Paper Presented By Mr. Mostafa Kamal Majumder

River linking and the environment
Mostafa Kamal Majumder

Bangladesh, a deltaic land, owes its origin to rivers. Its geological history is well-documented now. Every inch of land, each plant and creeper, every living organism is influenced by ebb and flow of the rivers which are natural drains of the sub-continent. Diversion of rivers would change the entire scenario — the southwest part of Bangladesh is the burning example.

Delta formation through slit deposition would stop, and instead Bangladesh would face the risk of sea erosion in tile foreseeable future if the natural hydrological process is changed by diverting Himalayan rivers.

The critical balance maintained through silt deposition by rivers in the depressions (haors) that are under tectonic subsidence might be lost and haors would subside at a faster rate inviting disasters of unimaginable proportions. Natural fertilization of soil through flooding would stop. Reduced fertility and moisture content of the soil would lead to aridity already faced in the Brained Tract where acacia trees, a desert plant species now is seen to have luxuriant growth. Sandstorms are common in the Rajshahi region in the dry season and with those respiratory disease, especially among children is spreading at a fast rate. (Mizanur Rahman Minu, Mayor of Rajshahi)

Scarcity of surface water would further increase the over-dependence on ground water for irrigation as well as household purposes and exacerbate the problem of arsenic pollution of drinking water that afflicts 80 million people in 59 out of 64 districts (British Geological Survey 1999) — the single biggest environmental catastrophe ever recorded. As the Ganges flow falls sharply due to storage in about a hundred reservoirs at upstream and diversion at Farakka, the Brahmaputra now accounts for about 80 per cent of water coming during the lean season just up to the threshold level to keep salinity under control (a lost battle in the Ganges-dependent area) at the Meghna estuary.

It has been made clear by experts that monsoon water that has been shown as excess by proponents of river linking cannot be diverted during the wet season when other rivers and water bodies also normally remain full to brim. So diversion of the Brahmaputra — if it is feasible at all — can be effected only during the post-monsoon and dry months when Bangladesh already faces surface water problems.

The flora and fauna would thus be under severe stress. Agricultural productivity that has helped make this famine-prone country near self-sufficient in cereal production, would go down with disastrous consequences. Many species of plants, like sundri trees in tine Sunderbans, animals, reptiles and birds would disappear. Industrial output would also fall negatively affecting the livelihood of people. One can have a picture if one simulates the experiences gathered in the Ganges dependent areas on the Brahmaputra and Meghna dependent areas.

Reduced opportunity to earn a livelihood is bound to force people to look for alternative sources of income outside the impacted areas and lead to out-migration as experienced in the GDA. In 1981, the GDA population was 35.1 per cent of the national total. By the time of the next census in 1991, this figure declined to 34.2 per cent, according to studies conducted under the WARPO as per the data provided by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. The GDA population appears to have further declined to about 33.3 per cent of the national total by the time of 2001 census.

We know India has already started blaming Bangladesh for migration of people and its border security forces attempt at intervals to push-in Bangla-speaking people to Bangladesh. If river diversion in future leads to mass out-migration, then India would find no one but itself to blame.

Sadly enough the international audience including donor countries and agencies know the Indian perspective on the common rivers. The Bangladesh perspective is still unclear to them. As late as last April John Briscoe, water resources advisor to the World Bank’s Dhaka office, told the meeting that there was no harm in transferring water from a surplus river to a scarce one, apparently justifying the controversial inter-linking of rivers project of India. (Statement made at an April 18 meeting organized by WB, Dhaka office.) A total of 200 Indian engineers in 20 years completed water balance studies of their rivers to put forward the ILR proposal by using (correctly or incorrectly) statistical figures. Senior water experts in Bangladesh on the other hand have only rough estimates of water demand and water balance of rivers.

Fact remains that the political boundaries in the subcontinent are only 55 years old but the rivers, flowing for the millennia are naturally interlinked. Artificial interlinking would lead to their death with unforeseen consequences not only for Bangladesh but for the whole region. Excess flow of rivers is a myth. In nature nothing is in excess. Everything exists in equilibrium. As an expert has put, calcium washed down the Himalayas by rain water is vital to the existence of coral reefs in the Bay of Bengal. Annual floods are vital for flushing away pollutants from the flood plains. Rivers will not be able to do these functions if their flows are diverted. Rivers (fresh water) also have functions at the estuaries and the shore line where Bangladesh has a rich mangrove ecosystem which again is vital to life in the mainland.

The question of basinwide study of environmental, economic and social impact assessments of large projects thus becomes extremely important. If ETA studies are mandatory within a nation there is no reason why basinwide EIAs should not be mandatory for any intervention on a river shared by more than one nation. Since the international law is against causing significant harm at downstream of rivers, there is a need to make a list the harmful effects suffered by the people due to intervention at upstream.

Fall in food grain output, decline of fishery, fall of industrial productivity, loss of navigation routes, loss of jobs and migration from areas of economic stress are some of the impacts that have already been experienced in the southwest region but have not been syst~2matically documented.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Plan of Implementation underscores the need to “Improve the efficient use of water resources and promote their allocation among competing uses in a way that gives priority to the satisfaction of basic human needs and balances the requirement of preserving or restoring ecosystems and their functions, in particular in fragile environments, with human domestic, industrial and agriculture needs, including safeguarding drinking water quality”. (Article 26 (c)) In other words the rivers must remain alive to sustain the ecosystems they nurture and give us livelihood. We cannot have eggs by killing the goose. Diversion of Himalayan Rivers has the dangers of killing the goose.

However, the most serious environmental threat to Bangladesh is the tendency among its experts to keep mum for fear of being branded “pro” or “anti” instead of collecting the courage to speak out against clear threats to our environment which also turns into a threat to our fundamental rights to life and livelihood. Many of our experts had returned from the Third Water Forum of March 2003 with a shame that Indian activists themselves had awakened them to the need to protest the Interlinking of Rivers project.

Next comes Knowledge gap retaining which the National Water Management Plan has recently been adopted. But we have not only knowledge gap but also information gap. We do not get adequate river flow data and information from upstream. Under pressure from its counterpart the Bangladesh wing of the Joint Rivers Commission has imposed an unofficial ban on sharing of data and information on the Ganges and its tributaries and distributaries. If the JRC is for some reason or the other bound by some conditions, the nation should devise alternative ways of sharing the vital information and data to correctly understand the present for better planning of the future.

Lastly, to safeguard the right to our riverine environment we should come out of such shameful inaction, call a spade a spade, and forge ahead with concrete information recognizing and encouraging good work by anybody, instead clinging to our tradition of glorifying people only for face value. Otherwise, we would never be able to hit the iron when it is red. We are probably fortunate enough that a change of government in New Delhi has given us time to meet here today to dwell on the dos and don’ts based on ifs and buts of the River Linking project. Thank you all.

Presented at National Workshop on River Linking Project, organized by the Bangladesh People’s Initiative Against River Linking River Linking (BPIRL) at IDB Building, Dhaka on 8 June 2004. Executive Editor of The New Nation, the writer launched early in 2002 the campaign against the Indian project for diversion of Himalayan rivers. He is co-author of “In Search of a Golden Dream” (1989) (study of the Meghna-Dhonagoda Flood Control and Irrigation project’.); member of the Board of Editors and co­author of “Rivers of Life” (1994).