Ganga River Basin Management Plan
Core Group Meeting
August 27, 2010: Env Engg Lab (WL-116), IIT Kanpur
Agenda:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Comments/Suggestions on Minutes of the Core Group Meeting (held
on August 13, 2010 at IIT Delhi) circulated.
Discussion on Draft of Data Policy
Responsibility/budget of individuals/subgroups/institutions as
prepared by various themes.
Requirement of funds alongwith deliverables in the form of reports
to be submitted to MEF by each group for the first quarter
Modalities for engaging experts/consultants/agencies for GRBMP
and Draft of MoA for (prepared by Prof P M Prasad
SWOT Analysis of GAP
Title and Contents of the Reports to be submitted (at least of the first
quarter)
Presentation by IIT Team in the Consultation Workshop on August
28, 2010.
Any other matter.
Ganga River Basin Management Plan
Minutes of the Core Group Meeting Held on Friday, August 13, 2010 at IIT Delhi
Members Present: N C Narayana, A K Gosain, A K Mittal, V Upadhyay, Utpal Bora,
Krithika Venkatramani, Arnab Bhattacharya, Saumyen Guha, P M Prasad, Vinod Tare,
Mukul Behra, S K Jain, Indu Mehrotra, S P Singh, Prakash Nautiyal, G N Kathpalia
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Dr Vinod Tare welcomed all members and briefed on the purpose and agenda of
the meeting. In response to the queries from some members about the start
date of the project, following was stated.
a.
As per MoA the start date is July 6, 2010 (date of signing the MoA).
b. MEF has obtained the approval as per the project proposal submitted for
Rs 1600.02 lacs. The sanction letter is to be received.
c.
MEF has asked for submission of the consolidated work plan and schedule
for submission of various reports/deliverables. This will be sent to MEF in
the next week.
d. MEF is processing for release of first grant of Rs 240 lacs (15 % of the
project grant). However, MEF has been informed that the first grant @ at
least 60 % of the project outlay should be released. The matter has to be
discussed with the MOS during the consultation workshop being organized
on August 28, 2010 at IIT Kanpur.
Members expressed the opinion that in general the start-up workshop was very
useful except the presentations made by some groups lacked focus and could
have been very short.
WRM group has prepared the report on the start-up workshop. Leaders of other
groups are requested to prepare the reports and sent to the Project Coordinator
by August 18, 2010. These reports will be made available on Gangapedia.
The work plan with responsibilities of various members/sub-groups and
allocation of budget within the frame work given in Table 14.1 of the proposal
for each thematic group is to be prepared. Thematic group leaders are requested
to prepare the draft for this based on discussions held in the start-up workshop
and in consultation with team members. Distribution of work and budget of
various team members/sub-groups will be discussed in the next core group
meeting.
Login/password for Gangapedia has been sent to all project team members. All
members are requested to effectively use the website and give feedback/send
queries, if any to the Webmaster.
Dr Krithika Venkatramani presented salient points of the draft paper circulated
on Data Policy to be adopted. In general the proposed data policy was
acceptable. The draft after incorporating the suggestion/comments made will be
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
circulated to all team members for comments/suggestions. The draft on data
policy alongwith comments, if any will be considered in the next meeting of the
core group.
The questionnaire prepared by GDM group is available on Gangapedia. All
members are requested to fill-in the questionnaire by August 22, 2010. Group
leaders to communicate this to their team members.
All groups to prepare template(s) for various data needed (wish list) and
thematic group leaders to send these template(s) to the leader of GDM group by
August 22, 2010. This will help in planning and design of the Project Data Centre.
After considerable discussion on IPR related issues, following view emerged: In
general all knowledge/information created in this project will be in public
domain and no individual/organization will claim authorship. However, there is a
need to have clear policy on this. Professor Saumyen Guha agreed to share
information available on this for similar such situations which can form basis to
formulate IPR policy document for GRBMP project.
Several groups may avail services of experts/consultants and outside agencies
for various tasks. It is necessary to have proper mechanism in place for engaging
such persons/agencies. It was decided that a generic MoA format and procedure
for engaging such consultants/experts and agencies should be prepared.
Professor P M Prasad kindly agreed to prepare a document on this in
consultation with Professor N C Narayanan and Professor Indrajit Dube. This
document will be discussed in the next core group meeting.
The project coordinator informed that MEF has requested for consultation
workshop with various stakeholders (NGRBA expert members, Principal
Secretaries of the Concerned States, Central and State Pollution Control Boards
of concerned states, Officials of MWR and MEF, representatives of World Bank,
etc.). This workshop is scheduled on August 28, 2010 at IIT Kanpur. Mr Jairam
Ramesh, MOS, MEF will be the Chief Guest and also Chair the interactive session.
It was suggested that Chairman, CGWB may also be invited.
One consolidated PPT is to be prepared for presentation during the consultation
workshop to be held on August 28, 2010. This may have up to 50 slides and will
be presented jointly by a team of 4-5 members. Project coordinator will
constitute the team. All thematic group leaders are requested to send five slides
covering objectives and deliverables for their theme. The PPT will be discussed
and polished during the next core group meeting to be held on August 27, 2010.
August 16, 2010
(Vinod Tare)
Draft Data Policy for GRBMP
1
Preamble
This document lays down the broad guidelines that will govern the acquisition,
sharing, access (checkin, checkout), distribution policies, security policies, and
any other related issues that pertain to the data that is acquired, used and
produced as part of the GRBMP effort. These guidelines may be reviewed and
amended from time to time by the Project Implementation and Coordination
Committee (PICC). However, the basic policy principles in Section 2 should be
amended only after proper consideration and only by the unanimous agreement of
all members of the coordination committee consisting of representatives from all
thematic groups.
These policies shall operate and apply during the lifetime of the GRBMP effort in
its current, extended or revised form or any project or initiative that is clearly a
descendant of GRBMP in the future. At any point if the GRBMP formally ends and
there is no clear follow up or descendant project, the PICC shall create a set of
guidelines for the data addressing all relevant issues that are addressed in this
document and that are applicable.
It is desirable that other knowledge and intellectual artifacts (e.g., models,
mathematical theories, software, etc.) be governed by suitable guidelines for use,
access and intellectual property rights. However, this document deals only with
data sharing among the members of the project.
2
Basic principles
1.
All data that is acquired directly or indirectly (i.e., by contractors) or
produced (through processing of any kind manually or by machine) directly or
indirectly (i.e., by contractors) as part of GRBMP shall be freely accessible to all
members of the GRBMP project for the purposes of the project.
2.
All such data shall reside in a centrally administered and managed
repository (henceforth called repository). This does not preclude physical distribution
of the database. Any database that is identified as part of the repository shall be
governed by the guidelines in this document.
3.
All derived data (i.e., data generated through models, simulations, etc.)
should contain a clear data trail. All data on which the derived data depends must
be part of the repository. This means that any data that is available with any
participant in the project and is used for the purposes of the project to generate
any derived data directly or indirectly, should be part of the repository. This may
mean that such data, if priced, should be independently purchased by the project
for the use of all members of the project.
4.
Any data that is acquired from public/open sources and becomes part of
the repository shall be governed by the guidelines, licenses, access policies, etc.
that have been defined by the owner/creator of the data, provided they are not
more restrictive than the policies in this document.
5.
Any data that is contributed to the repository by an individual, group,
company or party that does not belong to category 1 above shall be automatically
governed by the policy guidelines in this document.
6.
No data in the repository shall be sold for monetary benefit or used
otherwise for commercial gain by any individual, company, organization or party. It
can be used for research and teaching purposes.
7.
Any contributed data in the sense of 5 above but where the contributor
specifies more restrictive conditions than the guidelines of this document will not
be a part of the repository. It may be made accessible separately through the
project portal (e.g., Gangapedia).
8.
Any data that is generated (through processing of any kind manually or by
machine) in any way and that is based totally or partially on data from the
repository shall enjoy the same rights as the data in the repository and should be
deposited in the repository with a proper data trail (see Section 3).
3 Meta Data
A metadata standard will be developed for GRBMP with the aim of encouraging
broad public participation. This will help to ease the problems of the prospective
data users to determine what data exist, who created it, how it was created, the
attributes of the data, the fitness of existing data for planned applications, and to
determine the appropriate data transformations for the usage of the data.
All data in the repository shall be tagged as per the GRBMP metadata tagging
standard that will be in force when the data is entered into the repository. This
standard has to be evolved and can be an appendix to this document when it is
ready.
The GRBMP meta data tagging standard may be amended from time to time with
the approval of the PICC. Every attempt should be made to update existing data
with the amended tags as soon as possible.
It is expected that the GRBMP standard will be consistent with national and
international standards where the relevant meta data tags already exist for the
concerned attribute.
4 Use Other than Within the Project
Unless explicitly prohibited, the data in the repository can be used by members of
GRBMP for scholarly, teaching and other educational purposes. Note that this use
will be governed by the provisions of Section 2.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreed between the IIT Kanpur, Kanpur208016 (hereinafter referred to Part I), and ----(Specify name of the PI’s Institute)------------------------- [hereinafter referred to as Part II, (include the details description and
address of PI under the police station his/her business and residence)] entered on this day
of ………August, 2010
Whereas parties to the agreement/understanding mutually agreed upon the following
terms and conditions:
1. Definitions:
a. Consultancy means to provide service pertaining to matters as specified in
Annex I
b. Data for purposes of this agreement means primary data, which is
collected for the purpose of this study, and secondary data, which is
available in public domain and includes information gathered, collected
and collated, classified, created customized data bases and fitted into the
algorithms.
c. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) means and includes the services in
the nature of consultancy on the matters as is specified in the workorder/worksheet/annexure/mutually agreed between the parties from time
to time. Mutual agreement between the parties is required to be reduced in
writing and will be annexed to the body of the main agreement. And for
all purposes it will be read as part of main document.
d. Principal Investigator shall be used in its abbreviated form as ‘PI’ in this
document. The ‘PI’ means and includes the representative of the Institute,
who will provide consultancy service as per the MoU. The liability of the
‘PI’ in all matters relating to consultancy or matters arising thereof is
absolute which includes matters in the nature of civil and criminal
liabilities, data protection and intellectual property and laws relating to
labour and employment.
2. Consideration for work
i. The Part I agrees to Rs.----------------- (---------------------------- rupees only)
inclusive of service tax towards the remittance of consultancy charges.
ii. The funds will be transferred by Part I to (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e.,
Part II)----------------------- in three installments, in favour of “------------------------------------------“through a cheque/demand draft payable at --------------------------------. The -------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) --------------------------------- will immediately acknowledge the payment by sending an official
receipt to Part I.
iii. Release or remittance of the fund shall be in the following Installments:
a. On signing the contract
b. On submission of progress report
c. On submission of the final report
25%
50%
25 %
3. Time frame and duration of project
i. Time frame for the consultancy would be for a period of ---------- months
starting from-------------, 2010. The Draft report will be submitted by end of------.
ii. The PI agrees to carry out the activities as outlined in the Proposal annexed.
iii. In the event of any delay for the execution and the completion of consultancy,
the PI (i.e. Part II) shall be required to obtain the written consent of Part I and
propose the new date of completion of the work. The new date will be read as
the part of the main agreement and the release of the funds will be adjusted
accordingly.
iv. The extension of time in no case shall exceed more than two months from the
date of actual completion of the consultancy work.
4. Confidentiality, publications and matters relating to intellectual properties
i. This MoU and all matters arising out of or in connection with it shall be
confidential between the PI (i.e. Part II) and IITK (i.e. Part I), except in the
matters hereinafter excepted:
a. A written consent from and in the manner prescribed by the IITK (i.e.
Part I)
b. Information released in the public domain
ii. The PI (i.e. Part II) shall take all necessary steps to ensure confidential
handling of all matters pertaining to plans, drawings, specifications, method
and any other information developed or acquired by him from the IITK (i.e.
Part I) or from any other sources for the purpose of consultancy under terms
of the contract/understanding or performance thereof.
iii. IITK (i.e. Part I) and -------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) ---shall be the joint owners of the study outputs. IITK (i.e. Part I) and ------(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e. Part II) --- shall jointly publish the
study outputs. Publication of papers in scientific journals would also be
under joint authorship and with prior consent of both parties. Both IITK (Part
I) and ------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) reserve the rights
of future use of the study results for further research with due
acknowledgements.
iv. Not withstanding anything, Intellectual Property Rights arising out of data
collected and collated; classified, created, customized databases and fitted into
the algorithms shall be the non-exclusive right of both the parties.
v. Any liability arising out of infringement of intellectual property shall lie with
the PI (i.e. Part II). Further, expenditure incurred for defending the matters
relating to infringement in the court of law within and outside the country by
the Part I will be indemnified by Part II in it’s entirety.
5. Matters arising out of Mis Feasance or Non Feasance
i. In case the ---- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e. Part II) fails to complete
the assignment in the specified period, for reasons not attributed to IITK (i.e.,
Part I) and / or any other natural calamity etc. or reasons provided by the -------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) ----- for the delay are not
considered valid or convincing, IITK (i.e., Part I) may terminate the
assignment under this agreement. In such case, the ------- (Specify name of
the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) --- shall refund payments taken from IITK (i.e.,
Part I) for non-completed components on pro-rata basis.
ii. Any loss actually sustained by Part I will be indemnified by Part II in the
event of non-performance by Part II.
iii. Part I shall not liable for acts of third parties, accidents, sickness or loss of
any kind, however caused, arising in the course of or from the performance
of this MoU.
iv. The Part II-------(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II)-- shall be
responsible for any claim, loss, damage or any other liability incurred in
connection with this MoU.
6. Execution of agreement and termination procedure
i. The Part II ------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute) --- agrees to return the
signed Agreement and to direct all deliverables and administrative questions
to Dr. Vinod Tare, Coordinator, GRBMP, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur.
ii. A copy of all the secondary data collected and references used by the PI for
this assignment would be submitted to IITK (i.e. Part I).
iii. All communication should be in writing with acknowledgement due.
iv. All subsequent understanding will be reduced in writing and will be read as
the part of original document.
v. The commencement/progress of the consultancy on the part of the PI (Part II)
shall be deemed to start/continue on receipt of installment as agreed and the
date of the commencement and completion shall change accordingly. The PI
shall be exempted from all liabilities, in the nature of delay in non execution
of consultancy, mis feasance and non feasance.
vi. The Part II ------(Specify name of the PI’s Institute)-- shall be liable and
responsible for payment of all applicable taxes and shall keep IITK (i.e., Part
I)harmless against any claims and liabilities and outgoing on this behalf
vii. The agreement/understanding between Part I and Part II may be terminated on
mutual agreement after giving notice in writing. The said period of notice
shall subsist for one month from the date of communication of the notice.
IIT Kanpur (i.e., Part I)
Programme Manager/ Director: Dr. S G Dhande
Administrator:
Dr. K Muralidhar,
a. Dean, R&D, IIT Kanpur
(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II)
Programme Manager/ Director: Name of the PI
Administrator: Head of the Institute
Annexure I
Responsibilities of the PI

The –---- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) --- shall deploy a team of
well-qualified and experienced personnel(s) on this Project. The details of
qualifications and experience of the personnel(s) to be deployed for the scope of work
would be submitted to IITK (i.e., Part I).

The ------- (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) --- shall be fully
responsible for operationalisation, maintenance and reliability of services provided.

The entire work will have to be conducted with appropriate consultation and
coordination with IITK (i.e., Part I) officials.

The PI shall be responsible for data identification and collection.

IITK (i.e., Part I) reserves the right to review the work performed by the –---(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II) ---, ask for any clarifications and
changes/modifications to the work performed by the PI. Such changes, (falling
within the framework of proposal attached as Annex) shall be mutually
discussed and agreed between IITK (i.e., Part I) and -------(Specify name of the
PI’s Institute i.e., Part- II)--- and the same shall be incorporated by the -----(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II)-- without any cost liability to the
IITK (i.e., Part I) and without any dilution of the responsibility of the ------(Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e., Part II)--
16. The MoU shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of India and
courts of New Delhi, India shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
17. To acknowledge acceptance of the terms and conditions of this agreement, a
copy of this Memorandum of Understanding will be signed and returned by
the ------ (Specify name of the PI’s Institute i.e.., Part II)--. Each page of the MOU
should be signed.
In witness whereof the parties have set their hands on the date mentioned below:
--------------------------------(For IIT K)
Dr. S G Dhande
Director
--------------------------------------(For IIT K)
Dr. K Muralidhar
Dean, R& D
IIT Kanpur, Kanpur
IIT Kanpur, Kanpur
Date:
Place:
Date:
Place:
------------------------------For Head of the Institute
------------------------------------For PI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date :
Date :
Place :
Plac
(From IIT Roorkee)
Status of the Ganga River
The Ganga flows through five states and drains nine states. It supports 29 class I cities, 23
class II cities, 48 towns and number of villages.
The river receives sewage, industrial effluent, runoff from the agriculture fields in the
basin, solid waste including animal carcasses, human corpses etc.
Natural flow has been disturbed due to water abstraction projects and hydropower
projects.
The Ganga today appears to be more polluted than what it was in 1986, when GAP was
initiated by the late Prime Minister Sri Rajiv Gandhi.
The Ganga which is Holy has been treated with disrespect. The river particularly in and
near Kanpur seems private garbage dump of individuals, colonies, communities and
industries. During lean period, the river is shallow and water is muddy and black
According to a report, there were 13 drains carrying untreated sewage to the river Ganga
and Yamuna at Allahabad whereas today there are more than 50 drains emptying sewage
in the same stretch of the rivers.
The situation is similar as the river further moves down towards Kolkata.
Today the Ganga has been used (a little only), over used, misused and abused. How can
this Ganga, sustain the lifeline of millions?
Background of the GAP
The GAP was seeded in 1979 when CPCB (erstwhile Central Board for the Prevention and
Control of Water Pollution) was asked by the late Prime Minister Mrs. Gandhi to do a
comprehensive survey of the status of the Ganga. CPCB published two comprehensive reports
which formed the base for GAP. The reports could not be presented due to assassination of Mrs.
Gandhi in 1984. In Feb, 1985 CGA (Central Ganga Authority) was formed to administer cleaning
of Ganga. In June 1985 Ganga Project Directorate (GPD) was established as a wing of the
Department of Environment. GAP was launched on June 14, 1986 by Shri Rajiv Gandhi at
Varanasi. The GAP even after 20 years has not delivered the expected outcome. A critical
analysis is therefore warranted.
The GAP was further extended to GAP II in 1993 and was broad based as NRCP in 1995. The
GAP II was merged with NRCP in Dec 1996. The CGA was renamed as NRCA with larger
mandate to cover all the programs supported by NRCD.
SWOT Analysis of the GAP
Strength:
Objective: Well laid broad objectives, accordingly:
 To abate pollution and improve water quality
 To conserve biodiversity
 To develop an integrated river basin management approach
 To conduct comprehensive research to further these objectives
 To gain experience for implementing similar river clean up
programs in other polluted rivers in India.
Plan of Action/Schemes Implemented
1. In plan of action emphasis was laid on core sector and non core sector schemes to
control pollution.
Core sector schemes addressed direct and major cause of pollution. Interception and
diversion of domestic wastewater drains along with construction and rehabilitation of
sewers and pump houses were identified as core sector schemes
Indirect causes of pollution were addressed in non core sector schemes. These included
installation of crematoria, river front development, and aesthetic improvement,
implementation of low cost sanitation and miscellaneous activities such as water quality
monitoring, research programs and identification and management of waste from grossly
polluting industries
2. Functions of NRCA and Steering Committees have been very well specified.
Responsibilities regarding preparation and execution of schemes at State Level have
also been laid down.
Presentation by NRCD to NAC in 2006 has included estimation of point and non point
sources of pollution.
3. Schemes related to the treatment of about 65% of sewage were envisaged in GAP
phase I and remaining were taken up in GAP phase-II
A model for River Action Plan has been suggested
(Information has been abstracted from an article “Critical analysis of the GAP”)
Weakness:
Objective: No mention of river flow/discharge in the list of objectives
Plan of Action/ Schemes Implemented:
1. Non point sources of pollution have not been considered
2. Implementation appears doubtful
3. (a) There have always been problems related to the O & M of the treatment plants
(b)A few STPs were not receiving adequate wastewater whereas other
STPs
were occasionally overloaded
(c )Uninterrupted power supply to operate STPs has been a frequent
problem
(d) Minimum flows, and issues of agriculture run off have so far not been
addressed.
(e) Analysis of monitoring data in an integrated manner has not been done Up
gradation/modification of existing STPs has not been taken up
. Opportunities:
River monitoring & performance evaluation of STPs
Threats:
Chlorination of treated sewage is proposed or carried out to comply with effluent
discharge standards of MPN. DBPs thus introduced are not removed in
conventional water treatment plant. (Not sure whether or not it is being followed.
However, for the purpose of water supply prechlorination of water from polluted
rivers is carried out).
Review of Ganga Action Plan, Phase I and II
Strengths:
 A start has been made. Some wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure has been created.
 Civil society, politicians and other decision makers are now aware of
the issues concerning water quality of rivers in the Ganga basin.
 There is a consensus for strong action to improve river water quality
in Ganga river basin.
 There is clarity regarding wastewater treatment technologies to be
adopted.
Weaknesses
 Failure of GAP I and II to improve the river water quality sufficiently
due to various reasons, i.e., non-functioning of wastewater collection
and pumping infrastructure, non-functional wastewater treatment
plants, insufficient wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure,
etc.
 Project proposals prepared on.
 The plan for operation and maintenance of assets created under GAP I
and II was flawed, e.g., lack of trained personnel, funds, and
electricity for operating wastewater treatment plants. Inability of
local bodies/municipal authorities to own and operate.
Opportunities
 There is sufficient expertise in the country for formulating and
implementing large river basin management plans.
 There is clarity regarding reasons behind failure/sub-optimal
performance of a majority of projects sanctioned under GAP I and II.
 There is clarity regarding policy gaps/failures during implementation
of GAP I and II.
Threats
 Failure to learn the lessons from technological and policy failures
encountered during GAP I and II.
 Sanctioning of projects in an unplanned manner without clearly
specified objectives.
 Not having clearly specified mid-term goals/benchmarks to judge the
progress of the plan.
Projects to be sanctioned in the interim period, i.e., before a GRBMP is
in place,
1. Creation of wastewater diversion infrastructure, i.e., construction of
intercepting sewers, nala interception, pumping, etc. These projects
shall ensure that a) there is NO wastewater disposal (treated or
untreated) to rivers in certain critical stretches, and (b) all wastewater
generated in urban centers can be collected for treatment.
2. Preparation of comprehensive wastewater management plans for
urban centers with a time horizon of 50 years. Such plans must
clearly specify how all wastewater generated in urban centers over the
next 50 years will be collected treated and disposed/reused/recycled.