Access and Rights, Conflict and Cooperation: Water Resource Governance in Chotanagpur, Jharkhand Joe Hill Supervisors: Dr Nitya Rao, Dr Bruce Lankford School of Development Studies, UEA

Overview of Presentation Introduction Context: Water and Society in India Context: Chotanagpur, Jharkhand Case-Study Village Conceptual Framework –Water Rights and Institutions –Processes of Negotiation –External Interventions Research Questions Methodology: Epistemology and Research Methods

Introduction Watershed development widespread in rainfed India Poor implementation & inappropriate technology Policy: failure of community, solution=participation Policy: no mention of water rights & institutions Research: attention to water lags behind land & forest Why? Researchers – mobile water difficult Policy-makers – claim state ownership This study: broader view of water rights Political and actor-orientated approach Water as a productive and symbolic resource Research contribution: Regional study of water rights Policy recommendations - acknowledge water rights?

Context: Water and Society in India In India, 2 major positions on water and devt –1 st : Environmentalist critique of state –2 nd : Reformist policies Off-shoot: decentralised participatory NRM –New paradigm or tyranny? Participatory watershed management Min. Rural Devt: new revised guidelines 2001 –Multiple new organisations, stress PRA –Target: Resource poor in watershed Critiques: –Limited to good facilitating NGOs –State view water scarcity as natural, real, chronic –Amenable to technical, apolitical solutions –Undermine existing water allocation institutions –Restructure water rights, miss opportunities

Context: Water and Society in India Statutory, or de jure, water rights: –No single system –British riparian laws = root cause of inequity? –Not clearly defined Customary, or de facto, water rights: –Interwoven with state legal history –Non-static, often contested –Claims negotiated with reference to courts –Disputes settled primarily thro self-organisation –State view: customs only source law if recorded Water rights: –Distinction between access and control/management –Related to social and power relations –Related to land tenure systems

Context: Chotanagpur, Jharkhand Chotanagpur: one of Indias poorest regions Agriculture: –Uplands, rainfed agriculture, one crop/year –Rainfall high but erratic, run-off high –Soil classification: Low-land, middle, upland Other livelihoods: local waged, migration Exploitation of minerals and forest Adivasis, sadans, 1930s call for Jharkhand 2000, new state of Jharkhand Jharkhand: most food insecure, high poverty Political instability: –No panchayat elections held –Naxalites controlling rural areas

Case-Study Village Multi-ethnic: adivasi, hindu, muslim 2 ongoing water resource interventions: –Watershed development, NGO as PIA –Pond construction Past projects: pond, bunds, hand-pumps Indigenous water harvesting structures Naxalites (MCC): forest user committee

Conceptual Framework Focus of this study: water rights and institutions, with a view to explaining how through their explicit acknowledgement and recognition in state policies, delivery mechanisms of water-related interventions could have more favourable outcomes Water rights and Institutions Processes of Negotiation Influenced by Social and Power Relations Water-related State Development Interventions Social Actors The Water Resource Water Governance Socio-economic Outcomes

Conceptual Framework: Water Rights and Institutions Legal pluralism: multiple legal and normative frameworks coexist: –Government, religious, customary, project rules, unwritten norms –Historical perspective –Local perspectives, daily experiences, meanings, options for acquiring Actor-orientated approach: Social actor –Agency: capacity to process information, devise ways of coping with life –Strategies, processes of change, links local to larger-scale phenomena Institutions: broader than organisations –Water rights, markets, social networks, other intangible aspects of society Cultural values and meanings of water: productive and symbolic

Conceptual Framework: Processes of Negotiation Negotiation process is a continuing interaction –Actors use bundle of rights to access water for certain purposes –Formal meetings, to less visible struggles, e.g. abstention –Distinction between water allocation, and water distribution Water Rights: –Are a base for claims to water, but environmental context provides actual distribution –Therefore they structure social relations and practice, by establishing notional principles for discourse and negotiation –Discourse continuing process - actors (re)construct rules/rights –Formed and structured by social relations and practice

Conceptual Framework: Processes of Negotiation Negotiation linked to knowledge processes: –Exist in very unequal power relationships –To understand: actors strategies, manoeuvres, discourse Power: relational, cannot be possessed, accumulated, imposed Visualise unequal power relations: –Spatial patterns of control and resistance –Nodes of control and resistance Power analysis: –Should not restrict to understanding social constraints, access to resources –Should not restrict to rigid hierarchical categories –Explore actors perceptions: capabilities to manoeuvre, to devise strategies –Subordinate are not powerless, powerful are not fully in control –Comparison of public transcript and hidden transcripts (Infrapolitics)

Conceptual Framework: External Interventions State interventions and water rights - unsuccessful: –May restructure unproductively unless negotiated –Rights embedded in existing physical infrastructure –Bestowed rights not treated seriously –May erode local rights, expand state rights, strengthen new claimants –Overlaid on existing schemes, transformed institutions persist State interventions and water rights - successful: –Honour existing rights and institutions/social relations –However, multiple complications with renegotiation of rights –Different bases for claims have implications e.g. prior appropriation

Research Questions External interventions: How do interventions acknowledge, get affected by, and impact upon: –Water rights and institutions –Processes of negotiation, and cooperation and/or conflict –Material and symbolic social relations Water rights and institutions: How can the following be defined and differentiated, and how have they changed over time: –Social actors, water and land resources –Multiple legal and normative frameworks of water rights –Water-related institutions Processes of Negotiation: In which various ways and forms do: –Social actors negotiate over water –More powerful actors seek to exert control over water –Power relations manifest themselves in terms of water –Weaker actors resist more powerful actors control and use of water

Methodology: Epistemology and Research Methods Social constructionist Ethnographic and qualitative –Observation, interview, informants… –Social and natural resource mapping –Oral histories/case studies –Ongoing interpretation of above Intervention and policy documents Archival research

Thanks, any comments very welcome