Presentation by Ms.Lafaye de Micheaux, EU water expert, at the 1st Indo-European Water Forum

2. INDO-EUROPEAN WATER FORUM
DELHI, NOVEMBER 2015
Flore Lafaye de Micheaux

3. Presentation outline
Introduction
Comparison of objectives & definitions
Thematic analysis
Recommendations stemming from the comparison
Conclusion/discussion

4. Introduction
1/ Why a water framework legislation ? Two very different
contexts
2/ Why a comparison between India and Europe ? Common
challenges

5. Context of emergence of a
water framework legislation
End of 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, striking industrial accidents worldwide
+
In Europe,
growing concerns related to natural heritage degradation and
to health issues (scientific papers on chronic diseases and cancer
prevalence)
In India,
growing water scarcity related issues like groundwater depletion
(ex. Punjab) => consequences on agricultural yields and general
access to water
multiple water conflicts, at all scales

6. Conditions for emergence?
Public opinions in Europe in favor of strengthening
environmental legislation
+
Since 1986, the environment has been a clear competence
of the European Union
+
Sectoral approach of water proved insufficient

8. And in India?
National Water Policy 1987, reviewed in 2002 and 2012
Need for a national water framework legislation raised by
National Commission for Integrated Water Resources
Development (NCIWRD) in 1999
Draft WFL in 2011 (12th
Five-year Plan Working Group on
Water governance)
Current draft 2013 presented by the Ministry, laying
down “governing principles” and “making them
justiciable”

10. Common challenges
Strong internal disparities in water availability
Groundwater depletion and pollution of water resources
Dramatic flood & drought

11. In 2013,
Uttarakhand
Central Europa

12. Source: ETC/ICM, Prague, 2012

13. Source: Unesco/FAO/SaciWaters, 2013

14. Source: Unesco/FAO/SaciWaters, 2013

15. Common challenges
How to implement:
 an integrated and participatory approach of water issues?
 river basin management, in line with the hydrologic cycle?
“Dublin
statement and
principles”, Jan.
1992
designed for the
Earth Summit
1992, Rio

16. Comparison of objectives &
definitions

17. European directive
(WFD) objectives
Stated in article 1 entitled “purpose”:
 “The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the
protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal
waters and groundwater (…) and thereby contributes to:
 the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality surface water
and groundwater as needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable
water use,
 a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater,
 the protection of territorial and marine waters, and
 achieving the objectives of relevant international agreements,
including those which aim to prevent and eliminate pollution of the
marine environment (…).”

18. Indian draft law
(WFL) objectives
Mentioned in the sub-title of the Bill:
“A bill to establish a framework with governing
principles for protection, conservation and regulation of
waters and for matters connected therewith and
incidental thereto”

19. Different orientations
of the texts
 The WFD is a legally binding instrument while the Indian
draft WFL sets up general “governing principles”
applicable to the exercise of legislative and executive powers at
Central, State and local levels (no penalty provision).
The Indian text has a much greater focus on social
matters
The European WFD is predominantly results-oriented
set of detailed provisions regarding monitoring

20. Focus on social matters (draft
WFL)
“(2) Local Authorities and the appropriate Government shall take all measures to plan
and manage water resources equitably, sustainably, and in a socially just
manner.”
 Precedence of the use of water for domestic purpose: “water as a sustainer of human
life” (6), over other uses such as agricultural, industrial, or commercial uses.
 Emphasis on affordability and pro-poor issues
“(18) water pricing on economic principles conditional
upon the principle of differential pricing of water for the pre-emptive uses of water for
drinking and sanitation
upon high priority allocation for ensuring food security and supporting livelihood for the
poor”
 Promotion of participatory approach in a dedicated article, article 15. The text notably
requires the “involvement of women and other users”.

21. Comparison of definitions
35 WFD’s definitions belong to scientific and technical
lexica, while 11 only in the Indian text. In the European
text, 9 definitions refer to “good” or not good “status of
water body”.
7 out of 30 Indian definitions are related to social and
economic aspects (like eligible households, livelihood,
etc.), while only 4 out of 41 in the European text.
6 definitions are related to governing principles in the
Indian draft WFL.

23. Governing principles:
convergence?

24. Governing principles:
divergence?

25. Governing principles:
divergence

26. Thematic analysis
(extracts)

27. Topics developed by
draft WFL

28. Preservation of quality
In the draft WFL, some general measures added to existing
legislation:
“Article 5 - (i)
minimising the generation of waste in all water uses,
reducing non-point source of pollution,
recovering, to the extent possible, water for some uses from waste and
ensuring that nothing that does not meet certain stringent quality
standards, as may be prescribed, is allowed to enter water sources.”
Confirmation of existing standards.

29. Preservation of quality
In the WFD, this topic is central.
Key innovations of the text versus previous EU legislation:
- combined approach i.e. at source and in the environment
- each surface water body should reach a “good status”,
which refers to “ecological status” (physico-chemical
conditions and biological quality) and “chemical status” (41
substances to be monitored),
-introduction of biological indicators for a more integrated
and scientific accurate assessment of water quality

30. Source: WFD UKTAG – UK development and status of phytoplankton tools

31. Source: WFD UKTAG – UK development and status of phytoplankton tools

33. Integrated River Basin
Management/Development
None of the frameworks impose the creation of a
dedicated organization for each river basin.
However, a competent authority has to be designated for
each river basin in the European approach.
NB: The European level seeks from Member states information on “respective
position, legal status and administrative responsibilities of the designated
authorities”

34. Integrated River Basin
Management/Development
The WFD requires a River Basin Management Plan
(RBMP) for each river basin
while, in the Indian approach, a River Basin Master Plan is
required only where a river basin organization has been
set up by the state
Contents of the River Basin Plans largely differ, but
current status assessment is required in both contexts.
Other documents are also required (water resources
perspective plans, assessment of demand for water)

35. Management of floods
Flood Directive 2007 = complement the WFD with
regards to flood risk management
Focuses on prevention, preparedness and protection
measures
The objective is to develop a planning approach with the
successive drafting of preliminary flood risk assessments,
flood hazard maps, flood risk maps and flood risk
management plans

36. Management of floods
The draft WFL promotes a series of measures, rather than a
planning approach
General measures: rehabilitation of natural drainage
system, preparation of emergency action plans and
disaster management plans, expansion of flood
forecasting systems with real-time data acquisition and
appropriate operating procedures for reservoirs
As of now, the mention by National Water Policy 2012 of
"frequency based flood inundation maps" is not kept in
the draft WFL

37. Recommendations
stemming from the comparison

38. Responsibilities and
legal status of institutions
Further clarification could be brought in the text:
 What are the “appropriate government” to
“specify the quality standards of water supply”, ”expand flood forecasting”,
“lay down principles for allocation of water resources” or “demarcate
groundwater recharge zones for water sharing”?
 What administrative responsibilities for
“river basin/sub-basin organization”, “high-powered committees”,
“appropriate agency” for each river basin/sub-basin to “collect and
collate all data with regard to water”?
 What respective interactions and coordination required in
preparation of River Basin Master Plans and of “Perspective Plan for
sustainable development of water resources ensuring water security
for the years 2025 and 2050 for each district, state and for the
entire country”?

39. Urban water management
 Improvement of drinking water supply and sanitation = current key
urban water concerns in India due to critical health issues
Fostering on-going collaboration with European counterparts (solid
experience both in legislation and practices)
 Attention to be given to soil sealing and related problems (urban
flooding, pressures on water resources, “urban heat island” effect,
etc.)
Sharing experience of “light”, cost-efficient solutions (green
infrastructure, natural rainwater harvesting systems, etc.) and
compensating solutions (reusing topsoil, sealing fees, etc.)

40. Flood management
In the global context of climate change, more and more
human activities are being concentrated in floodplains
and landslide-prone areas.
Introducing a planning approach, to better anticipate flood
disasters countrywide? Flood directive 2007 tools
NB: Flood hazard maps should be prepared with the available data and
be revised when more accurate scientific information is released.

41. Water scarcity reduction
Both regions have developed interesting initiatives and
decentralized, cost-effective new measures
Joint development of pilot projects and programmes could
be organized, dealing with green infrastructure, natural
water retention measures, water harvesting, water-
efficiency technology development, soil retention
management.

42. Integrated approach of water
and biodiversity measures
Biodiversity is a matter that is treated seriously by India
and by the European Union
On the ground, water and biodiversity issues are very
much interconnected. To improve financial and technical
efficiency = merging measures for water protection and
for biodiversity conservation.
River basin management plans could therefore be used as
a tool for planning and monitoring biodiversity
conservation measures (particularly in coastal and
mountain areas)

43. Further areas
for technical cooperation
Use of biological indicators for surface water quality
assessment (cost-effective and scientifically accurate) and
monitoring strategies
Technical guidance for drafting River Basin Master
Plans: how to integrate future scenarios in the context
of climate change ? how to deal with lack of data? etc.
Water data collection, processing, publishing

44. Water data collection,
processing and publishing

47. Conclusion

49. For discussion
Relevance of further Indo-European collaboration in
many water areas: urban water management, flood
management, water scarcity reduction, water collection
& publishing, technical guidance for River Basin Master
Plans and Water resources perspective plans, etc.
Anticipating implementation of the law’s provisions:
clarifying results to be achieved, administrative
responsibilities, legal status and required coordination of
“appropriate organizations”

50. Thank you