1. Demystified understanding of hydrological units such as watersheds and
hydrogeological units such as aquifers.
2. A systematic quantification of (ground)water usage that is indicative of various
demands over water, means of supply and their numbers and availability of
water, often according the various seasons during a year.
3. Participatory systems of data collection, collation and analyses.
4. Decision support based on basic inferential aspects of analysed data, such as the
developing of a groundwater management protocol that is customized to local
conditions.
5. Participatory action, often at the community level such as the implementation of
systematic conservation and recharge measures, efficient application of water,
changes in cropping systems and protection of drinking water sources.
Hence, the success of many of these initiatives has depended on how each of the
above have evolved with regard to the local context and the nature of organizations
and collaborations that have provided knowledge and facilitation support to the
local rural communities. These organizations have been in the form of Civil Society
Organisations, Government Departments or even local leadership that have
anchored external inputs to raise and nurture community-level systems of
decision-making on groundwater management. However, one of the important
questions that is raised with regard to such initiatives on community based, participatory groundwater management, is that of why have these initiatives remained
‘islands of success’ without being replicated or scaled out to other, even neighbouring locations. Moreover, after an initial phase of success, participatory processes of groundwater management cannot often be sustained in time.
With this background, it is important to examine the challenges posed to such
strategic approaches—management objectives around certain key hydrogeological
paradigms (called protocol) and their impacts of groundwater management that
have precluded the scaling out in both space and time (Table 2).
Most efforts in India on coming to terms with the groundwater crises focus on
bringing communities together to develop and act upon a set of supply and demand
management actions. These efforts try to integrate aquifer understanding with
community participation to achieve improved levels of efficiency and equity in
groundwater usage (Ghose et al. 2018). However, as may be seen from the table
above, the challenges are mainly in the form of a variety of externalities that have
solutions largely in the ‘policy’ arena. Moreover, it is easier to develop social norms
around groundwater such as a village-level groundwater management protocol but
it is well-nigh impossible to both, sustain the protocol and gain formal acceptance
to the social norm through existing institutional mechanisms.
Hence, the large gap between the practice of participatory groundwater management and current policies dealing with water forms the major stumbling block in
achieving any form of scaled response to the crises of groundwater depletion and
contamination in India.
10
H. Kulkarni et al.
hydrogeological units such as aquifers.
2. A systematic quantification of (ground)water usage that is indicative of various
demands over water, means of supply and their numbers and availability of
water, often according the various seasons during a year.
3. Participatory systems of data collection, collation and analyses.
4. Decision support based on basic inferential aspects of analysed data, such as the
developing of a groundwater management protocol that is customized to local
conditions.
5. Participatory action, often at the community level such as the implementation of
systematic conservation and recharge measures, efficient application of water,
changes in cropping systems and protection of drinking water sources.
Hence, the success of many of these initiatives has depended on how each of the
above have evolved with regard to the local context and the nature of organizations
and collaborations that have provided knowledge and facilitation support to the
local rural communities. These organizations have been in the form of Civil Society
Organisations, Government Departments or even local leadership that have
anchored external inputs to raise and nurture community-level systems of
decision-making on groundwater management. However, one of the important
questions that is raised with regard to such initiatives on community based, participatory groundwater management, is that of why have these initiatives remained
‘islands of success’ without being replicated or scaled out to other, even neighbouring locations. Moreover, after an initial phase of success, participatory processes of groundwater management cannot often be sustained in time.
With this background, it is important to examine the challenges posed to such
strategic approaches—management objectives around certain key hydrogeological
paradigms (called protocol) and their impacts of groundwater management that
have precluded the scaling out in both space and time (Table 2).
Most efforts in India on coming to terms with the groundwater crises focus on
bringing communities together to develop and act upon a set of supply and demand
management actions. These efforts try to integrate aquifer understanding with
community participation to achieve improved levels of efficiency and equity in
groundwater usage (Ghose et al. 2018). However, as may be seen from the table
above, the challenges are mainly in the form of a variety of externalities that have
solutions largely in the ‘policy’ arena. Moreover, it is easier to develop social norms
around groundwater such as a village-level groundwater management protocol but
it is well-nigh impossible to both, sustain the protocol and gain formal acceptance
to the social norm through existing institutional mechanisms.
Hence, the large gap between the practice of participatory groundwater management and current policies dealing with water forms the major stumbling block in
achieving any form of scaled response to the crises of groundwater depletion and
contamination in India.
10
H. Kulkarni et al.