Blueprint for National Water

Accounting Framework in India

Background Report

Guido Schmidt, Fresh Thoughts Consulting GmbH Nitin Bassi, Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy

Carlos Benítez Sanz, Intecsa-Inarsa

March 2017

in cooperation with:

i

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

2. Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 2

3. Existing Water Databases, Indicators, and Approaches for Water Accounting in India . 8

4. Water Accounting ..................................................................................................... 10

4.1. Introduction to water accounts ........................................................................................... 10

4.2. Water accounts and IWRM ................................................................................................. 11

4.3. International experience in the implementation of Water Accounts ..................................... 14

4.3.1. Assessment of SEEAW implementation ................................................................................... 14

4.3.2. Water accounting in the European Union ................................................................................ 14

4.3.3. Water accounting in Australia .................................................................................................. 16

4.3.4. Water accounting in the USA ................................................................................................... 18

4.3.5. Water accounting in other countries ....................................................................................... 20

5. Water Management Indicators.................................................................................. 21

5.1. From data to indicators through water accounts ................................................................. 21

5.2. DPSIR and indicators .......................................................................................................... 22

5.3. Review of indicators proposed by international institutions ................................................ 23

5.3.1. EU Water Scarcity and Drought Indicators ............................................................................... 23

5.3.2. UN-Water ................................................................................................................................. 24

5.3.3. UNESCO - WWAP ...................................................................................................................... 24

5.3.4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) ............................................ 25

5.3.5. World Resources Institute ........................................................................................................ 27

5.3.6. European Environment Agency ................................................................................................ 28

5.3.7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)....................................... 29

5.3.8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 31

5.3.9. SEEAW ...................................................................................................................................... 31

6. Blueprint for Water Accounting System in India ........................................................ 33

6.1. Targets and key messages .................................................................................................. 33

6.2. Water management indicators ........................................................................................... 35

6.2.1. Selection of indicators for water management and planning .................................................. 35

6.3. Other Water Management Tools ........................................................................................ 45

6.4. Stepwise approach for a Water Information System in India ................................................ 45

7. Recommendations and Lessons Learned for the Implementation of a Blueprint ......... 46

7.1. Set-up of a shared governance system for water data between the GoI and States, and likely

other institutions ............................................................................................................... 46

7.1.1. Datasets shall be provided by different competent authorities, with quality check ............... 47

7.1.2. Openness to incorporate data from additional sources, like Districts, municipalities or NGOs ......................................................................................................................................... 47

ii

7.2. Strengthening of the Analytical capacity of available datasets ............................................. 47

7.2.1. Increase policy dialogue with India-WRIS, increase internal analytical capacity for developing relevant policy messages, and/or subcontracting of a support team for the analysis ............ 47

7.2.2. Set-up of an Advisory Board with (remunerated) experts to participate in the formulation of the assessments ....................................................................................................................... 48

7.3. Need for a better communication, accessibility and transparency of datasets available ........ 49

7.3.1. Exchange and pre-validation of data and results with (concerned) states and other institutions, before the launch of public communications ...................................................... 49

7.3.2. Recognize uncertainties and data gaps, develop a working platform with concerned states and other institutions to agree on technical and political aspects of data management ........ 49

7.3.3. Improve relevance of currently displayed information and messages .................................... 49

7.3.4. Improve access to full datasets ................................................................................................ 49

Annex 1. Setting thresholds for the WCI ............................................................................. i

Annex 2. Introduction to the System of Environmental Economic Accounting for Water ..... v

Annex 3. Computation of WEI and WCI for Indian Basins: An Example ............................... xi

1

1. Introduction

In the recent past, India has faced an increasing prevalence of the water crisis, mainly due to population

growth, resource use increase and climate change. This affects both water quality and quantity, the latter

being the subject of conflict between states and sectors/users, with a growing trend.

In order to develop conflict-preventing and conflict-mitigating water management policies, the Govern-

ment of India (Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation) aims to:

Gain a better understanding of the problems, in particular, those related to water scarcity and

water quality, in order to drive policy decisions for sustainable, equitable, and economics-based

water use; and

Improve current datasets to track key indicators, bringing together information from different in-

stitutions, to analyse trends and accelerate demand-side water management solutions.

The Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation requested 2030 Water Re-

sources Group (2030WRG) to support the process of driving such large-scale demand-side water manage-

ment through the identification of appropriate response strategies. With this objective, 2030WRG has been

facilitating a multi-stakeholder consultative process aimed at developing a “Blueprint for a National Water

Accounting Framework in India”, in order to identify needed priority interventions and mobilize stakeholder

interest towards using such a framework for better water management practices. 2030WRG, in turn, is

supported by a team composed of Fresh Thoughts Consulting, the Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy

(IRAP) and Intecsa-Inarsa, to develop such a document.

This document builds upon a series of stakeholder consultations conducted by 2030WRG between Decem-

ber 2016 and February 2017, in partnership with the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development &

Ganga Rejuvenation (MOWR), and the India-EU Water Partnership (IEWP). The feedback secured from such

consultations has been incorporated into this report.

The proposed water accounting framework aims to align with:

National Water Policy 20121 and strategic elements of the draft National Water Framework Bill

2016;

2030WRG’s earlier engagement with the erstwhile National Planning Commission on the develop-

ment of a National Water Resources Framework2;

India-WRIS3, to connect with the existing repository of data and build upon it to catalyse demand-

side management solutions; and

National Hydrology Project (NHP), to connect decision support systems with macro policy deci-

sion-making for improved water resources management.

The rest of the document is structured as follows: The Blueprint first analyses the key policy issues and

questions (Chapter 2), to be addressed through the development of a data system, derived indicators and

additional studies and assessments. The issues identified refer to water conflicts between areas, sectors

and users, water availability for environmental flows, and uncertainties regarding the impacts of climate

change. The water datasets available in India are reviewed (Chapter 3), including existing and proposed

1 The framework is linked to the following chapters of the National Water Policy 2012: (3) Uses of Water; (4) Adaptation to Climate Change; (6) Demand Management and Water Use Efficiency; (7) Water Pricing; and (8) Conser-vation of River Corridors, Water Bodies and Infrastructure. 2 https://www.2030wrg.org/portfolio-item/national-water-resources-framework-study/ 3 Water Resources Information System for India (India-WRIS).

2

water indicators, as well as technical approaches for water accounting and decision support tools for wa-

ter management.

The document then analyses the global experience in the field of water accounting (Chapter 4) and water-

scarcity-related indicators (Chapter 5). It proposes to follow the well-accepted United Nations SEEAW

standards to set up an accounting system, which would enable for the step-wise inclusion and improvement

of datasets, and the consistent management of data regarding water quantity, quality and productivity.

Chapter 6.3 provides further indications on the operationalisation of such water accounts.

Regarding the indicators, the Blueprint (Chapter 6.2) proposes to focus as a first step on the development

of a Water Consumption Indicator (WCI) and four other relevant indicators (Sectoral Water Consumption

Ratios, Water Productivity Index, Cost Recovery Ratio and Water Quality Index), with inputs on scope and

relevance of such indicators to policy design.

The Blueprint finally concludes with recommendations and learned lessons (Chapter 7) for the implemen-

tation of such a strategy.

2. Executive Summary

As with many other countries in the world4, over the past years, India has been facing a severe deterioration

of services associated with freshwater ecosystems, mainly due to pollution and over-abstraction. At the

same time, water-related extreme events like floods and droughts significantly hit the society and economy.

The problems are aggravated by gaps in policy, governance systems, infrastructure and used technologies,

and their effects are more relevant than in other countries, due to the large number of poor, and a high

dependency on water. The global trends - including climate change, population increases and rising de-

mands for food and energy - will make water management more difficult and conflictive. Water policy and

management are requested to solve the different problems, but do not count on the underlying founda-

tions (data, governance as expressed in water rights, etc.) to do so.

This is the context for the challenging task to design a blueprint for improved water data management and

a water indicator system in India, based on the experiences in other parts of the world, which is dealt with

in this proposal, fundamentally for water quantity.

Objectives of Blueprint Development

The request for this report was articulated by MoWR at an inception stakeholder workshop in December

20165 where the following policy objectives were identified:

Drive efficiency in water use and large-scale demand-side water management through the

availability of reliable and transparent water consumption data across sectors, with special

focus on agriculture and ‘conflictive’ river basins;

Provide credibility to the communication of such data with appropriate granularity (spatial

and temporal);

Create a knowledge base of current water use and expectations, as a building block for robust

and equitable water allocation schema in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

studies and River Basin Management Plans (RBMP).

4 References are e.g. the World Water Development Report 2016 and the World Economic Forum Global Risks

Report 2017. 5 Subsequent stakeholder workshops were held on 27th January 2017 and on 15th February 2017.

3

The blueprint aims to align with existing initiatives, such as India-WRIS and National Hydrology Project

(NHP), with respect to systematic data collection and decision support tools, respectively, in order to drive

stakeholder actions and policy decision-making linked with sustainable, equitable, and economics-based

water use.

System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW) Standard

Water accounting is increasingly relevant in the world. In 2008, at least 33 countries were compiling water

accounts and a further 11 had plans to implement them in the following two years. Furthermore, 17 coun-

tries were using the SEEAW as the reference material for their compilation.

SEEAW is a global standardized approach being used by almost all countries in the world

which are developing water accounts;

SEEAW allows for linkages to water quality and economic data, for developing further indi-

cators;

SEEAW can be combined with decision-support-systems (DSS) for water management pur-

poses;

For comparability and benchmarking, indicator sets in India are proposed to follow global

guidelines, aligned with SEEAW.

Key Policy Questions for India

The key questions identified as relevant for India to drive policy decisions through appropriate target-set-

ting for water accounting data include (selection only):

Area-Wise and Sector-Based Water Use: Which area (state, district, etc.) is consuming how

much of the available water (by which sectors), and what are the trends?

Water Quality: How does water quality affect economic activity (e.g. agriculture and energy

production) and society (health, well-being)?

Sustainable and Equitable Water Use: Which would classify as sustainable and equitable use?

Which are the areas/uses that are driving over-exploitation and conflicts?

Consumption Trends: What are the expected consumption trends for the future in identified

sectors and areas?

Policy Options: How can future water consumption trends be influenced? Which policy op-

tions (governance, investments) shall be promoted in which area/sector?

Economic and Social Benefits and Trade-Offs: Which are the economic and social benefits

and trade-offs of the current water use (area, sector)? How can benefits be increased/opti-

mised?

Phased Approach for Indicator Development

Given the available datasets and the key questions, the water accounting architecture for India is proposed

to be developed in a phased approach along the following lines:

Phase I Indicators:

Water Consumption Index (WCI)

Sectoral Water Consumption Ratios

Water Quality Index (already applied)

4

Phase II Indicators:

Water Productivity Index

Cost Recovery Ratio

Recommendations on Governance Framework for Water Accounting

This document proposes the following key recommendations for a good governance of water accounting:

Set-up of a shared governance system for water data between the centre and the states, and

likely other institutions;

Strengthening of the analytical capacity of available datasets, including the establishment of

a Project Management Unit and Advisory Group to support the implementation and provide

strategic guidance, respectively, for the operationalization of the water accounting frame-

work, in close alignment with India-WRIS and NHP; and

Need for better communication, accessibility and transparency of datasets available.

The following table summarises the recommendations. The table provides a draft strategic overview, indi-

cating (a) Upcoming key water policy issues in India, (b) Questions to develop policy-making support, and

(c) Indicators (marked in blue or other tools, marked in green) to provide responses to them.

5

Key Water Policy Issues in India

Questions to Develop Policy-Making Support

Usefulness of Indicators for Policy-Making and Communication

Further Information on Indicators (and suggestion of other tools)

Water Use across Sectors and States

Conflicts across States and sectors

Conflicts between administrative ar-eas (states, dis-tricts) about shar-ing water re-sources and the benefits from their use. Conflicts between key economic sec-tors (urban, en-ergy, agriculture, industry) on water use and/or con-sumption

Trends (past/future). Water Allocation Equity and Sustain-ability

How much of available wa-ter is used by which:

State Sector

What are the trends? Which areas are driving

over-exploitation and con-flicts?

Which would be sustaina-ble and equitable use?

What are the expected fu-ture consumption trends (sectors/areas)?

How can future trends be influenced?

Which policy options (gov-ernance, investments) shall be promoted (in which area/sector)?

Water Consumption Index

Ratio of consumption / availability of water Can be shown in a color-coded map or graph, indicating

areas (river basins or states) o High WCI values strongly suggest unsustainability

Can be assessed against thresholds (in the EU, 20% and 40%); Specific studies might be required for defining thresholds o Indicate critical areas of water abstraction

Indicate where political action might be needed for: o Raising awareness (e.g. 20% “alarm bell”) o Initiation of a IWRM or RBMP exercise o Coordinated action or investment plans to reduce wa-

ter consumption o Combined with water quality data - investments and

governance actions to improve wastewater reuse and water quality

Consumption Ratios (per capita, hectare, kw-h …)

Can also be shown in maps (e.g. m3 used per inhabitant per year) and graphs

Serve for a benchmarking exercise comparing the perfor-mance of states

Disaggregated data might show, for e.g., high water con-sumption values for a specific sector or even crop in a state o Differences support the promotion of targeted pilots

or action plans in a state or sector, e.g. investments for water efficiency, reduction of water losses, water rights and pricing, etc.

Water Consumption Index

𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠

𝑇𝐴𝑅𝑊𝑅 (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠)

Decomposed indicator provides: o Sector pressures (abstraction and returns for and from

irrigation, human supply, manufacturing, energy, min-ing…)

o Evolution (past and future scenarios) o Geographical scales (i.e. river basin, State) o Temporal scales (e.g. year, month) o Prognosis on population, economic fundamentals, ex-

pected energy and food consumption etc. o Info on renewable water resources and evolution (im-

pacts of climate change) Implications:

o Can be combined with water quality o Assessment of inter-basin equity through consumption

ratios o Evaluate impacts and potential responses:

In-farm measures Crop patterns and irrigation technologies in water

balance: evaporation, transpiration, infiltration Energy generation and water needs

o DSS modelling for water balances at local and re-gional scales

o Hydrological modelling for better understanding of hydrological cycle

6

Key Water Policy Issues in India

Questions to Develop Policy-Making Support

Usefulness of Indicators for Policy-Making and Communication

Further Information on Indicators (and suggestion of other tools)

Economic and Social Implications

Conflicts across States and sectors (cont.)

Economic and Social Trade-Offs. Cost-Benefit Analysis

What are economic and so-cial

Benefits Trade-offs

of current use (area, sec-tor)?

How can benefits be in-creased/optimised?

What is of area/sectors Benefits from water ac-cess Costs of water manage-ment

(e.g. by proportion of water use, area, number of peo-ple)?

Water Productivity Index

Ratio of economic gains to water consumed (Rs/m3) Indicates:

o Added value of water for different sectors in different states/areas

o Economic gains for different sectors in different states per m3 water E.g. Energy production in different states - policy

decisions to promote non-water-intensive energy production in water-scarce basins or states

Cost Recovery Ratios

Which investments recovered by taxes and tariffs Benchmarking:

o Sectors that demand high investments in water, but do not financially contribute to investments

o State variations: Can be combined with assessment of water productivity.

Policy action: Investment schemes or water pricing

Water Productivity Index

Note: Critical issues difficult to be factored in: o Institutional framework o Territorial and social unbalances o Impact on ecosystem services

Cost Recovery Ratio

Implications: o Differential level of cost recovery among sectors / us-

ers => trade-offs and cross subsidies o In-depth knowledge of water pricing and tariffs re-

quired o Integrated perspective linking monetary and physical

units, taxes, fees, water rights, national expenditure and financial accounts

Virtual Water Trade:

Assessment of water embedded in import/ export of commodities (mainly food)

Evaluation of food production policies

Water Quality Implications

Water Quality Economic Benefits

How does water quality af-fect:

Economic activity (agri/ energy production) Society (health, well-be-ing)?

Water Quality Index

Measures how water complies with environmental or wa-ter-use standards/thresholds at: o Given time o Specific monitoring point

Individual or multiple contaminants can be used Reflected in maps and graphs Policy action: Identifying hotspots (action or investment)

Water Quality Index

Already being used by CPCB Existing indicators might be revised SEEAW includes Water Emissions Accounts

7

Key Water Policy Issues in India

Questions to Develop Policy-Making Support

Usefulness of Indicators for Policy-Making and Communication

Further Information on Indicators (and suggestion of other tools)

Environment / Ecosystems

Environmental Con-siderations

Deteriorating en-vironment due to increased pres-sures (quality, quantity) Less ecosystem services to people

Ecosystem Services - Volume

How much water shall be set aside (not used/con-sumed) for maintaining freshwater ecosystems?

No indicators proposed E-flows assessment with appropriate methodologies for

India/ different river basins to be developed Outcomes of studies => better definition of thresholds to

be applied to Water Consumption Index

Assessment of: o E-flows (rivers and deltas) and wetland water needs o Hydrological alteration

Ecosystem Services - Quality

How does water quality af-fect the environment and freshwater ecosystems?

No indicators proposed Specific studies shall be undertaken, maybe in the frame

of the e-flows assessment.

Determination of environmental objectives and adequate responses following DPSIR scheme.

Possible implementation of SEEA- Ecosystem Accounting, once the experimental framework becomes consolidated.

Climate Change

Climate Change Long-Term Impacts

Climate change ef-fects on water use, and long-term develop-ment of economy, society and the environment

Water Availability / Consump-tion

How will climate change trends affect water availa-bility and consumption?

Which options shall be pro-moted for climate change resilience: o Policy options - govern-

ance, investments o Area/sector options

No indicators are proposed Hydrological modelling –planned to be developed in

IWRM studies in India – can provide information on cli-mate change-induced trends

Policy Implications: Set-up of water rights systems

o Ensure water use/consumption matches with availa-ble resources in 10-20 years

Investment or action plans to increase efficiency of cur-rent water use (e.g. energy, manufacturing, agriculture), if o Water availability expected to decline o Droughts (frequency, intensity) expected to increase

Cancellation of water-intensive investment projects, if water availability expected to decline

Investment or action plans to mitigate impacts of floods, if expected to increase

First approach through WCI, SEEAW and DSS Hydrological Modelling to translate climate scenarios into

water availability Integrated Analysis of Costs and Benefits of water policy

(including ecosystem services) under different scenarios

8

3. Existing Water Databases, Indicators, and Approaches for Water Accounting in India

Main messages:

Water data collection previous to the 1990s was not uniform, but has improved since then

The only applied indicator at this stage is the Water Quality Index (WQI)

A permanent independent National Water Information Centre (NWIC) to operate and main-

tain India-WRIS in the long term will be established under the National Hydrology Project

With the rise in freshwater demand for consumptive uses across various sectors, most of the river basins

are either getting closed or are already closed in India. To make water use sustainable and manage demand,

the immediate and most urgent need is to undertake scientific water resources assessment and planning.

In this pursuit, water accounting, which estimates total inflows, actual water depletion or use, and water

outflows from the basin, can play an important role. The outputs of such water balance approaches can be

utilized by policy makers to make decisions on water allocation based on the utilisable water potential of

each basin.

The first step in water accounting is availability of reliable hydrological and water use data. However, until

the early part of 1990’s, in most of the Indian States (water being a state subject in India except for the

inter-basin water issues), water data collection was non-uniform, without any proper water collection and

management system. The first real attempt at establishing a proper water data management system was

initiated with the World Bank-supported Hydrology Project I (HP I). Under the project (1995-2003), a Hy-

drological Information System (HIS) was set up in nine peninsular States of India and a wide network of

water monitoring equipment (to measure rainfall, other weather parameters and stream-flows) were in-

stalled to collect data in a standardized way. The entire focus of the project was to introduce software to

manage the data collected.

Subsequently, under Hydrology Project II (2006-2014), a Decision Support System (DSS) for Integrated Wa-

ter Resources Management (IWRM) was developed with the help of National Institute of Hydrology (NIH)

and technical support of DHI (tools and software). The DSS introduced additional tools to perform detailed

analysis, provide access to data and use the models for short and long term planning. Both HP-I and HP-II

established improved infrastructure for water resources data collection, management and sharing. Further

they developed tools for verifying water resources data and for water resources planning and operation of

water infrastructure.

The DSS had three main elements: database and associated tools; modelling tools; and web tools. Real-time

data acquisition was made central to the entire DSS approach. In each state, a pilot sub-basin (measuring

4.000-5.000 km2) was selected for setting up the DSS, with a major focus on surface water planning and

integrated reservoir operations.

A few outputs of the DSS are available on State Water Resources Department (WRD) website.

However, no specific indicators for sustainable management of water resources were identified

(http://cpcb.nic.in/water.php). Only Water Quality Index (WQI) is used by the Central Pollution Control

Board (CPCB) to classify selected surface water bodies as per their best designated use (see section 6.2.1.5).

The Agricultural Meteorology Division of the India Meteorological Department has developed aridity indices

to monitor agricultural drought scenarios in the country based on rainfall, potential evapotranspiration and

actual evapotranspiration using water budgeting methods. Agricultural droughts have been classified into

mild, moderate and severe based on aridity anomaly index values. Mild (Aridity anomaly 1-25%), Moderate

(Aridity anomaly 26-50%) and Severe (Aridity anomalies more than 50%). NOAA Composite NDVI, Standard

9

Precipitation Index (SPI) and other AGROMET products are provided through the website http://www.im-

dagrimet.gov.in/.

In 2009, a project “Generation of Database and Implementation of Web Enabled Water Resources Infor-

mation System in the Country” (India-WRIS Web GIS) was launched as a joint venture between the Central

Water Commission (CWC), Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India and Indian Space Research Organi-

zation (ISRO), Department of Space, Govt. of India. Table 1 presents the data type, responsible agency and

its availability status. It should be noted that data is available with multiple agencies and often from differ-

ent ministries.

Tab. 1. Data availability and its status in India

Sr. No. Type of Data Parameters Availability With Access (in Public Domain)

A] Hydrology, Water Resources, Water Systems (data available at basin level)

1 Map Basin and Drainage Net-work

CWC; State WRD Only JPEG file can be downloaded from India-WRIS

2 Meteorologi-cal

Daily Rainfall Indian Meteorological De-partment (IMD); ISRO; CWC; State WRD

Annual average (only last 5 years) availa-ble on IMD website; Real time data (last 24 hours) available at India-WRIS

Other Weather Parameters (daily)

Real time data (last 24 hours) available at India-WRIS

3 Hydrological and Ground-water

Stream-flows (Daily, sea-sonal and annual)

CWC; State WRD; India-WRIS

Available at India-WRIS

Groundwater data (geology, GW development, depth to GW level, GW quality)

Central Groundwater Board (CGWB); State Groundwa-ter Board

Depth to GW level available at India-WRIS; GW development and quality re-ports available online

Water quality CPCB Reports available for selected rivers ba-sins online

4 Reservoirs and diversion sys-tems

Location in the basin CWC; State WRD Only JPEG file can be downloaded from India-WRIS

Gross and live storage Available at CWC website; India-WRIS ba-sin reports

Mass Balance State WRD Not available

Fig. 1. Examples of drought indicators provided by IMD

Source: Agricultural Meteorology Division | India Meteorological Department

10

Tab. 1. Data availability and its status in India

Sr. No. Type of Data Parameters Availability With Access (in Public Domain)

Elevation Storage Curve State WRD Not available

B] Socio-economic System (data available as per administrative boundaries only)

5 Demographic (available as per adminis-trative bound-aries)

Population Census of India Available online

Land use Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare (DACFW)

Available online

6 Agricultural Cropped and Irrigated area DACFW and State agricul-ture departments

Available online

Livestock Livestock Census Available online

7 Industrial Production and water re-quirement

State industries department Not available

8 Domestic Water supply and wastewater

State Public Health and En-gineering Department (PHED); Central and State Water Pollution Board

Urban wastewater reports available at the CPCB website

Now, MoWR aims to upscale the DSS, especially make States understand National Hydrology Project (NHP)

which is to improve the extent, quality and accessibility of water resources information, and to strengthen

the capacity of water resources management institutions in India. The focus is to expand the hydrology

information platform and institutional capacity established in some States under HP-I and HP-II to cover the

entire country, including the states in the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra basins. Overall, there will be 49

implementing agencies (IAs): the implementing ministry (MoWR, RD&GR); 7 central agencies; 2 river basin

organizations; and 39 state/UT agencies.

Further, a permanent independent National Water Information Centre (NWIC) to operate and maintain

India-WRIS in the long term is proposed to be established. The total budget outlay is about USD 566 million

(1 USD equals 65 INR), out of which USD 560 million is for the NHP and USD 6 million for setting up NWIC.

Out of the total outlay, fifty per cent of the amount would be a World Bank loan (to be repaid by the Central

Government) and the remaining 50% would be provided by the Central Government.

4. Water Accounting

Main messages:

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW) is a global standard-

ized approach being used by almost all countries in the world which are developing water

accounts

SEEAW allows for introducing of and linking to water quality and economic data, for develop-

ing further indicators

SEEAW can be combined with decision-support-systems (DSS) for water management pur-

poses

4.1. Introduction to water accounts

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEAW) was developed with the objective

of standardizing concepts and methods in water accounting. It provides a conceptual framework for organ-

izing economic and hydrological information, enabling a consistent analysis of the contribution of water to

the economy and of the impact of the economy on water resources.

11

SEEAW further elaborates the framework presented in the Integrated Environmental and Economic Ac-

counting 2003 (SEEA), both being satellite systems of the System of National Accounts 2008 (SNA), which is

the statistical standard used for the compilation of economic statistics, and have a similar structure and

share common definitions and classifications.

The advantage of these linkages is that they provide a tool to integrate environmental-economic analysis,

covering all their relevant interactions and facilitating Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

from a broader approach that encompasses economic, social and ecosystem aspects. In fact, SEEAW pro-

vides a set of standard tables under harmonized concepts on the following6:

a. Stocks and flows of water resources within the environment;

b. Pressures imposed on the environment by the economy in terms of water abstraction and emissions

added to wastewater and released into the environment or removed from wastewater;

c. The supply of water and its use as an input in the production process and by households;

d. The reuse of water within the economy;

e. The costs of collection, purification, distribution and treatment of water, as well as the service

charges paid by its users;

f. The financing of these costs, that is, who is to pay for the water supply and sanitation services;

g. The payment of permits for access to abstract water or to use it as a sink for the discharge of

wastewater;

4.2. Water accounts and IWRM

Additionally, the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach includes a set of relevant rec-

ommendations for proper water policy and decision-making, which should also be addressed within water

accounting. It requires that7:

- policies and priorities take water resources implications into account, including the two-way rela-

tionship between macro-economic policies and water development, management, and use,

- there is cross-sectoral integration in policy development,

- stakeholders are given a voice in water planning and management, with particular attention to se-

curing the participation of women and the poor,

- water-related decisions made at local and river basin levels are in line with, or at least do not conflict

with, the achievement of broader national objectives, and

- water planning and strategies are integrated into broader social, economic, and environmental

goals.

At this initial stage, the water accounting approach - following the SEEAW - combined with few meaningful

environmental-socioeconomic indicators has been selected as a promising standard to support the initial

development of the water information system of India.

6 SEEAW also presents quality accounts, and economic valuation of water resources, though these modules

are still experimental. 7 Catalyzing Change: A handbook for developing integrated water resources management (IWRM) and water

efficiency strategies. (GWP, 2004)

12

SEEAW provides the conceptual framework for organizing water and a set of recommendations for creating

integrated information systems to study the policy-relevant impacts of the use and development of water

resources. In line with SEEAW, the IRWS provides a detailed list of data items and recommendations on the

methods to compile them.

Fig. 2. Decision-making affecting water

Source: The United NationsWorld Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World (2009)

13

SEEAW is a standard system able to integrate water information which is primarily generated, collected,

analyzed and disseminated by different government departments functioning in specific water-using sec-

tors, such as irrigation, water supply and sanitation. The use of shared concepts, definitions and classifica-

tions enables the identification of inconsistencies and gaps in the data, leading to more efficient and robust

data-collection systems and to comparable time-series estimates that are necessary in the policy process.

An integrated coherent information system add value to individual sets of data collected to respond to

sectoral policy needs. It would also accommodate the derivation of indicators across states and countries

and over time, prone to be accepted by all stakeholders since they are derived from a common framework.

SEEAW must be consistent with more detailed Decision Support Systems (DSS) to be developed at basin

and/or sub-basin scale in the framework of the water planning process. Both systems share information on

water resources and water uses, requiring a deep understanding of the hydrological cycle and how human

intervention alters natural water flows and impacts aquatic ecosystems.

Finally, the strategy for structuring data on water abstraction and allocation for management purposes -

meaning the building of water licensing registers and for granting new permits - should be designed for an

easy interaction with SEEAW and DSS, ensuring consistency and continuous updating (e.g. of the estimation

of water availability or consumption data).

SEEAW emphasizes its potential to support IWRM by providing the information system to feed knowledge

into the decision-making process and facilitating a more coordinated development of (a) land and water;

(b) surface water and groundwater; (c) river basins and their coastal and marine environment; and (d) up-

stream and downstream interests.

Summarizing, SEEAW can assist policymakers in making informed decisions on:

(a) Allocating water resources efficiently. SEEAW shows the quantity of water used for various purposes,

including agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power generation and manufacturing, as well as the quantity

of wastewater and emissions generated. It also shows, side-by-side with the physical information, infor-

mation on the value added by industries. This allows for the derivation of indicators of water efficiency

and productivity.

(b) Improving water efficiency. SEEAW produces information on the fees paid for water supply and sew-

erage services, as well as payments for permits to access water resources; also on the quantity of water

which is reused within the economy. SEEAW provides policymakers with a database that can be used to

analyze the impact on water resources of the introduction of new regulations throughout the economy.

(c) Understanding the impacts of water management on all users. SEEAW, because it is rooted in the

2008 SNA, functions as the basic information system for evaluating the tradeoffs of different policy op-

tions on all users.

(d) Getting the most value for money from investing in infrastructure. SEEAW furnish information on

the current costs of maintaining existing infrastructure, the service charges paid by users and the cost

structure of the water supply and sewerage industries. Therefore, they can be used in economic models

to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of putting new infrastructure in place.

(e) Linking water availability and use. SEEAW furnishes information on stocks of water resources and on

all changes in those stocks resulting from natural causes, such as inflows, outflows and precipitation,

and from human activities, such as abstraction and returns. Further, it disaggregates water abstraction

and returns by industry, thus facilitating the management of such water.

(f) Making available a standardized information system, which is capable of harmonizing information

from different sources, is accepted by stakeholders and is used for the derivation of indicators.

14

(g) Getting stakeholders involved in decision-making. SEEAW is a transparent information system. It

should be used by governments to make informed decisions and by interest groups and communities to

argue their position on the basis of sound information. SEEAW must be complemented with social indi-

cators to facilitate the design of integrated policies.

Water resources and their management are very much linked to spatial considerations. SEEAW takes into

account the recommendation contained in Agenda 21 (objective 18.9) that the river basin is the interna-

tionally recognized unit of reference for IWRM. The water accounting framework can be compiled at any

level of spatial disaggregation: a river basin, a state or administrative region, a city, etc. However, economic

accounts are generally not compiled at the river basin level but at the level of administrative regions, so

specific criteria must be adopted for hybrid accounting).

4.3. International experience in the implementation of Water Accounts

4.3.1. Assessment of SEEAW implementation

According to the Report on the Global Assessment of Water Statistics and Water Accounts (UN Statistical

Division, 2009), a growing number of countries were producing water accounts and implementing the

SEEAW. in 2008, at least 33 countries were compiling water accounts and a further 11 had plans to imple-

ment them in the following two years. Furthermore 17 were using the SEEAW as the reference material for

their compilation.

UNSD provides support to national statistical agencies on developing water statistics and accounts through

an inter-regional advisor. Moreover, a document Guidelines for the Compilation of Water Accounts and

Statistics has been published and Regional Training Workshops on SEEAW are organised regularly (e.g. in

Kampala, Uganda (November 2016) and Putrajaya, Malaysia (September 2016)).

4.3.2. Water accounting in the European Union

The European Union, through the Eurostat and the European Environment Agency (EEA), has been a major

contributor to the development of SEEAW. Eurostat is also a member of the UN Committee of Experts on

Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA), together with other international organizations (FAO,

OECD, UNSD and World Bank) and national statistics offices (Statistics Netherlands [Chair], Australian Bu-

reau of Statistics, Statistics Canada, INEGI Mexico, Statistics Norway, Philippines Statistics Authority, Statis-

tics South Africa).

Fig. 3. Countries compiling or planning to compile water accounts (non-exhaustive)

Source: SEEA-Water and Implementation Activities (Guidelines for Water Accounting) (Ricardo Martinez-Lagunes, 2013)

15

The National Accounting Matrix including Water Accounts (NAMWA)8 developed by Statistics Netherlands

and adopted by Eurostat was a significant milestone in the pathway to SEEAW. It should be noted that

NAMWA is not a different water accounting framework; rather it is an alternative presentation of the infor-

mation contained in the supply and use tables.

In 2012, a project for the elaboration of physical water balances at the sub-catchment level with monthly

resolution9 was carried out for DG Environment with technical support from the EEA. The project demon-

strates the benefits of building a consistent framework for physical water accounts at EU level for the con-

sistency of data collection, the development of water accounting methodologies and the assessment of

water balance and water efficiency. This will allow the improvement of water scarcity and water efficiency

indicators, as requested within the frame of the EU policy to take action to mitigate the effects of water

scarcity and droughts10.

The data collection and calculation was based on water use data reported at EU level via various reporting

streams. The project highlighted important gaps in the availability of key data and confirmed the need to

design a more cost-effective process and to improve interaction between modelled and reported data. In

parallel, EU-wide hydro-economic modelling was carried out as well as 10 Pilot Projects on SEEAW at de-

tailed temporal and spatial scale from 2012 to 2015, covering 6 EU countries: Spain, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria

and Germany. In Spain, RBMPs must include detailed balances confronting long hydrological series with

consumptive water demands and environmental needs at the level of water exploitation systems11 (some

150 in total). The linkages among water accounts, rainfall-runoff models and DSS for optimal water alloca-

tion have been extensively explored in the framework of the above-mentioned pilot projects.

8 More information on NAMWA can be found in The Dutch environmental accounts: present status and future

developments (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek / Statistics Netherlands 2010). 9 Service Contract to contribute to the building of Water and Ecosystem accounts at EU level: Reference system

and Resources datasets; Uses & Supply; Water Accounts system and results; Water Accounts system User Guide

10 The major challenge from water scarcity and droughts has been recognized in the Communication “Address-ing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts" adopted in 2007 [COM(2007)414].

11 For the purposes of RBM planning, the territory is divided into exploitation systems, consisting of surface and groundwater bodies, as well as the hydraulic infrastructure and facilities that are managed jointly under spe-cific operation rules to allocate and distribute water resources to users, making it compatible with the fulfil-ment of the environmental objectives.

16

To establish some common ground on the development of water accounts, a drafting group was created in

2014 with Member States and stakeholders to produce a Guidance document, which focuses on the devel-

opment of water asset accounts (water balances). This document (that has been endorsed by Water Direc-

tors on 27 May 2015) aims at promote a coherent framework to cross-evaluate the information on drivers,

pressures and impacts on water quantity (including in terms of the coherence between water abstraction

and water recharge, water flows between water bodies/catchments, storage changes over time, etc.). Fur-

thermore, it provides a sound basis for the quantitative management of water resources, which in turn can

help towards the achievement of objectives of the European Water Framework Directive.

Further works on economic, hybrid and quality accounts might be developed in the future. In addition,

Eurostat is expanding the scope of its water statistics working group to cover water accounts; the EEA has

developed water accounts works at the EU level and is currently working on the Water Exploitation Index

(WEI+) (see 5.3.1) application and follow-up (thresholds); and also the Joint Research Center12 is developing

a hydro-economic model that could have direct links to water accounts.

4.3.3. Water accounting in Australia

Australia is, at the same time, a dry country and one of the highest per capita users of water in the world.

The equitable distribution of water to meet economic, social and environmental needs is constantly under

debate. The National Water Initiative (NWI), agreed in 2004 by the Council of Australian Governments

(COAG), is the national blueprint for water reform. One of its commitments was the introduction of water

registers and standards for water accounting.

12 Information geospatial information on water quantity and water economics must be consulted in http://wa-

ter.jrc.ec.europa.eu/waterportal.

Fig. 4. Relationship between SEEA-Water and Hydrological Data Models

Source: New developments in Water Accounts implementation in Guadiana River Basin. Final Technical Report

17

Australian water accounting approach is the systematic process of identifying, recognizing, quantifying, re-

porting, assuring and publishing information about water. The role of issuing water accounting standards

was given to the Bureau of Meteorology, which created an independent advisory board, the Water Ac-

counting Standards Board (WASB) [http://www.bom.gov.au/water/standards/wasb/]. WASB established

the theoretical foundations in the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework for the Preparation and

Presentation of General Purpose Water Accounting Reports. The framework was first issued in 2009 and

revised in 2014.

The Australian Water Accounting Standard 1 (AWAS 1) prescribes basis for preparing the Gen-

eral-Purpose Water Accounting Report (GPWAR).

The Australian Water Accounting Standard 2 establishes the requirements for assurance en-

gagements.

Water Accounting Reports aim to assist users in making and evaluating decisions about the allocation of

water resources by providing a comparable and reliable approach to reporting, while also giving water

resource managers an opportunity to demonstrate responsible stewardship of a public good. Furthermore,

the production of reports is expected to instill public and investor confidence in how much water there is,

who has the rights to it, and how it is being used.

Fig. 5. Physical Flows Mass Balance Diagram (2014-2015). Murrumbidgee Catchment

Source: General Purpose Water Accounting Report 2014–2015. Murrumbidgee Catchment

18

While significant progress has been made in the development and adoption of water accounting over a

short period of time, the discipline is still in its infancy. In the end, it will be users who determine what

information they require to be able to make and evaluate decisions about the allocation of resources13.

Examples of GPWAR can be downloaded from the website of the New South Wales Department of Primary

Industries, Water14.

On the other hand, the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces the 4610.0 - Water Account which presents

information on the physical and monetary supply and use of water in the Australian economy. It is compiled,

as far as possible, in accordance with the SEEA.

4.3.4. Water accounting in the USA

Although no systematic water accounting is under development, the provision of structured datasets and

information on water resources and use and water quality is abundant.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hosts the National Water Information System, that provide on-line access

to water-resources data from approximately 1.5 million sites, organized around the following categories:

Surface Water Water flow and levels in streams and lakes.

Groundwater Water levels in wells.

13 Extracted from WWR4. 14 http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-management/water-availability/water-accounting

Fig. 6. Water Supply and Use in the Australian Economy, 2014-15

Source: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/WWAP_UNSD_WaterMF.pdf

19

Water Quality Chemical and physical data for streams, lakes, springs, wells and other sites.

Water Use Water use information reported by source (surface water or groundwater, fresh and saline, and total), and category of use

The USGS investigates the occurrence, quantity, quality, distribution, and movement of surface and under-

ground waters and disseminates the data to the public.

Every 5 years, the USGS compiles and estimates water-use information in cooperation with state, federal,

and local agencies to document how the Nation’s water resources are used, and observes trends for the

following categories of water users: Public supply, Domestic, Irrigation, Thermoelectric power, Industrial,

Mining, Livestock and Aquaculture. In addition to Nation-wide reports, County, State, and national water-

use estimates may be downloaded.

Surface water, groundwater, and

water quality data are compiled

from distributed databases. The in-

formation is provided through these

portals:

Water Watch provides geo-spatial information on current and past streamflow, highlighting

drought and high flow conditions regarding percentile classes of historic data. Yearly Stream-

flow National Summary with state or region wide estimates can also be downloaded, as well

as series of runoff datasets.

Groundwater Watch groups related wells and data from different active monitoring networks

and provides basic statistics about the water data collected - groundwater levels, climate re-

sponse (droughts), real-time and long-term groundwater data network, below normal

groundwater levels, spring monitoring sites - as well as national aquifer composite hydro-

graphs.

Fig. 7. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010. Total Withdrawals

Source: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf

Fig. 8. Map of monthly streamflow compared to historical streamflow for the month of the year (United States)

Source: USGS WaterWatch -- Streamflow conditions

20

Water Quality Watch provides access to real time water-quality data collected in surface wa-

ters throughout the US. Measurements include water temperature, specific conductance, pH,

dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and nitrate.

The National Water Census is a USGS research program on national water availability and use that develops

new water accounting tools and assesses water availability at the regional and national scales. The first 5-

Year report was released in April 2013. Key components of the National Water Census Data Platform that

are currently in development include a database of hydrologic indicators, addressing: precipitation, evapo-

transpiration, water in storage in snowpack, icefields, and large lakes, groundwater level indices, rates of

groundwater recharge, changes in groundwater storage, stream and river runoff characteristics, stream and

river baseflow characteristics, total water withdrawals by source, inter-basin transfers, consumptive uses,

return flows, and impaired surface and groundwater supplies used for existing demands.

Also, a program for assessing flow needs for wildlife and habitat is under development. It is intended to: (a)

classify the streams across the nation according to their hydro-ecological type; (b) systematically examine

the ecological effects of hydrologic alteration; and (c) develop flow alteration – ecological response rela-

tionships for each type of river or stream.

4.3.5. Water accounting in other countries

In México, the overexploitation of aquifers and over-allocation of surface waters in several watersheds has

been addressed by the government of Mexico through several measures: (a) widening the knowledge base

on water quantity; and (b) promoting efficient use of water through the modernization of irrigation districts

and economic instruments, such as water markets to exchange water permits, and fees for abstraction of

inland water resources. The National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) and the National Water

Commission of Mexico (CONAGUA) have worked together to compile preliminary water accounts for mon-

itoring the changes occurring through the years. The following preliminary table shows the productivity of

water for some of the main activities that abstract inland water resources (excluding hydroelectricity).

In Turkey, Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) is the leading authority for overall data collection, statistical

accounts, analysis and reporting services. Some pilot projects for the development of Physical Water Ac-

counts have been implemented, including (a) abstraction of water resources from the environment, (b)

water flows within the economy, and (c) the flows of water back to the environment; but no hybrid water

accounts have been developed so far. A recent publication of the World Bank15 concludes that a series of

actions should be taken for incorporating the economic value of water into strategic decision-making on

water allocation and pricing to meet the challenges. Recommendations include: (a) development of na-

15 Croitoru, Lelia; Xie, Jian; Divrak, Buket Bahar. 2016. Natural capital accounting: valuing water resources in Turkey -

a methodological overview and case study. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://docu-ments.worldbank.org/curated/en/600681476343083047/Natural-capital-accounting-valuing-water-resources-in-Turkey-a-methodological-overview-and-case-study

Fig. 9. Value added per volume of water abstracted (pesos/m3, using 2003 prices)

Source: Calculated from The Economic and Ecological Accounts of Mexico 2003–2008 (INEGI,2010) as presented in Monitoring Framework for Water (UNESCO,2011)

21

tional guidelines on water valuation and accounting to facilitate future studies and scale/implement exist-

ing efforts nationwide; (b) establishment of a national water accounting system; (c) integration of water

valuation into the RBMPs that Turkey is preparing, aligned with the EU-Water Framework Directive [WFD]

to reconcile economic development and ecosystem maintenance.

Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) is a World Bank-led global partnership

that aims to promote sustainable development by ensuring that natural resources are mainstreamed in

development planning and national economic accounts. Significant progress on the implementation of wa-

ter accounts is reported in most of the core implementing countries of WAVES, namely Botswana, Colom-

bia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Madagascar and Rwanda16. The pioneering example of Mauritius must also be

highlighted17.

5. Water Management Indicators

Main messages:

Indicators are relevant to understand and compare water management challenges, and to

take informed decisions

Many indicator sets have been developed at the global level; whatever indicators India will

apply would merit alignment with global indicators for comparability and benchmarking

5.1. From data to indicators through water accounts

The United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) web site introduce its work

on indicators with the following statement:

Data on almost every subject related to water issues is usually lacking, unreliable, incomplete or incon-

sistent. We have learnt that merely collecting data is not enough. It must be brought together, analysed

and converted into information and knowledge, then shared widely within and between countries and

stakeholders to focus attention on water problems at all scales. It is only when the data has been collected

and analysed that we can properly understand the many systems that affect water (hydrological, socio-

economic, financial, institutional and political alike), which have to be factored into water governance.

Consequently, the 4th edition of the UN World Water Development Report (WWDR4), specifically focused

on uncertainty, highlights the strong needs for improved data availability and quality, more structured data

acquisition and better information about water. Moreover, once goals have been defined and sufficient

data have been amassed, appropriate indicators must be defined to address the specific areas of concern

and to monitor the effectiveness of the strategies. Chapter 6 of the Report (From raw data to informed

decisions) sets a pack of indicators, categorized by major challenge areas (more details are provided in sec-

tion 5.3.3).

Meanwhile, SEEAW emphasizes the importance of deriving indicators from the accounting system, rather

than from individual sets of water statistics. This is illustrated by the figure below and further explained in

the reference source.

16 WAVES Annual Report 2016 17 Water Account, Mauritius 2013

22

In the indicator approach (at the left of the figure) the key indicators are derived directly from the basic

data (primary data). Such directly derived key indicators generally appear isolated, meaning that interre-

lationships between them are not always immediately recognizable. In the accounting approach (at the

right of the figure), in contrast, the middle level of the information pyramid is occupied by the additional

accounting data. Basic data driven accounting generates additional secondary data, thus creating a sys-

tem of interrelated information.

However, considering the current status of water information in India, the recommendation would be to

start with some headline indicators to have a targeted data collection, but develop them within an account-

ing system, which in the mid-term will provide further added value, when inter-relating data and indicators,

taking full advantage of deriving indicators from SEEAW. This will allow consistency and enable the study of

further interlinkages and causes of changes, as well as modelling scenarios, since they cover many critical

aspects of IWRM, such as:

a) Water resource availability

b) Water use for human activities, pressure on water resources and opportunities to increase water effi-

ciency

c) Opportunities to increase effective water supply through the management of return flows, reuse and

system losses

d) Water cost and pricing policy: the user-pays and polluter-pays principles.

The indicators proposed in Annex III of SEEAW are further discussed in 5.3.9.

5.2. DPSIR and indicators

The DPSIR framework is a conceptual model developed by the EEA to describe interactions between human

activity and the environment, as an extension of the PSR model proposed by OECD.

This analytical framework has been followed by WWDR4, where the set of indicators are classified per cat-

egory related to cause–effect approach (meaning which one falls under one or more elements of the DPSIR).

Fig. 10. The relation between indicator approach and accounts for the derivation of headline indicators for sustainable developmentHeadline

Source: Introduction in the Environmental-Economic Accounting (Federal Statistical Office of Germany, 2015)

23

The rationale is that, from the

policy point of view, there is a

need for clear and specific in-

formation on: (i) Driving

forces and; (ii) the resulting

environmental Pressures, on;

(iii) the State of the Environ-

ment and; (iv) Impacts result-

ing from changes in environ-

mental quality and on; (v) the

societal Response to these

changes in the environment.

The figure above also illus-

trates that to meet this infor-

mation need, environmental

indicators should reflect all el-

ements of the causal chain,

understanding their dynamics

by focusing on the links be-

tween them18:

For instance, the relationship

between the ‘Drivers’ and the

‘Pressures’ by economic activities is a function of the eco-efficiency of the technology and related systems

in use, with less ‘Pressures’ coming from more ‘Drivers’ if eco-efficiency is improving. Similarly, the relation-

ship between the ‘Impacts’ on humans or eco-systems and the ‘State’ depends on the carrying capacities

and thresholds for these systems. Whether society ‘Responds’ to impacts depends on how these impacts are

perceived and evaluated; and the results of ‘Responses’ on the ‘Drivers’ depends on the effectiveness of the

Response.

Some examples of DPSIR framework for water issues - and, more specifically, for water quantity - can be

found in the background literature19.

5.3. Review of indicators proposed by international institutions

An extensive array of indicators has been developed so far, or merely suggested, to assess the state of water

resources and the multiple aspects of its use and management, for a variety of purposes from awareness

raising to practical monitoring of water policy targets. In this section, a review of those proposed by relevant

international organizations is carried out, to select which are the most adequate to achieve the objectives.

5.3.1. EU Water Scarcity and Drought Indicators

After a testing exercise conducted by several Pilot River Basins and further conceptual developments, the

EU Water Scarcity and Drought Expert Network agreed to include the water exploitation index plus (WEI+)

in the indicator system, together with the drought indicators Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and the

18 Technical report No 25. Environmental indicators: Typology and overview (EEA, 1999) 19 The DPSIR Framework (Peter Kristensen. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, 2004). Devel-

oping Strategies for Regulating and Managing Water Resources and Demand in Water Deficient Regions (NTUA, School of Chemical Engineering, 2002). Tutorials on Systems Thinking using the DPSIR Framework (EPA).

Fig. 11. Generic storyline and DPSIR framework to describe water quantity issues

Source: Costantino et al., 2003 in WWR2

24

fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Solar Radiation (fAPAR), both hosted by the European

Drought Observatory (EDO).

The Water Exploitation Index Plus (WEI+) of an area is the total consumption of water divided by the re-

newable freshwater resources. It provides an indication of the pressure on the water resources because of

water withdrawals. Hence, it also identifies areas most prone to suffer recurrent or permanent situations

of water scarcity20.

These three awareness-raising indicators can extensively be calculated based on pan-European infor-

mation, either already existing or under development (e.g. water accounts).

5.3.2. UN-Water

UN-Water Task Force on Indicators, Monitoring and Reporting has proposed a Set of Key Indicators for the

Water Sector, descriptive of the major water issues and intended to be used in the short term. They have

also been selected for their measurability and because data are readily available and can be calculated by

most countries around the world. However, the quality of the data sets varies making it difficult to draw

trends. Indicators address water availability, sustainability and performance (social, environmental and eco-

nomic), as well as governance. Units, definitions and data sources for each indicator are provided.

1. Total actual renewable water resources (TARWR) per person (indicates the reality of human pressure on renewable but finite resources)

[m3/cap]

2. Storage capacity per person (imperfect measure of capacity to mitigate climate change risk) [m3/cap]

3. Importance of national expenditure for water supply and sanitation [USD/cap]

4. Intensity of use of actual water resources [%]

5. Use by abstraction from TARWR (Total Actual Renewable Water Resources) by main sector (indicates the relative importance of the various sectors)

[%]

6. Change in inland fish production

7. Percentage of population using improved drinking [%]

8. Percentage of population using improved sanitation facilities [%]

9. Importance of external water footprint over total water footprint [m3/cap/year]

10. Change in water productivity in agriculture [USD/cap/m3]

11. Change in water productivity in industry [USD/cap/m3]

12. Change in hydropower productivity [%]

13. Change in aquifers quality status (quality/salinity) [%]

14. Waste water treatment connection rates [%]

15. Trends in freshwater species [%]

5.3.3. UNESCO - WWAP

The World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) of UNESCO coordinates the work for drafting the World

Water Development Report (WWDR), an annual review providing an authoritative picture of the state, use

20 Water scarcity and drought are two interrelated but distinct concepts. Despite widespread recognition of the

important differences between the two concepts, there is no scientific agreement about the precise defini-tions of the terms water scarcity and drought. The two concepts can be distinguished as follows:

Drought is a natural phenomenon. It is a temporary, negative, and severe deviation along a significant time period and over a large region from average precipitation values (a rainfall deficit), which might lead to meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socioeconomic drought, depending on its severity and duration.

Water scarcity is a man-made phenomenon. It is a recurrent imbalance that arises from an overuse of water resources, caused by consumption being significantly higher than the natural renewable availability. Water scarcity can be aggravated by water pollution (reducing the suitability for different water uses), and during drought episodes.

25

and management of the world’s freshwater resources. In this framework, the WWAP develops indicators

for water resources, its use and management. WWAP had established an Expert Group on Indicators, Mon-

itoring and Databases (EG-IMD), which promoted dialogue between potential users of data and indicators

and experts in the provision and interpretation of data, including inputs to the above-mentioned UN-Water

Task Force which is, in fact, coordinated by WWAP.

While the first edition (WWDR1) reported on over 160 indicators, only 49 indicators were covered in the

4th edition Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk (WWDR4). This reduction occurred, in part, be-

cause of the difficulties encountered in obtaining updated data for the indicators, but also reflected con-

sideration about their nature and purpose.

Indicators are grouped in the following sections: Level of stress on the resource, Governance, Settlements,

State of the resource, Ecosystems, Health, Food, agriculture and rural livelihood, Industry and energy, Risk

assessment, Valuing and charging for the resource and Knowledge base and capacity. Indicators of the first

group, which are the most relevant for the objectives of this report are presented below:

The categories in cause-effect approach are based on the DPSIR framework (see section 5.2). Three types

are established: (a) basic indicators provide fundamental information and are well established and widely

used; data are generally widely available for all countries; (b) key indicators are well defined and validated,

have global coverage and are linked directly to policy goals; and (c) developing indicators are in a formative

stage and may evolve into key indicators following refinement of methodological issues or data develop-

ment and testing. Profile sheet with a detailed definition and explanation of how the indicator is computed

(as well as data tables for some indicators) is available for most indicators at.

WWAP is currently developing a Pilot Study on Indicators (PSI), in partnership with GTN-H (Global Terrestrial

Network for Hydrology) and GEO/IGWCO (Group on Earth Observations/ Integrated Global Water Cycle

Observations) for estimating country-level total TARWR based on (but not limited to) a combination of hy-

dro-meteorological and high resolution river network. WWAP will publish the profiles of 20 countries (not

including India) to showcase the implementation of this innovative methodology:

5.3.4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

AQUASTAT is FAO's global water information system, developed by the Land and Water Division. It is the

most quoted source on global water statistics. AQUASTAT collects, analyzes and disseminates data and in-

formation by country on water resources, water uses, agricultural water management etc.

26

AQUASTAT products include publications, maps and geo-referenced information, visualizations and in-

fographics tools, series of datasets and indicators, regional and country profiles and also description of se-

lected transboundary river basins, including Indus and Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna. AQUASTAT has also

implemented the Federated Water Monitoring System (FWMS) and Key Water Indicator Portal (KWIP) on

behalf of UN-Water.

Fig. 12. Example of infortmation query to AQUASTAT database

Source: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html

27

5.3.5. World Resources Institute

The Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas is a publicly available, global database and interactive tool that maps indi-

cators of water-related risks. Aqueduct enables comparison across large geographies to identify regions or

assets deserving of closer attention.

Modelled use and supply indicators Externally sourced indicators

Baseline water stress measures the ratio of total an-nual water withdrawals to total available annual re-newable supply, accounting for upstream consump-tive use. Higher values indicate more competition among users.

Flood occurrence is a count of the number of floods recorded from 1985-2011.

Inter-annual variability measures the variation in wa-ter supply from year-to-year.

Drought Severity estimates the average of the length times the dryness of droughts from 1901 to 2008. Drought is defined as a continuous period where soil moisture remains below the 20th percentile, length is measured in months, and dryness is the number of percentage points below the 20th percentile.

Seasonal variability measures variation in water sup-ply between months of the year.

Groundwater Stress measures the relative ratio of groundwater withdrawal to recharge rate. Values above one indicate where unsustainable groundwater consumption could affect groundwater availability and groundwater-dependent ecosystems.

Upstream Storage measures the water storage capac-

ity available upstream of a location relative to the total

Media Coverage measures the percentage of all me-dia articles in an area that cover water-related issues.

Fig. 13. Screenshot of the Key Water Indicators Portal reporting indicators for India

Source: UN-Water: KWIP

28

Modelled use and supply indicators Externally sourced indicators

water supply at that location; higher values indicate ar-

eas more capable of buffering variations in water sup-

ply (i.e. droughts and floods).

Higher values indicate areas with higher public aware-ness around water issues, and consequently higher reputational risks to those not sustainably managing water.

Return Flow Ratio measures the percentage of availa-ble water that has been previously used and dis-charged upstream as wastewater Higher values indi-cate higher dependency on treatment plants and po-tentially poor water quality in areas that lack suffi-cient treatment infrastructure.

Access to Water measures the percentage of popula-

tion without access to improved drinking water

sources. Higher values indicate areas where people

have less access to safe drinking water supplies, and in-

dicating high reputational risks to those using water in

an inequitable way.

Upstream Protected Land measures the percentage of total water supply that originates from protected ecosystems. Lower values indicate areas located downstream from less -protected watersheds. Water quality could, therefore, be compromised in that area.

Threatened Amphibians measures the percentage of freshwater amphibian species that are classified by IUCN as threatened in an area. Higher values indicate more fragile freshwater ecosystems that may be sub-ject to water withdrawal and discharge regulations.

Use and supply are estimated at a hydrological catchment scale, which is required to spatially partition

runoff and withdrawals and accumulate values downstream.

5.3.6. European Environment Agency

EEA indicators are designed to answer key policy questions and support all phases of environmental policy

making, from designing policy frameworks to setting targets, and from policy monitoring and evaluation to

communicating to policy-makers and the public. The indicators are classified as follows:

Descriptive indicators (Type A) responding to the question: What’s happening?

Performance indicators (Type B): Does it matter? Are we reaching targets?

Fig. 14. Baseline Water Stress Indicator

Source: Aqueduct | Water Risk

29

Efficiency indicators (Type C): Are we improving?

Policy effectiveness indicators (Type D): Are the measures working?

Total welfare indicators (Type E): Are we, on the whole, better off?

The Digest of EEA indicators 2014 provides a comprehensive guide to EEA indicators.

The EEA's Indicator Management System (IMS) currently contains 127 indicators, covering 22 environmen-

tal topics. The Core Set of Indicators (CSI), which is currently under revision, aims to prioritise improvements

in the quality and coverage of data flows, streamline contributions to other international indicator initia-

tives, and provide a manageable and stable basis for indicator-based assessments of progress against envi-

ronmental policy priorities. Many of the core set of indicators are used in other international indicator pro-

cesses implemented elsewhere, notably at the European Commission, OECD, WHO and UNECE. The set is

often used as a model for indicator sets at country level.

WAT (Water indicators) and WREI (Water resource efficiency indicators): These sets provide information

on the status of and pressures on freshwater. This thematic area is a focus of indicator development with

relevant directives, including the WFD, Bathing Water Directives, Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

and Nitrates Directive, and new indicators along with the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe.

5.3.7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

OECD publishes Environment at a Glance 2015. OECD Indicators. Environmental trends are monitored

through the following indicators:

Use of freshwater resources: Freshwater resources and abstractions, Gross freshwater abstractions per

capita, Total renewable freshwater resources per capita (long-term annual average values), Intensity of

Fig. 15. Example: Observed trend in frequency and severity of meteorological droughts

Source: Maps and graphs — European Environment Agency

30

use of freshwater resources, Freshwater abstractions by major primary uses, Abstractions for public

supply per capita, 2013 or latest available year.

Water pricing for public supply: Water prices in selected major cities, 2013 (also total annual charges

and tariff structure).

Fig. 16. Abstraction for public supply per capita, 2013 or latest available year

Fig. 17. Water prices in selected water cities, 2013 (total annual charges and tariff structure)

31

Wastewater treatment: Sewage treatment connection rates, % of population

5.3.8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compiles a key set of indicators related to the causes and ef-

fects of climate change, which are published in the report, Climate Change Indicators in the United States.

Many of these indicators are water management-relevant, such as the following: Drought, Great Lakes Wa-

ter Levels and Temperatures, Heavy Precipitation, River Flooding, Snowpack, Streamflow and U.S. and

Global Precipitation.

5.3.9. SEEAW

The document sets a consistent and comprehensive pack of indicators that may be mostly derived from

water accounts, mentioning the original source of the proposal, which have been partly reviewed above.

Fig. 18. Sewage treatment connection rates, 2013 or latest available year (% of national population connected to a WWTP)

Fig. 19. U.S. Lands Under Drought Conditions, 2000–2015

Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/print_drought-2016.pdf

32

water resource availability and pressure on water

Indicator Definition Source21

Internal renewable water resources

Average annual flow of rivers and recharge of groundwater generated from endog-enous precipitation

a

External renewable water resources

Part of the country’s renewable water resources shared with neighbouring coun-tries. Total external resources are the inflow from neighbouring countries (trans-boundary groundwater and surface water inflows), and the relevant part of the shared lakes or border rivers. The assessment considered the natural resources generally; if there are reservations in neighbouring countries, they are called actual resources

a

Total natural renewable water resources

The sum of internal and external renewable water resources. It corresponds to the maximum theoretical amount of water available for a country on an average year on a long reference period

a

Total actual renewable water resources (Fresh water resources total)

The sum of internal and external renewable water resources, taking into considera-tion the quantity of flow reserved to upstream and downstream countries through formal or informal agreements or treaties and reduction of flow due to upstream withdrawal. Cf., external surface water inflow, actual or submitted to agreements. It corresponds to the maximum theoretical amount of water actually available for a country at a given moment. The figure may vary with time. Their computation is re-ferring to a given period and not to an inter-annual average

a

Dependency ratio Ratio between the external renewable resources and total natural renewable re-sources. Indicator expressing the part of the total renewable water resources origi-nating outside the country

a b c

Exploitable water re-sources (manageable re-sources)

Part of the water resources which is considered to be available for development un-der specific technical, economic and environmental conditions

a

Per capita renewable re-sources

Ratio between total renewable water resources and population size b c

Density of internal re-sources

Ratio between the average internal flow and area of the territory c

Annual withdrawals of groundwater and surface water as a percentage of total renewable water. Exploitation index

The total annual volume of ground and surface water abstracted for water uses as a percentage of the total annually renewable volume of freshwater

d

Consumption index Ratio between water consumption and total renewable resources c

Selected indicators of water intensity and water productivity

1. Water use and pollution intensity (physical units)

Cubic metres of water use per unit of physical output; Water use or tons of pollution emit-ted per unit of output, such as: Population; Number of households; Tons of wheat, steel, etc., produced

Tons of pollution generated per unit of physical output

2. Water and pollution in-tensity (monetary units)

Cubic metres of water use per value added Water use or tons of pollution emitted per unit of value added, measured in currency units

Tons of pollution per value added

3. Water productivity ratios GDP per cubic metres of water used

Value added by industry per cubic metres of water used

4. Water “pollutivity” ratios Industry’s share of pollution per industry’s share of value added

21 a. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Aquastat Glossary online

b. UNESCO and its World Water Assessment Programme

c. Margat Jean (1996). Les ressources en eau. Ed. BRGM et FAO. Similar concepts can be found in http://info-terre.brgm.fr/rapports/RR-37267-FR.pdf

d. United Nations, Indicators of Sustainable Development

33

Indicators of opportunities to increase effective water supply

1. Return flows Quantity of return flows, by source

May distinguish treated return flows (from municipal and industrial us-ers) from untreated return flows, such as agriculture

2. Water reuse Reuse of water as a share of total industrial water use

May distinguish the reuse of water within a plant from water supplied by ISIC 36, water collection, treatment and supply

3. Losses Losses in distribution as a share of total water supply

Both the amount of and the reason for these losses are usually known by the water utility

Losses unaccounted for as a share of total water use

These losses occur owing to various causes and it is usually not certain how much each cause contributes

Indicators of opportunities to increase effective water supply

1. Cost and price of water

Implicit water price Supply cost divided by volume of water purchased

Average water price per cubic metre, by industry

Actual payments by that industry divided by the vol-ume of water purchased

Average water supply cost per cubic me-tre, by industry

Cost of supply to that industry divided by the volume of water purchased

Subsidy per cubic metre, by industry Average water price minus average cost of water sup-ply

2. Cost and price of wastewater treatment services

Implicit wastewater treatment price Volume of water treated divided by supply cost

Average wastewater treatment cost per cubic metre, by industry

Volume of wastewater divided by treatment cost for that industry

Average wastewater treatment price per cubic metre, by industry

Volume of wastewater divided by actual payments for treatment by that industry

Subsidy per cubic metre, by industry Average wastewater price minus average wastewater supply cost

The links between indicators in the World Water Development Report (2006) [WWDR1] and SEEAW are

also stated in terms of status (B = basic indicator, K= key indicator; D = developing indicators; and C = con-

ceptual indicator) and calculation method from the water accounts in case the indicator can be derived

totally or partially from any SEEAW table. See 5.3.3 for indicators included in WWDR4.

6. Blueprint for Water Accounting System in India

A water accounting system in India should provide support to better decision-making on key water man-

agement issues, such as:

Increasing conflicts between administrative areas (states, districts) about sharing water re-

sources and the benefits from their use.

Increasing conflicts on water use and/or consumption between key economic sectors (urban,

energy, agriculture, industry).

Deteriorating environment due to increased pressures (quality, quantity), providing less eco-

system services to people.

Climate change effects on water use, and long-term development of economy, society and

the environment.

6.1. Targets and key messages

The key questions for setting targets for the water accounting data and developing corresponding messages

are:

▫ Which area (state, district etc.) is consuming how much (of the available) water (by which sectors),

and what are the trends?

34

▫ Which would be a sustainable and equitable use? Which are the areas that are driving over-exploi-

tation and conflicts?

▫ What are the expected consumption trends for the future (in sectors/areas)?

▫ How can future water consumption trends be influenced? Which policy options (governance, invest-

ments) shall be promoted (in which area/sector)?

▫ Which are the economic and social benefits and trade-offs of the current water use (area, sector)?

How can benefits be increased/optimised?

▫ How are areas/sectors benefitting from access to water in comparison to their role in contributing

to the costs of water management adequately (e.g. by proportion of water use, benefits associated

to water use, area, number of people, etc.)?

▫ How does water quality affect economic activity (agriculture and energy production) and society

(health, well-being)?

▫ How much water shall be set aside (not used/consumed) for maintaining freshwater ecosystems?

▫ How does water quality affect the environment and freshwater ecosystems?

▫ How will climate change trends affect water availability and consumption?

The Blueprint proposes a water

accounting data system, and

derived indicators, together

with additional studies and as-

sessments which should pro-

vide responses to the above

questions.

In addition, water indicators

may be used as a powerful tool

to raise public awareness on

water conservation issues.

Providing information on driv-

ing forces, impacts and policy

responses, is a common strat-

egy to strengthen public sup-

port for policy measures22.

The figure presents another

version of the Information Pyr-

amid, presenting how different

water information products

(more elaborated and syn-

thetic as we go up the pyramid)

are targeted to different audi-

ences: from monitoring data to be used by researchers to images that summarize policy messages to the

public, as well as registers and datasets for competent authorities and researchers, or indicators and inte-

grated studies for policymakers. Focusing on policy-making, water indicators are used for three major pur-

poses:

▫ Supply information on water problems, valuing their seriousness.

22 EEA Technical Report No 25/1999.

Fig. 20. Target audiences for water information

Source: From Statistics To Policy. The development and application of environmental statistics and environmental accounts in the Netherlands. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2016

35

▫ Support policy development and priority setting, by identifying key factors that cause pressure on

the water or problems for water-related development;

▫ Monitor the effects of policy responses, identifying breaches but also acknowledging the achieve-

ments.

6.2. Water management indicators

6.2.1. Selection of indicators for water management and planning

After reviewing the main international references, a selection of indicators has been made in response to

the main challenges to be addressed for better water management in India. The rationale of the selection

process is summarized in the table of Chapter 2. For each upcoming key water policy issue, the usefulness

of the indicators has been assessed, as well as the need for other supporting or complementary tools.

Next, the basic information on the proposed indicators is synthesized (formulation, scale of application and

information needs), as well as their role for policy decision-making when put into practice, thus inferring

the usefulness of their application to India.

6.2.1.1. Water Consumption Index

Rationale

Water abstraction to satisfy human needs is the most important quantitative pressure on freshwater re-

sources. Excessive growth of demands in a territory in relation to the availability of water resources can

result in the medium-long term in a chronic shortages situation, characteristic of an unsustainable use of

resources. This indicator can identify whether the rates of abstraction are sustainable, helping to analyse

how changes in human consumption impact on the freshwater resources, either by adding pressure to them

or by making them more sustainable.

Calculation and sources of data

The Water Consumption Index [WCI] is calculated as the ratio between water consumption (difference

between water abstraction and the returns to inland waters) and the total actual renewable water re-

sources (TARWR) in the territory.

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 [𝑊𝐶𝐼] =𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠

𝑇𝐴𝑅𝑊𝑅 (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠) [ℎ𝑚3

ℎ𝑚3⁄ ]

It is one of the indicators proposed by SEEAW to assess water resource availability and pressure on water

and is also similar in its definition to the WEI+ proposed by the EU. The concept is aligned with the Con-

sumption calculated under the Physical Supply and Use Table of SEEAW (see Annex 2) and with the blue

water footprint proposed by the Water Footprint Network. By detracting returns, the actual level of pres-

sure that human activity exerts on the natural water resources is better captured.

Water abstraction data can be obtained from direct sources or by estimates from statistical sources (e.g,

number of inhabitants, irrigated surface and distribution of crops) and typical consumption rates. Similarly,

returns to the environment can be approached by typical efficiency rates in absence of better information.

More information is provided in section 6.2.1.2.

Scope

The geographical scope may be delimited either by natural boundaries (basin, sub-basin) or administrative

ones (states, nation). Regarding the temporal scale, WCI may be calculated at yearly, seasonal or monthly

basis. When hydrological regimes are characterized by intra-annual irregularity, as in the case of India, the

36

seasonal calculation is convenient to avoid periods of heavy rains masking the severity of the droughts. The

consideration of variation of artificial storage, if significant, is also relevant for the calculation of seasonal

WCI.

On the other hand, long term averages may be useful to set the general status of the spatial unit and for

comparison with other territories and/or thresholds (see Annex 1).

Policy relevance

Those spatial units with higher values of WCI can be identified as water scarce, meaning regular problems

for ensuring resources for human activity and the environment. They are also prone to suffer more acutely

the episodes of drought.

Thus, greater efforts are to be made for bringing together adequate solutions for sustainable water quantity

management.

For instance, these areas should be prioritized for the assessment and implementation of environmental

flow regimes and for the preparation of drought management plans. In the EU, monthly WCI must be cal-

culated in the framework of the RBMPs and reported to the European Commission.

23 WEI+ is the Water Scarcity Indicator in the EU. It is an evolution of the former Water Exploitation Index (WEI),

where annual water withdrawal was substituted by water consumption (detracting returns) and timescale was taken to monthly. Thus, its formulation is similar to the monthly WCI.

Fig. 21. WEI+23 dynamic viewer. Image from Summer 2005

Source: Use of freshwater resources — European Environment Agency

37

On the other hand, the decomposition of water

consumption in its different sectoral components

(human supply, irrigation, manufacturing industry,

energy production, mining etc) may provide rele-

vant information on the pressures exerted by each

sector and its evolution.

It may help to assess foreseen scenarios regarding

prognosis on population, economic fundamentals,

expected energy and food consumption, new irriga-

tion developments, climate change, as well as the

implementation of measures, e.g. reuse or effi-

ciency increases to reduce abstraction or new stor-

age infrastructure to increase seasonal availability.

Also, the impacts of climate change on renewable

water resources may be tracked (past evolution) or

foreshadowed (future scenarios). Reports from

both the International Panel on Climate Change and

the UN World Water Assessment Programme use

indicators on water stress to illustrate current sta-

tus of water quantity problems and to monitor the

observed hydrological changes due to climate and

analyzing the drivers of change for freshwater resources (climatic and non-climatic).

Fig. 22. Relationship between hydrological alteration, e-flows and status of waters

Source: Water resources in Europe in the context of vulnera-bility (European Environment Agency)

Fig. 23. Examples of current vulnerabilities of freshwater resources and their management; in the background, a water stress map based on Alcamo et al.

Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/

38

6.2.1.2. Sectoral Water Consumption Ratios

Rationale

The rationale behind these water consumption intensity ratios is introducing the consideration of the mag-

nitude of drivers to facilitate comparability of different performances within a sector and assess inter-ter-

ritorial differences, thus serving as a sectoral benchmarking exercise.

Calculation and sources of data

These indicators are calculated as the ratio between water consumption and some magnitude representa-

tive of the driver (e.g. number of inhabitants for human supply, irrigation surface, energy production=)

𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 [𝑆𝑊𝐶𝑅] =𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠)

𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠, ℎ𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠, 𝑘𝑤 − ℎ … )

[𝑚3

𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑏.⁄ ] [𝑚3

ℎ𝑎⁄ ] [𝑚3

𝑘𝑤 − ℎ⁄ ]

Sources of data are the same needed for the estimation of WCI for the water consumption (sectoral ab-

straction – returns), complemented with others from census (population and households) or thematic sta-

tistics surveys (agriculture, industry, energy).

Scope

Within the same sectors, comparison may reflect relative high water consumption values at certain admin-

istrative units (municipalities, states, irrigation districts, catchments), or even for specific crops or individual

energy production facilities. Such differences can support the promotion of targeted pilot assessments or

action plans in a state or sector, e.g. investments for water efficiency, reduction of water losses, water

pricing to incentive better use, etc.

In general, yearly estimates are sufficient unless the driver varies significantly with seasonality (e.g. hydro-

power production). Building retrospective series, if possible, may be helpful to understand trends and de-

sign targeted actions whose effects could be, in turn, to firstly foreshadowed and later monitored with the

SWCR in combination with the WPI (see section 6.2.1.3).

Policy relevance

The indicators developed under this section may be compared to national and / or international sectoral

benchmarks, thus helping to identify inefficient use patterns and to take corrective action. However, it must

be taken into account that the reasons behind the differences can be manifold. For instance, in the case of

irrigation, the consumption patterns depend on the efficiency of the irrigation system, but also may be

linked to differential climatic, water or soil condition, or plot size. It must be noted also that more efficient

irrigation schemes reduce abstraction - provided that intensity of water use after modernization is not in-

creased - but also the returns to the environment, eventually impacting the uses downstream.

The figure below represents the annual water needs for irrigated cropland (m3/ha) in each one of the Agri-

culture Demand Units of Guadalquivir RBD (south of Spain). Net water needs depends on crop distribution

within the unit and standard years’ climatic parameters - rainfall, temperature, evapo-transpiration etc-

which are determined spatially from the datasets collected in the agro-met station network.

39

Then, net water needs are converted into gross water needs either from direct information or by applying

coefficients of efficiency in the conveyance to plot and field application. After this analysis, the RBMP sets:

on the one hand, target efficiencies for already existing irrigation areas; on the other, for new permit re-

quests, maximum net and gross water allocation per crop and hectare.

6.2.1.3. Water Productivity Index

Rationale

Water use efficiency is an important aspect of economic growth, particularly in regions prone to water

shortages. Though there are different ways of measuring this efficiency, the proposal is using the Value

Added (other possibilities could be comparing to jobs created or to unit product). Value Added (Output –

Intermediate Consumption) represents the contribution of labour and capital to the production process.

This index complement the information provided by the previous one (SWCR) in terms of economic perfor-

mance. The use of monetary values also makes it possible the comparison among different sectors.

Calculation and sources of data

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 [𝑊𝑃𝐼] =𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝐴𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑

𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 [𝑅𝑠, 𝑈𝑆𝐷

𝑚3⁄ ]

Apart from the sources of data already mentioned for the sectoral water consumption estimates, economic

accounts broken down by activity at the appropriate administrative scale are needed. One specific difficulty

is that the agricultural statistics usually do not distinguish between what comes from irrigated or rainfed

production for the moment. Specific accounting exercises may be needed, e.g. using Crop Budget Tools in

the case of comparison of irrigation productivity.

Fig. 24. Irrigation net water needs (m3/ha/year)

Source: Gudalquvir RBMP 2015-2021 (Spain)

40

Alternatively, the economic water productivity may be estimated directly in terms of output (value of pro-

duction per unit of water consumed), but inter-sectoral comparison - even intra-sectoral if high differences

in intermediate costs happen- may be substantially biased. One example of this approach is provided in the

Report Potential and Challenges to Meet Increasing Water Demand in the Ganges River Basin (see figure

above).

Scope

Territorial scope is basically determined by the administrative level where economic information is availa-

ble. If other geographical units are to be considered, certain distributional assumptions should be neces-

sary. As in the case of SWCR, yearly estimates are adequate and building retrospective series is advisable

to acknowledge trends. If monitoring is sustained over time, it shows whether a country or territory has

decoupled water use from economic growth.

Policy relevance

WPI facilitates a comparison of relative economic efficiency across sectors and territories, supporting ob-

jectives for economic performance and water use. It is also useful to inform potential water re-allocation

schemes if market oriented allocation systems would be in force tending to redistribute water to more

economically efficient users.

On the other hand, policy decisions may be enlightened by considerations of global virtual water trade,

linked to water productivity. Saving water at global scale is possible if products are traded from countries

with high water productivity to countries with low productivity.

Fig. 25. Economic water productivity (EWP) of crop production in the Ganga RB in the period 2008-2011

Source: IWMI Research Report 167

41

6.2.1.4. Cost Recovery Ratio

Rationale

The Cost Recovery Ratio (CRC) informs primarily of the fraction of the costs incurred for proper water man-

agement that is recovered by prices, direct taxes and tariffs. The rationale is that pricing policy should pro-

vide adequate incentives to use water resources efficiently. Consequently, water users must contribute to

the recovery of the costs - not necessary fully -, being aware that differences across them suggest that

trade-offs and cross subsidies happen. Not only direct government subsidies, but also taxation policies,

price controls or regulations may create distortions.

It must be noted that the cost of water provision does not equal the true value of water, as resource scarcity

and environmental needs and non-market values are not usually known. This may result in the overuse of

some resources with a related degradation of the ecosystems.

Calculation and sources of data

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 [𝐶𝑅𝑅] =𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 [𝑅𝑠, 𝑈𝑆𝐷

𝑚3⁄ ]

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 [𝑅𝑠, 𝑈𝑆𝐷𝑚3⁄ ]

[%]

The definition of water services is controversial. For the calculation of this indicator, the suggestion is to

focus on water supply and treatment, meaning the abstraction, storage, transport, treatment, distribution

of surface or groundwater, as well as the collection and treatment of wastewater to be subsequently dis-

charged into the environment. Prices for water services can be charged in many ways24:

Taxes, compulsory and unrequited payments to general government. Revenues usually go to

the general budget.

Water tariffs, prices assigned to water supplied by a public or private utility to its customers.

Water charges, compulsory payment related to a specific service, e.g. wastewater collection

and treatment; also, applied to levies on polluted discharges and for water supplies. Revenues

spent on purposes related to the object of the charge.

The (financial) Costs of Water Services include, in principle, the investment (Equivalent Annual Cost) and

the operation and management costs of actual water infrastructure and water facilities. A more ambitious

approach would internalise the environmental and scarcity costs (non-financial) that result from existing

uses of water, as it is the case of European WFD.

Relevant sources of data may be the Cost and Benefit Analysis of the Water Resources Development Pro-

jects. Information can be collected from water services providers, both from the side of costs (investment,

operation, project / facility lifetime) and the payments / revenues.

Scope

The European RBMPs should report cost recovery estimates at River Basin District [RBD] level - which means

member state for international basins - and disaggregated into main economic sectors. If there are sub-

stantial differences within one sector, the estimates must be broken down to properly consider this diver-

sity. For instance, differentiating self-service (e.g. pumping) where the financial CRC is typically 100% from

public provision systems.

24 Assessment of cost recovery through pricing of water. European Environment Agency. Technical report No

16/2013

42

Policy relevance

The calculation of CRR provides direct and clear information on how water is being paid for and, to some

extent, indication about whether the right price signals are transmitted to water users. How the water price

affects water user behaviour can be derived through comparison among users and territories.

The target does not have to always be reaching 100% CRC, but to get insight on how water management

costs are borne by society and to draft a coherent roadmap to ensure that adequate efficiency incentives

are in place. Support schemes like subsidies and exemptions from water charges and taxes can play an

important social and political role. However, when not responsibly managed, they can have large-scale neg-

ative impacts on the environment, and prevent efficient resource use and allocation.

6.2.1.5. Water Quality Index

Rationale

Access to clean water for drinking and sanitary purposes is a precondition for human health and well-being,

and is also essential for the ecosystems. Water quality is influenced by both direct point source and diffuse

pollution which come from urban and rural populations, industrial emissions and farming. For agriculture,

the key pollutants include nutrients, pesticides, sediment and faecal microbes - also linked to untreated

urban discharges - while oxygen consuming substances and hazardous chemicals comprise key pollutants

from sewage and industrial point source discharges25.

As already mentioned in section 3, CPCB uses a Water Quality Index (WQI) which classifies waters to deter-

mine potential use, informing on boundaries for the utilization of specific sources for certain economic

activities and/or human supply and the level of treatment needed.

25 Water pollution overview. European Environment Agency

Fig. 26. Cost-recovery levels for water and sanitation services in the domestic sector

Source: EEA, 2013

43

Calculation and sources of data

The WQI already used in India is, in

fact, a modified version26 of the Na-

tional Sanitation Foundation Water

Quality Index (NSFWQI)27. Based on

this index, the water quality is classi-

fied in 5 quality ranges linked to des-

ignated best use and in accordance

with some primary water quality cri-

teria.

For drinking28 and outdoor bathing

water the parameters include coli-

forms, pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

and Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(BOD). Additional criteria are consid-

ered for other purposes, such as free

Ammonia for the propagation of

wildlife and fisheries and electrical

cconductivity, Sodium Absorption

Ratio (SAR) and Boron for irrigation

and industrial cooling.

More detailed tolerance limits for in-

land surface waters for the various

classes of water use are presented by

CWC (Water Quality Status of Rivers

of India).

The creation of a Composite Water

Quality Index is currently under technical discussion in the framework of the integration of hydrological,

water quality and other data available with India-WRIS. The tested values of DO, Nitrates, Phosphates and

pH will be combined in a single absolute value weighting tabulated values of the different parameters.

Scope

The Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring (CPBC, 2007) states that sampling site selection is generally

linked with water quality monitoring objectives. For example, if the monitoring is carried out for judging

suitability of water for drinking water source then the monitoring site should be closer to the intake point

whereas for outdoor bathing it should be near bathing ghats.

26 Source: http://mpcb.gov.in/images/pdf/WaterQuality0709/Chapter3_WQ.pdf. 27 NSFWQI is a 100-point scale that summarizes results from a total of nine different measurements when com-

plete: Dissolved Oxygen, Faecal Coliform, pH, Biochemical oxygen demand, Temperature Change, Total Phos-phate, Nitrates, Turbidity, Total Solids. Methodological explanation and on-line calculator may be found at http://www.water-research.net/index.php/water-treatment/water-monitoring/monitoring-the-quality-of-surfacewaters.

28 The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has recently revised Drinking Water Specifications to upgrade the re-quirements and align with the internationally available specifications: Drinking Water Specification IS 10500 : 2012.

Fig. 27. Water Quality Criteria as per Central Pollution Control Board, India

Source: CPBC (taken from India-WRIS)

44

Thus, attending to designated best use classifications, bathing points, water intakes for agricultural and

human supply, and valuable spots and river reaches for wildlife and fisheries should be covered for the

monitoring networks.

Systematic water quality monitoring is relatively recent in India, starting in 1976 by the CPCB with 18 sta-

tions on the Yamuna river. Currently, there are three operative networks in the country, whose data are

presented on the India-WRIS website:

Surface Water Quality Stations (CPCB): 906 stations situated all over the country. These sta-

tions mainly observe parameters such as temperature, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH, Biochem-

ical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Nitrate, fecal coliform, total coliform.

Surface Water Quality Stations (CWC): 399 existing stations. Sixty-eight water quality param-

eters which are considered to be the ‘Standard Hydrology Project Water Quality Parameters’

can be visualized in WRIS. All physical, chemical and biological water quality parameters are

categorized further under sub categories like field determinations, nutrients, organic matter,

alkalinity, hardness, other inorganics, major ions, coliforms and others.

Groundwater Quality Stations (Central Ground Water Board - CGWB): 2,337 observation wells

with 15 parameters which include values for Magnesium, pH, Nitrate, Potassium, Sulphate,

Electrical Conductivity (EC), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Calcium, Sodium, Carbonate, Bicar-

bonate, Chloride, Fluoride, Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) and Residual Sodium Carbonate

(RSC).

Policy relevance

The WQI as per CPBC evaluates the adequacy of water quality to actual and / or intended use. If monitored

values deviate from required standards, appropriate measures should be deployed to recover the required

status for water. An overview of the analytical data shown in the WRIS suggests that determined action is

needed. Several lines of action are proposed to support political decision and to set priorities:

To determine current and / or planned uses for each river stretch or aquifer, so that the target

quality and actual gap can be assessed. The adequacy of the design of monitoring networks

should be tested in this context.

To work on the spatial relation of the polluting pressures - urban centres with indication of

the level of wastewater treatment, industrial and livestock farms discharges, drainage of irri-

gation zones etc.- and the water status to identify urgent action.

To clarify the rules for the classification of status, and how monitored data in time and space

are integrated to deliver clear messages on appropriateness to intended use.

Fig. 28. Water Quality Trend os BOD (mg/l)

Source: Central Pollution Control Board

45

In the framework of the RBMPs, a thorough revision of the quality elements and parameters

to be included in a more holistic evaluation of water status should be addressed.

6.3. Other Water Management Tools

In addition to the indicators being described above, proper policy development will require the preparation

of specific studies and assessments, which do not have to cover necessarily the whole of India, and can

provide additional insight in specific problems or challenges. Furthermore, modelling is a useful tool for

forecasting and identifying upcoming challenges and constraints regarding water use, consumption or qual-

ity. Such activities might be developed in the frame of developing River Basin or Water Resource Manage-

ment Plans, or as ad-hoc exercises, with different geographical and time scales.

In the Summary Table included in Chapter 2, in addition to indicators, some water management tools that

may be useful for informing specific policy decisions are proposed:

Conflicts across states and sectors

Water Use

▫ Specific studies for defining thresholds for the WCI

▫ DSS modelling for water balances at local and regional scales (to be developed under IWRM - RBMP)

▫ Hydrological modelling for better understanding of hydrological cycle

▫ Physical Water Supply and Use Tables from SEEA-Water

▫ Water Assets Tables from SEEA-Water

Economic and Social Implications

▫ Virtual Water Trade: assessment of water embedded in import/ export of commodities (mainly food)

and evaluation of food production policies

▫ SEEAW Hybrid Accounts

Water Quality Implications

▫ SEEAW Water Emissions Accounts

Environment / Ecosystems

▫ Assessment of environmental-flows (rivers and deltas) and wetland water needs

▫ Assessment of hydrological alteration

▫ Determination of environmental objectives and adequate responses

▫ Possible implementation of SEEA- Ecosystem Accounting, once the experimental framework be-

comes consolidated.

Climate Change Long-Term Impacts

▫ First approach through WCI, SEEAW and DSS

▫ Hydrological Modelling to translate climate scenarios into water availability

▫ Integrated Analysis of Costs and Benefits of water policy (including ecosystem services) under differ-

ent scenarios

6.4. Stepwise approach for a Water Information System in India

First generation of indicators (WCI and WC ratios) should be obtained from already available datasets

and/or first estimates of data (e.g. human consumption from typical daily rates; irrigation from land crop

46

surface, water needs and efficiencies according to crop patterns and irrigation systems etc.). Ex post analy-

sis of evolution of indicators in recent decades may be derived from past datasets / observed trends.

Water accounts should be developed in parallel / coordinated with water resources assessment (rainfall-

runoff) and DSS in the framework of IWRM works, including estimation of water demand and consumption

patterns (abstraction, evaporation / transpiration, returns etc.) and first approach to environmental needs:

SEEAW 1: Physical Supply and Use and Water Assets. Fine-tuned WCI and WC ratios.

SEEAW 2: Emissions Accounts. Improved WQI (from analysis of pressures and status from

IWRM works)

SEEAW 3: Hybrid Water Accounts. WPI and CR

Water licensing procedures should be established from knowledge base acquired in IWRM works (current

use and availability).

Expected evolution of indicators can be envisaged and targets can be settled. Different scenarios can be

drafted with the support of IWRM works: climate change and effects on water availability, demography and

economic fundamentals, evolution land use and crop patterns, measures to be implemented and their costs

and benefits. Global increase of climate change resilience could be assessed ()

The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting should be developed and integrated in water policy and DSS.

Based on the current status of water accounting in India, a step-wise approach to indicator development if

proposed, as per below:

Phase I Indicators:

Water Consumption Index (WCI)

Sectoral Water Consumption Ratios

Water Quality Index (already applied)

Phase II Indicators: Water Productivity Index

Cost Recovery Ratio

7. Recommendations and Lessons Learned for the Implementation of a Blue-print

The following main recommendations for the implementation of the Blueprint are proposed. They are

based on the previous experience with the implementation of water accounting systems and water scarcity

indicators in the EU, international practice and the exchange with experts in India.

7.1. Set-up of a shared governance system for water data between the GoI and States, and

likely other institutions

A governance system which is shared at least by the Government of India and state administrations to avoid

duplications and conflicts in data gathering and management is proposed, as well as to increase the impact

of the resulting indicators on India’s water management

47

7.1.1. Datasets shall be provided by different competent authorities, with quality check

Bearing in mind the distribution of competencies, it is recommended to involve the State authorities early

in the process of data gathering. State authorities do have relevant datasets for water consumption, water

quality and water pricing, which are relevant for the databases and indicator development. Agreements

shall be formalised for the data exchange, which establish the roles, responsibilities and timelines of the

corresponding partners.

As being done by the European Environmental Agency for data from the EU Member States, it is recom-

mended to establish a system of quality checks for the data which are being incorporated from different

state sources. Such a system helps in making the data architecture work, and for homogenization and com-

parison of data submitted by different state authorities. An automated quality check might ensure the val-

idation of formats, and an additional content quality check shall identify contradicting, conflictive or non-

homogenised datasets.

Quality checks might also include some sort of reality checks, e.g. confirming metered data on-site or using

earth observation data for validating the use of proxies. Some specific validation work might be external-

ised.

7.1.2. Openness to incorporate data from additional sources, like Districts, municipalities or NGOs

Given the scarce information available, and the need to create a wide supporting basis for applying and

communicating indicators, the system should be constructed in an open way to ensure that data from ad-

ditional sources, like districts, municipalities or NGOs can be incorporated in it.

Ideally such data would be developed and exchanged/communicated on a regular basis, and cover specific

elements related to water quantity, quality or economy. Also in this case, agreements shall be established

for the incorporation and use of datasets.

7.2. Strengthening of the Analytical capacity of available datasets

7.2.1. Increase policy dialogue with India-WRIS, increase internal analytical capacity for de-veloping relevant policy messages, and/or subcontracting of a support team for the analysis

In order to maximise the benefit from developing datasets and indicators, we recommend to establish a

specific structure with increased capacity to analyse the datasets. This increased capacity should benefit in

terms of:

Identifying the right key messages from the datasets;

Spotting policy opportunities to launch the messages;

Identifying further indicators to be developed on the basis of the increasingly available infor-

mation.

In this context, it is also recommended for 2030WRG and the India-EU Water Partnership – and potentially

other parties – to support stakeholder engagement for the analysis of datasets and development of policy

messages, with the aim of driving large-scale demand-side water resources management.

48

In the frame of this Blueprint development, a Project Management Unit is proposed to be established to

support the implementation of the water accounting framework in India, including:

Water accounting framework strategy development;

Identification of a data architecture for water accounting;

Development of the first set of indicators with associated analytics based on a dashboard ap-

proach;

Crystallization of policy messages;

Centre-state coordination on data collection, validation, and policy message development; and

Stakeholder engagement and communications strategy development for sourcing data as well as

stakeholders’ use of the framework for demand-side management.

Alternatively, the Blueprint indicates the option of externalising such analytical processes, such as it is being

done at the EEA, by subcontracting specific expert advice in the form of ‘European Topic Centres’. However,

this situation is more appropriate for the European context, where several ETC teams are working in paral-

lel. In India, the priority should be to increase in-house analytical capacity, which may be supplemented

with external capacity initially for key expertise required (e.g. demand-side water management specialist,

water economist).

Such a PMU should be aligned with the India-WRIS system and with the National Hydrology Project, in order

to build upon existing and planned datasets, decision support tools, and centre-state alignment approaches.

This will allow for the water accounting framework to be mainstreamed within the institutional architecture

of water resources management in the country.

7.2.2. Set-up of an Advisory Board with (remunerated) experts to participate in the formu-lation of the assessments

It is recommended to set up an Advisory Board to steer the process of data management and, in particular,

indicator development and their communication. The advisory board members shall be experts in the field

of policy making, and have a proper background on water.

Advisory GroupMinistry for Water

Resources, RD & GR

Project Management Unit

Consultants

Sates & other Authorities Support: 2030 WRG & IEWP

Strategy & AnalysisData gathering a& managementStakeholders involvement

Strategy & AnalysisData gathering a& managementStakeholders involvement

Data gathering a& managementData analysis

CoordinationData provision and validationKey messages co-definition

advise

coordinate support

sup

ervise

sup

ervise rep

ort

49

7.3. Need for a better communication, accessibility and transparency of datasets available

7.3.1. Exchange and pre-validation of data and results with (concerned) states and other institutions, before the launch of public communications

Manifold trust-building exercises will be necessary to get all relevant actors on board, and improve the

datasets and knowledge base.

We recommend to fix regular meetings with all concerned authorities, to address and organize exchanges

on issues such as data formats and uncertainty, as well as to share the results of the quality checks for

further improvement. Such exercises will be fundamental to keep state authorities on board, in particular

when the indicators develop comparisons between different states (or municipalities) which might lead to

benchmarking or ‘blame and shame’ interpretations.

Trust building exercises shall be developed, in particular, before indicator results are launched by commu-

nication to the public, as these are sensitive moments, which can affect the willingness for further cooper-

ation. Though data should not be changed, the contextual wording of interpretation should avoid creating

conflicts which in the longer run would harm the database and indicator development.

7.3.2. Recognize uncertainties and data gaps, develop a working platform with concerned states and other institutions to agree on technical and political aspects of data man-agement

We recommend transparency regarding recognising uncertainties and data gaps, in order to increase the

trustworthiness of the process and its results. Indeed, it will take its time to have fully reliable data on board

which can resist inter-State comparisons, and the need for improvements shall also be communicated.

Additionally, a working platform shall be established with concerned States and other institutions to agree

on technical and political aspects of data management. As mentioned previously, it is recommended to set

up regular meetings with the authorities concerned, as well as with those other institutions that provide

relevant datasets.

7.3.3. Improve relevance of currently displayed information and messages

The website of India-WRIS should focus further developments on the indicators to be developed, and high-

light the corresponding policy, management and awareness-raising messages on the website. Hotspots and

scoreboards shall gain prominent spaces on the website and the more factual information shall be managed

in the background.

The updated information, as well as information and key messages relevant for the situation of the country

(e.g. during a flood or drought period) should also be communicated via infographs and social media, gain-

ing impact in influencing water users and policy makers towards sustainable practices.

The European Environmental Agency’s website and communications tools can provide guidance for such a

process. A further exchange between EEA and India-WRIS might be stimulated over 2017.

7.3.4. Improve access to full datasets

Though the website of India-WRIS includes already a vast amount of information, an additional effort should

be undertaken to ensure that the information is understandable and available (even for download) in for-

mats that fit the needs of researchers, water management institutions or other bodies. The Advisory Board

might help in finding the right formats, and a website user consultation might be developed by India-WRIS

with a simple questionnaire.

Annex 1. Setting thresholds for the WCI

Sustainability may be primarily assessed against thresholds, indicating critical areas in terms of water ab-

straction pressure, and where political action might be needed for raising awareness (e.g. 20% “alarm bell”)

or the initiation of a IWRM or RBMP exercise, or the coordinated development of action or investment

plans to reduce water consumption, or (combined with water quality data) investments and governance

actions to improve wastewater reuse and water quality. Nevertheless, thresholds may be substantially re-

fined for each river basin or sub-catchment through detailed assessment with DSS.

The first proposal of thresholds was settled in the publication Comprehensive assessment of the freshwater

resources of the world (1997)29 and refer to the so-called withdrawal-to-availability ratio.

(a) Low water stress: <10%

(b) Moderate water stress: 10-20%

(c) Medium-high water stress: 20-40%

(d) High water stress: >40%

It must be noted that these thresholds are conceived for water withdrawal not for net consumption (de-

tracting returns to the aquatic environment). Thus, they would not be directly applicable to WCI.

In any case, these levels are justified as based on observation. Literally:

It has been observed that water stress can begin once the use of freshwater rises above 10 per cent of renewable freshwater resources, and it becomes more pronounced as the use level crosses the 20 per cent level. On average, a country can only capture about one third of the annual flow of water in its rivers using dams, reservoirs and intake pipes. A further limitation arises from the growing lack of acceptance for the social and environmental impacts of large dams. The closest and most economical sources of water are used first, and it becomes increasingly expensive to tap sources that are farther away from the site of needs. Another limitation on water use stems from the fact that once withdrawals pass certain thresholds, which vary from site to site, lake and river levels fall to the point where other uses are harmed.

In the Report World Water in 2025, Alcamo et al. defined the similar criticality ratio (average annual water

withdrawal to water availability) but introduce slightly different categories, even recognizing that “there is

no objective basis for selecting a threshold” although sensitive analysis supports its robustness30. The con-

cept of “availability” is defined as fast surface runoff plus groundwater recharge while "average" is esti-

mated as the annual average during the so-called "climate normal" period of 1961 to 1990.

29 United Nations E/CN.17/1997/9, Economic and Social Council. COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOP-

MENT, Fifth sesión. 7-25 April 1997. 30 pg. 41 of the above mentioned report; see also The Alcamo Water Scarcity Indicator.

Some interesting reflections on the relation with consumption are included:

Although the criticality ratio is based on average withdrawals and availability, it could also indicate when the risk of water shortages during low flow periods is high. If we assume that in a one-in-ten-year dry year the annual runoff is between 0.3 to 0.7 times the climate normal runoff, and further assume that con-sumption is on the average 60% of withdrawals (Shiklomanov, 1999)31, then a CR 0.4 is equivalent to a consumption to availability ratio of 0.34 in river basins with low variability, and 0.8 with high variability. Hence, once every ten years, basins with average CR 0.4 should theoretically consume between 34 and 80% of their total available runoff (here we neglect groundwater use which would increase water availa-bility, but not indefinitely). Basins with higher values of CR would consume an even greater percentage of their total available runoff. Depending on how withdrawals are spatially distributed within a basin, a CR > 0.4 could therefore lead to absolute shortages along some stretches of a river during parts of the year, and the low remaining flows could be insufficient to sustain aquatic ecosystems. Storage of runoff reser-voirs can provide some security against shortages, but in developing countries only a small percentage of a river basins runoff is normally stored.

The proportion of renewable water resources withdrawn is one of the Millennium Development Goals in-

dicators (7.5) for the Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. Target 7.A. Integrate the principles of

sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental re-

sources). AQUASTAT presents global maps with the following classification:

Abundant water resources: <25%

Water stressed: 25-60%

Water scarcity: 60-75%

Severe Water scarcity: >75%

No specific justification of the intervals is provided.

31 Shiklomanov, I. (1999): Assessment of water resources and water availability in the world. Report to the

World Water Commission, October, 1999.

Fig. 29. Water Stress Indicator: Withdrawal to Availability Ratio (1995)

Source Alcamo et al.2000

Smathkin et al. suggest a different approach and define the Water Stress Indicator [WSI = Withdrawal /

(MAR – EWR)] where MAR is the long-term mean annual runoff and EWR, the environmental water require-

ments. The following thresholds are set for the categorization of environmental water scarcity:

For estimating EWR, they proposed a methodology based on the simulated monthly time series, resulting

in a range from 20 to 50 percent of MAR.

Hoekstra et al. take a similar approach, defining Blue Water Scarcity in a given RB as the ratio of the blue

water footprint32 in that basin to the blue water available. Blue water availability is estimated by reducing

total natural runoff by 80% to account for presumed environmental flow requirements. The blue water

availability is thus the volume of water that can be consumed without expected adverse ecological impacts.

For representation purposes, they propose seven categories as reflected in the map below.

32 Blue water footprint is water that has been sourced from surface or groundwater resources and is either

evaporated, incorporated into a product or taken from one body of water and returned to another, or re-turned at a different time. If we apply the concept to a catchment area, it coincides with water consumption.

Fig. 30. Water Stress Indicator: Withdrawal to Availability Ratio (1995)

Source: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/maps/MDG_eng.pdf

Based on the above analysis -and assuming consumption is on the average 60% of withdrawals33- we sug-

gest the following thresholds for WCI. The proposal has also been tested against Hoekstra’s Blue Water

Scarcity.

Stress level

No Low Mid

Severe

High Very high

Withdrawal to availability ratio34 < 10% 10-20% 20-40% 40-80% > 80%

Water Consumption Index < 6% 6-12% 12-24% 24-48% > 48%

Blue Water Scarcity < 0,30 0,30-0,60 0,60-1,20 1,20-2,40 > 2,40

33 This assumption could be improved based on specific estimations for India 34 Class boundaries are taken from Alcamo (2000). Similar assessment with Aquastat intervals would be:

Fig. 31. Annual Blue Water Scarcity

Source http://temp.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterStat-WaterScarcity A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., Chapagain, A.K., Mathews, R.E. and Richter, B.D. (2012) Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability, PLoS ONE 7(2): e32688

Annex 2. Introduction to the System of Envi-ronmental Economic Accounting for Water

The SEEAW includes a conceptual framework and a set of standard tables focusing on hydrological and

economic information, as well as a set of supplementary tables covering additional aspects35. The standard

tables constitute the minimum data set that all countries are encouraged to compile.

The afore-mentioned UN Stats publications SEEW and IRWS provide in-depth guidance for the completion

of the tables, clarifying their concepts and suggesting sources for collecting the required datasets. As an aid

for understanding the relationships among the various accounts, a fictitious database was developed (called

SEEA-Water-land”) and each chapter presents the more detailed tables populated with that database.

For a better comprehension of the nature of the information requirements these examples are presented

below, with occasional comments. As previously stated, in-depth information can be found in the original

source

Physical water supply and use tables (Chapter III)

Dark grey cells indicate zero entries by definition, while blank cells indicate cells which are non-zero, but

small in the numerical example.

35 Supplementary tables consist of items that should be considered by countries in which information would, in

their particular cases, be of interest to analysts and policymakers, or for which compilation is still experimental or not directly linked with the 2008 SNA.

It must be noted that for SEEAW, the concept of water consumption gives an indication of the amount of

water that is lost by the economy during use (has entered the economy but not returned to either water

resources or the sea) because is incorporated into products, evaporated, transpired by plants or simply

consumed by households or livestock. This is the concept used in the proposed WCI.

Water emission accounts (Chapter IV)

The example refers to Chemical Oxygen Demand but could be focused on the release of any other relevant

pollutant into water resources through the direct and indirect (via a wastewater treatment plant) discharge

of wastewater into water resources.

Hybrid and economic accounts for activities and products related to water (Chapter V)

This chapter of SEEAW encompasses a wide range of Tables, namely:

Table V.1. Hybrid supply table

Table V.2. Hybrid use table

Table V.3. Hybrid account for supply and use of water

Table V.4. Hybrid account for water supply and sewerage for own use

Table V.5. Government accounts for water-related collective consumption services

Table V.6. National expenditure accounts

Table V.7. Financing accounts for wastewater management

Table V.3 is provided as an example.

Water asset accounts (Chapter VI)

Asset accounts describe the stocks of water resources at the beginning and the end of an accounting period

and the changes in stocks that have occurred during that period. Thus, filling these tables requires in-depth

knowledge of the hydrological cycle in the territory. On the other hand, consistency with PSUT must be

ensured.

In case of international basins, the part of the shared resources which belongs to each riparian country, as

well as the origin and destination of specific flows can be explicitly identified.

Annex 3. Computation of WEI and WCI for In-dian Basins: An Example

Water Exploitation Index (WEI) and Water Consumption Index (WCI) were computed for two Indian river

basins, namely Godavari and Brahmani-Baitarani. The data on annual renewable water resources, annual

sectoral water demand, and annual water consumptive uses for agriculture, livestock, industry and domes-

tic sectors were extracted from the study undertaken jointly by the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSA)

and the Central Water Commission (CWC) for these two river basins. The main objective of this study was

to assess basin scale mean annual water resources (1988-2008) by integrating space technology, geograph-

ical information tools, hydro-meteorological data and hydrological models. This study adopted a refined

approach to quantify basin scale water resources availability by considering meteorological-based water

budgeting exercise through hydrological modelling, instead of conventional basin terminal gauge site runoff

aggregation approach.

Average computed WEI for Godavari river basin for the period 1988-2008 was 25.8% and for Brahmani-

Baitarani river basin was 9.32% (Figure x and y). According to the standards set as per the European Water

Framework Directive, in 11 out of the 20 hydrological years, Godavari river basin was water stressed (WEI

range between 20-40%) and in 3 years it exhibited severe water stress (WEI above 40%). Highest WEI

(43.84%) in the basin was during 2002-03, a low rainfall year, and lowest WEI (10.33%) during 1990-91, a

high rainfall year.

However, Brahmani-Baitarani river basin was water stressed only in 1 out of 20 years. Highest WEI (32.3%)

in the basin was during 2004-05, a low rainfall year, and lowest WEI (6.45%) during 1994-95, a high rainfall

year. For the same period (1988-2008), average computed WCI was 16.63 for Godavari basin and 4.76 for

Brahmani-Baitarani basin. The computed indices values can be useful for informing policies pertaining to

further water resources development in these basins and also for devising the water demand management

strategy, including framing water use efficiency targets.

It has to be noted that the range (in order to categorise river basin water stress) for both WEI and WCI for

Indian river basins has to be decided based on the water demand from the river basins for economic (in-

cluding agricultural) and domestic purposes, water requirement for ecological uses, and future plans for

water resources development. The WEI and WCI can be revised once the latest studies on the water re-

source assessments of these river basins will be completed and data will be available by July end 2017 (as

confirmed by CWC). In fact, the indices can then also be computed for the other river basins in India for

which water resource assessment studies will be completed.

Fig. 32. Computed WEI and WCI for Godavari river basin

Fig. 33. Computed WEI and WCIfor Brahmani-Baitarani river basin