MBA Book 111-2011 Managing Land and Water Under Changing Climatic Conditions in India a Critical...

7/30/2019 MBA Book 111-2011 Managing Land and Water Under Changing Climatic Conditions in India a Critical Perspective

1/32

Working Paper No.111/2011

Managing Land and Water under

Changing Climatic Conditions in India:

A Critical Perspective

Sushanta Kumar Mahapatra

Sudip Mitra

Amrita School o BusinessAmrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, University

Amritanagar, EttimadaiCoimbatore - 641 112

Tamil Nadu, India

October 2011


2/32

The main objective o the Working Paper series o Amrita

School o Business is to help aculty members, research staff,

doctoral and MBA students to speedily share their researchfindings with proessional colleagues and to test out their re-

search findings at the pre-publication stage.

The views expressed are entirely those o the author/s and do

not in any way reect the views o the institutions with which

they are associated.

Amrita School o Business

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham,

University

Amritanagar, Ettimadai

Coimbatore - 641 112

Tamil Nadu, India

Telephone: +91-422-268 5000, Extn. 5430

Fax:+91(422)2656 274

Email: [email protected]

website: http://amrita.edu/asb

October 2011

Copyright

Published


3/32


Changing Climatic Conditions in India: A Critical

Perspective

Sushanta Kumar Mahapatra* and Sudip Mitra**

Abstract

In the case o developing economies, climate change and its economic consequencespresume vital importance in the process o realizing sustainable development in the

longer timerame. Land and Water are the two major ingredients o the successul real-

ization o this process. It is needless to say that land and water cannot be disconnected

while addressing the issue o sustainable development. Here, this paper would concen-

trate on the issue o water where many issues would be equally relevant to the issues o

land. It has been concluded in the Natural Resources Deense Council report that, the

global warming may increase the risk o oods, so an efcient and conservative water

use will be o paramount importance or uture water supply. The main motivation o

this paper is to discuss the water management challenges that can handle the threats or

stresses like Global Environmental Change (GEC), climate changes, natural disasters likeood, drought or even an extreme climatic event like cyclone. The current paper ocuses

on the broad area o water management issues such as the major river system o India,

condition o ground water resources, the current water utilization, water losses, water

under stress, water pollution and increased population & its impact on the problem o

scarcity o water. It also ocuses on the current water policy, land and water rights and

act, Interstate Water Dispute Act etc. An attempt has been made to illustrate the environ-

mental interace between land, water and climate. The paper assumed an interdisciplin-

ary approach combining knowledge rom environmental sciences with social sciences.

Key Words : Agriculture, climate change, global warming, land, water management,

sustainable development, India

JEL classication: Q15, Q24, Q25, Q54, Q55, Q56

*Associate Proessor, School o Business, Amrita University, Amrita Institute o Medical Science Campus, AIMS Ponek-kara Post, Kochi-682 041, Kerala, India; Tel: +91-484- 285 7942/285 7943 (Extn:7950); Fax: +91-484-2857941/4007941Email: [email protected]

**Corresponding author: Assistant Proessor, School o Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New

Delhi-110067, India; Teleax: +91-11-26738756 Email: [email protected]


4/32


5/32

5

1 For detailed reerence see World Bank- http://www.worldbank.org.in


Changing Climatic Conditions in India:

A Critical Perspective

1 Introduction

The problem o land and water scarcity and its management with respect to chang-

ing climatic conditions has been attracting the critical attention o various disciplines

such as: engineers, NGOs, activists, policy makers, researchers and academicians in

the subject o land and water resources, hydrology, environmental studies, geologi-cal studies and development studies. The system o rain-ed arming is the major

source o livelihood. Both land and water is the principal component o natural re-

source and is an indispensable requirement o the living being. Due to lack o ap-

propriate irrigation amenities in many places, the achievement o the crop depends

closely on the arrival o monsoon at the right time and in ample magnitude. Various

attempts have been made to develop the water management practices in rural In-

dia. But many efforts have oten unsuccessul to think about the governance and

property rights issues in land and water market. It has been concluded in the Natural

Resources Deense Council report that, the global warming may increase the risk o

oods, so an ecient and conservative water use will be o most important or uturewater supply (NRDC, 2007). A recent World Bank report on climate change impacts in

drought and ood affected areas: case studies rom India articulated that India can

add its climate resilience rom end to end a mixture o measures and right incentives

designed at multiple levels o government. This report argued that, in the arid study

regions o Andhra Pradesh, climate projections signiy considerably higher tempera-

tures i.e. 2.3- 3.4 oC, on average and a modest rise but more irregular rainall o about

4 percent to 8 percent at the basin level 1. The current paper ocuses on the broad

area o water management issues such as the major river system o India, condition

o ground water resources, the current water utilization, water losses, water understress, water pollution and increased population & its impact on the problem o scar-

city o water. It also ocuses on the current water policy, land and water rights act,

Interstate Water Dispute Act etc. An attempt has been made to illustrate the environ-

mental interace between land, water and climate.


6/32

6


2 For more detailed discussion see Disano, J. (2006).

3 Look at The Brundtland Report (1987)

2 Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development: Issues and Con-

cerns

Climate change in the ramework o sustainable development has a number o con-

notations. Such an approach means that poverty eradication and socio-economic

development are necessary or combating climate change. The outcomes o the

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) make stronger the model o

sustainable development by addressing its three dimensions: economic, social, and

environmental. The international community has acknowledged the relationship

between climate change and development, as reected in the outcome o the 8th

Conerence o the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Conven-

tion on Climate Change ) in New Delhi, 2002, as well as the plan o implementation

adopted at the WSSD in 2002 (Soltau 2006). The eleventh conerence o the partiesto the UNFCCC in December 2005 initiated a discussion to analyse the policy ap-

proaches or long term cooperative action to deal with climate change, ocusing

on sustainable development, adaptation, technology, and market-based opportu-

nities. The Johannesburg Plan o Implementation (JPOI) o WSSD, 2006 ocused on

climate change and its adverse effects and clearly links it with poverty and other

development concerns, such as land degradation, access to water and ood, and hu-

man health. Poverty eradication and socio-economic development are necessary or

fghting climate change. The United Nations system is moving toward an integrated

approach to dealing with climate change by enhancing inter-agency co-operation,in this process highlighting the centrality o the convention, supporting the market-

based mechanisms and the role o the private sector, and welcoming complemen-

tary initiatives 2.

Executing sustainable development goals can lead to a development trajectory that

combines economic growth with climate change mitigation. The efforts to fght cli-

mate change will have to be integrated into the broader concept o social and eco-

nomic development. Tackling the global warming problem due to climate change

and its economic consequences assume vital importance in the process o achieving

sustainable development, particularly in the developing economies. Sustainable de-velopment means meeting the needs o the present without compromising the abil-

ity o uture generations to meet their own needs 3. The main principle o sustainable

development is the integration o economic, social and environmental concerns in

policy making. There is broad agreement that international cooperation on the twin

aspects o mitigation and adaptation should be promoted. Adaptation is acknowl-

edged as an essential or all countries, but mostly or those vulnerable due to their


7/32

7

Mahapatra and Mitra: Managing Land and Water

4 See in this context Soltau, F. (2006)5 Major river (drainage basin area >20,000 km2), medium river (2,000 to 20,000 km2) and minor rivers (


8/32

8


7 Detailed urther analysis reer Mirza and Ericksen (1996)8 For detailed discussion see in this context Sharma and Smakhtin (2004)

9 For urther more analysis see Webester et. al., (1998), Quoted rom Sharma, B.R., Cornick, P.G. Mc. (2006)

resolves the surplus basins and the magnitude o the surplus? His study clarifes that

most o the basins may have oods in the monsoon but have insucient water or

use in the dry season. Furthermore, since the surplus take place in the rainy season

and the requirement is in the dry season, it is not sucient to simply carry the water

rom one point to another. He described that one needs to identiy the quantum o

water to be stored, and whether and where potential spot in the required scale are

available, and their possible effect on environment and human displacement (Ma-

hapatra, 2007).

Around 10 and 35 per cent o the entire country is covered by the Indus and Gan-

ga-Brahamputra-Meghna systems respectively, which are depicted by widespread

ood plains and deltas. India is experiencing the key extreme climatic events such

as oods, droughts and cyclones. About 40 m ha (12.16 per cent o total land area) isunder ood prone area in India 7 . Many parts o the country have been declared as

drought prone. For example Western parts o Rajasthan and the Kutchh region o Gu-

jarat are chronically drought affected. Drought conditions have also been reported

by many studies in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar states 8 . Drought di-

sasters are more requent during years ollowing El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)

events. At least hal o the severe ailures o the Indian monsoon since 1871 have

occurred during EI Nino years) 9 . All the rivers play a key role in the economy o India

through sustaining agriculture, industry, and energy generation and by providing

ecological services. One can come across spatial variation in mean annual precipita-tion that ranges rom about 100 mm in western Rajasthan to more than 2500 mm in

northeastern areas and again a world maximum o 11,000 mm near Cherrapunji. In

his extensive study Bandyopadhaya (1995) described that this is attached with a vari-

ety o geological and topographical conditions within a given basin results in a large

spatial variability o ow regimes ranging rom regimes partially ed by snowmelt in

the rivers originating rom Himalayan mountains, to regimes o alluvial plains rivers,

which receive considerable base ow rom groundwater in the autumn.

There are no river basin authorities or boards in India, o the kind that exist in France

or Holland. The idea o basin planning emerges in the context o harvesting the wa-ter resources o a river or human use through the application o science and technol-

ogy. It has been argued that a comprehensive holistic view o a river system requires

institutional arrangement o a kind that have not so ar been ound easible in Indian

quasi ederal political structure.


9/32

9


3.1 Groundwater Potential and Land legislation

It would be worthwhile to discuss the importance o groundwater, the problems

encountered in relation to ground water, constitutional position, the role o Central

Groundwater Board (CGWB) & Central Groundwater Activity (CGWA) and ground-

water legislation in different states o India. Table-6, 7 and 8 in annexure show the

ground water potentials in the states and Union territories o India, river basins o

India and ground water structures at state levels. Various problems that encoun-

tered in relation to ground water were over-escalation o ground water, depletion,

emergence o water logging and salinity, equity in the context o the power driven

extraction o groundwater through tube wells and bore wells and the problems o

pollution and contamination o ground water. The vital problem in ground water

management is equity and sustainability in the legal position that vest the owner-ship o water in the owner o land above it. For instance the clarity o property right

in the Tamil Nadu groundwater Act 2003 is yet undefned. Janakarajan and Moench

(2006) in their pioneering study on ground water rom Tamil Nadu State argued that,

there is increase in pollution, social inequality and conict due to the over extraction

o ground water. There is no specifc reerence to the groundwater in Indian constitu-

tion though it is assumed that water includes groundwater. But with regard to ease-

ment rights as per the Indian Law, the ownership o land carries with it the ownership

o the groundwater under its subject to regulation and control by the state. But it

has been argued that this easement right makes the regulation dicult. There is noconcerted nationwide effort to treat groundwater as a scarce and precious natural

resource to be protected and conserved.

3.2 Surace Water

The relationship o the State with respect to irrigation in the Pre-British period was

limited. There was dominance o military-civil engineering over the Irrigation devel-

opment during British India (Singh, 2002). Sengupta (1985, 1991, 1993, 2001) who

advocates a renaissance o traditional irrigation technologies observed that, the ir-

rigation technologies that developed during the British Period had little understand-ing o the irrigation science. Irrigation planning has been conceived o the high

agenda o the builders o modern India. The allocation to irrigation and ood con-

trol through various fve-year plans has continuously increased. The reason or huge

investment in irrigation is the desire o the Indian planners to meet the ood require-

ments o the ever-rising Indian population. In the politics o cost & beneft analysis,

the irrigation planners can saely say that, there is need or large irrigation projects, in


10/32

10


spite o the act that the economic perormance o large projects was hardly satisac-

tory. Ater the adoption o green revolution, the introduction o large-scale canal ir-

rigation, particularly through the large dams has changed the ecology o the region.

But, question arises that, whether construction o large dam can be sel-sucient to

meet ood production. Paranjpye (2003) defnes the economic value o water as the

sums o the intrinsic value o water in nature that is the eco-system i.e. value o rivers,

lakes, wateralls, snow and ice on mountains, glaciers and polar caps, groundwater

aquiers and soil & air moisture. By giving the example o the case o Maharashtra

state, Paranjpye (2003) pointed out that, though the state experiences 40 per cent

dams in India, only 10 per cent o the agricultural area is irrigated by the dams. On

the other hand the state also acing acute drinking water problem, displacement and

rigorous drought conditions.

Over the years the return rom investment in irrigation has been constantly alling.

The Planning Commission estimates that the cost involved in providing irrigation to

one hectare o land through major & medium irrigation schemes is over Rs. 2800 in

comparison to Rs. 840 or an equal area by ground water. Apart rom the cost o irri-

gation per ha, by major and minor schemes, any serious economic analysis must also

look into the output per hectare by different irrigation technologies. One o the con-

troversial issues is the debate o inter-relationship between large dams, trans-bound-

ary water and conicts. The main reason behind the construction o large dams in

India were: or transerring water rom the season o abundance to that o scarcity,or long distance water transers rom surplus areas to water short areas, or large

scale hydropower generation, or ood moderation, or public water supply, and or

navigation. The main contribution o the dam is also or the increased production

o ood grains. But, the main controversy o the large projects lies with its fnancial

economic aspects, political economy aspects, environmental/ecological aspects and

the aspects o displacement, rehabilitation & resettlement. Some o these drats can-

not be remedied or even mitigated, and in some cases, efforts at the mitigation o or

compensation or environmental impacts man in turn create urther problem. Canal

irrigation in India has been marked by a number o inequities in the head-reach and

tail end area. Since independence, not a single project in India had been completedwithin the approved cost estimates. Large dams are known to have a long gestation

period, and in India are prone to requent delays, even not a single project has been

completed since independence within the stipulated target date.

Mani (2003) elucidates that, India is probably the frst developing country which has

integrated into its constitution precise requirements or environmental protection. It

has also been pointed out that, the central problem o legal ramework or environ-

mental protection in India is because o the abandon o 1986 Act. It is essential or

studying the Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) o large projects. But, this EIA


11/32

11


10 Quoted rom Sharma, B.R. Cornick, P.G. Mc.(2006):emphasis added

is having its own serious diculties. It is being argued that, rom a hydrological point

o view, national or political boundaries should be ignored. A hydrological unit such

as a basin or sub-basin should be taken as a whole and that there should be integrat-

ed water resource planning or such a visit. From an economic/political perspective,

regional planning should be superior to national planning. There, a bottom-up ap-

proach should be ollowed rather than top-down approach. There is need or stake-

holder participation or conict resolution mechanism. Still the water conict resolu-

tion with respect to the three treaties such as the Indus Treaty o September 1960

(India and Pakistan), the Mahakali Treaty o February 1996 (India and Nepal) and the

Ganga Treaty o December 1996 (India and Bangladesh) are unresolved. India and

Bangladesh argue that their lean season requirements are greater than the Ganges

ow. Both the country agreed that augmentation is the solution, but true augmenta-

tion can only come rom ecient use o water and tapping other sources o water.

4 Land and Water Governance

In many Indian states the administration and unctional responsibilities or manag-

ing the land and water resources are unclear and spread over a number o differ-

ent government institutions (viz. revenue departments, irrigation/ water resources

departments, public works department, groundwater boards, minor irrigation and

tube well corporations, pollution control boards, municipal corporations etc.), mak-

ing it particularly dicult to develop an integrated approach to land and water man-agement. As with many countries, water administration is based on administrative

boundaries rather than on hydro-geological boundaries, gives rise to several water

sharing disputes among the states sharing a common river or other water resource 10.

4.1 Land Rights, Water Rights & Laws and Privatization o Water

The debate o water as a human right or human need and also the privatization o

water is attracting or researchers. Justice Iyers (2004) article on Natures gits: a case

or saeguarding rivers, sand and other natural resources narrates that the State is a

trustee o all the natural resources and is under a legal duty to deend it which couldbe intended or community use and could not be transormed into personal posses-

sion. He also strongly argues that, selling or collaborating, removal o publicly owned

water resources or mineral water rackets by manuacturing giants is unauthorized,

unprincipled and violation o human rights. Singh (2004) in his paper on Reviving a

dead river: story o the rejuvenation o the Ruparel river in Rajasthan describe a as-


12/32

12


11 For detailed discussion on land rights and water rights see Mahapatra, S. (2007)

cinating story how the NGO, Tarun Bharat Sangh, undertake a severe water paucity

crisis in Rajasthan in a conventional way under the leadership o the Water Man Ra-

jendra Singh by rereshing a dead river Ruparel which convey lie reverse to the dead

land in the huge area in Rajasthan. On the whole it ocuses on the positive impact o

the Ruparel river basin which brings about a drastic change in the economy, ecology

and lives o the people.

A number o signifcant questions have been raised about the land tenure rights and

water rights. Water rights are concerned with the abstraction and use o water rom

natural sources. In India the responsibility or the operation and maintenance o state

irrigation schemes has been transerred to the armer operated water user associa-

tions (or Pani Panchayat) through the process o irrigation management transer

(IMT). As per the Orissa state Pani PanchayatAct, 2002, Section 4 (i), the benefciariesoPani Panchayats are only those who have lands. That means it is based on owner-

ship o land and rights over land. This reveals that the poor and the landless people

could not be given access to water, which is a common property resource. This makes

obvious the impracticability o the provision in granting water rights to the landless.

But rainall belongs to the entire village community and all must have equal access

to this water. The rights in land are rigid and inexible and there is a basic inequity

in the means o production and social structure. Hence, a natural right or irrigation

water has become insecure and ineffective 11.

Sivas (2004) paper on privatization o water: a recipe or extinction o species and

cultures argues that, privatization o water is the eventual human rights violations.

She has drawn attention some o the illustration o privatized river basin in India. She

concluded that water is the belongings o the people, no MNC/private body or any

other organization can appropriate it. Sharma (2003) depicted that, the World Bank

is advocating or water as an economic good. By drawing experiences rom many

countries, Sharma (2003) argued that the privatization o water making the poor out

o access to market. To get out rom the water crisis, Sharma (2003) advocates or a

modifcation o public sector and a community owned managed system o irrigation.

Barlows (2004) article on Blue gold: who should control the worlds water, has eluci-

dated the debate o privatization and commoditization o water in the international

spheres. It has been clear rom her description that, there are ten major corporate

players whose proft and employment increasing exponentially in distributing resh

water services. All these private water companies were being paid fnancial assistanc-


13/32

13


12 See in this context United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 200313 Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mata, L.J., Arnell, N.W., Dll, P., Kabat, P., Jimnez, B., Miller, K.A., Oki, T., Sen, Z., Shiklomanov, I.A.2007: Freshwater resources and their management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.Contribution o Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutiko, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. Eds., Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, 173-210.

es rom the IMF and World Bank. Barlow explains that, or the World Bank and United

Nations water is a human need instead o human right12. While discussing the priva-

tization o water, she also explains some o the role o the world water bodies such

as Global Water Partnership, World Water Council (WWC), and World Commission

on Water etc. Sustainable management o reshwater resources has accomplished

signifcance at the regional (European Union, 2000) and global scales (United Na-

tions, 2002, 2006; World Water Council, 2006). Similarly Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM) has also become the parallel precise paradigm. Access to sae

reshwater is regarded as a universal human right 12 , and the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals include the extended access to sae drinking water and sanitation (UNDP,

2006).13

Some people consider water as a commodity, as commons, as a basic right and as asacred resource or divinity. Iyer (2003) has argued that, water is now described as a

more sophisticated ormulation as economic and social good instead o water as a

commodity. The notion o commons has also been using in the water sector but runs

into diculties in the context o private ownership, riparian rights etc. Some people

were considering the idea o the individuals having rights to water as one percep-

tion. The water is in act supports lie and it is also a part o the natural environment

sustaining it and also regarded as sacred. Some people were treating water as a glob-

al commons. For instance the idea o a World Water contract has been proposed by

Ricardo Petrella in the Water Miniesto (Zed Books, London, and Books or Change,Bangalore 2001).

Globally various principles and doctrines o riparian perspectives has been existed

including the Harmone Doctrine o territorial sovereignty, the rights o prior appro-

priation or prescriptive rights, the Helsinki principle o equitable apportionment or

benefcial uses and the 1997 UN convention on the non-navigational uses o interna-

tional water courses. Many examples o Irrigation Act, rules regulation on ormal law,

Perspectives on water has been existed which are being judicial determinate in na-

ture. All the different water rights, Act were having some signifcant limitations and

were partial perspectives in nature. Do all the rights could assign centrality, could itarrange in a hierarchy, and would it be possible to integrate them into a harmonious

whole?


14/32


15/32

15


well, however Ravi-Beas case and the case o Cauvery dispute has been acing po-

litical diculties. By analyzing procedural and undamental criticisms, Iyer (2003)

observed that, there is dissatisaction with the constitutional and statutory provi-

sions. The procedural criticisms existed in the nature o delaying at every stage o

the various tribunals. On the other hand, the undamental criticisms as described

by Iyer (2003) were unsatisactory dealing with water disputes, divisive adjudication,

and lack o motivation by the judges and the absence o guidelines. Again there is

problem o non-implementation o the act. The ISWD Act says that the award is fnal

& binding and provides no appeal even to the Supreme Court. The National Com-

mission to review the working o the constitution (NCRWC) has recommended the

repeal o the ISWD Act and the enactment o a new Act. Its recommendation is to

bring river water disputes within the original and exclusive jurisdiction o the Su-

preme Court. On the other hand Iyer, (2003) argues that the repeal o the ISWD Actwould be singularly injudicious. Article 262 together with the ISWD Act represents a

very good mechanism or dispute-regulation (as a last resort) when negotiations ail

and it would be a great pity to dismantle it.

4.3 Indias National Water Policy

Many countries have National Water Laws (NWL), but in India is not having such law,

instead o that there is a National Water Policy (NWP). The NWL will have to bring

together all existing water-related laws under an overarching and uniying rame-work. The NWL would have to make clear distinctions between basic right to drink-

ing water and other kinds o water rights. Again the NWL will also have to lay down

a clear position o the role o the community or civil society and the relationship

between the state and civil society with respect to water resources. The NWL should

also provide a broad basis or the ormation o registration o water users association

(WUAs) and or such state wise legislation. The different rules regulations and Acts

exists relating to irrigation, canals maintenance, generation o hydroelectric power,

displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation o people. But, there is no separate

set o laws rotating specifcally to dam projects, but the planning, approval, fnanc-

ing construction operation and maintenance o such projects took place within theconstitutional and legal ramework o the country, and in particular, the provisions

relating to water. For examples there are two important Acts, like the Environment

Protection Act 1996 and the Forest Conservation Act 1980, which has a bearing on

dam projects but is enacted by the central government. But as electricity is in the

concurrent list and both the Center and the States can legislate, so the constitutional

position is different or hydroelectric power. Similarly Land Acquisition Act is an im-

portant instrument o displacement.


16/32

16


The National Water Policy (NWP) 1987 was a slim document and its structure con-

tents were vast covering the aspects o water as a scarce and precious national re-

source, human environment ecological etc. Ater the adoption o the NWP in Sep-

tember 1987, the Government o India constituted as an ocial-level body called

the National Water Board (NWB) to consider the modalities o implementation o the

NWP 1987. A new NWP (the revision o NWP 1987) was declared in 2002, which rec-

ognized the role o private sector participation and the need or a paradigm shit

rom resource development to ecient utilization o the developed resources. NWP

2002 was a wholly inormal government exercise, with no consultations with people

and institutions outside. Two most ailures o the new NWP were in relation to water

harvesting and community management o water. Important controversies such as

those relating to water as commodity versus water as commons or a basic right, the

desirability o water markets etc were ignored in new NWP 2002.

5 Land, Water, Climate and Environment Interace

The most important environmental matter in the North has been coupled to chang-

ing climate, ozone reduction and contamination. It has been argued by them as,

nature is rather outside economic assessment, somewhat to be detained in love,

riendliness, wonder and horror (Kothari and Ahmad, 2003). For Kothari and Ahmad,

the greatest communication gap in the world is the gap between the rich o the

North and the poor o the South. They clearly identifed that, the standard distinc-tion among the three popular, radical and managerial environmental discourses lies

in their categorization o the ecological crisis. They had also drawn attention on the

Gandhian, Socialist and Marxist pressures o appraisal o development in the eco-

logical crisis. This acquisitive observation o nature is required to be globalised by

the wealthy North to complete its insensitive accompaniments. Thus the Norths po-

litical colonisation o the South initially twisted into economic supremacy and then

to eco-imperialism o nowadays. Kothari and Ahmad claim that mans endeavor to

curve nature to his sel-control is a result o western thought originating rom the re-

vitalization and aterward the writings o Thomas Hobbes and Rene Descartes. They

strongly argue that, technology and market can assist a declaration o Indias multipleecological crises. The symbols o this resh privilege are to be created in the support

o market-based mechanism or environmental protection and in the laziness o the

well-off towards the diculty o project affected populations in their personal lands.

The Natural environment vs. Development dispute in India is unmoving entrenched

in common aggression (Kothari and Ahmad, 2003).

In act the climate change reers to any change in climate over time, whether due

to natural variability or as a result o human activity. However, according to the UN-

FCCC, climate change reers to a change in climate that is attributed directly or indi-


17/32

17


rectly to human activity that alters the composition o global atmosphere and which

is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods15 .

Focusing the global warming crisis due to climate change and its economic conse-

quences presume vital importance in the process o realizing sustainable develop-

ment, particularly in the developing economies (NRDC, 2007). Monty Schmitt (NRDC,

2007) reported that global warming would basically change rivers, streams and fsh

and wildlie will be harmed by changes to their habitat including increased tempera-

ture, degraded water quality and reduced water ow.

Souzas (2003) study on environmental discourses and environmental politicsen-

lighten us that, in the Neo-Malthusian scheme ecological deprivation are the net

outcome o population growth. By drawing attention o some o the important eco-

logical movements in India such as Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Tehri and KoelKaro, Chilika Bachao Andolan etc. Souzas (2003) argued that all these movements

have a propensity to deliberate on issue base rationality rather than ar-reaching

political cohesiveness. He also argues that, the complete narration o ecological de-

molition is being modiy traditionally as a creation o erroneous pricing, insucient

incentives, ree riders, subsidies, ineffectiveness and indistinctness in property rights.

Further Souza makes sure that there is no peculiarity between the proessed capital-

ists and socialists when it approaches to ruin environment. While describing some

o the important case o privatization o water sector he believes that there would

be distorted and disproportionate society that exaggerates the diculty o desti-tute in India. Nevertheless, the environmental harm caused in the earlier socialist

component o the world was no ewer than what capitalism ashioned in a different

place. India, which accepted socialism subsequent to Independence, has currently

turned into a votary o the open market and market conservationism. Uphill struggle

o NGOs to move backward this tendency are handicapped by their diverse class

structure with dissimilar classes perceiving and act in response to problems in a di-

erent way. The complexity in understanding the said observation is that they set

down small opportunity or coherent preerence so much involved in the actual hu-

mankind. Souzas (2003) sought to discover and recognize the source or a Red and

Green dialogue in India.

Climate change affects agriculture, coastal regions, economic goods and services,

health sector, eco-systems and opportunity through extreme events. These affected

sectors are the important sector or the sustainability o livelihood in the developing

countries and also highly sensitive to climate change. Moreover, a larger percentage

o the population in the developing countries has lower standard o living i.e. below

poverty line (More than 700 million people are below $1 per day), and they are more

15 See in this context Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001


18/32

18


dependent on natural resources or their livelihood, which are highly sensitive to

climate change. Developing countries are already under stress rom different back-

grounds, but climate change will bring additional burden or cost to them and put

them again in the vicious circle o poverty. Every day many people die due to hunger

in developing nations (i.e. every minute o every day, 15 adults and 15 children, while

climate change brings additional burden through reducing their purchasing power

and shortage o ood production. Poverty has radically widened in many countries

in the last two decades o the 20th century, making poverty reduction the core chal-

lenge or the development in the 21st century. However, climate change is a serious

threat to poverty reduction and development effort. This being the case, there is a

need to analyse the impact o global warming problems at the regional and local

levels so that one could develop strategies to reduce the vulnerability o the poorer

people who will be the most affected.

6 Gender and natural resource management:

The debate over gender, poverty, environment, development and collective action

has been paid attention. Sharma (2003) in her paper on Sustenance and Sustain-

ability: gender relations in community management o natural resources argued

that sustainable development to be victorious has to be entrenched in community

management o natural resources and an outcome or such management is the iden-

tifcation o the require or womens empowerment. She broadly emphasizes on thedecentralized administration o natural resources through several institutional provi-

sions like ormal community group o Joint Forest Management and Watershed Man-

agement on the one side and institutions o local sel government like Panchayat

on the other side. She also appraises the government proposal o Joint Forest Man-

agement 1990, the Drought-prone Areas Programme 1987 and the National Waste-

land Development Programme in Rained Areas 1989 in the radiance o the scope to

which they occupied rural women in their perormance.

7 Conclusions

Economic theory advocated that, the global warming crisis is the outcome o the

problem o tragedy o the commons occurring rom the selfsh behavior o the coun-

tries. Each living being has the right to enjoy and destroy it but in act it examines an

inequity in the distribution o common property. Since the services provided by the

atmosphere possess the characteristics o public goods, each country has the incen-

tive to pass the responsibility o preserving the atmosphere to other countries. It has

also important property as non-exclusion that one nations consumption cant affect

the consumption o other nations. Climate change also affects the countries sus-

tainable development path and hampers the needs and brings an additional costs,


19/32

19


burden and stress to the uture generations.

The detailed documentation required to improve understanding and estimation,

in quantitative terms, o climate change impacts on reshwater resources and their

management, to ulfll the pragmatic inormation needs o water managers who are

responsible or adaptation. Relatively ew results are available on the economic as-

pects o climate change impacts and adaptation options related to water resources,

which are o great practical importance. Research into human-dimension indicators

o climate change impacts on reshwater is in its inancy and vigorous expansion is

necessary. There are challenges and opportunities posed by the advent o probabi-

listic climate change scenarios or water resources management. Despite its signif-

cance, groundwater has received little attention rom climate change impact assess-

ments, compared to surace water resources. Data on water use, water quality, andsediment transport are even less readily available 16.

There are well-developed scientifc researches on climate change, whereas the re-

search on economics o climate change has some lag. In the last two decades, there is

research going on national, global level but there is a lag in local level research on the

impacts, vulnerability and adaptation o climate change. In a changing environment

the problem o siltation, soil salinity, biodiversity, ood insecurity, the problems o

watershed disputes, competing and conicting demand or natural resources across

sectors, agrarian relations, environmental problem, ground water depletion etc havesuraced as a major issue. Hence, unless one approaches these issues in the context

o variability, changes and openness, it would be extremely dicult to realise the

techniques o sustainable management o natural resources on a watershed scale,

managed by the local community or ood security, environmental quality and liveli-

hood opportunities.

16 For more detailed discussion see Sharma, B.R., Cornick ,P.G. Mc. (2006)


20/32

20


Annexure

Table 1 Water Resources Potential in the River basin o India (Cubic Km)

Sl.No

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

Name o the River Basin

2

Indus (up to border)

(a) Ganga

(b)Brahmaputra, Barak &

others

Godavari

Krishna

Cauvery

Pennar

East owing rivers be-

tween Mahanadi & Pennar

East owing rivers

between Pennar &

KanyakumariMahanadi

Brahamani & Baitarani

Subernarekha

Sabarmati

Mahi

West owing rivers o

Kutch,Saurashtra includ-

ing Luni

NarmadaTapi

West owing rivers rom

Tapi to Tadri

West owing rivers rom

Tadri to Kanyakumari

Area o inland drainage in

Rajasthan desert

Minor river basins drain-

ing into Bangladesh &

Burma

Total

Average Annualpotential in the

River

3

73.31

525.0

2

585.6

0

110.5

4

78.12

21.36

6.32

22.52

16.46

66.88

28.41

8

12.37

3.81

11.02

15.10

45.6414.88

87.41

113.5

3

NEG.

31.00

1869.35

EstimatedUtilizable fow

excluding

groundwater

4

46.00

250.00

24.00

76.30

58.00

19.00

6.86

13.11

16.73

49.99

18.30

6.81

1.93

3.10

14.98

34.5014.50

11.94

24.27

690.31

Present useo surace

water (1989)

5

40.0

0

38.0

0

47.0

0

18.00

5.00

17.0

0

1.80

2.50

8.00

Presentstage o

Utilization

in %

6

87

50

81

95

73

34

93

81

23


21/32

21


Sl.No

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

89

10

11

12

Sl.No

1

West Flowing River

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Name o the River

2

Indus

(a) Ganga

(b) Brahmaputra

(c) Barak & other rivers

owing into Meghna like

Gomti,Muhari,Fenny etc.

Sabarmati

Mahi

Narmada

Tapi

Brahami

MahanadiGodavari

Krishna

Pennar

Cauvery

Total

Name o the

River

2

Ozat

Shetrunji

Bhadar

Aji

Dhadhar

Purna

Ambika

Origin

3

Mansarovar(Tibet)

Gangotri(Uttar Kashi)

Kailash Range (Tibet)

Aravalli Hills (Rajasthan)

Dhar(Madhya Pradesh)

Amarkantak(Madhya Pradesh)

Betul(Madhya Pradesh)

Ranchi(Bihar)

Nazri town(Madhya Pradesh)Nasik(Maharashtra)

Mahabaleshwar(Maharashtra)

Kolar(Karnataka)

Coorg(Karnataka)

Village/District

(Origin)

3

Kathiawar

Dalkanja

Rajkot

Rajkot

Panchmahal

Dhulia

Dangs

Length (in

K.M.)

4

1114 +

2525 +

916 +

371

583

1312

724

799

8511465

1401

597

800

State

4

Gujrat

Gujrat

Gujrat

Gujrat

Gujrat

Maharashtra

Maharashtra

Catchments

Area (Sq.KM.)

5

321289 +

861452 +

194413 +

41723 +

21674

34842

98796

65145

39033

141589312812

258948

55213

81155

2528084

Length

(in K.M.)

5

128

182

198

106

135

142

142

Catchments

Area (Sq.KM.)

6

3189

5514

7094

2139

2770

2431

2715

Source:

1. Central Water Commission (WM Directorate)2. Major river basins o India-An overview, 1989-Basin Planning & Management Organization, Central Water

Commission.

3. Total may not be tally due to rounding off. Central Water Commission (WM

Directorate)

Table 2 Catchments area o Major river basins

Table 3 Catchments area o Medium river basins

Source: Central Water Commission, Reassessment o Water Resources Potential o India, 1993 Remark: + Under

Indian Territory


22/32

22


8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

East Flowing river

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

4142

43

44

45

46

47

48

Vaitaran

Dammanganga

Ulhas

SavitriSastri

Washishthi

Mandvi

Kalinadi

Gangavati or Bedti

(In Upper reaches)

Sharavati

Netravati

Chaliar or Baypore

Bharathapuzha

(also known as Ponnani)

Periyar

Pamba

Burhabalanga

Baitarani

Rushikulya

Bahuda

Vamsadhara

Nagavali

Sarda

Eleru

Vogarivagu

Gundlakamma

Musi

Paleru

Muneru

Swarnamukhi

Kandleru

Kortalaiyar

Pallar (including

tributary Cheyyar

Varahanadi

PonnaiyarVellar

Vaigai

Pambar

Gundar

Vaippar

Tambraparni

Subarnarekha

Total

Nasik

Nasik

Raigarh

PuneRatnagiri

Ratnagiri

Belgaum

Belgaum

Dharwar

(In Upper reaches)

Shimoga

Dakshina Kannada

Elamtalvi Hills

Annamalai Hills

(also known as Ponnani)

Sivajini Hills

Devarmalai

Mayurbhanj

Keonjhar

Phulbani

Ramgiri village

Kalahandi

Kalahandi

Vishakhapatnam

Vishakhapatnam

Guntur

Kurnool

Nellore

Nellore

Nellore

Koraput

Vinukonda

Chinglepet

Kolar

North Arcot

KolarChithri Hills

Madurai

Madurai

Madurai

Tirunelvelli

Tirunelvelli

Nagri (Ranchi)

Maharashtra

Maharashtra

Maharashtra

MaharashtraMaharashtra

Maharashtra

Karnataka

Karnataka

Karnataka

Karnataka

Karnataka

Kerala

TamilNadu

Kerala

Kerala

Orissa

Orissa

Orissa

Orissa

Orissa

Orissa

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Andhrapradesh

Orissa

Andhrapradesh

TamilNadu

Karnataka

TamilNadu

KarnatakaTamilNadu

TamilNadu

TamilNadu

TamilNadu

TamilNadu

TamilNadu

Bihar

171

143

145

9964

48

87

153

152

122

103

169

209

244

176

164

365

146

73

221

217

104

125

120

220

112

104

122

130

73

131

348

94

396193

258

125

146

130

130

395

3637

2357

3864

28992174

2239

2032

5179

3902

2209

3657

2788

6186

5398

2235

4837

12789

7753

1248

10830

9410

2725

3809

1348

8494

2219

2483

3734

3225

3534

3521

17871

3044

141308558

7031

3104

5647

5288

5969

19296

248505

Source: Central Water Commission (W.M.Directorate)


23/32

23


Sl. No.

1

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Name o the River Basin

2

Indus (up to Border)

a) Ganga

b) Brahmaputra, Barak

& Others

Godavari

Krishna

Cauvery

PennarEast Flowing Rivers

between

Mahanadi & Pennar

East Flowing Rivers

Between

Pennar And

Kanyakumari

Mahanadi

Brahamani & Baitarani

Subarnarekha

SabarmatiMahi

West Flowing Rivers o

Kutch,

Saurashtra

Including Luni

Narmada

Tapi

West Flowing Rivers

From Tapi

to Tadri

West Flowing Rivers

From Tadri to

Kanyakumari

Area o inland drain-

age in

Rajasthan Desert

Minor River Basins

Draining into

Bangladesh & Burma

Total

Average An-

nual Potential

in the River

3

73.31

525.02

585.60

110.54

78.12

21.36

6.3222.52

16.46

66.88

28.48

12.37

3.8111.02

15.10

45.64

14.88

87.41

113.53

NEG

31.00

1869.35

Completed

Projects

4

13.83

36.84

1.09

19.51

34.48

7.43

0.381.63

1.42

8.49

4.76

0.66

1.354.75

4.31

6.60

8.53

7.10

10.24

0.31

173.73

Total

6

16.29

53.96

3.49

30.16

42.25

7.82

2.513.08

1.44

13.88

5.00

2.31

1.475.11

4.89

23.32

9.54

9.76

12.55

0.31

249.15

Projects

Under Con-

sideration

7

0.27

19.56

63.35

8.28

0.13

0.34

-0.86

-

10.96

8.72

1.59

0.090.02

3.15

0.47

1.99

0.84

1.70

-

132.32

Percentage o likely

storage to Aver-

age Annual Flow

{(Col.6+Col.7)/

Col.3)}*100

8

23

16

11

35

54

38

4017

9

37

48

32

4147

53

52

77

12

13

1

20

Table 4 Basin wise storages in India

Projects Under

Construction

5

2.45

17.12

2.40

10.65

7.78

0.39

2.131.45

0.02

5.39

0.24

1.65

0.120.36

0.58

10.72

1.01

2.66

2.31

LIVE STORAGE CAPACITIES

Source: Central Water Commission. (W. M. Directorate)

Note:

1. Projects having a live storage capacity o 10 M.Cum. and above only are included.


24/32

24


Ground

Water

(5)

396018

900

4947

29

2756

1462

68

708

2574

879

97323652

369

63

$

$

4203

2917

1778

$

2832

81

16799

3318

64045

5

64050

69

2. An additional live storage capacity o 3 Cubic Km. (approx.) is estimated to be created through medium projectseach having a capacity o less than 10 M.cum thus making a total live storage capacity o 177 Cubic Km. In com-pleted projects.

3. Total may not tally due to rounding off.

Sl. No.

(1)

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

States/ U. T.

(2)

A. P.Aruna. Prade.

Assam

Bihar

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

H. P.

J & K

Karnataka

Kerala

M. P.

Maharashtra

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Sikkim

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

U. P.

West Bengal

Total States

Total U.Ts.

Grand Total

%

Major and

Medium

Surace

Water

(3)

5000(a)

970

6500

62

3000

3000

50

250

2500

1000

6000

4100

135

20

(a)

10

3600

3000

2750

20

1500

100

12500

2310

58377

98

58475

55

Minor Irrigation

Surace

Water

(4)

2300150

1000

1900

25

347

50

235

400

900

800

22001200

100

85

70

75

1000

50

600

50

1200

100

1200

1300

17337

41

17378

70

Total

(6)

6260168

1900

6847

54

3103

1512

303

1108

3474

1679

119324852

469

148

70

75

5203

2967

2378

50

4032

181

17999

4618

81382

46

81428

69

Potential

(Major,

Medium

& Minor)

(7)

11260168

2670

13347

116

6103

4512

353

1358

5974

2679

17932

8952

604

168

70

85

8803

5967

5128

70

5532

281

30499

6928

139759

144

139903

63

UIP (in

Ha. per

Thou-

sand

Persons

(b)

(8)

169194

128

155

99

148

274

68

176

133

92

271

113

329

95

101

70

278

294

117

172

99

102

219

102

167

13

165

(Thousand Hectares)

Irrigation

Source: Central Water Commission (P & P Directorate)-Ministry o Water Resources (Minor Irrigation Division)

(a) : Included under U. Ts.

%: Percentage o potential created up to the end o 1995-96 to ultimate potential

$: Not Assessed(b) Derived with 1991 census population

Table 5 State wise Ultimate Irrigation Potential


25/32

25


Sl. No.

(1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Level oGround

Water

Development

(%)

(8)

23.64

-

4.48

19.19

8.30

41.45

83.88

18.10

1.33

31.26

15.28

16.49

30.39

Negl.

Negl.

Negl.

8.42

93.85

50.63

60.44

33.43

37.67

24.18

31.88

-

12.81

-

-

63.79

24.34

76.19

31.92

Total Reple-Nishable

Ground

Water

Resources

(3)

35.29

1.44

24.72

33.52

0.22

20.38

8.53

0.37

4.43

16.19

7.90

50.89

37.87

3.15

0.54

NOT

0.72

20.00

18.66

12.71

NOT

26.39

0.66

83.82

23.09

431.48

NOT

0.03

0.04

0.01

0.29

0.00

0.03

0.41

431.89

AvailableGround

Water

Resources

or Irrigation

(5)

30.00

1.22

21.01

28.49

0.19

17.32

7.25

0.29

3.76

13.76

6.59

43.26

25.47

2.68

0.46

0.62

17.00

16.79

10.71

22.43

0.56

71.25

19.63

360.74

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.11

-

0.02

0.21

360.96

NetDrat

(6)

7.09

0.00

0.94

5.47

0.02

7.17

6.08

0.05

0.05

4.30

1.01

7.13

7.74

Negl.

0.02

Negl.

1.43

15.76

5.42

13.56

0.19

26.84

4.75

115.01

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.12

0.00

0.01

0.17

115.17

BalanceGround

water poten

tial available

or exploitation

(7)

22.91

1.22

20.07

23.03

0.17

10.15

1.17

0.24

3.71

9.46

5.58

36.12

17.73

2.68

0.44

0.62

15.57

1.03

5.29

8.87

0.38

44.41

14.88

245.73

0.01

0.03

Negl.

-

0.00

0.02

0.06

245.79

States/ U. T.

(2)

A. P.

Aruna. Prade.

Assam

Bihar

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

H. P.

J & K

Karnataka

Kerala

M. P.

Maharashtra

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Sikkim

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

U. P.

West Bengal

ALL STATES

UNION TERRITORIES

Andm & Nicb

Chandigarh

Dadar & Nagar

Hevel

Daman & Diu

Delhi

Lakshadweep

Pondicherry

ALL UTs.

ALL INDIA.

Provision orDomestic

Industrial

and other

Uses

(4)

5.29

0.22

3.71

5.03

0.03

3.06

1.28

0.07

0.66

2.43

1.31

7.63

12.40

0.47

0.08

ASSESSED

0.11

3.00

1.87

1.99

ASSESSED

3.96

0.10

12.57

3.46

70.74

ASSESSED

0.01

Negl.

0.18

-

0.00

0.19

70.93

Table 6 Ground Water Potential in the States and Union Territories o India

Source: Central Ground Water BoardNote: Totals may not tally due to rounding off.

Cubic km./Year 1996


26/32

26


Table 7 Groundwater potential in the river basins o India (Cubic km./Year)

Sl.

No.

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Name o Basin

2

Brahmani with

Baitarani

Brahmaputra

Cambai

Composite

Cauvery

Ganga

Godavari

Indus

Krishna

Kutch and Sau-

rashtra com

Madras $ South

Tamilnadu

Mahanadi

Meghna

Narmada

Northeast

Composite

Pennar

Subarnrekha

Tapi

Western

Ghats

Total

Total Re-

plenishableGround water

Resources

3

4.05

26.55

7.19

12.30

170.99

40.65

26.49

11.23

18.22

16.46

8.52

18.84

4.93

1.82

8.27

17.69

431.42

Provision

or DomesticIndustrial &

other uses

4

0.61

3.98

1.08

1.84

9.56

3.05

1.74

2.73

2.47

1.28

2.83

0.74

0.27

2.34

3.19

71.08

Available

GroundWater Resources

or Irrigation

5

3.45

22.56

6.11

10.45

30.99

23.43

9.49

15.49

13.99

7.24

16.02

4.19

1.55

5.93

14.50

360.35

Net

Drat

6

0.29

0.76

2.45

5.78

6.05

18.21

4.85

8.93

0.97

0.29

2.75

1.53

0.15

1.96

3.32

115.22

Balance Ground

water potentialavailable or

exploitation

7

3.15

21.80

3.66

4.67

24.94

5.22

4.79

6.55

13.02

6.95

13.26

2.66

1.40

3.97

11.18

245.28

Level o

Ground WaterDevelopment

(%)

8

8.45

3.37

40.09

55.33

19.53

77.71

51.14

57.68

6.95

3.94

17.20

36.60

9.57

33.05

22.88

31.97

Source: Central Ground Water BoardNote: Totals may not tally due to rounding off.


27/32

27


Table 8 Groundwater Structures (Cumulative total up to March 1994)

Sl. No.

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

States/U. Ts

2Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharasthra

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Sikkim

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Total States

Total U.Ts

Grand Total

D.W.

31309860

-

-

509770

102

709070

42420

3570

2779

545156

212814

1307070

1350020

-

-

-

450

593413

93470

853263

-

1470807

-

1149930

54330

10208294

16857

10225151

S.T.W.

4113160

-

49597

755142

-

8300

463037

374

2087

37837

4103

23886

254

10

780

-

-

20205

622600

21686

-

171305

2432

2420593

296539

5013927

26083

5040010

P.T.W.

58109

-

2702

6625

105

5588

1799

289

172

-

64

1940

-

5

3

-

4

5768

2002

75

-

-

164

28446

4766

68626

797

69423

Source: Central Ground Water Board.Note: DW: Dug wells

STW: Shallow Tube wells

PTW: Public Tube wells


28/32

28


Reerences

Amarasinghe, U., Sharma, B.R., Aloysius, N , Scott, C A, Smakhtin, V.U., Fraiture, C de.

(2005). IWMI Research Report 83, International Water Management Institute,Colombo, SriLanka.

Bandyopadhaya,J. (1995). Water management in the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin:

emerging challenges or the 21st century. Water Resources Development11,

4, 411-442.

Barlow, M. (2004). Blue gold: who should control the worlds water? in Satish Yadav

(ed) Water problem and its management, hope India publications, Haryana.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Development and international economic co-operation:

environment, Report o the World Commission on Environment and Develop-

ment

Disano, J. (2006). Climate change and sustainable development, Natural Resources

Forum, 30, 4, 251-252.

Global Water Partnership (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. TEC

Background Paper, 4, Stockholm.

Government o India (1987). National Water Policy, Ministry o Water Resources.

Government o India (1989). Report o Working Group on Major and Medium Irriga-

tion Programme or the Eighth Plan (1990-95) Government o India 2000.

Water and Related Statistics, Central Water Commission, and Ninth Five Year

Plan, , Planning Commission, New Delhi.

Government o India (2002). National Water Policy. Ministry o Water ResourcesIPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001). Climate Change 2001:

Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerability, Summary or Policy Makers, World

Meteorological Organization: Geneva.

Iyer, R. R. (2003). Water Perspectives, Issues, concerns, Sage Publications o India Pvt

Ltd, New Delhi

Iyer, V.R.K. (2004). Natures gits: a case or saeguarding rivers, sand and other natural

resources, in Satish Yadav (ed) Water problem and its management, hope

India publications, Haryana.

Janakarajan, S., Moench, M. (2006). Wells and Ill are: Conditions and Characteristicso Groundwater Irrigation in Tamil Nadu, Water Nepal, 12, 1&2, 2006, 47-80.

Kavi Kumar, K.S., Parikh, J. (2000). Socio-economic Impacts o Climate Change on In-

dian Agriculture, International Review or Environmental Strategies, 2, 2, 277-

293

Kavi Kumar, K.S.,Parikh, J.(2001).Indian Agriculture and Climate Sensitivity

Global Environmental Change, 11, 147154.

Kothari, S., Ahmad, I., Reield, H. (2003) (eds). The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics

in India, Konrad Adenauer Stitung, Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi


29/32

29


Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mata, L.J., Arnell, N.W., Dll, P., Kabat, P., Jimnez, B., Miller, K.A., Oki,

T., Sen, Z., Shiklomanov, I.A. (2007): Freshwater resources and their manage-

ment.

Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. (2007) Contribution o Work-

ing Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report o the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutiko, J.P., van der

Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

173-210.

Mahapatra, S. K. (2007). Book review, Review o Social Economy, September on Water

Problem and Its Management edited by Satish Yadav 2004, Hope India Pub-

lications, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Mahapatra, S. K. (2007). Functioning o Water Users Associations or Pani Panchayat in

Orissa: Principle, Procedure, Perormance and Prospects, Law, Environmentand Development, 3/2, 126, School o Law, School o Oriental and Arican

Studies, University o London and the International Environmental Law Re-

search Centre

Mani, V.S. (2003). Environmental law in South Asia: an Overview, in Kothari, S., Ahmad,

I., Reield, H. (eds). The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics in India, Konrad

Adenauer Stitung, Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi

Singh, V. (2004). Reviving a dead river: story o the rejuvenation o the Ruparel river in

Rajasthan, in Yadav, S. (ed) Water problem and its management, hope India

publications, Haryana.Mirza, M.Q., Erickson, N.J. (1996). Impact o water control projects on fsheries re-

sources in Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 20, 4, 527-539.

Natural Resource Deense Council, (2007). Annual Report 2007, Natural Resource De-

ense Council, Sanranisco

Nordhaus, W.D. (1993). Reection on the Economics o climate change, The Journal o

Economic Perspectives, 7, 4, 11-25.

Paranjpye, V.(2003). The Value and politics o water in India, in Kothari, S., Ahmad,

I., Reield, H. (eds). The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics in India, Konrad

Adenauer Stitung, Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi

Sengupta, N. (1985). Irrigation: Traditional vs Modern, Economic and Political Weekly,November

Sengupta, N. (1991). Managing Common Property, Irrigation in India and the Philip-

pines, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Sengupta, N. (1993). User Friendly Irrigation Designs, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd,

New Delhi.

Sengupta, N. (2001). Technology, Management and Control the Indigenous system

o Irrigation in South Bihar, in Social Ecology, Ram chandra Guha(ed), Ox-

ord India paper backs.


30/32

30


Sharma, K. (2003). Sustenance and Sustainability: gender relations in community

management o natural resources in Kothari, S., Ahmad, I., Reield, H. (eds).

The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics in India, Konrad Adenauer Stitung,

Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi

Sharma, B.R., Cornick, P.G. Mc. (2006). India Country Case Study on Domestic Policy

Frameworks or Adaptation in the Water Sector, Working Together to Re-

spond to Climate Change, Annex I Expert Group Seminar in Conjunction

with the OECD Global Forum on Sustainable Development, March 28

Sharma, B.R., Smakhtin, V.U.. (2004). Water harvesting as a strategic tool or drought

mitigation in Southwest Asia. Proceedings o 55th International Meeting o

the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, FAO/ ICID Inter-

national Workshop on Water Harvesting and Sustainable Agriculture, Mos-

cow, Russia. September 2004.Sharma, S. (2003). Water markets exclude the poor, in Kothari, S., Ahmad, I., Reield,

H. (eds). The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics in India, Konrad Adenauer

Stitung, Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi

Singh,S. (2002). Taming the waters, The Political economy o Large Dams in India Ox-

ord University Press, Oxord India Paperback,

Siva, V. (2004). Privatisation o water: a recipe or extinction o species and cultures, in

Yadav S. (ed) Water problem and its management, hope India publications,

Haryana.

Stern, N. (2006). Sterns review on Economics o climate change, London EconomicService.

Soltau, F. (2006). Climate change and sustainable development: Understanding the

linkages, Natural Resources Forum, 30, 4,253-255.

Souza, R.D. (2003). environmental discourses and environmental politics in Kothari,

S., Ahmad, I., Reield, H. (eds). The Value o Nature- Ecological Politics in In-

dia, Konrad Adenauer Stitung, Rainbow Publishers Ltd., New Delhi

United Nations, (2002). Johannesburg Plan o Implementation o the World Summit

on Sustainable Development. United Nations, 72 pp.

United Nations, (2003). World Water Development Report: Water or Lie, Water or

People. UNESCO, Paris, and Berghahn Books, Barcelona, Spain, 544 pp.United Nations, (2006). World Water Development Report 2: Water, a shared respon-

sibility. UNESCO, Paris, 601 pp.

United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, (2003) General

Comment No. 15 (2002). The Right to Water. E/C.12/2002/11, United Nations

Social and Economic Council, 18 pp.

Vaidyanathan, A (2003). Interlinking o rivers- I, The Hindu, March 26

Vaidyanathan, A (2003). Interlinking o rivers- II, The Hindu, March 27

Vaidyanathan, A (2003). Interlinking o Peninsular Rivers-A Critique, Economic and Po-

litical Weekly, XXXVIII, 27


31/32

31


Webster, P.J., Magana, V.O., Palmer, T.N., Shukla, J., Thomas, R.A., Yanagi, M.., Yasunari,T.

(1998). Monsoons: Processes, Predictability and the prospects o prediction.

Journal o Geophysical Research, 103 (C7), 14451-14510.


32/32

MBA Book 111-2011 Managing Land and Water Under Changing Climatic Conditions in India a Critical...

Documents

Transcript of MBA Book 111-2011 Managing Land and Water Under Changing Climatic Conditions in India a Critical...