RHI First Meet - Minutes of the meeting held on 10.12.09 at New Delhi

RIVER HEALTH INDEX

Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 December 2008
at INTACH, New Delhi


Present:
Sri Samar Singh (SS) – Chair
Sri Ramaswamy Iyer (RI)
Sri Rajendra Singh (RS)
Prof. Brij Gopal (BG)
Sri Giridhar A. Kinhal (GAK)
Sri Himanshu Thakkar (HT)
Sri Sharad Gaur (SG)
Ms Manisha Choudhary (MC)
Dr Suresh Kumar Rohilla (SKR)
Sri Sachidanand Mukherjee (SDM)
Sri Pushp Kumar Jain (PKJ)
Sri Pankaj Kumar (PK)
Sri Ritwick Dutta (RD)
Sri Vyom Raghuvanshi (VR)
Sri Nishant Alag (NA)
Sri Himanshu Upadhyay (HU)
Ms Ramya (R)
Ms Maya Parena (MP)
Ms Swati Kittur (SK)
Ms Adain (A)
Sri Manoj Misra (MM)
Ms Sudha Mohan (SM)

The meeting began with a warm welcome by SS and self introductions by all those present.

MM made a brief power point presentation (copy enclosed) highlighting the salient points regarding the project as well as the challenges that the project proponents presume in the light of the innovative nature of the assignment with emphasis on community participation. Specifically, MM highlighted the following as the key challenges of the assignment:

To underscore a river as a “community heritage”, requiring community ownership of and participation in the RHI (River Health Index) process in conjunction with pure academic scientific assessment processes requiring high degree of scholarship and laboratory expertise.

AND

How to identify and integrate physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a river system into ‘popular’ and ‘doable’ measures constituting the RHI as a community devised, owned and utilized tool for river health assessment, advocacy and popular actions


Following the above, GAK made a power point presentation (copy enclosed) regarding some notable relevant initiatives and efforts underway in other parts of the world, including Nepal, South Africa,

Commenting on these presentations, SKR and SDM on behalf of WWF India, informed about their ongoing project on river Ganga (Living Ganga Project).

Responding to a query, MM informed that the focus of the project is proposed to be selected sites in identifiable sections of the river, namely hilly stretch (Dehradun), plains (Delhi and Agra), the revived stretch (Etawah) and confluence with Ganga (Allahabad).

RI wondered that:

1. An RHI might be useful when a river appears to be in a good state but might in fact not be so, or when the deterioration is incremental and slow. However, when a river is in a very bad state (dying or dead) as with the Yamuna or the Ganga, we do not need an RHI to tell us this.

2. The purpose of an RHI is to prompt appropriate action. Everyone in Delhi - the Central Government, the Chief Minister, the LG - knows that the Yamuna has ceased to be a river, but what action has followed? Should we not focus on action rather than on measurement?

3. Concepts such as 'Minimum Flow' or 'Environmental Flow' may be well-meant, but could in fact be not so benign. 'Minimum Flow' could mean 'maximum abstraction'. The thinking in the Water Establishment continues to be that 'use' means abstraction from the river, and that so long as one has (reluctantly) left a small flow in the river one can abstract or divert the rest. This has to be reversed. Flow must be treated as the norm and abstraction or diversion as the exception. What we need is not minimum flow but minimum interference with the natural flow.

GAK clarified using the example of forest density classification that it has often been seen that logically arrived numerical values often make easy sense to many people who matter like the politicians and the decision makers. RI cautioned that any such attempt should not be allowed to become a tool for facilitation of ‘developmental’ projects on rivers in place of the visualized protection, revival and conservation of the rivers.

BG opined that the use of the term ‘health’ has anthropocentric connotations and hence when applied in terms of an ecosystemic entity like a river calls for a very careful use. He also cautioned that a single index for a complex system like a river may not work. In response MM clarified that the term ‘health’ in the project title been used on purpose since it makes easy sense to people at large, but concurred that it required careful definition in relation to an entity like a river. He also informed that the term ‘health’ of river has been often alluded to by various researchers in relation to the ‘state of a river’ against a reference standard.

RS expressed his deep sense of concern on the sad state of rivers in India.

SS shared his views on the matter using the dictionary definition of a river as one, which:

- should carry a large volume of water
- should have a natural catchment
- should have flowing water in it
- should ultimately meet the sea/ocean

RS concurred that if any one of the above mentioned characteristic is missing then the river is as good as a ‘dead’ river. He also emphasized the importance to look at a river in its entirety and that the safety of flood plains is as critical as the unhindered flow in the river.

BG agreed and added that it is important to understand the uniqueness of Indian rivers whereby their flow dynamics is much different from those in western rivers and hence experiences if any from the western rivers must not be considered for application under Indian conditions without careful and stringent assessments.

HT sought to bring focus onto the governance issues and how these needed to be integrated into the RHI initiative. This is important since ultimately it is the government that is responsible and been invested with public trust to manage well ecological entities like the rivers.

Discussion then turned led by SKR to the role of sub surface water flows in Indian rivers during the non monsoon months. BG commented that now when the ground water table has already gone down alarmingly at various places the role of sub surface water flow in the rivers has become a question mark. A notable instance is at Okhla Barrage where there are reports of back flow from the river channel into the surrounding aquifers and polluting them from the dirty water present in the main river channel / reservoir.

SS suggested that in order to emphasise the community centric approach of the assignment, whether the project could be renamed as the River Health Community Index? RI also opined that an alternative term for ‘health’ and ‘index’ say like ‘Living’ river ‘assessment’ might provide better meaning and usefulness to the assignment.

SKR cautioned regarding the sensitivities involved with community participation and the dangers of the process getting hijacked by vested interests. MM remarked that the project proponents were fully aware of such pit falls, but their reassurance about the community’s willingness and a ‘felt need’ participation, emerged from their personal experience of community interaction of over two years of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan as well as recent Yamuna Yatra along the river from Delhi to Agra and back.

Finally, MM requested the house to kindly provide names and references like contact details etc of such individuals and institutions, whose advice / involvement might be of use for the success of the project.

RI suggested the name of Dr Latha from Kerala. Thanking RI for the same, MM requested all to kindly suggest the details of such people and institutions through email.

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair and to all those present.

Manoj Misra