Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Justice et injustices environnementales

 | 
David Blanchon
, 
Jean Gardin
, 
Sophie Moreau

Shifting rights and access to irrigation water in a context of growing scarcity: the Krishna Basin, south India1

Jean-Philippe Venot

Texte intégral

Introduction: are water rights right?

  • 1 This paper has been written while the author was completing his PhD thesis with the Laboratoire Gec (...)
  • 2 Molden David, Accounting for water use and productivity, Colombo, International Water Management In (...)

1In many regions water use for urban, industrial and agricultural growth is approaching, and sometimes even exceeding, the availability of renewable water resources. Conflicts over access and allocation of water become more likely. Intense water development results in over-commitment of water and river basin closure. A generally accepted definition of a closed river basin is a basin where most or all available water is committed2 and river discharge falls short of meeting environmental functions (flushing out sediments, diluting polluted water, controlling salinity intrusion, sustaining estuarine and coastal ecosystems).

  • 3 Molle F., Wester P. & Hirsh P., “River basin development and management”, in Water for food, water (...)

2Basin closure intensifies the interconnectedness of water users and the environment3 and represents a challenge to meeting spatial and environmental justice: localised interventions-that might be fair and just at the local level-tend to have unexpected consequences elsewhere in the basin-and might thus be unfair if the level of the analysis is the basin-and are often detrimental to the environment and to future generations.

  • 4 Bruns B. & Meinzen-Dick R., Negotiating water rights, London, Intermediate Technology Press, 2000; (...)
  • 5 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, in Water Nepal, n° (...)
  • 6 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values” (...)

3Increasing pressure on water resources and river basin closure call for clarifying the rules on how water will be shared and for reforming institutions for water governance. In this context, debates over water rights intensify.4 Water rights are pragmatic attempts to establish clear rules governing access to, and allocation of, a limited resource (in time, place, quantity and quality) on the basis of economic or socially defined priorities and/or in a manner that reduces conflict. Institutional vacuum and lack of secure water rights are seen as increasing the vulnerability of the poor (as the resource base is generally cornered by influential elites at all levels). The underlying rationale of moving from an ill-defined institutional framework to quantifiable and transferable formal water rights is that a clear definition of who is entitled to use what and where will lead to efficient, equitable and environmentally sustainable allocation of water resources.5 Water rights are thus presented as a panacea. But the equation is oversimplified to a simple dichotomy between economic efficiency and equity: this approach fails to acknowledge the complexity that governs the access to, and the use of, water in the real world.6

  • 7 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, op. cit.; Pradhan (...)
  • 8 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Kris (...)

4Our hypothesis is that formalizing water rights do not ensure equitable access to water and do not equate social and environmental justice. First, ecological and social inequalities exist and transactions/reallocation of water are unlikely to fully offset initial endowments that generally constitute the base for formal allocation procedures and are often unevenly distributed. Marginal groups are rarely in a position to articulate or defend their interest when rights are formalized through legal processes established by culturally and economically dominant groups. Second, there is no such thing such as a single unitary water rights regime. Pluralism is generally the norm and multiple forms and levels of rights reveal that principles and values underpinning the notions of fairness, equity and justice are multiple: these values interact and sometimes conflict one with another. Third, when river basin close and when rights to a resource are allocated or claimed by any one group of individuals, others will lose their rights. It is not a “win-win” situation, tradeoffs will develop and the existence of both stake-gainers and stake-losers raises questions concerning the legitimacy of those who define and allocate water rights.7 Finally, defining water rights require knowing timely water availability in any place of a river basin and understanding the variability of the hydrology; this is a daunting task.8

5This paper intends to tackle the interplay between the different (irrigation) water rights regimes prevailing in the Krishna river basin, South India. We show how formalizing water rights-on the basis of universal principles of justice-can collide with the notions of spatial and environmental justice. The first section provides a brief account on the pluralism that characterizes rights and access to water in India. Section two presents the main features of the Krishna river basin. Section three recounts the changing patterns of access to water in the Krishna Basin since India gained independence and highlights the linkages between water rights regimes, irrigation development, equity, and spatial justice at the basin level. A final section provides some perspectives on how to reconcile river basin closure with social and environmental justice.

Water rights systems and water access in India

  • 9 Bruns B. & Meinzen-Dick R., Negotiating water rights, op. cit.

6Rights to resources are derived from law and customs, which in turn are based on underlying cultural, religious and societal values accommodating (or not) the notion of social justice. However, there is no such thing such as a single, unitary right: legal and institutional pluralism is rather the norm than the exception.9

  • 10 Meinzen-Dick R. & Nkonya L., “Understanding legal pluralism in water and land rights: Lessons from (...)
  • 11 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culturand underlying values”, (...)

7Acknowledging and understanding the bundle of rights governing access to different kinds of water (groundwater, canal water, in-stream water, green water or soil moisture) and resources management is a prerequisite to sustainable and equitable interventions.10 When discussing water rights, it is important not to speak of water in general but to disaggregate water uses and water property regimes.11 Generally, water rights are sub-divided into two groups. Decision making rights regarding control, regulation and transfer of water; and use or usufructary rights of access and withdrawal. This section gives an overview of the diversity of rights and entitlements related to (irrigation) water in India.

  • 12 Singh C., Water rights and principle of water resources management, Bombay, Indian Law Institute, 1 (...)
  • 13 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, op. cit.
  • 14 Goi (Government of India), National Water Policy, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources, 2002.
  • 15 Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, in Water Nepal, n° 9-10 (1-2), 2003, p. 153 (...)
  • 16 Johnson C., Decentralisation in India: Poverty, politics and Panchayati Raj, London, Overseas Devel (...)

8Concerning claims of overall ownership of the resource itself, there is, in India, a broad social consensus for the State to be holding water in trust for the benefit of the people of the State and to be the warrant of social justice. State ownership of water is encoded in the national constitution of India.12 This “public trust doctrine” entails limits to which extent water resources can be alienated13 and provides the basis for prioritization of water allocation among different sectors. The Indian National Water Policy of 2002 provides precedence to drinking water over irrigation and hydropower; industrial and navigation needs are given the last priority while “ecology” is given fourth priority (though there is no mention on how these priorities are to be met and administrative decisions about allocating water remains the rule14). The constitution allows for devolution of national rights to lower levels of government, communities or individuals. Authority over water has been delegated to India’s States but the constitution of India also enables the federal government to play a role with respect to interstate rivers, that is, most Indian rivers and most surface water resources of the country.15 With river basin closure, the role of the central government (national coordination, environmental protection and inter-state conflicts resolution) becomes central. Finally since 1992-93, there is a third tier in the constitutional structure for the management of water resources. The Panchayats (local elected bodies at the village level) have been entrusted with the governance and management of drinking water facilities, minor irrigation projects, watershed development programs, sanitation programs, etc. This devolution process and broader attempts at users’participation (with, for example the setting up of Water User Associations) is seen as (i) increasing the sense of “ownership” of the resource among users; (ii) enhancing accountability and thus (iii) raising efficiency of water use. However, decentralization policies do not challenge the prevailing dual system between federal and state levels and seem to be hardly taken up by local populations (radical changes in the balance of power in favor of water users have yet to happen16). Further, this devolution process raises equity and efficiency issues. Local governance structures are likely to reflect the broader social and political tensions that exist within a community, a village, a region; and their inability to address the third party impacts of local practices (on other users; on the environment) questions the notion of spatial and environmental justice.

  • 17 Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.
  • 18 Singh C., Water rights and principle of water resources management, op. cit.

9Use rights consist of rules of access and withdrawals. At this “practical” level, there is no explicit legal framework for water rights in India. There is no exclusive national water law. Laws and policies at the federal or State levels; constitutional provisions; State-wise irrigation acts; and court decisions form the basis for granting users some “usufructary rights” that often reflects customary or traditional practices.17 These usufructary rights do not infringe upon State’s rights over control, regulation, allocation and transfer of water18: several water rights regimes can be identified. They are summarized in table 1.

  • 19 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culturand underlying values”, (...)
  • 20 See Molle, this issue, p. 117-131.

10The way the “theoretical/judiciary” systems are implemented on the ground (and hence the links to the notions of equity and justice) is determined by the social, economic and political relations characterizing rural India. All water rights regime call upon universal principles of justice and equity to ensure access to water for all, but they are not free from underlying ideological or practical logics and reflect past or present power relations.19 Hence, they also carry the underpinnings of an inevitable spatial and thus social and environmental injustice. Most rights to access and use water are usufructary rights. With basin closure and increased interconnectedness, water rights regimes are more likely to contradict one another and it is not sure that formalizing existing water use rights will lead to more equitable and sustainable water uses. Tradeoffs will be inevitable20 and mitigation mechanisms needed to minimize spatial and environmental injustice. The two following sections illustrate the interplay between water rights regime and social/environmental justice in the case of the closing Krishna Basin.

Table 1. Main characteristics of different water rights regimes in India (Sources of the table include: Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, op. cit.; Madhav R., Irrigation reforms in Andhra Pradesh: whither the trajectory of legal changes, New-Delhi, International Environmental Law Research Center, 2007; Moench (2003); Mollinga P., On the waterfront: Water distribution, technology and agrarian change in a South Indian canal irrigation system, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2003; Mosse D., The Rule of water: Statecraft, ecology and collective action in South India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2003 on tank management; Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, op. cit.; Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.)

Water development in the Krishna Basin

Human and physical setting of the Krishna Basin

  • 21 See Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sec- to: Trajectory of the (...)

11The Krishna Basin covers part of three South-Indian States: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The Krishna River originates in the Western Ghats, drains the dry areas of the Deccan Plateau, and forms a delta before discharging into the Bay of Bengal (figure 1). The Krishna Basin drains an area of 258,948 km 2 and its climate is predominantly semiarid with erratic rainfall concentrated during the monsoon (May-October). In 2007, the Krishna Basin accommodated 73 million people.21

Evidence of basin closure

  • 22 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Kris (...)

12The Krishna Basin has seen an increasing development of its water resources, notably for irrigation, since the 1850s. This phenomenon hastened after India gained Independence and the total storage capacity (in large and medium reservoirs) has multiplied eightfold since the 1950s to reach about 54 Bcm in the early years of the 21st century (figure 2). Further, minor surface irrigation projects and groundwater irrigation have also boomed. As a result of this infrastructural development, the net irrigated area in the Krishna Basin has increased more than twofold over 1955-2000 from about 2. 2 to 4. 8 million of hectares (Mha).22

  • 23 Venot J. -P., Sharma B. & Rao K., “Krishna Basin development: interventions to limit downstream env (...)

13The discharge from the Krishna river to the ocean gradually decreased from the 1960s, providing an indication of river basin closure (figure 2) (zero or minimal flow to the ocean). Before 1960, river discharge to the ocean averaged 57 Bcm per year. Since 1965, it steadily decreased, falling to 10. 8 Bcm/year in 2000 and was almost nil in 2004 (0. 4 Bm 3/yr). The high discharges observed in 2005-2007 (29 Bcm/year) illustrate that the Krishna river basin is in transition: droughts intensify the interconnectedness of water users, lead to water shortages downstream and environmental degradation in the delta region.23

Figure 1. The Krishna Basin in South India

Figure 2. A decreasing discharge to the ocean indicates that the Krishna Basin is closing.
Source: Venot J.-P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”,
op. cit.

14Basin closure (most available water is committed to human uses) is a challenge. Further water resources development is tantamount to a sectoral and/or regional reappropriation of water that is likely to take place mainly on economic (increasing water productivity) and political (ensuring the support of powerful groups) grounds and at the expense of marginal constituencies (social justice), environmental sustainability (environmental justice) and future generation (intergenerational justice). With basin closure, the various water entitlements regimes observed in the Krishna Basin are likely to further conflict one with another leading to the sharpening and the creation of new spatial and environmental inequalities.

Changing patterns of access to water in the Krishna basin

15This section argues that irrigation and water development in the Krishna Basin came together with the explicit or implicit recognition of the different water rights systems prevailing in India. This constituted a challenge to the ideal of social and environmental justice. Unsustainable water use is jeopardizing the social objectives of rural development policies that fail to acknowledge that further water resources development can lead to new spatial injustice due to users’interconnectedness.

Water allocation at the basin scale: the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal

  • 24 See Goi/KWDT (Government of India/Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal), The report and the further repo (...)

16The States overarching power upon surface waters and the usufructary character of use and access rights to water resources have led to massive water development in the Krishna Basin after India gained independence in 1947. But uncoordinated development of small and large scale infrastructures has always led to acute conflicts between the riparian states of the Krishna Basin (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra), highlighting the need for formal interstate allocation rules, because no state has ever considered the potential third-party impacts of its own development. Major interstate disagreements led to the setting up of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) in 1969 and to the agreement, in 1976, on formal allocation procedures that apportioned the 75 % -dependable flow of the Krishna River (the flow exceeded in 75 % of the years). These allocations were provisional and to be renegotiated in 2000 (a new tribunal was constituted in 2004 and is expected to reach a decision for allocating water between the three states around 2010).24 This formal process of water apportionment did not slow down the pace of irrigation development.

  • 25 Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, op. cit.

17There are no clear water allocation guidelines in India and negotiated agreements, such as the KWDT award, accommodate different water rights regimes, depending on the principles that each party (e. g. the states) wants to be considered in the allocation process; this is instrumental in the overbuilding of river basins. The KWDT first endorsed the “riparian rights” of the three states and within the states, bureaucratic decisions of allocation remained the norm (no mention is made of the users and of their respective rights25). Second, it explicitly recognized “prior appropriation rights” by protecting existing uses-at the project and state levels and, third, it sanctioned the “rights” of the States to further develop water resources by considering planned future uses, generally on the basis of ongoing projects.

  • 26 Gulati A., Meinzen-Dick R. & Raju K. V., Institutional reforms in Indian irrigation, New Delhi, Sag (...)
  • 27 See Venot et al., Shifting waterscapes..., op. cit. on the case of Andhra Pradesh.

18The KWDT award of 1976 was to be revised in 2000, and the states sharing the Krishna water engaged in massive development of their hydraulic infrastructure to lay claim on water resources and ensure they would be holding a prevailing position when the KWDT award would be renegotiated.26 Interstate competition resulted in over-commitment of water. But the politics of water also play a major role in shaping water availability and use at other levels, such as the regional level in a single State.27 By allocating fixed volumes of surface water on the basis of the 75 % -dependable flow, the KWDT did not offer an adapted platform to manage low flow years and neglected the relationships between surface water and groundwater systems. It endorsed “individual capture rights” as the three states

  • 28 Goi / KWDT (Government of India/Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal), The report and the further report (...)

will be free to make use of underground water within their respective territories in the Krishna river basin [and that] use of underground water shall not be reckoned as use of the water of the river Krishna.28

19Groundwater abstraction has skyrocketed over the last decades, highly contributes to over-commitment of water and raises management and equity issues (see below). As water resources development and allocation of water mainly take place on economic and political ground, the un-coordinated recognition of different water rights systems does not lead to social justice. Further, by promoting human consumptive uses, the KWDT has been detrimental to the environment.

“Protective irrigation” in South India

  • 29 Mollinga P., On the waterfront: Water distribution, technology and agrarian change..., op. cit.

20In India, as in the whole rice-growing Asia, irrigation development has always been a social contract between governments and population. Under British rule, bringing water to farmers for drought relief and famine prevention was a way to ensure social stability. In the populist context of independent India, irrigation for increased agricultural production and productivity (leading to enhanced livelihoods and food sufficiency) is one of the most efficient ways to secure votes. In this context, the Krishna Basin witnessed the construction of many “protective” irrigation projects. Protective irrigation systems are large-scale canal systems found in semi-arid drought prone regions and aimed at spreading available water thinly over a large area and to a large number of farmers (this implies supplemental irrigation); ensuring equity is deeply embedded in the idiom of “protection.”29

  • 30 Chambers R., Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South Asia, New-Delhi, Oxford & IBH (...)
  • 31 Gadgil M. & Guha R., Ecology and equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary India, London, (...)

21However, irrigation development through large irrigation systems raises equity issues. First, as large as the command area of a project can be, people outside the project area are spatially excluded from the new “water rights” that are created inside the command area. It is not rare that canals divide a village or a landholding in two parts; one being entitled to receive irrigation water, the other remaining dry (and less productive). To soothe the feeling of injustice linked to this arbitrary division, farmers on the “bad side” are generally allowed to directly pump water from the canals to irrigate a small fringe of land located outside the command area. Spatial justice takes the form of a buffer zone. Second, spatial inequity of water use — within the command area-between head-end and tail-end farmers (the former generally divert more water than their entitlements, with little regard to their fellow irrigators that face declining water availability in the tail-end reaches of the canal network) has been extensively documented.30 Third, and as mentioned earlier, irrigators entitlements are not clear and bureaucratic decisions of water allocation remain the prerogative of the irrigation department. Farmers and irrigators are treated as recipient more than actors of rural development policies. Finally, the resettlement of displaced population-due to infrastructure development-has long been a tensed social issue in India where displaced people have been coined as “ecological refugees.”31

Water development in secondary upstream basins: Spatial justice or injustice?

  • 32 Shah T., Deb Roy A., Qureshi A. & Wang J., “Sustaining Asia’s Groundwater Boom: An Overview of Issu (...)
  • 33 Mukherji A. & Shah T., “Groundwater socio-ecology and governance: a review of institutions and poli (...)

22Local private and community initiatives are heavily promoted in the dry areas of the basin and, over the last two decades, scattered groundwater-irrigated plots multiplied, sustained by subsidized electricity. Groundwater access allowed rapidly improving living standards in semi-arid rural areas that had been generally ignored by rural development policies.32 But, declining groundwater levels are dramatically affecting the population, and notably landless and marginal farmers that already had a lower access to groundwater resource. To cope with falling water tables, richer farmers deepen their wells, further affecting water availability in existing wells: this introduce a vertical dimension to spatial interactions and spatial injustice. Wells allow mitigating “spatial injustice” but also sharpen “social injustice”: this pushed Muckherji and Shah33 to qualify the process of groundwater development as a colossal anarchy that could bring “welfare” or “ill-fare”. Formalizing “groundwater rights” raises issues of social justice.

  • 34 Shah T., Makin I. & Sakthivadhivel R., “Limits to leapfrogging: Issues in transposing successful ri (...)
  • 35 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Kris (...)

23In the same time, the state-driven programs of watershed development (tanks, check dams) and groundwater recharge are based on the recognition of the primacy of the rights that local communities have over precipitation and groundwater34. They also focus on semi-arid remote areas that have been long neglected due to the relatively poor conditions for agriculture that prevail there (the “Green Revolution” focused on deltas and large irrigation projects, downstream). Wielding the universal notions of equity and justice, these policies find a social justification (bridging inequalities in development) but endorse “capture rights systems” and overlook the impacts that better water access in secondary upstream basins can have further downstream. These policies participate to the general over-commitment of water in the Krishna Basin. A basin-wide historical water accounting suggests that increasing groundwater abstraction has led to declining water table levels as well as stream flow depletion (notably in upstream river valleys where shallow alluvial aquifers and river systems are highly connected). River runoff has decreased for all probability levels and supply security for existing users is at risk.35 This does not mean that such programs are not needed but it is important to recognize the spatial interactions at stake and to think about mitigation mechanisms to ensure that improved livelihoods somewhere do not come with distressed livelihoods and environmental degradation elsewhere in the basin.

Conclusion

24This paper investigated the linkages between water rights regime, river basin development and spatial and environmental justice in the Krishna Basin, South India. The Krishna Basin is closing; available water resources are nearly entirely committed to human consumptive uses and there are multiple signs of environmental degradation. Irrigation and rural development has always constituted a social contract between decision makers and the populace and public policies have long been characterized by a strong interventionism where the people were, and still are, treated as recipients rather than actors of their own development. Based on proclaimed universal principles of justice to ensure fair and equitable access to water for all in the river basin, this contract provided a social justification for the current over-commitment of water resources. Environmentally sustainable development of local communities is under threat. The environment and the future generations lose to current “human justice”.

25If the principles of justice and equity have been held high at the policy level, their implementation has generally been unimpressive. The explicit and implicit recognition of different water rights systems by the various rural development policies that have been implemented since India gained independence has accentuated regional ecological inequalities that are sharpened by political, institutional and economic forces. Aimed at fostering overall economic development, the Green Revolution and liberalisation policies have for example reinforced regional differences in access and rights to water. Balancing this evolution in favour of the less well endowed communities of the dry areas of the Krishna Basin seems now to be the motto and is partly made possible through an uncontrolled access to groundwater that raises sustainability and equity issues too.

26But, as the Krishna Basin is closing, interconnectedness among users intensifies. Expanding water use in one region impinges on existing uses and amounts to a social and spatial re-appropriation of water. Localised interventions (that can be locally fair or just) tend to have unexpected consequences elsewhere and might thus be unfair if the level of analysis is the basin. It is needed to acknowledge these spatial interactions and to recognize that the various water rights/entitlements systems prevailing in India have become incompatible and in contention. Different conceptions of justice and equity do compete one with another and are pragmatically called upon to justify policies that might have diverse objectives.

  • 36 Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit. Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op (...)
  • 37 Molle F., “Defining water rights: by prescription or negotiation?”, op. cit.
  • 38 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values” (...)

27There is a need to articulate options that preserve a balance between equity, sustainability and efficient use of scarce water resources for both human benefit and the preservation of the environment. Formalizing water rights is often advocated as a way forward.36 This study highlights the limits of such an approach and argues that such a formalisation/institutionalisation is likely to further sharpen existing social, political and spatial tensions as was observed during the last fifty years. In this context, this study calls for the implementation of locally suitable water allotments to be further combined at the basin level, as expressed by Molle.37 This requires a spatial and multilevel management of water resources and thus the establishment of a polycentric governance structure. In line with the recommendations of Pradhan and Meinzen-Dick,38 recognizing the pluralistic character of water rights regimes (legal frameworks, types and levels of rights, meanings of water, etc.), the multiplicity of customary practices, as well as the interplay between them is a prerequisite. This should allow productive negotiation towards flexible and adaptive water allocation procedures that meet the needs of the poorest sections of the society to ensure social justice and an environmentally sustainable development. Finally, this paper highlights that defining the fairness of a public policy depends on the focal point considered (irrigators, dry-land farmers, engineers, or politicians will not have the same ideas of what is just or unjust). This is a challenge to implementing rural development policies aimed at rebalancing inequalities, ensuring spatial equity, and promoting a sustainable use of scarce resources.

Notes

1 This paper has been written while the author was completing his PhD thesis with the Laboratoire Gecko (Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) in the Hyderabad office of IWMI.

2 Molden David, Accounting for water use and productivity, Colombo, International Water Management Institute, SWIM Paper 1, 1997.

3 Molle F., Wester P. & Hirsh P., “River basin development and management”, in Water for food, water for life: A Comprehensive Assessment of water management in agriculture, Molden D. (ed.), London/Colombo, Earthscan/International Water Management Institute, 2007, p. 585-625; Molle, this issue.

4 Bruns B. & Meinzen-Dick R., Negotiating water rights, London, Intermediate Technology Press, 2000; Bruns B., Water rights: a synthesis paper on institutional options for improving water allocation, Synthesis paper of the International Working Conference on Water Rights: Institutional Options for Improving Water Allocation, Hanoi, February 12-15, 2003.

5 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, in Water Nepal, n° 9-10 (1-2), 2003, p. 165-183; Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, in Water Nepal, n° 9-10 (1-2), 2003, p. 37-61; Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, in Handbook of water resources in India, Briscoe J. & Malik R. P. S. (eds), New Delhi, Oxford and World Bank, 2007.

6 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, op. cit.; Molle F., “Defining water rights: by prescription or negotiation?”, in Water Policy, n° 6, 2004, p. 207-227.

7 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, op. cit.; Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, op. cit.

8 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”, in River basin trajectories, Molle F. & Wester P. (eds), Colombo/Wallingford-UK, International Water Management Institute/CABI Publishing, 2008 (Forthcoming).

9 Bruns B. & Meinzen-Dick R., Negotiating water rights, op. cit.

10 Meinzen-Dick R. & Nkonya L., “Understanding legal pluralism in water and land rights: Lessons from Africa and Asia”, in Community-based water law and water resource management reform in developing countries, Van Koppen B., Giordano M. & Butterworth J. (eds), Wallingford-UK/Cambridge-USA, CABI publications, 2007, p. 12-27.

11 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culturand underlying values”, op. cit.

12 Singh C., Water rights and principle of water resources management, Bombay, Indian Law Institute, 1992.

13 Moench M., “Searching for balance: Water rights, human rights and water ethics”, op. cit.

14 Goi (Government of India), National Water Policy, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources, 2002.

15 Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, in Water Nepal, n° 9-10 (1-2), 2003, p. 153-163.

16 Johnson C., Decentralisation in India: Poverty, politics and Panchayati Raj, London, Overseas Development Institute, Working Paper 199, 2003; Mollinga P., The water resources policy process in India: Centralisation, polarisation and new demands on governance, Bonn, Center for Development Research, ZEF Research Report 7, 2005.

17 Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.

18 Singh C., Water rights and principle of water resources management, op. cit.

19 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culturand underlying values”, op. cit.

20 See Molle, this issue, p. 117-131.

21 See Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sec- to: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”, op. cit. for further details.

22 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”, op. cit.

23 Venot J. -P., Sharma B. & Rao K., “Krishna Basin development: interventions to limit downstream environmental degradation”, in The Journal of Environment and Development, n° 17, 2008, p. 269-291.

24 See Goi/KWDT (Government of India/Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal), The report and the further report of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal with the decision, New Delhi, Government of India, 1976; D’souza R., Interstates disputes over Krishna waters-Law, science and imperialism, Hyderabad (India), Orient Longman, 2006 and Venot J. -P., Turral H., Samad M. et al., Shifting waterscapes: Explaining basin closure in the lower Krishna Basin, South India, Colombo, Internationa-Water Management Institute, Research Report 121, 2007 for further details on the KWDT.

25 Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, op. cit.

26 Gulati A., Meinzen-Dick R. & Raju K. V., Institutional reforms in Indian irrigation, New Delhi, Sage, 2005; Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.

27 See Venot et al., Shifting waterscapes..., op. cit. on the case of Andhra Pradesh.

28 Goi / KWDT (Government of India/Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal), The report and the further report of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal with the decision, op. cit.

29 Mollinga P., On the waterfront: Water distribution, technology and agrarian change..., op. cit.

30 Chambers R., Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South Asia, New-Delhi, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1988.

31 Gadgil M. & Guha R., Ecology and equity: The use and abuse of nature in contemporary India, London, Routledge, 1995.

32 Shah T., Deb Roy A., Qureshi A. & Wang J., “Sustaining Asia’s Groundwater Boom: An Overview of Issues and Evidence”, in Natural Resources Forum, n° 27, 2003, p. 130-141.

33 Mukherji A. & Shah T., “Groundwater socio-ecology and governance: a review of institutions and policies in selected countries”, in Hydrogeology Journal, n° 13 (1), 2005, p. 328-345.

34 Shah T., Makin I. & Sakthivadhivel R., “Limits to leapfrogging: Issues in transposing successful river basin management institutions in the developing world’, in Irrigation and river basin management: Options for governance and institutions, Svendsen M. (ed.), Wallingford-UK/Colombo, CABI/IWMI, 2005, p. 31-50.

35 Venot J. -P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”, op. cit.

36 Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit. Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.

37 Molle F., “Defining water rights: by prescription or negotiation?”, op. cit.

38 Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, op. cit.

Table des illustrations

Légende Table 1. Main characteristics of different water rights regimes in India (Sources of the table include: Iyer R., “Water and rights: Some partial perspectives”, op. cit.; Madhav R., Irrigation reforms in Andhra Pradesh: whither the trajectory of legal changes, New-Delhi, International Environmental Law Research Center, 2007; Moench (2003); Mollinga P., On the waterfront: Water distribution, technology and agrarian change in a South Indian canal irrigation system, New Delhi, Orient Longman, 2003; Mosse D., The Rule of water: Statecraft, ecology and collective action in South India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2003 on tank management; Pradhan R. & Meinzen-Dick R., “Which rights are right? Water rights, culture and underlying values”, op. cit.; Saleth M., “Water rights and entitlements”, op. cit.)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pupo/docannexe/image/3425/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,1M
Légende Figure 1. The Krishna Basin in South India
URL http://books.openedition.org/pupo/docannexe/image/3425/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 448k
Légende Figure 2. A decreasing discharge to the ocean indicates that the Krishna Basin is closing.Source: Venot J.-P., “Rural dynamics and new challenges in the Indian water sector: Trajectory of the Krishna Basin, South India”, op. cit.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pupo/docannexe/image/3425/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 268k

Auteur

Chercheur,
International Water Management Institute (IWMI),Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

© Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 2012

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540