A RESEARCH PROPOSALEmergence, functioning and the impact of (multi)-

stakeholder platforms in Western India: An institutional inquiry in river basin management

Submitted byShriprakashsingh Rajput

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT : THE PROPOSAL IN NUTSHELL ..................................................................... 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH .......................................... 3

1.1 INDIAN CASE FOR RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 6 1.2 POLICY SCENARIO IN THE INDIAN WATER SECTOR ............................................................................. 8 1.3 THE PROPOSED STUDY ................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 11

3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 11

3.1 WHAT ARE INSTITUTIONS? ............................................................................................................ 12 3.2 GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS OR SELF-GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS: A DEBATE .................................... 13

5.0 MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PLATFORMS IN SABARMATI RIVER BASIN AND TAR-OHAL BASIN (KRISHNA VALLEY) IN WESTERN INDIA ...................................... 18

5.1 THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE SABARMATI BASIN ....................................................................... 18 5.2 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE BASIN ............................................................................................... 20 5.3 POSSIBLE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN SABARMATI RIVER BASIN ............................................ 20

1

This document is part of the “Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management (MSP-ICM)’ project. MSP-ICM is a comparative research programme on the emergence and functioning of stakeholder partnerships at catchments level on four different continents: Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe. It is based at Wageningen University and co-ordinated by the Irrigation and Water Enigineering group.

We acknowledge the kind support of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Fisheries in the framework of ‘Partnerships for Water’ in making this project possible.

Reference number: MSP-W06

5.4 TAR-OHAL BASIN (KRISHNA VALLEY) MAHARASHTRA, INDIA .......................................................... 21

6.0 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 22

7.0 OPERATIONALISATION OF THE MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION .......................... 23

8.0 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................... 23

8.1 THE SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 23 8.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 24 8.3 TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................... 24

9.0 OPERATIONALISATION PLAN OF RESEARCH ......................................................... 25

10.0 WORK PLAN .................................................................................................................... 30

12.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 32

Abstract : The proposal in nutshellDecreasing water availability, degrading water quality, increasing inter-sectoral water competition is sometimes leading to inter-sectoral conflicts in some river basins of India (Appasamy 1997). Inability of the existing institutions1 portray the water management scenario (up to an extent) in western India and in particular in the state of Gujarat.

So far, the Institutional responses to the above-mentioned scenario in Gujarat and Maharashtra has been in terms of private water markets, farmers organisations, like water cooperatives, or in different watershed management projects, one witnesses the phenomena of Water User’s Association (WUAs). These efforts have served the purpose of ensuring improved management of water resources in relation to particular water use sector mostly in agriculture, domestic use or the industrial sector etc. Addressing the issues like, inter-sectoral conflict and competition and that also at local level has been partly documented from different parts of India. But instances of addressing the basin, sub-basin or larger watershed level issues2 have remained beyond the purview of these institutions.

1 Mainly state agencies, and in case of Gujarat and Maharashtra, co-operative institutions, Water User’s Associations (WUAs) and their federations etc.2 Inter/intra-sectoral conflict management

2

Although, India has a long history of river basin organizations dating back to 1960s. These organizations have been found wanting in order to address the ever increasing water management problems in various river basins in India. (For further discussions see Introduction : A case of India in river basin management).

Government institutions have been grappling with these issues to find solutions to these problems. In this context, emergence of a (multi) stakeholder platform3 in Sabarmati basin in Gujarat and Dam Oustee’s Movement in Tar-Ohl river in Krishna Valley in Maharashtra, can be seen as significant development, especially in the backdrop of multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) discourse at global level. Also the national water management scenario in India is influenced by this discourse. Stakeholder participation at basin/ watershed level water management from planning to implementation stages has been key element of various policy pronouncements by government of India. National Water Policy documents of 1987 and that of the year 2000 are steps in this direction.

The proposed study, is an attempt to understand these newly emerging phenomena of (multi) stakeholder Platforms in the context of MSP discourse at different levels. In order to understand these developments one need to look into various socio-economic, political, hydrological, technical factors responsible for emergence of such an institution. The proposed research also aims to critically look at its mandate, constitution, functioning and the impact of these platforms on policy environment, water management issues in relation to resource vis-à-vis different stakeholders.

The idea behind the proposed research is to have a critical look at newly emerging phenomena of MSPs and finding the relevance of the same in different contexts within India and also in relation to the global MSP discourse.

1.0 Introduction & background of the researchWater management represents one of the most fundamental challenges facing South Asia in the 21st century. This is reflected in terms of decreasing per capita availability of water resources in South and Central Asia. For example, it plummeted by almost 70% between 1950 and 1995. Half of Asia’s projected population (4.2 billion) is expected to live in urban areas by 2025 resulting in severe pressure on already strained water availability in

3 A platform; because of its common agenda, concerted effort, and the desired results in relation to particular issues and also because of its scale.

3

Asian countries. The domestic and industrial water demands in Asia is projected to grow at rates ranging from 70 to 345 percent between 1995 and 2025 (Asian Development Bank, 2001).

Maintaining the Environment while meeting the basic food, domestic and quality of life needs of growing population in South Asia will require fundamental changes in the way the water resources are used and managed. Similarly, India’s finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting while various sectoral demands, such as in drinking water, industry, agriculture etc. is growing rapidly.

There is furthermore, insufficient water available in most river basins to address environmental and ecological considerations or ensure adequate supplies for other non-consumptive uses (such as navigation, religious observations and leisure needs). The existing policies and sectoral arrangements are no longer adequate to ensure the - provision of both non-consumptive and consumptive water needs (World Bank 1999).

To meet the growing sectoral needs of the country, we need to have appropriate institutional arrangements those can address the emerging water availability and quality issues. Comprehensive management (holistic management) i.e. on a river basin basis, multi-sectorally and a conjunctive use of both surface and ground water by involving quantity and quality issues is need of the hour.

Where as river basin and its management are often issue of political gain is evident from various interstate water disputes in Cauvery and Narmada basins of India4. In case of Narmada the ever increasing opposition to its main reservoir (Sardar Sarovar) and rehabilitation related issues between basin states have delayed the project by a few decades thereby increasing he burden of project costs and delayed benefits of the project. Various political establishments in basin states have tried to take leverage in the name of safeguarding the interests of respective basin states without giving proper attention to the core issues. Cooperation among basin sharing states has been limited and conflicting in nature. This is true especially in case of Cauvery basin where the state governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, both basin states have challenged any settlement for one or the other reasons. The problem lies in the approach to the water management. At present it is top-

4 Although interstate water disputes have been documented in various other river basins of India but the Cauvery and Narmada basin disputes are quoted as they have been part of recent public debates.

4

down and supply oriented which has resulted in major economic, social and environmental costs.

Here, top-down means authority flowing from the government/policy makers to the masses. Those promoting a water policy reform through this linear approach towards equitable and sustainable distribution (this is what the champions of this approach perceive) believe it will lead to a more desirable outcome than current practice permits, however what is desirable for one may be a less optimal outcome for another (Thomas, John W. and Merilee S. Grindle 1990). Most reservoirs constructed in different parts of Gujarat basically meant for irrigation purposes have been used to provide water to meet the domestic needs of major urban centres of the state. Whatever the reasons for diverting the irrigation water from these reservoirs for any other purpose, one can’t dispute the farmer’s loss due to lack of irrigation.

Furthermore, management institutions- although often vibrant when new - rapidly become rigid and entrenched, unable to respond to changing conditions. In combination, cultural, political, economic and accordingly varying water resource problems, necessitate water management strategies capable of producing effective action within socially complex and continuously evolving contexts. Strategies dominating current debates over water resource issues provide at the best, a partial basis for this.

In the context of the development sector, the history of water management has been a history of searches for universally applicable solutions. The development era (roughly the period between 1950s to 1960s) focused on construction of large-scale infrastructure projects- dams, municipal supply systems, irrigation systems and embankments- as the single most important set of interventions to meet water management needs.

Many now advocate economic pricing, basin approaches, integrated planning, the development of participatory management institutions and demand side management as "the" solutions to the management needs. But it is not necessary that any particular set of water management interventions have universal applicability- too much depends on the local context. Also, the socio-economic and political considerations in all localities often dominate other considerations in determining the types of interventions that could practically be implemented.

5

Keeping in the lines of this debate, negotiation-centered and process based approaches to natural resources management are increasingly being prescribed and practiced. For example, Bryan Bruns and Ruth Meinzen-Dick in their work titled ‘Negotiating Water Rights(1999)’ argue for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of negotiations as tools for settling the water management issues among various actors. According to them, policies for decentralization, stakeholder participation, and strengthening civil society institutions in governance, including in natural resource management are creating conditions which favor increased emphasis on negotiated approaches to water allocation. It is also argued in this literature that institutional innovation is needed to strengthen the capacity of water user organizations, government agencies and other stakeholders to pursue negotiated solutions. Forums need to be created and strengthened which can deal with the scope and scale of water conflicts. More effort should be made to strengthen negotiating skills, applying and adapting available techniques. Research and applied activities also need to look at the pros and cons of negotiated approaches.

Here, negotiation involves interaction between different claimants, not unilateral decisions made in isolation. The process continues over time, not just in a single meeting. Negotiation is used here in a broad sense. It includes sitting around a table to craft an agreement, formal trading arrangements, as well as less visible struggles over access to water, as local people comply with or contest the ways in which state agencies or other users acquire and distribute water. It includes not only engaging in dialogue, but also abstention, resistance, and sabotage (Colburn 1989; Scott 1985).

The outcomes of the negotiation processes may mark agreements as major milestones leading to further negotiations to operationalise, to monitor compliance and respond to violations and if need arises to revise these agreements (Bruns and Meinzen Dick, 1999). The need for stakeholder forums/platforms having representation from different water user groups, legislative agencies and regulatory organisations and other government/ non-governmental institutions involved in the management of a river basin or a watershed is being felt in India.

1.1 Indian Case for river basin management

Catchment areas of all of India’s major river basins are inter-state in nature. Water allocation issues are of critical importance in this context. There is

6

urgent need throughout India to establish river basin organization (RBOs) or various forms of inter-state coordination mechanisms.

Bhavani river is a case in this context. It originates from Western Ghats, traverses from TamilNadu to Bay of Bengal in India. There are intra-sectoral conflicts between different groups of agricultural users within the basin and the institutions responsible to address these issues are faced with problems like their area of jurisdiction is too small or they lack experience and mandate to deal with inter-sectoral problems at basin level. The situation in Bhavani River Basin in southern India has exhibited the problematic scenario and addressing these problems would require river basin level organisations or authorities, which are absent in this case. Bhavani River Basin is a good case to understand the dynamic process of water management, inter and intra-sectoral conflicts and the existing institutional mechanisms to address such problems. (Appasamy P, 2001).

The recent examples of Sardar Sarovar Project on Narmada river (a inter-state river basin project between Madhyapradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra) and Cauvery water dispute between the states of Karnataka and Tamilandu further highlight the fact that an alternative approach is required to address the issues pertaining to water allocation, water conflicts in various inter-state basins of India.

India has experimented with riverbasin organisations way back in 1960s. Some such examples of river basin organisations are discussed here in brief. The Bhakra-Beas Management Board is one such example which looks after the operation and maintainance of the headworks and parts of the main system providing water to punjab, Haryana, parts of Rajasthan, and Delhi.

The Ganga Flood Control Commission is responsible for planning and coordination of works related to flood control across seven riparian states. The Brahmaputra Board looks after coordinated flood control across seven states and union territories. And Upper Yamuna River Board allocates available flows between Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, himachal Pradesh and Delhi.

Another means to reach progress towards institutional cooperation between states is through the River Boards Act of 1956 which enables states to enroll the Central Government in setting up an advisory River Board. This mechanism, however, has never been used, suggesting that changes are required to make it more effective.

7

Another legal mechanism is the tribunal award system5. The Tribunal has been the primary mechanism as an attempt to resolve inter-state water disputes. So far five Tribunals have been established: (i) Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal, (ii) Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal ,(iii) Narmada water Dispute Tribunal, (iv) Ravi Beas Water Dispute Tribunal, and (v) Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal . Decision in the cases of the first three, which include the awarding of specified quantities of water based on the principal of equitable apportionment, have been accepted by the states involved. It required, however, years for such Tribunal decision to be made and in the case of the Krishna Tribunal. (See, Government of India and World Band 1999). Despite such a long history of these mechanisms the recent history of interstate water disputes between basin states (in case of Cauvery river and Narmada river) indicate insufficiency of such institutions in addressing the problems successfully.

1.2 Policy Scenario in the Indian water sector

India has struggled to cope effectively with emerging water availability and quality problems. The competition among different water use sectors is slowly turning into a serious problem. In the recent years, there has been a realization of this and there has been policy pronouncements regarding the need to address these problems; however the policies have yet to be translated into action.

National Water policy of 1987 advocates a holistic and integrated river basin oriented approach to water development, the promotion of conjunctive use of surface and ground water, water conserving crop patterns, irrigation and production technologies, and recognition of water as an economic good.

Efforts have been made to decentralise the governance in India, through local self government institutions. 73rd amendment in the Indian constitution was another step to further reinforce this process. The decentralization of irrigation management was also suggested in various development schemes and watershed management schemes.

Recently, the national government and different state governments in India introduced irrigation Management Transfer in formerly state-managed canal schemes. The July 1995 Government of Gujarat resolution on Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) and the AndhraPradesh Farmer’s Management

5 This mechanism is provided under the Inter-state Water disputes Act of 1956 established under Article 262 of the Constitution.

8

of Irrigation Systems Act of 1997 are steps in this direction. While PIM in Gujarat envisages a complete turnover of Operation and Maintenance to a Water Users Association (WUA), the Andhra Act of April 1997 empowers the farmers to manage the irrigation systems themselves. In both the cases, the canals remain government property and major repairs continue to be the responsibility of the irrigation department, however, the day-to day functioning of the system passes on to the users associations. In this case the Andhra Pradesh programme has clearly followed a top–down approach, whereas Gujarat has followed a bottom–up approach (Parthasarthy, 1998).

The literature on causes for water sector problems and remedies in water management is heavily guided by the implicit assumptions like these problems are mainly of technical nature rather than institutional in nature. This is reflected even in implementation of policy reforms. For example, most of the policy statements are not supported by necessary institutional structures and mechanisms hence most policies do not yield desired results. The end result is that the national policy is neither reflected in corresponding and states -specific Water policies and action plans. Although, it is not true with all of its federal state. States like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamilanadu have made advances in this context.

1.3 The Proposed Study

In this context the proposed research study “Emergence, functioning and the impact of (multi)-stakeholder platforms in Western India: An institutional inquiry in river basin management” would contribute to the present understanding of river basin management. This study would also critically examine the relevance of ongoing global MSP discourse about basin level planning and management in addressing the local (Indian) water problems.

Here, the term stakeholders refers to “any group or agency that is responsible for, can contribute towards, or is affected by water resources policies. To be specific, this term refers to various water users, such as farmers, industrialists domestic water users, in-stream water users, and those involved with hydropower generation and inland water transport, etc. who should be consulted in an effective manner for a more efficient and equitable utilization of scarce water resources are also included in this” (GOI and WB, 1999).

Platforms in this context are defined and perceived differently in the literature on the subject. Like some define them as “Some formal or informal institutional arrangement in which different interest groups come together to

9

discuss and negotiate water resources planning for an area (Mollinga P.P. as cited in discussion notes, 2000)” while some other researchers have defined multi-stakeholder platforms as institutions for developing communication and information exchange among various stakeholders (Roling and Maarleveld, 1999). The later view on MSP has its roots in the work of Jurgen Habermas on communicative rationality and they are based on the assumption that negotiations are more valid and effective to the degree that they achieve politically neutral space (Habermas, 1984, 1987, 1995). For Habermas, the emphasis is on an ideal, formal process that can produce valid and effective agreement in virtually any context. This is a promising approach with reference to negotiated solutions to problems in natural resources management but unfortunately it misses out on certain socio-political realities in different settings. That can become a constraining factor in the stakeholder negotiations due to inequities in status and power among different stakeholders. Even so called ideal formal processes for stakeholder negotiations can not be successful in all settings as he suggests because political establishments in different settings do vary considerably.

For the purpose of this study a platform is a formal or informal institutional mechanism at river-basin, sub-basin or at a catchments level; where different interest groups come together to discuss and negotiate water resources planning and relevant issues for an area, resulting in some concerted effort to achieve those goals ultimately resulting in some success or failure further leading to negotiations in the platform.

A study has been recently concluded with an overall objective to document, analyse and report legislations, policies, intervention strategies and local initiatives with reference to Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) for integrated water management at the level of watershed and / river basins in Asian countries. This study has been completed (December 2000 – August 2001) as part of the Collaborative Work Programme of Irrigation and Water Engineering / Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands with the Rural Development Department at the World Bank.

Very few examples of Multi stakeholder Platforms for river basin or watershed management in Asia and Southeast Asia have been found during the study. Most examples of MSPs are in different stages of their evolution, and in terms of mature orgnisations only two of them have been reported from India. Here, mature MSPs refer to the one which has completed a full cycle, beginning with an agenda and fulfilling its objectives to the optimum possible levels. Although, the examples of MSPs in Asia are very few but

10

this exercise has helped in identifying the processes which may lead to MSP kind of situations in coming years.

It would be important contribution to the MSP debate if the above said MSP processes and its examples are studied in depth. This research proposal is to carry forward this debate in form of an in-depth study of these MSP examples from Western India. It is proposed to study the Sabarmati Stakeholder Forum in Gujarat and Tar-Ohal basin (Krishna Valley) MSP in Maharashtra to critically evaluate the MSP processes in Indian context.

2.0 Objectives of the studyThe proposed study will contribute to our understanding of locally emerging institutions based on negotiation centered process based approaches to water management and their viability in present water management scenario in India. The specific objectives of the proposed study are as follows:

• Contribution to knowledge base on river basin management, especially on its institutional requirements

• An empirical testing of assumptions about need for having MSPs for river basin management

• Policy innovation: access and control vis-à-vis water as resource• Professional growth in terms of knowledge and skill building of the

researcher

3.0 Theoretical FrameworkMost researchers on Common Property Resources (CPRs) have recognized the need for institutions for generating option of sustainable resource use. For instance, Jodha (1992, 69) has observed in the context of Common Property Resource that their, (i.e. CPRs) rehabilitation is less of an investment and technological problem and more of an issue of having appropriate institutions. According to him, impact of investment and technology is short lived unless institutional aspects are effectively handled.

The institution building process is characterised by internalising externalities. Traditional literature discusses internalizing externalities either through state intervention (Pigou, 1932) or through a process of bargaining between the “polluter” and the ‘victim’ (Coase, 1960). State intervention is either through state imposed taxes/subsidies (market mechanism), through ‘command and control’ policies, or a mix of both. There is also another route of internalising externalities –through evolution of self-governing institutions. They impose a code of conduct on their members without

11

necessarily requiring the support of the state or of the market. Responsible Care code of operation ethics adopted by major chemical companies of the United States is an example of this process (Leighton, 1992).

3.1 What are Institutions?

“The term ‘institution’ implies several meanings. It can refer to specific organization in a particular country, such as the Department of Irrigation...(or) it can describe established human relationships in a society, such as a family structure (the institution of a family)...(or) an institution is simply the set of rules actually used (the working rules or rules in use) by a set of individuals to organize repetitive activities that produce outcomes affecting those individuals and potentially affecting others” (Ostrom, 1992, 19).

Institutions have also been described as collective action of individual action” (Common, 1934, 69-70), “ sets of routine practices” (Koslowski, 1992, 674); rules in repetitive decision making situations so that participants have reciprocal expectations about their respective behavior (Elsner, 1987, 5-14); “define you may and ‘thou shall not” (Neale, 1987,1180).

Institutions provide assurances about the behaviour of the participants. Sanctions against violator reconfirm the assurances so that “ the good guy does not turn out to be the sucker”.

According to Neale (1987,1183), an institution is identified by three characteristics, a) there are a number of people doing things; b) there are rules which give the activities repetition, stability, and predictable order; c) there are ‘folk views’ explaining/ justifying both the activities and the rules.

Ostrom (1992,Ch.4) has discussed the design principles in self-governing irrigation systems. These principles can serve as a useful reference for designing self-governing institutions for internalising externalities.

Thus, institutions are constraints that individuals place on themselves; they are customs and rules that provide a set of incentives and disincentives for individuals (North, 1986). They facilitate coordination between people by making it possible for individuals to reasonably predict how others will behave. In order for behavior to be predictable, institutions must influence behavior. All institutions involve enforcement of some kind or the other (North, 1986). The basis for building and maintaining common properties is the development and enforcement of rules. In the groups that are successful in establishing common properties, rule compliance becomes the norm over

12

a period of time, thereby reducing enforcement costs. Institutions, thus, provide assurances to individuals about the behavior of others and encourage them to act in ways that are collectively superior.

3.2 Government Institutions or Self-governing Institutions: A debate

Self-governing institutions can replace the external sword to discipline the participants. “Contemporary political theories frequently presume that individuals cannot make credible ex ante commitments where substantial ex post temptation exists to break them unless such commitments are enforced by an external agent”. However “ self organized institutions have been devised without reference to central authorities and sustained over long periods of time without enforcement by external agents” (Ostrom, Walker & Gardner, 1992, 404-405).

Ostrom’s framework (1990, 50-55; 1992,44-48) of constitutional rules, collective rules, and operational rules, is useful in conceptualising the various rules needed for self-governing institutions. Many traditional communal water management systems have been studied by Ostrom in order to explain the above said features of self governing institutions. The present research study focuses on the democratisation/ locally emerging water management institutions.

In last few decades, almost entire Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, China, Nepal, Japan etc.) is witnessing an important change in the way water used to be managed traditionally. This phenomenon is the increased emphasis on stakeholder/user participation or the decentralisation of the water machinery. This process is witnessed in all these countries in varying degrees.

With reference to India, supporting government policy initiatives have boosted this process. For example, the July 1995, Government of Gujarat resolution on Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) and the Andhra Pradesh Farmer’s Management of Irrigation Systems Act of 1997 and Government of India, National Water Policy (1987) have facilitated the formation of user organisations and also the specified role in different functions in water machinery.

From the Ganga in North to the Cauvery in the South, rivers of South Asia have carried the political, economic and social history of the region with them. As they flow from the highlands ranges of the Himalayas, Western Ghats or the Aravallis towards the Bay of Bengal or Arabian Sea, these

13

rivers have become intertwined with the hopes and aspirations of the people who live in their basins. Today, water systems in the region are under stress. Growing demands from agriculture, industry and urban growth stretch available supplies while pollution undermines the quality of the resource base. Addressing these problems will require a level of understanding and management far beyond that needed during the entire previous history of water development. Building the institutions and scientific understanding is essential to enable sustainable management of water resources which represents one of the most important challenges faced by this region.

"Local", "Participatory" approaches to water management are often proposed as alternatives to large scale centralized initiatives managed by the state. While centralized state initiatives draw on a long history of water resources development, relatively few data exist on the nature and limitations of more localized approaches. In addition, the terms "Local" and "participatory" are vague. What "Local" and "Participatory" mean is unclear both in terms of physical scale and the social processes involved. In many cases, local management seems to be approached as simply a small -scale version of larger levels of organisation. Local management organisations are expected to take on similar arrays of functions (though scaled down and requiring less technical expertise) as their larger state cousins and are even characterized as operating through similar analytical decision-making process. Where scale is concerned, they are intended to take responsibility for a hydrologic unit or water delivery system (acquifer, river basin, irrigation system or municipal supply facility). This "local" hydrological unit or system is seen as a single element among an array of other similar local elements that are governed at some ultimate level by state.

More often than not, the existence of such an "overall system" is itself an assumption, as is the belief at the central levels that local management units are smaller or guided by similar sets of management concerns. This hierarchic "rationalist" model is rarely explicitly spelled out but implicitly underlies many recent attempts to develop "local”, "participatory" water management organisations. The development of Water User Associations (WUAs) in surface irrigation systems is, for example, a major case in point. In contrast to the model, local systems are found to be richly heterogeneous in their management styles and objectives. Attempting to force them into a unitary framework based on how they "should" work is unrealistic. Similarly the "overall system" itself is a policy terrain that is contested.

14

The rationalist model of policy reform and management is implicitly based on concepts of social behaviour and the role of organisations that are far removed from local dynamics. In the assumed model, arguments for policy reform are developed from careful multi-disciplinary analysis and directed to high-level decision-makers. These decision-makers are assumed to be patriarchal rationalists who synthesise available information and make informed, objective decisions within the constraints imposed by external unruly world.

In practice, policy decisions are widely recognized as occurring within a complex environment in which numerous social actors cognize and strategize with varying degree of certainty or objectivity. The lack of progress in developing effective water management approaches is often viewed as related to these inherent imperfections in decision-making. This is, however, often not seen as a fundamental flaw in the model. Instead, failures are generally attributed to "external" factors such as "lack of political will”, "vested interests" or " imperfect information."

Initiating local management within this hierarchic framework is generally portrayed as a process of policy reform. Organisational models are developed and tested through policy research and pilot projects. Analysts evaluate pilot project results and recommend appropriate policy changes to higher-level decision-makers. Once decisions are made, policy reforms are assumed to take place enabling widespread formation of "improved" (that is more local and participatory) management organizations. These organisations are then assumed to be capable of "managing" local water resource through a relatively standard array of planning, monitoring, technical and other techniques.

Most successful cases of ‘water management institutions’ highlight the dynamic inter-linkages between physical water resource systems and the larger social, economic, and institutional context within which they are managed. The studies on ‘water institutions’ also highlight the wide variety of actors whose individual or collective decisions influence water use patterns and ultimately water management needs and options. Together they imply that, rather than the hierarchic and prescriptive top down reform model underlying most conventional policy analysis, reform must involve a much more open, non-linear and on going process of social dialogue and debate. This flexible "bottom-up" approach is essential if complex water management systems are to be nudged towards less stressful and conflict ridden paths in future.

15

The effectiveness of this process is dependent on recognising three strands in an overall management triad that need to be in a dynamic and creative engagement. At the centre of this perspective lie water users in all their diversity. As the first strand in the triad, they are not mute, atomized and passive actors that will do as they are told. On the contrary, they actively cognize, strategize and make decisions- individually and collectively - to further what they perceive to be their advantage. These interests more often than not differ from those that water managers (the second strand in the triad) may prescribe. This discrepancy between what the users want and what the managers think they “should” want can not be resolved within the hierarchic " rationalists" model that essentially upholds the principle of institutional monism. The third strand consists of " Social Auditors", they are the watch dogs social activists as well as various organs of the state that are responsible for assuring appropriate justice. Their concerns stem from equity, sustainability and fair play. Linear policy models that account for the users at the bottom and the managers at the top are often at a loss when these actors enter in the fray - often in the event that contradictions emerge between the avowed objectives of management and its practice. Except for extreme cases of bureaucratic rigidity, social auditors from the activist mould and from within the government do often work together to assure proper functioning by the concerned bureaucracy. They also often act as catalysts of change.

Theoretical Framework6: MANAGERS USERS SOCIAL AUDITORSPublic works department

Agriculture INGO'S

Irrigation Department Industry CourtsPollution Control Board Domestic Academics

Town Water Authority Fishery and other non-consumptive uses

Rural Development Department

Revenue department NGO's(Ref: Moench etal in ‘Rethinking the Mosaic’ 1999)

According to systems theory, different organs of a system function in tandem with each other in order to perform harmonious and overall unified

6 For a similar classification of stakeholders (helper interest, polluter interest and victim interest), see Von Prittwitz. And for further discussions on stakeholder identification read Mitchel , Agle and Wood 1997.

16

functioning. “This approach towards understanding and approaching water management is dynamic in terms of its emphasis on social processes. The question of the balance of power is central to this approach reflecting which is similar to any democratic constitution or pluralistic scheme. The conventional emphasis placed on ‘omniscient managers’ engaged in new development or construction needs to be shifted to "cautious managers" operating in a context rife with uncertainties and where courses of action are contested by auditors and users” (Moench M., Caspari E. and Dixit A. (eds.) 1999).

This approach could help us in understanding /studying the processes leading to balance of power among different stakeholders and hence the agreements resulting through negotiations in the platforms where concerned stakeholders (Users, managers and auditors) sit together to discuss, decide and implement the necessary measures to ensure sustainable and efficient water management.

Although, it would require developing this framework further in terms of power positions of various stakeholders and resultant interactions among them, necessary to achieve the balance of power in order to arrive at unified decision making within a MSP.

Two other dimensions of MSPs are relevant to proposed research and hence they also add to theoretical concepts to the framework. One is impact of MSPs on the technology/ design of water management structures in a given unit of water body or vice-a versa and its resultant impact on different stakeholder groups especially on the disadvantaged groups in the basin and the resource itself. As the details of Krishna basin MSP in the following sections suggest that an alternate technical design suggested by MSP was ultimately accepted by Maharashtra Krishna Valley development Corporation (MKVDC-a government body responsible for the development of Krishna basin) which it seems is better in terms of providing equitable water distribution in one of the sub-basins of Krishna. This is in comparison to the original design of the reservoir and distribution structures proposed by MKVDC in the above said area. Similarly relationship between society and technology is discussed extensively in Irrigation literature (Mollinga, P.P 1998).

As discussed in the introduction section water is a state subject in India but most river-basin especially the proposed study areas of main case studies (Sabarmati basin and Krishna) are interstate in nature. Here, interstate means

17

these rivers pass through more than one state within India. This results into many interesting issues apart from the popular head end –tail end controversies. It is another level of existing legal pluralism in these basins and it would be interesting to study the nature of interactions between different legal frameworks. Legal pluralism theories would be useful in understanding and analysing this dimension of MSPs in proposed case studies.

5.0 Multi-stakeholder platforms in Sabarmati River Basin and Tar-Ohal basin (Krishna valley) in Western IndiaAs mentioned in the “Proposed Study” section, one of the objective of this study is to carry out in-depth case studies of Sabarmati River basin Stakeholder Forum in Gujarat, and Tar-Ohal basin (Krishna Valley) in Maharashtra, India.

Apart from the fact that very few examples of MSPs are found in Asian water sector (Rajput, S.S., in MSPs in South and South East Asia , Mollinga P.P. (ed.) 2002). It is the history of vibrant co-operative and other civil society institutions in the Indian states of Gujarat and Maharashtra that lead to selection of these two main case studies. These two states have numerous examples of farmers co-operatives and their federations at very grass root levels. It would be interesting to investigate whether MSPs at a level up ,i.e. sub-basin or basin level are relevant in the same states. In this context, the primary information about these basin and its problems is discussed in the following section.

5.1 The Physical Features of the Sabarmati basinThe Sabarmati River Basin has total catchments of 21,085 sq. km. With 80% of it falling in the State of Gujarat. Originating in the Aravalli hills, the river traverses 48 km. in South Rajasthan, enters Gujarat state to traverse another 371 km. to finally join the Gulf of Cambay in the Arabian Sea. Ever year, on an average the river empties 44,875 Million Cubic Meters (MCM) of water into the Arabian Sea.

The basin covers 2,516 villages. 29 talukas in six districts of North Gujarat. i.e. Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Mehsana, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad and Kaira. Six major tributaries join the river on its course downwards – Wakal, Sei from Rajasthan and Harnas, Hathmathi, Watrak and Bhogavo in Gujarat.

18

The basin is divided in to 3 sub-basins. This sub-division forms the basis for identifying the stakeholders. Based on the geographical divisions, Dharoi sub basin in the upper catchments, Hathmati sub basin in the middle and the Watrak sub basin in the tail end of this basin also reflect the heterogeneity in terms of water use patterns and availability.

Within each sub-basin, the stakeholders can be segregated based on water use sector, i.e. Agriculture, Domestic, Rural and urban, Industrial. The various water-supplying agencies, government departments are also considered as important stakeholders.

Few other stake holders which are generally not included in the processes of stakeholders analysis are:

• Flood affected masses on the banks of Sabarmati river basin: An arrangement of releasing the drinking water for the urban users of Ahmedabad city through the river bed, resulted many a times in flooding of areas adjacent to Sabarmati river causing severe financial and material loss to those affected by this,

• Slum dwellers community on the banks of Sabarmati river faces the similar problem. And most of the time the entire blame for polluting the river is directed at them,

• Kacchiya community (a socio-economically backward community), that cultivates vegetables in the river bed, exploiting the flowing water is another important stake holder group.

The last three stakeholder groups are specific examples of how a rationalist model of development policy formulation can affect their lives, resulting into complete loss of life and livelihood mechanisms.

The great diversity is seen in socio-economic settings across the basin. The water management needs and priorities are different for different stakeholder groups and are often conflicting in nature. Achieving larger water management goals for the basin will require compromise on the part of each of the stakeholder groups and decisions have to be arrived at through consensus.

The above-mentioned stakeholder subgroups at local level are envisaged federating into a basin level forum–the stakeholders forum resulting into multiple stake holders platform.

19

5.2 Institutional Issues in the basin

The presence of appropriate institution at various levels ranging from the user to the regulatory and legal levels is essential for ensuring proper use of the resource. However, the institutional presence and response to address water-scarcity and pollution problems in the basin have been by and large limited. The existing institutional approaches are isolated in nature; they do not take into account the linkages and inter-dependency of various sectors of water use. The basic institutional issues in Sabarmatibasin those need to be addressed are:• Other legal and regulatory approaches to check ground water over

development.• Other socioeconomic parameters controlling the access to water

resources by its users.• Inadequate pollution control norms on the large number of non-point

polluting small industry sources:• Redeveloping alternative systems to augment water supply to meet the

current and future demand.(VIKSAT, 1999).

5.3 Possible Institutional arrangements in Sabarmati River Basin

The large numbers of rural and urban institutions in and around Sabarmati basin are capable of playing a crucial role in managing the basin water. But the absence of a coordinating agency to define the links between these institutions is the missing link. Water management Institutions that might serve this purpose are as follows:

1. A Sabarmati Basin management Society as lead institutions for coordinating management,

2. A stakeholders forum for representation from various interest groups in the basin,

3. Village and watershed level institutions to identify local resource management issues, identify potential management initiatives and implement them, and

4. Urban water management institutions for implementing water management plans applicable to urban areas

(Moench, Caspari and Dixit (ed.), 1999).

A Stakeholder Forum has been created in the Sabarmati river basin since last four years. A number of meetings have been organised since it inception where important water management issues are discussed by the representatives of different stakeholder groups. Farmers, Industrialists,

20

Government (regulatory and legislative) organisations and civil society institutions are represented in this forum.

According to the documentation about the activities of the forum, so far it has been successfully having its meetings with all its representatives, problem perceptions of the stakeholders and the possible solutions according to them have been discusses and documented among them. Another important development is formation of policy advocacy cell within the forum in order to feed into the policy environment o f the basin. Concrete results of these actions are yet to be seen.

5.4 Tar-Ohal basin (Krishna valley) Maharashtra, India

This MSP example is from another western state of India, namely Maharashtra. This case of MSP is very different from the case of Sabarmati Stakeholder Forum. The genesis of which lies in the mass movement in 'Uchangi' village in the Aajara taluk of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra. A dam was to be constructed on ‘Tar-ohal’, a small river in that area by the Maharashtra government. As a result, there was a possibility that the dam will submerge six villages to impound 660 million cubic feet (mcft) of water. Although, way back in 1986, a suggestion was made by the local villagers to construct a small number of check dams as an alternative to the above-mentioned dam to ensure the storage of average annual rainfall (4000 mm) of the region. As it happens, this was not acceptable to the concerned authorities.

The result was emergence Dam oustees' movement of people against this dam which last somewhat around a decade. Dam beneficiaries, dam affected village and other civil society institutions joined hands to convince the government agencies by proposing the alternative plan of 3 smaller check dams instead of the original big dam. This process itself took few years where government agencies agreed to listen to them.

The support base of Dam oustees' movement was further strengthened with the inclusion of local political party units and freedom fighters supporting the cause. Finally in 1998, after a long struggle between the government agencies and the Joint front of all other stakeholders, government agreed to get into the dialogue over various demands made by the front. These demands included the alternative plan of reservoir construction, rehabilitation package and its implementation.

21

Finally the present state government in Maharashtra agreed to implement most of the demands made by the front, which further planned to continue its efforts as some sort of “development front” for the region. , it seems to be an excellent case of bottom up MSP emergence and also its more local in nature compared to Sabarmati stakeholder forum.

6.0 The Problem statement As mentioned in the very beginning of the proposal, the increasing pressure of human needs on the indispensable water requirement has led to numerous problems in the many Asian countries. These problems include decreasing water tables, degrading drinking water quality and consistently dwindling of water resources in general. Hence, the profound change in the water management approaches has become the need of hour, all across the region.

Multiplicity of problems in water management has forced the policy-makers to think over the more sustainable ways of managing the precious natural resource like water. One of the most talked about solution to these problems has been the democratization of water management as against the centralized systems of water management. Various institutional arrangements have emerged to address the issue, including the stakeholder platforms (a bottom up approach). Some participatory approaches have emerged as a result of government policy decisions and some of them have emerged because of interaction of political and socioeconomic processes within the society. In this context, studying the emergence of multiple stakeholders platforms offer a rich ground for empirical testing of the democratization of institutions in water management sector, that itself forming the main research question. To make it more explicit the main research question can be presented as follows:

6.1 The Main Research QuestionThe discussion in so far broadly outline the concerns or the principle issues to be investigated in the proposed research. They are triggers for emergence of MSPs, representation of various stakeholders in them, its mandate, legitimacy issues attached to effectiveness of MSPs, Legal pluralism within the basin area and finally how do MSPs shape technology or vice-a-versa. Main research question derived from these concerns is as follows:

“What are the factors facilitating the emergence of (multi)-stakeholder platforms in the above mentioned basins in Gujarat? How does this

22

institution function in the present legal and policy environment ? And what is its impact on water management?”

7.0 Operationalisation of the main Research QuestionThe above mentioned main research question will be operationalised through fact finding for the following sub questions:

• What is the institutional arrangement for the water management in study areas?

• What are the triggers for MSP emergence in both the cases? Or Why does an MSP emerge?

• Who are the stakeholders in the basin and how are they represented in the MSPs?

• What is the mandate and functions of the MSPs?• How do MSPs influence the water management policy environment?• What is the nature of interaction between technology and the MSPs?• Where does global MSP discourse stand vis-à-vis Indian institutional

responses in water sector?

NB: For detailed operationalisation plans of research see table 9.0

8.0 Research Design The proposed study will be descriptive and exploratory in nature. Qualitative methods like case study would suit best to do justice with the complex research issues in the proposed study. The research design for the proposed study incorporates the following components:

8.1 The secondary data collection The secondary literature on MSP processes in the above said cases would be continued through different sources like Government regulatory and legislative organs, academic institutions, civil society institutions and the internet. The proposed in-depth case studies would require specific secondary information on proposed main cases of Sabarmati basin stakeholder forum and Tar-Ohal (Krishna) basin in Maharashtra apart from physical data of the basin. This literature would be collected from the publications of this forum and also from the government, quasi government organisations and non-government organisations involved in the management water resources of these basins. Publications of these MSPs would also be explored to access the information on different aspects of them in previous years.

23

8.2 Research MethodologyThe Case study methods will be used for primary data collection during the study. Varying educational capacities and negotiating skills of different stakeholders demand suitable research tools to get an overview of the existing socio-political, hydrological-technical and economic scenario in Sabarmati, Krishna basins and in contextual examples of MSP cases within India.

8.3 Tools for Data collection Focussed Group Discussions, structured interviews and participant observation would be main research tools for the purpose of primary data collection apart from using triangulation for cross checking the factual authenticity of information.

Focussed group discussions would be used to get the first hand account of wider spectrum of stakeholder groups about MSPs and related issues to their life. Whereas structured interviews will be used to get the information from the selected samples in the rural and urban areas of both basins.

Participant observation would be useful to have a third persons view of the various events organised by MSPs (Meetings, protests, negotiations etc.).

Detailed and in-depth Case studies would be prepared using all the above-mentioned information for the sample stakeholder forum in the Sabarmati river basin, Gujarat and Tar-Ohal basin in Maharashtra, India.

8.4 Criteria, Sampling design and sizeFocussed group discussions will be held with purposive sampling from each stake-holder group to get the first hand information and understanding of social and political process which bind the group together.

Structured interviews of the selected samples from the proposed cases Sabarmati stakeholder Forum, Krishna basin MSP and 4 other small cases would be conducted to get insights into the functioning of the forum. Finally in-depth case study of stakeholder forum would be prepared, after analyzing all the available information.

The open-ended structured interviews would be conducted with key informants for in-depth information about MSPs. This would be complemented with analysis of the available secondary information on the subject.

24

Participant Observation would be used as tool to cross check the information received through different sources and especially it would also provide important third persons view of the MSP functioning, especially by attending its meetings.

9.0 Operationalisation plan of Research

Serial no.

Research variables to be studied

Variants Data to be collected Research tool to be used

When this data would be collected

25

1 Factors for the emergence of MSPs

*Triggers (if any) like natural calamity, big projects leading to mass evacuation or resource scarcity leading to livelihood problems (e.g.Cauvery issue) etc.

*Media reports on MSPs, official records of msps, official publications of msps*first hand information from key office bearers/leaders (informants) and end users/beneficiaries

*Secondary literature*Structured interviews*Focussed group discussions

August- November 20024 months

Policy environment (enabling/disabling factor)

*Water related government/donor policies, Court rulings, tribunal awards etc.

*Secondary literature from government/donor agencies

Same as above

Supportive government water-bureaucracy

*Secondary literature, official records, information from key informants

*Secondary data collection*Interviews*Focussed group discussions

Same as above

Vibrant civil society institutions (academic/NGOs/people’s networks-cooperative movements etc.)

*Secondary literature, official records, information from key informants

*Secondary data collection*Interviews

Same as above

Dynamic individual leaders (e.g. in Tarun Bharat Case in India)

*Secondary literature, official records, information from key informants

*Secondary data collection*Interviews

Same as above

Outside facilitation from government and international donor agencies

*Secondary literature, official records, information from key informants

*Secondary data collection*Interviews

Same as above

December 2002-January 2003Reserve period

26

2 Functions of MSPS

*Information exchange among stakeholders

*Official records or project documents, reports, documents circulated in MSP meetings (if any), discussions in MSPs

*Participant observation*Interviews

February-April 2003 3 months

*A platform for discussion, debate, dialogue among all stakeholders

*Minutes of key meetings, MSP news letters and its official documents, workshop proceedings, information from key informants

*Collection of secondary literature*Participant observation*Interviews

Same as above

*Providing fair opportunity for representation to each stakeholder irrespective of socio-economic status and power positions of each stakeholder/ democratisation of water discourse

*Procedures for selection of representatives*Proceedings of the meetings, minutes of the meetings,*Agendas for meetings and key events in MSPs and procedures for agenda setting

*Collection of secondary literature*Participant observationInterviews

Same as above

*Negotiated settlements *Proceedings of the meetings, minutes of the meetings

*Collection of secondary literature*Participant observation

Same as above

*Networking/alliance building with policy makers and concerned government agencies, donors and civil society institutions

*key office bearers, collaborating organisations, strategic partners

*Collection of secondary literature*Interviews

Same as above

*Ensuring equitable and sustainable use of water/resources

*Agendas, minutes, proceedings of key events and constitution of MSP with its mandate

*Collection of secondary literature

Same as above

*Stimulating the policy changes

*Agendas, minutes, proceedings of key events and constitution of MSP with its mandate*Information from key informants

*Collection of secondary literature*Interviews

Same as above

27

August-September 2003 Reserve period

28

3 Impact of MSPs

*Redistribution of power (e.g. Water rights ) and assets

*Water rights, rehabilitation package and its implementation*office bearers*minutes, proceedings, reports of key meetings

*Interview and *Focussed Group Discussion*Secondary literature analysis

May-July 20033 months

*Decreasing/eliminating the water scarcity hence increase in the livelihood opportunities

*Water availability for different water use sectors especially for irrigation, agricultural production

*Collection of secondary literature(Reports from irrigation department, state water boards, agri. Depts. and municipalities etc.)*Interviews*Focussed group discussions *On farm observations

Same as above

*Technological innovations/ project Design innovations which are users friendly and resource friendly

*Project documents Reports from Government water agencies, research institutions and MSPs Media reports*Information from key informants

*Collection of secondary literature*Structured interviews with key informants*Focussed Group Discussions

Same as above

*Free/increased access to information on various aspects of water/resource management in the area

*Documents distributed in and minutes of meetings and key events*Information from key informants

*Collection of secondary literature*Structured *Interviews with key informants*Focussed Group Discussions*Participant observations

Same as above

*Capacity building of stakeholder representatives in terms of better negotiation skills and bargaining power

*Knowledge of water related issues among stakeholders*Presentation skillsOffice bearers from different stakeholder groups

*Participant observations*Interviews*Focussed Group Discussions

Same as above

*Creating a sense of balance of power among

*Procedures for agenda setting

*Collection of secondary

Same as above

29

August-Sept 2003 and April 2004Reserve period

10.0 Work Plan Study Period: October 2001- October 2004

- until one year after the commencement of the appointment:

Sr. No.

Proposed Activity Time allotment

1 Proposal revision at Wageningen October –December 20013 months

2 A pilot-visit to the study area and if possible secondary data collection on MSPs in Sabarmati basin and Krishna basin, India.

January- April 20024 months

3 Revising and Finalising the research proposal, conceptual framework and research tools, seminar presentation at Wageningen.

• Groundwork for the Regional Workshop on MSPs (Jan. 2003)

May-July 20023 months at Wageningen

4 Preparing the rough draft of research tools and stakeholder metrics. and first round of data collection

• ground work for regional/National Workshop on MSPs

• Writing first paper/Concept Note on MSPs and finalinsing the first paper on MSPs.

August- November 20024 months

- after the first year of the appointment:

5 First review of the collected data and December 2002–January 2003

30

Regional MSP workshop• Finalising the MSP

paper/Concept note and presenting in Regional Workshop (here onwards RW in the month of January-Februaary 2003).

2 months

6 Second round of data collection(If possible, attending the MSP wksp in South Africa and 3rd WW Forum in Japan)

• India msp workshop proceedings

February –July 2003 6 months

7 Second review of collected data and preparing the checklist of missing links/early warning signals

• Finalising the India MSP wksp proceedings

August- September 20032 months

8 Data processing and Primary Analysis, Case studies writing and first draft presentation of raw findings/ pre Ph. D. seminar

October 2003 – March 20046months

9 Final round of data collection-filling the gaps

April 20041 month

10 At Wageningen Agricultural University, Final Dissertation, Write up and submission of report.

May-October 20046 months

Total time period 37 months

11.0 Budget

Research Item Budget for 01 in FL

Budget for 02 in Fl.

Budget for 03 in Fl

Budget for 04 in Fl

Total in Fl

Total in Euro (Conversion 2.2Fl=1 Euro)

1 Indian PhD researcher

Scholarship 12000 28000 28000 28000 96000 38400

Research Travel PhD related

4000 4000 8000 3200

Materials PhD related

3000 3000 6000 2400

Field Living Allowance PhD 3500 3500 7000 2800

31

relatedResearch Assistance PhD

related4000 4000 8000 3200

Travel & Stay-reg-wksp

6000 6000 12000 4800

Total 12000 58500 58500 28000 157000 54800

12.0 Bibliography1. Shah, T. etal; Limits to Leapfrogging : Issues in Transposing Successful

River Basin Management Institutions in the Developing World, International Water Management Institute Colombo, Sri Lanka.

2. Appasamy, P.P. Managing Conflict in the Bhavani Basin, IDPAD Seminar, Managing Water Scarcity: Experiences and Projects, (13-17 October 1997), Netherlands.

3. Brewer, J. Kolavalli, S. Kalro, A.H. Naik G. Ramnarayan S. Raju K.V. Sakthivadivel R. “Irrigation Management Transfer in India: Policies, Process and Performance”

4. Commons, J.R. (1934): Institutional Economics: New York, Macmillan, 69-70 & 72, in Neale W C (1987): Institutions: The Journal of Economic Issues, Vol, XXI (3), Sep. 1987,1177-1206.

5. Eisner, W. (1987) in Nitsch, M (ed.)(1992): Reflections on the Usefulness of institutionalist Approach to Development Economics: Economics, Vol, 42, 1992.

6. Kowlowski, R. (1992): Market Institutions, East European Reforms, and Economic Theory: The Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXVI (3), Sep. 1992, 673-705.

7. Long, N and Jan Douwe van der ploeg (1989) “Demythologizing planned intervention: an actor perspective”. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 29, No. ¾, pp. 226-249

8. Mackintosh, M. (1992) ‘introduction’. In: Marc Wuyts, Maureen Mackintosh and Tom Hewitt (eds.) Development Policy and Public Action. Oxford University Press, in association with the Open University, Oxford, pp. 1-9

9. Neale, W.C. (1987): Institutions: The Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XXI (3), Sep. 1987, 1177-1206.

10.Ostrom, E. (1986): How inexorable is the tragedy of the commons? – Institutional Arrangements for Changing the Structures of Social Dilemmas: Distinguished Faculty

11.Ostrom, E. (1992): Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation

32

12. Moench M., Caspari, E. and Dixit, A. (Ed.);, " Rethinking the Mosaic: Investigating into local water management", Nepal Water Conservation Fundation, Nepal, 1999 .

13.Research Lecture for 1986, Indiana University, Bloomington.14.Runge, C.F. (1981): Common Property Externalities – Isolation,

Assurance, and Resource Depletion in a Traditional Grazing Context: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 63(4), Nov. 1981, 595-606.

15.Sen, A.K. (1967): Isolation, Assurance, and the Social Rate of Discount: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 67, 112-124.

16.Systems: San Francisco, ICS Press, Centre for Contemporary Studies.17.Thomas, John W. and Merilee S. Grindle (1990) ‘After the decision’:

implementing policy reforms in developing countries’ World Development vol.18, No.1, pp. 1163-1181

18. VIKSAT, Water Scarcity & Pollution problems in Sabarmati River basin: Participatory Approach to Water management in Sabarmati Basin, Nehru Foundation for Development, Ahmedabad 1999.

19.World Bank Report on Participatory water management, 1998 and 199920. Mollinga, P.P. (ed.) Water for Food and Rural Development: Approaches

and Initiatives in South Asia, Sage Publications. New Delhi 2000.21.Mollinga, P.P., On the Waterfront: Water distribution, Technology and

agrarian change in a South Indian canal irrigation system, University of Wageningen, 1998.

22.Government of India & World Bank. Initiating and Sustaining Water Sector Reforms: A Synthesis, South Asia Rural Development Series, Ministry of Water Resources, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1999.

23. Government of India & World Bank, Inter-sectoral Water Allocation, Planning, and Management. South Asia Rural Development Series. Ministry of Water Resources, Allied Publishers. New Delhi, 1999.

24.Rajput, S.S. in Mollinga P.P. (Series ed.), Multi-Stakeholder platforms in water resources management: South and Southeast Asia (CWP Research Papers 12), IWE, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2001.

25. Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R., Wood D.J., Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, vol.22, No.4, 853-886, 1997.

26.Berg, L.M. and Hoefsloot, A.M. (eds.), Successful examples of participatory regional planning at the meso-level, Report 164, DLO-Staring Centre, Wageningen, Netherland, 1998.

27.Dourojeanni A.R., water management at the river basin level: challenges in Latin America, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Division, United Nations, 2001.

33

28.Checkland, P., Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-year retropective, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., England 1999.

29. Edmunds D. and Wollenberg E., A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations, Development and Change Vol.32, 231-253, 2001.

30. Roling N.G. and Maarleveld, M., Facing Strategic Narratives: An Argument for Interactive Effectiveness, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol.16, 295-308, 1999.

31.Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1984.

32. Habermas, J. , The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1987

33. Verschuren P. and Doorewaard, H., Designing a Research Project, Publisher LEMMA- Utrecht-1999.

34. Warner, J. Bringing people back in Reintegrating civil society in water governance through MultiStakeholder Platforms, (u.d.).

35.Vinent, L.F. Irrigation as a technology, irrigation as a resource: a sociotechnical approach to irrigation, Wageningen, Netherlands, 1997.

36.Latour, B. The Powers of Association, in Law J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1986.

37.Haugaard, M. The constitution of Power: A theoretical analysis of power, Knowledge and structure, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1997.

38. Heywood, A. Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction, Macmillan, (u.d.).

39.Hajer, M.A., The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998.

40.Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View, The Macmillan Press Ltd. 1974.

34