Case 2: A Spring for Drinking Water The population of the region in Nepal is socioeconomically uniform, comprising Brahmin, Chhetri and Tamang groups. It is, however, relatively densely populated, with only a few springs to provide drinking water for more than 70 households. The Bhoteko Dharo spring is located on the land of one individual and, despite being one of the larger sources of water in the area, it provides drinking water for only seven households and irrigation for two households. Meanwhile, households lower down the valley, in a more affluent area of the village, suffer from drinking water shortages. Since the water source located on private land, the owner claimed controlling rights to it; his primary concern being that, if the water was shared, his supply would be insufficient for irrigating his crops. However, the cultural norms and religious values in Nepalese society define water as a public good for use by all, and not to provide drinking water was considered a sin. On the other hand, state law allows private ownership. Thus, there is a confusion over who 'owned' the spring, whether there should be common access to the water, or whether the owner had the right to control who used the resource. The first attempt by people of the lower hamlet to use the spring came around 1970. Two wealthy villagers successfully negotiated with the owner of the spring regarding the supply of water to the lower hamlet. The arrangement did not, however, become permanent due to the costs involved in transporting water to the lower hamlet. A second round of negotiations occurred in 1989, when all the households of the lower hamlet explored the possibility of bringing water down from the spring. After discussions with the owner and the other permanent users of the spring, it was agreed that some of the water should be diverted for use in the lower hamlet. The location of tap stands was agreed upon and the appropriate materials were obtained to set up the supply. The owner of the spring subsequently reneged on the agreement and refused to allow water to be supplied to the lower hamlet. This change in attitude arose because the owner perceived that the affluent people of the lower hamlet had treated him badly in the past, due to his lower social status. Furthermore, the other established users claimed that there was not enough water to go around. The conflict amongst the villagers was exacerbated by political differences, and the dispute escalated into threats of physical violence towards the spring owner. According to villagers not involved in the dispute, there was sufficient water being produced by the spring to satisfy the drinking water and irrigation requirements of both the parties involved. Lack of water was not therefore the true reason for the conflict; the root cause was jealousy over the increasing economic status of the villagers in the lower hamlet. Questions: 1. Diagnose the underlying problems that have led to conflict. 2. Assume that you are the new elected local political leader of the lower hamlet. How are you going to resolve this conflict? What is your preferred bargaining strategy?