke with members of almost a dozen different village committees. They developed a methodology called Participatory Net Planning (PNP). a village of only 1500. 10 Joshi and Huirem. The social organization work can take a full year of talking to villagers before entering into a project with them. Check dams built without adequate preparation of the upstream land including the use of wide absorption trenches (WATs). NGOs staffed with professional social workers and engineers are best suited to take on this kind of participatory approach. p 14 11 Ibid. called the POP (Participatory Operational Pedagogy)‖. continuous contour trenches (CCTs) and gully plugs to slow down the flowing water get silted over and rendered ineffective in a fairly short time. All these studies show that a key to success is local investment: but who is best equipped to execute these projects? Phadke encourages governments to partner with NGOs. Only when a project meets the ―qualifying criteria‖ and is deemed to have successfully completed the CBP (usually lasting between 6-12 months since initiation and including one rainy season). WOTR insists on strong village participation as part of their mission. neither is WOTR. and a credit cooperative. An International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)9 study concludes that successful watershed programs have the following characteristics: They devote time and resources to social organization They build the group‘s interests into the project. Unlike a large central government project. 9 A study by the International Food Policy Research Institute. among others. and designed an ―accompanying capacity building pedagogy. Watershed Development Projects in India: an Evaluation. it moves into the Development Phase (DP) where work on a large scale across the entire watershed is begun‖11.
the team can survey 10-15 hectares a day. If the farmer does not agree to the proposed treatments.‖ 15 An important component of the thinking small approach is the creation of institutions of local self-governance at the village level. 12 The villagers themselves build WOTR‘s projects—by hand. cost estimate and ‗own contribution‘. p 53 Ibid. soil texture. then his/her opinion is accepted provided it doesn‘t adversely affect the neighbors nor cause damage. As a condition for village participation in a project WOTR requires the creation of a Village Watershed Committee (VWC) in which the representation of minorities (tribal and lower castes). the owner of the machine gets the money. p 16 IFPRI study. 1) The farmer couple (or all adult members) must be present. digging contour trenches and constructing check dams. and it needs to be sustained for several years‖14. Participation in these SHGs provide women with the opportunity to come together to conduct saving and lending activities. The IFPRI study suggests that subsidized programs don‘t last as long as unsubsidized ones: for the subsidies to work. More ―commitment to cost sharing would help ensure that farmers only accepted land improvement measures that they truly want. and agree in writing the ―proposed treatments.The following are the steps involved in WOTR‘s participatory net planning process: first they create a team ―comprised of technically qualified person and minimum of 2-3 VWC members. types of crops taken. erosion status.‖ 4) ―An agreement is then signed by the farmer which formalizes the consent of both husband and wife to implement the treatment as planned and maintain the same. a machine could do the work much more quickly. This is a deliberate strategy. they tell the villagers. This method generates income for the villagers (WOTR pays 100 rupees a day). and not the community.‖ 3) ―Once a consensus is arrived at. to address and express their common concerns. overall costs and his contribution. etc. the slope of the land. WOTR‘s 12 13 14 15 Ibid. ―employment must be substantial enough to compensate for lost income. the farmer is given a sheet of paper which contains the diagram of his land.‖13 The risk in this approach is that villagers may accept projects they don‘t really want in order to get employment or government subsidies. Villagers discuss. and it is physically measured together with whatever soil and waters conservation measures exist. women.‖ Using this process. land use. This is important because of the risk in small projects of reinforcing existing social and economic inequalities. Another mechanism to avoid this outcome is the creation of women self-help groups (SHGs) in villages. The team discusses ―details of the land such as. It is true. called shramdan (or voluntary labor) to encourage village buy-in. and the landless is required. details of current and proposed treatments and land use. but then. p 72 8 . Villagers donate their own time and labor. p 18 Ibid.‖ 2) The land is then classified and the most suitable land use and treatments are proposed….
we encountered goatherds walking their goats: once on a government preserve. irrigation. Sustaining a project for that long is something NGOs are typically better equipped to deal with. WOTR‘s stakeholder approach enabled it to obtain permission to treat degraded forest lands in the upper ridges. who tend to own less fertile land in the upper ridges. On the whole. However. the strong links between the villagers and government and political entities forged during the watershed project creates opportunities for continued development in the village even after the project is completed. Finally. who own more fertile land in the valleys. NGOs devote more time to each village than do government projects. WOTR‘s Ridge-to-Valley approach also leads to a leveling of income inequalities in small projects. the VDC then develops other rules for the utilization of fodder from public lands. For instance. and health during the project. and work on activities that go beyond watershed management: performing social work that can include everything from family planning to bans on tree-cutting. For watershed programs. each VDC has the capacity to work out informal agreements with the landless to ensure that the bans on free grazing and tree felling on public lands during the duration of the project (which hits the landless who raise both large and small ruminants the most) allows them to survive. By fostering close links between the VWC and other local institutions such as the Village Council (Panchayat). Another important outcome of creating local institutions of self-governance and empowering them is the stronger collaboration between public and private interests: a critical component to the stewardship argument for the benefits of small projects. which belong to the state and are governed by the Forest Conservation Act. 9 . this approach requires the involvement and goodwill of all the key stakeholders in a watershed project in order to develop a genuine partnership. WOTR pioneered this approach referred to as the Sangamner pattern (named after the Sangamner region in the Ahmednagar district in Maharashtra. but they felt that it was all part of the social discipline crucial to maintaining the villagers‘ commitment to the project. As might be expected. agriculture. tribal welfare. India). twice on our tours of the area. Wankute‘s Village Watershed Committee (VWC) even imposed a ban on alcoholism. and local units of state departments such as the department of forests. Once the project is completed and the grasses and trees are replenished making the ban unnecessary. This approach is critical for successful watershed programs in India particularly because the land in the upper ridges which needed to be treated first to ensure success are usually forest land. We asked if this wasn‘t outside the scope of the committee charged with managing the watershed. This is an example of the local institutional mechanisms that villagers create to ensure a more equitable distribution of the outcomes of sustainable watershed development. and once on private farmland. soil and water conservation. By beginning land treatment in the upper regions (ridges) of a watershed and then working downwards towards the valleys. Since it is typically the landless who keep small ruminants to make a living.support of microfinance to these SHGs provides women with the opportunity to undertake economic projects. obtain the benefits from the watershed development work before the relatively richer villagers. every watershed project in the study imposes a ban on free-grazing. including Wankute. WOTR ensures that the poorer people. The goatherd on the farmland even joined us on our tour. The IFPRI study additionally questioned whether villages actually enforced all these social regulations.
By empowering the villagers to resolve these problems but within the institutional mechanisms created by the funding agency. This intensive time-commitment cannot easily be done on a large scale. which ―all too often failed to deliver on promised financial and economic profitability – even when defined narrowly in terms of direct project costs and benefits. even the benefits cited by large dam supporters. The villagers meet to discuss matters of equitable distribution. but they are the ones who must ensure the maintenance and viability of the watershed once the NGO or the government agency leaves. NGOs‘ skill in social organization. holistic approach to India‘s water issues. loss of crop yield. The Need for Partnerships NGOs do have their limitations. Smaller groups enable an easier resolution of disagreement and conflict. multiple factors need to be taken into the equation: including the cost overruns frequently incurred by large dams (estimated from as low as a 22% overrun up to 180%. But the most critical ingredient in any successful project has to be the villagers themselves. the advantages of thinking small loom large. India has over 600 thousand villages. but it goes much deeper. crop selection (waterintensive or not). Here too. according to the WCD). Government projects have huge budgets. loss of efficiency in water use. economic loss. 16 An alliance between government agencies with the resources and the scope to take projects on a large scale and NGOs who have greater flexibility and can develop deeper social relationships with villagers. quicker resolutions of conflicts occur and which are equitable as well. Their scope may not be as broad. and government organizations‘ skills in technical work. Additionally. seems an ideal recipe for a more grassroots. and not enjoyed by villagers upstream. p47 10 .‖17 and displacement of millions of people. though. this reliance on NGOs ―does not relieve government of its responsibility to provide infrastructure development. and number of crops taken.In the use of the water stocks obtained by rainwater harvesting.‖ It takes a multi-pronged approach to raise up a village.000 hectares. and can reach thousands of villages. and a partnership that utilizes the villagers‘ collective knowledge and history. There must be more and larger partnerships if organizations like WOTR are to spread their work to the scale necessary to impact India‘s water problems. are distributed primarily to those living downstream of the dam. Ultimately. water budgeting practices are followed. 16 17 IFPRI. They are the ones that not only have to implement and live with whatever is done to their land. The Costs of Thinking Small When examining the costs of large-scale dams. p15 World Commission on Dams report. The same quality that makes these NGO programs so successful is also what constrains them: they spend far more staff time on each village than do the government projects and they often operate on a shoestring budget. While this seems impressive. WOTR has implemented 112 watershed projects to date in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh covering nearly 80. such as economic and energy improvements.
Financial capital by creating a Maintenance fund which serves as an endowment or corpus for continued maintenance once the project is completed Table 1 below describes the detailed activities conducted by WOTR during a Watershed and Livelihoods project. exposures.600. livelihood promotion. 1.500 1.000 44.000 450.500 2. 18 In this approach.925 134. 6297/ ha) 2. They include. Drainage line treatment: (around 15% cost of area treatment) 3. Table 1: Cost Estimates for a Watershed and Livelihoods Project (covering a gross area of 650 ha.One approach that small projects which seek to include concepts of stewardship and ownership in building a participatory method can use is the ―five capitals‖ approach to sustainable development. Livelihoods promotion: support systems for vulnerable sections (5% of items 1 & 2) 6.944 44.000 50.944 75. (Rs.925 75. Human resource development/Social capital formation: trainings. a substantial amount (around 30% of the total budget) is allocated to activities that involve strengthening the institutions of self-governance including setting up women self-help groups.981 - 18 Forum for the Future http://www. Agricultural Production System: demonstration plot.000 134. 3.000 100.forumforthefuture. there is an important emphasis on building three other forms of capitals that are central to sustainable development. Horticulture and gully stabilization work. in addition to the technical interventions of working with and enhancing natural capital (land. Area treatment: including Afforestation.org/ 11 .000 100.148. Human capital through exposure visits and training 3. health …(5% of item 1 & 2) 5.000 400. Development of cultivated land. organic farming etc) 4. and human capital acquisition. introduction of new crops. trenches). Although the first two items are the typical interventions in harvesting rainwater. Social capital through building local institutional mechanisms 2. Women's promotion activities: Quality of life enhancement/Social development activities (drinking water. trees) and manufactured capital (check dams. self help promotion. sanitation.981 179.) (All figures in Indian Rupees) Description of Activity Total Cost External Support Local Contribution through volunteer work 548.000 - 179.
net working workshops/melawas (cross group meetings) 8.463 If we assume that this project conservatively benefits two villages located on the watershed and each village has a population of around 1000 people. Micro-finance activity in project villages Total implementation cost Contingencies Wage increase. crop productivity increases and the water needs of the villagers and their livestock are better met. price escalation.888 168.000 6.386 404. The benefits on the other hand surpass our expectations. small projects appear to be vastly superior to large dams.(5% of the grant component of items 1 to 5) Project administration cost: Salary for watershed development team.489.350 168. 2800. our use of resources appears to be more efficient for a small project once the true costs of displacement are included.736. However the benefits of a watershed project also include greater social capital creation. This is in contrast to large dam projects that enhance disparities between the upstream and downstream villages and between the landed and the landless. training material preparation etc (10 % of the grant component of items 1 to 5 and B) GRAND TOTAL FOR 1 PROJECT 6.047. etc. even from an efficiency perspective. the total project cost per person is around Rs. Maintenance fund 9. especially the landless. publication of success stories. Experience sharing workshops. They are able. experience sharing workshops. running cost and capital cost (20% of the grant component of items 1 to 5) Programme support cost: Monitoring.745 688.000 150.000 150.386 - 5.978 - 404.000 4.000 - 200. human capital creation.208 5.494 200. As in the case of large dams. In addition.978 673.800.7. Arguably.463 673. preparation of project Feasibility Study Report.000 3. from an equity perspective. extension support hand holding. 12 .494 688. through the approaches elaborated above. action research. information dissemination. and effective institutional building at a local level. to ensure that the fruits of development are more evenly distributed among the wealthy and the poor.
Gaining the participation and cooperation of the villagers takes considerable more time. the satisfaction is greater. environmental economic and human element of watershed issues.Summary While large dam projects account for the costs of the building and technological improvements of their projects. dam supporters ―exaggerate the irrigation and power benefits of large dams and neglect their social. The costs of large dams do not often include the capacity building that small projects incur. state and nonprofit groups. as is the long-term sustainability and maintenance of the watershed. Small watershed projects such as those implemented by the Watershed Organization Trust hope to offset these inequities by bringing all stakeholders to the table and forging partnerships between local. displacement. As the World Commission on Dams explains. poor crops. The fact that countries like India are still facing enormous water shortages even after huge sums of money have been invested in large dam projects should be sufficient to doubt the efficacy of such projects. the landless). and empowering traditionally disenfranchised stakeholders (women. but in the long run. tribal groups.‖ These costs and benefits are rarely spread equitably—downstream residents typically incur the benefits of increased water and electric supply. cost and effort. Small watershed development looks beyond mere technical fixes to incorporate the social. they often do not account in their calculations the costs to the communities impacted. environmental and economic costs. These efforts go a long way to bringing the ownership of that drop of rainwater closer to where it falls. 13 . and diverted rainwater. while upstream inhabitants often incur the costs of flooding.
Govindasamy & Hsu. Roopali.org Dams and Development: A New Framework For Decision-Making: The Report of the World Commission on Dams. Developing Working Partnerships: The Indo-German Watershed Development Programme (IGWDP) Available at http://srdis. pp:601-646 Joshi. Big Potential: Check Dams For Sustainable Development.ciesin. Redesigning the Uchangi Dam: Participatory Resource Mapping in Action. Department of Env. ―Dams‖ The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Phadke. November. Bridgette and Raquel Pinderhughs. Spring 2004 Duflo. Minna J. San Francisco State University. Studies. Poverty and the Environment. India (March 2009) www. Santa Cruz.wotr.html Watershed Organization Trust: site visit to Pune and Wankute. 2000 14 . WOTR Research Report. #4. The Narmada Dam in India.2. published by WOTR and German Agency for Technical Cooperation. London and Sterling. July/August 2008 Bacher. in collaboration with Ganesh Pangare and Vasudha Lokur Pangare. 2007. Friend of the River Narmada website: http://www. People’s Science in Action: The Politics of Protest and Knowledge Brokering in India.internationalrivers.Resources: Agoramoorthy. International Water Management Institute. John. 18. September 2009 Keller. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Sakthivadivel and David Seckler. Urban Studies & Environmental Studies Programs.org/cases/india-028. Volume 50. Watershed Development Projects in India: an Evaluation. Environment. Participatory Net Planning: Reflections and Learnings from the Field. Race. Ester and Rohini Pande. Hermann 1998. Society and Natural Resources. PowerPoint presentation. Lalita and Huirem. Maharashtra. Univ. 2005 Phadke.html Carroll. Research Report 39 Kerr.. Ratna. Small Size. the International Food Policy Research Institute. Water Scarcity and the Role of Storage in Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd. of California.narmada. Pune. 2002.org World Commission on Dams/International Rivers website: www.org/sandrp/mar2002. VA. 2006. Andrew. R. Vol. India.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.