No description available.

No / In this paper, a framework is developed to consider collective action, sustainability and the capability approach with regard to resolution of water disputes, followed by a brief discussion of how identity can hinder cooperation or the development of universalism. This framework is then examined with a case study of the Cauvery river dispute in India. At the heart of river water disputes are issues related to justice and fairness, which depend to a significant extent on: how citizens perceive their claims over river water (shaped by cultural and historical factors); the extent to which citizens are able to collectivize their claims through location, economic activity and identity, and use their voice to influence the state; the extent to which the state policy and actions reflect the 'voice' and collective interests of different groups; and how the various riparian states recognize and deal with each others' claims. The framework discussed here suggests that the capability approach provides us with a much broader framework than collective action or Robert Solow's sustainability as inter-generational fairness. These are conjectures for further exploration.

Yes / This paper focuses on the dispute over river Cauvery in Southern India. Among the causes of river water disputes are contested property rights, difficulty in enforcing such rights, conflict of uses and a lack of willingness to compromise. A co-operative outcome in such cases depends on several factors: asymmetry of power in a triadic relationship between a federal government and two riparian states (one upstream and one downstream). Other factors influencing co-operation are the extent to which the claims of river waters can be elevated from those of immediate riparian peoples to those of an entire state; the dominance of a masculine paradigm towards 'taming' river waters using 'hard' investments rather than 'soft' and decentralised alternatives. On the basis of district level data, the importance of river Cauvery to the hydrology, economy and polity of the two contesting states is examined. This analysis helps us to appreciate why the two riparian state governments have limited room to manouvre. Drawing from two brief case studies of Murray Darling Basin and recent litigation in the USA, and other international experiences of river water treaties, the paper identifies various implications for the resolution of Cauvery and other river water disputes.