To discuss and deliberate on recent concerns related to freshwater management, health and sanitation and to chalk out a CSO advocacy plan emerging at the local as well as global level. 

To network with likeminded organizations and individuals working on issues of democratizing development, management and utilization of water resources in India and South Asia and to understand critical role played by advocacy groups

To understand issues of capacities enhancement, advocacy need assessment and strategies to address them through utilizing the network and to prepare background for the regional meeting on similar concerns

To bridge the environmental with the developmental agenda around water resource management and water services in rural and urban areas.

The meet was attended by representatives actively involved with the water sector, from NGOs, academic institutions, networks and movements across India. The present report gives a record of the major issues discussed in the respective sessions to set an advocacy agenda and future course of action for the network members. It therefore it does not intend to give a verbatim account of each speaker; instead all issues raised have been put forth within the context of the overall discussion (Refer to annexure 1 and 2 for the workshop schedule and list of participants).

Networking among each other including a larger issue based understanding of advocacy groups, researchers and NGOs to further strengthen the networking process

Bridging the gap between researchers and implementers to disseminate knowledge down up to the grassroots and absorb the knowledge immanent therein

Mapping of resources, expertise, knowledge base and capacities of Indian CSOs members particularly in the field of advocacy and formulation of the networking agenda with special focus on regional issues

Updating information on India-specific and global process and issues emerging in water, sanitation and related sectors and share the experience of different advocacy groups

Identifying and networking with individuals having similar concerns in water issues.

Exploring the commonalities for future tie-ups and actions between different players across disciplines and regions.

Sharing of experiences, best practices and learning's for mutual capacity building.

Bridging the gap between research and action/implementation.

Extending support to civil society organizations.

Facilitating and advocating for water issues.

Advocating a right based approach to water issues including gender and indigenous people's issues.

Exploring lacunae in the current policy/programme/laws and the changes required in these through analysis and information sharing.

Networking to handle effectively the complexities of dynamic and newly emerging scenarios in the water sector.

Need to bring in the rights perspective to this phenomenon with clear definitions and understanding of such terms as "public", "stakeholders" and "right holders".

Necessity to understand how the rights interface with responsibilities?

The role of the state and civil society in decision-making regarding such phenomenon.

The proposed construction of multipurpose irrigation dams is questionable (particularly in the case of Assam). The decision regarding such large dams should be taken after wide-ranging study and local consultation.

How civil society organizations should precede in such cases must be charted out at the basin, sub-regional and regional level by involving dialogue, awareness building and mass movements if necessary. Analysis, data sharing and dialogue within and between local, sub-regions and regional levels is a must. Which information needs to be shared at what level will emerge once such networking and information sharing practices are initiated? 

Though engineering solution should not be taken blindly but they are not entirely irrelevant and should be resorted to where required (particularly in the arid and salinity affected parts of west and peninsular India). The emphasis needs to be given to social and environmental contexts of technology before implementation. It was agreed by all that technology use decision is context and area specific.

What is the cost of the so-called "development"? How do we arrive at policy level decisions regarding large "developmental" projects? Externalities like displacement, damage to environment, lost biodiversity, etc must be considered during the course of the decision making approach. Such externalities only get considered if the decision-making process is bottom up and integrates the local environmental and socio-economic parameters. Space available to communities in planning and prioritizing should be widened.

Need to debate and create awareness on integrating the North-East into the mainland of India (particularly in the context of inter-linking of rivers)

Approaching IWRM through civil society organizations would entail a lot of opposition from the bureaucracy-political setup. As IWRM is a baby of the engineers within the bureaucracy, their understanding and interpretation of this is going to be different. IWRM should not be interpreted as centralization. So a need to explore different facets of what IWRM means at the grassroots and how do we practice it? Thus civil society must guard against wrong interpretation of IWRM as it is a double-edged sword. It was also mentioned that IWRM is seen more at the national and state levels but lacking at district, taluka and village/municipality level. This also brings with it the question of what kind of institutions /institutional mechanisms would be effective at different levels. Also what is the basic unit for planning around water i.e whether village level/hamlet level? (Particularly in the context of equity concerns in a fragmented society along caste, class and religious lines).

It was also pointed out that when the concept of IWRM accepted by the bureaucracy, it is translated into schemes? The scheme mode of functioning gives very little flexibility and most of the times the essence of IWRM is lost. So we must talk about principles rather than the programs. How IWRM might mean and must mean different things in different contexts, areas and programs should be explored and taken up by CapNet. What is integration becomes important in the above two points. Integration can be hierarchical (global to local), interdisciplinary (technical to social), Thematic (Gender to environment) and more. Based on these there could be principles like integration of sources (both local and exogenous), need to integrated groundwater and surface water, need to define assured water (definitive quantum of water for survival and livelihoods) and variable water.

It was stressed that when we talk of integrating efforts to advocate subsidy removal such advocacy should not be applied to all efforts. The question of subsidy removal is also context specific.

The importance of preserving and strengthening local (whether these are traditional or modern) water harvesting practices was consensual.

The practitioners, academicians and polity at large must evolve a common understanding of the various terms used and their connotations

The group was of the view that the problems were of our own making. Water problems are generated due to the problems of inequity and ecological externalities are created. Poor governance is to be blamed for the inappropriate decisions being taken. The governance is presently concerned with only legitimizing the powerful classes. The planning of water is fragmented and ad-hoc allowing industries to take groundwater and pollute the freshwater. This brings up the questions of economic inefficiency, costing problems and economic viability. Is the answer privatization of water resource development, private mining of groundwater and privatization of public sources?

In the struggle for resources the weaker are marginalized. This is the process of water resources management at present. What we need to do is to develop the integrated concept of water management and build capacities so that they can fight for their right. This capacity of understanding water is needed for empowering the marginalized and goes along with political empowerment.

How do we overcome the sectoral and fragmented approaches? How can the network be helpful in this particularly in the context of networking over such a vast differences in situations and physical boundaries?

Its not that there has been no floods in the north-east areas of India. Its part of the normal seasonal cycle the river valleys play an important role in absorbing the floodwater. These are areas where you cannot predict the course of river in given period of time. We have to understand the topography of the sub region. The small alluvial planes are made out of the silt of Himalayas. The notion that the engineers have about the technological solutions to this phenomenon is completely misplaced. The dams are constructed in known geological fractures. This is the kind of planning will cause devastation not only in the north-east areas but also in Bangladesh. These are the questions of bilateral rights. In this issue there was the debate about the usefulness of big dams and their role in promoting development versus the costs incurred particularly social costs.

We need to put the eastern region together. Analysis of the north-east areas should be done as a sub region. Hard information is required to achieve a balance of perspective. CapNet should take it up as a key issue. NE is a big issue and we should take it up extensively. The main issue is how to bring in CSOs as a sort of the nodal agency for bringing IWRM. The key issue is missed out is approaching IWRM through CSOs. We will face challenges as the government and the bureaucracy will be threatened. Currently IWRM is baby of technocrats and is used as a strategy for integrating and centralizing. It can become a rational to promote political centralization. CSOs need to guard against this and make it more decentralized. Integration can be done in centralized and bottom up way. Advocacy to take up the bottom up and fight the centralized way of IWRM. 

It was pointed out that in the context of the above point that every one has a role to play. It is more about being interdisciplinary and when we have collective decision making we have to see what kind of technology suits which region. Here the example of north Karnataka- Tungabhadra dam was and its role in augmenting the water supply was given. Currently there is a wide spectrum of technology for people to use and properly informed decisions need to be taken in consultation with local stakeholders. We should also involve the bureaucrats by getting them involved in the network.

It was pointed out that even at the village level so many departments are operating but no integration and coordination is there among them. They are working at cross-purposes. Integrated and coordinated efforts are not there.

There are these concepts like sustainable development, equity, IWRM, etc. We have to understand what these mean in different contexts. Can we develop a common understanding on these terms? Can CapNet play a role in doing this?

There was a wide consensus on the fact that non- integrated efforts have failed. So the network to needs to explore the challenges. Without struggle the current situation will not change. Water is political and also a power issue. Rights cannot be allocated if it has a complex government overlaps.

The NGOs working in drought prone areas had a different situation from the north-eastern areas or Bihar. The question that they have is what is integration? They spoke of integration from local to global level, female and male water use, the need to talk about the integration at different levels, integration of different sources: the local and exogenous sources and the fact that water shed approach can not meet the entire water needs. So they pointed out the need to have exogenous water source to meet the need of water while simultaneously developing the local resources as the first step and then if needed bring water from outside. They also pointed out the need to integrate the surface and groundwater. Different departments manage groundwater so the integration is challenging. Moreover these two sources should also be managed in different manner. This is second level of integration.

There was need to translate the field level experiences into policies. For this purpose the civil society should constantly engage with the government machinery. It is a long drawn process full of resistance as such process means "devolution of power and less chances for corruption". Here again a reference was made to only put down principles and guidelines so that the local people can do the design of the program flexibly. 

The need for positioning women in policy was agreed by all as it is this group that suffers the most because of water (Drought or flood).

Water as a productive resource will only have access to women when clear women's agenda is pursued. For example, PIM does not have women's voice even though at the farm level women are the actual users/managers of water. Women's involvement in water in both the productive and non-productive / human care sphere should be considered.

Gender means taking into concern the needs of both men and women. This means that there should be a clear recognition of men's water uses and women's water uses. Gender is as much a men's' as women's issue.

Though MDGs are indicators these do not hold the government accountable as the government is not bound to fulfill or accept the goals set-forth by these indicators. But if a rights based approach is taken (particularly the human rights aspect) the government as a signatory to the convention is legally bound to take the concerns of the people into account.

There was a debate where some people were of the view that gender needs to be contextualized within caste, class and economy. A blanket categorization would not be effective in dealing with women's issues as women are not a homogenous category.

Some experiences given pointed out where the women's concerns (particularly in tank management) were being left out when the donor agencies frame or direct government policies and programs.

The question needs to be explored whether privatization of water is to be rejected outright or in this process of privatization should women's concern be integrated?

In the context of Roof Top Rain Water Harvesting (RRWH) it was pointed out that, women want household connection for household security. There is a different between pipeline connection roof water connections. Those who have the water storage in house want pipe connection while those who don't have water storage facility want RRWH or a local source of water. Presently rooftop rainwater harvesting is not used as technology but for household water security. Cases of families having changed their cropping pattern from cash crop to food crops for household food security were illustrated. 

The need for dialogue to understand various stakeholders i.e. understand their interest and conflicts leading to resolutions (institutions based on principles, mechanisms). 

At every stage, there was a need to fight for the space for women and demanding accountability from the system.

As a strategy from IWRM it was felt by some that taking health and sanitation separately from the Dams issue or other issues is a reductionist approach. So there is a need to share the learnings from different water sectors like wat-san, dams, agriculture, forests, ecology, etc.

It was pointed out that sanitation is not just toilets. Presently none of the programs address public spaces and hygiene. Solid and liquid waste management is as much a part of this sanitation agenda as the toilets because ultimately this has a bearing on the quality of the water and environment. Even sanitation education is a part of this agenda.

Even in drinking water options other than piped water supply or overhead tanks are not available so currently it is a highly techno centric-approach. This needs to be remedied by exploring other options available.

Presently the quality of water is entirely neglected and there is no concern for what happens to used water. (Particularly in the case of cities) The question of augmenting possibility of used water should be explored.

When the question of privatization is being considered it must be kept in mind that water is also a right and involves responsibility from the state towards its citizens. Question like how much tariff on whom should also be debated for when privatization is considered. The efficiency of different water uses need to be evaluated and accordingly water prices fixed.