By Kaustuv Raj Neupane

 

“Local leaders sold water sources overnight in a surreptitious way, and as a result we are very likely to face severe water scarcity for irrigation and in the operation of water mills”, a local resident of Bhumidanda VDC of Kavre Valley told me in response to a query about the wall painting in front of the Village Development Committee (VDC) office. The painting was done to protest the “selling” of water from their source in their locality to the town of Dhulikhel. This concern, indeed, is not an exceptional case: I have found it to be a common concern amongst almost all the villagers living in the upstream and supplying water to nearby towns.

The onset of contention

In the past the relation was harmonious between upstream and downstream communities as there was sufficient water serving the town. In addition, in traditional Nepalese society, failing to provide drinking water was considered a sin. However, the scenario has changed with the ongoing drying of water sources and as well as an increase in awareness of preferential rights amongst community members who seek to influence and protect their access to water. This issue has become more contested at the construction phase of water projects as well as relating to the long-term sustainability (and legitimacy) of these water supply projects.

DSCF6941

The mid- hill towns of Nepal are facing an increasing scarcity and competition for water, such as at Illam, Dhankuta, Dolakha, Banepa, Palpa, Baglung, and others. It is the responsibility of government to supply water to towns as well as to promote the livelihoods of rural people in Nepal, which increasingly involves efforts to create consonance between upstream and downstream communities affected by water management interventions. The example of Dhulikhel town, its water source and its relationship with surrounding villages will be used to highlight several problematic areas below, with some mitigation measures suggested as a potential path forward for the renewal of good relations between towns along these much- contested issues.

The Dhulikhel Drinking Water Supply Project: a 13.5km- long pipeline
Dhulikhel Municipality is relying on the Khar Stream, a tributary of Roshi River that is governed by the Bhumidanda VDC for drinking water. For the past three decades Dhulikhel Municipality has been continuously receiving water through a 13.5 km long pipeline after reaching an agreement with the Bhumidanda VDC. The entire system is managed by a community- based committee called the Dhulikhel Drinking Water and Sanitation Users Committee (DDWUC).
From the date of its agreement, the DDWUC has been paying money or investing in infrastructural development work such as constructing schools, bridges and roads in upstream Bhumidanda VDC in exchange for its water use. The ways in which the DDWUC has negotiated, maintained and continues to pay for its water use is considered to be pioneering and has remained an exemplary, successful case of community governance for water in Nepal.

Payment to upstream communities

The Dhulikhel Drinking Water Supply project claims that it has paid more than one crore rupees to upstream dwellers. In the past, money for water use was paid on an ad-hoc basis, with decisions and payments made by those in power through a relatively obscure and ambiguous payment system.

DSCF6912

Dhulikhel Drinking Water Users Committee and Bhumidanda VDC signed a new agreement four years ago for the institutionalisation of a new payment system. In the new agreement, the Dhulikhel Water Users Committee agreed to pay Rs 10 lakhs annually to Bhumidanda, to increase by 1 lakh every 5 years. In addition, there would be increases in the intake pipe sizes from 6 to 10 inches.

In addition, Bhumidanda VDC has received an extra 75 lakhs rupees in a five- year period from the ADB- funded Kavre Valley Integrated Drinking Water Supply Project, which is in its construction phase. This project is designed to supply water to three towns of the Kavre valley, to Banepa, Dhulikhel and Panuati from Roshi river tributaries, which is also governed by the same Bhumidanda VDC.

Continuing dissatisfaction

Although the upstream VDC is receiving large amounts of money every year, upstream communities have not been satisfied with the neither the DDWUS or ADB negotiations and agreements. Many upstream dwellers perceive that the water sources are getting dry and anticipate that they will face water scarcity in the future. They opine that the compensated amount will not be sufficient to quench their thirst and meet their water demands for agriculture. Moreover, they anticipate that these water trades will deteriorate their livelihoods. The high emotional valuations attached to water is resulting in ever-greater dissatisfaction. In response, upstream communities are asking for more infrastructural development works as well as a piped water supply system.

Investment to reduce water?

The amount paid to the Upstream VDC is being invested in infrastructure development work instead of conservation of watersheds and efforts to alleviate poverty [uplifting poor people living ]. If we observe the land use changes at Bhumidanda in the upstream, stone mining industries have badly damaged critical water zones.

DSCF7194

The growth of market centers in nearby villages has transformed agricultural practices, whereby traditional farming is being replaced by the planting of cash crops. These more intensive farming forms have increased water demand amongst the upstream poor. Simultaneously, water demand in the downstream has also increased with rapid urbanization and swelling populations in the town. This poses continual threats to water supplies.

Practice of payment to upstream

In countries like China and Costa Rica schemes and programmes to pay upstream communities for the conservation of watersheds tries to compensate communities for resulting changes and restrictions on their livelihoods. For instance, in the Beijing Municipality, upstream communities have modified their paddy fields to dry land farming in exchange for payments, which has ensured water supply to downstream town areas for the past two decades. Nepal can learn from these experiences of relative success in watershed protection rather than infrastructure development.
Agreements have been initiated to pay upstream communities around Dhulikhel, which have been following with keen interest in other areas of Nepal, such as at Baglung, Dharan, Khulekhani, Shivapuri and so on These tensions over funds’ allocations have not helped make the relation easy between upstream and downstream communities.

The causes of failure

Causes for increased weaknesses in these relationships can be pinpointed to how agreements lack a sound basis for the agreed level of compensation; the high perceived value of water and watershed services by upstream communities that is not apparently reflected in the proffered compensation amounts; as well as changing life patterns and habits of upstream communities away from subsistence to commercial farming, resulting in experiences of decreasing water volume at the water sources.

DSCF1507

Previously, people involved in water negotiations thought that paying some amount of money to upstream communities would act as an analgesic for any contentions. This has not proved to be the case. As in the case of Dhulikhel, huge amounts have been paid to upstream communities via the VDC office and these monies have not eased long-term relationships. This means that current negotiations and interventions need to be rethought, and consideration given to what makes a ‘fair’ deal.

A fair deal?

However, prior to water negotiation, benefits that human get from nature or termed as ecosystem services need to be evaluated and assessed and the amount to be paid to upstream people should be decided on the basis of that ecosystem service assessment. The assessment method should account for both the use and non-use values individuals and society gain or lose from marginal changes in ecosystem services. As many ecosystem services are not traded in markets, and therefore remain un- priced, it is necessary to assess the relative economic worth of these goods or services using non-market valuation techniques.

This process must be institutionalized through legal frameworks and policies in all drinking water projects. In addition to this, compensated amounts must be invested in the service of the upstream people, whose livelihood opportunities and possibilities may be severely impacted by top-down interventions for water management. This might help government to fulfill its responsibility of ensuring good water supply to towns and promoting the livelihood of upstream people as well as to develop solidarity between upstream and downstream people. Eventually, this can make water projects sustainable in the long-term.

Mr Neupane is a water governance researcher and can be contacted at kaustuv@sias-southasia.org