|
|
|
|
|
Inter Basin Water Transfer Link Project of India |
|
|
Home
• Feedback•
Contact us |
|
Different Views |
||||||||||||
|
|
The idea of inter-basin transfer of water from north east India to water deficit west and south India by interlinking rivers within India has been proposed and discussed from time to time since the early 1950s when Dr. K. L. Rao (who later became India's Water Resources Minister) first came up with the idea. The Indian National Water Development Agency (I-NWDA), established in 1982, has been carrying out studies to identify feasible inter-basin linkage sub-projects and has already generated a substantial portfolio of links with pre-feasibility studies completed, for few of which feasibility studies have also been completed. The concept was included in the 1987 Indian National Water Policy and reiterated in the 2002 version of it. The I-NWDA has been investigating two sets of linkagesone relates to peninsular rivers and the other to Himalayan rivers. While the former is only an inter-state issue within India, the latter additionally involves international perspectives. However, the project remained on the backburner until October 2002. It is now well known that the project received a shot in the arm when the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Indian Central Government, in October 2002, in response to a public interest litigation, to complete the task of interlinking all rivers of India in a period of 10 years. As suggested by the Supreme Court, the Government of India (GoI) set up a Task Force on 16 December 2002. The timeline formulated has been to prepare action plans and complete feasibility studies and detailed project reports by end of 2006 and the implementation of the full project by 2016. The Task Force has been charged with the responsibility of investigating and reporting on economic viability, socio-economic impact, environmental impact, and resettlement options and plans for each individual linkage sub-project. It is envisaged to transfer 173 BCM of water from the Ganges and the Brahmaputra and more from Teesta and other eastern rivers to the States of UP, MP, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujrat, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by digging canals and putting in place other necessary structures including reservoirs at an estimated cost of over US$120 billion or about Rs. 5,600 billion at 2002 prices. The order of the Supreme Court of India and the follow-up steps taken by the Indian Government have been in the public domain since their respective issuance. According to newspaper reports, the GoB has very recently lodged its concerns with the GoI and will take up the matter in the forthcoming JRC meeting to be held in New Delhi on 29-30 September 2003. I am not sure at what point of time in a matter like this it would have been appropriate for the GoB to take up the issue of the possible severe adverse impact in Bangladesh of the Indian scheme of interlinking rivers with the GoI. However, the professionals and other elements of civil society could certainly have taken up the task of reviewing its implications for Bangladesh and sensitizing all concerned about them at least since the Indian Supreme Court order or even the setting up of the Task Force. Unfortunately, no momentum in the attention in Bangladesh to this Indian scheme developed until mid-August 2003, although sporadic comments were heard over the previous months. On 6 April 2003, I spoke about this Indian scheme of interlinking rives in a seminar in Dhaka, which was organized by Media Network for Sustainable Development (MNSD). I gave some details as to how it was being planned and how might Bangladesh be affected as a result. My comments were based on of my previous knowledge about the project and the data and information I was able to collect while attending the 3rd World Water Forum in Japan in mid-March 2003. Realizing its crucial importance, the Daily Star picked up the issue, prominently reporting it on the front page on 7 April 2003, following up with an editorial the next day. Unfortunately, however, the issue did not receive much attention from any other quarters until the Indian President announced on 15 August 2003, the Indian Independence Day, that the grand scheme of interlinking rivers for transfer of water from the Ganges and the Brahmaputra basins to west and south India was going to be implemented. The same day, the Prime Minister of India announced that the project would be implemented on a war footing. Since then, a flurry of activities ensued in Bangladesh by way of newspaper articles, seminars, and setting up of networks and organizations, protesting the Indian scheme that would have severe adverse impact on Bangladesh. This indeed is good news as, although belatedly, reaction has started to build up. However, this inordinate delay also shows that we are not creative enough and leave things undone/unattended to until we are finally jolted hard to wake up. Moreover, the reactions being expressed are often emotionally charged and rhetoricalnot robust based on facts and analysis. In fact, we should have been working to prepare our responses since long. Even when I made the above mentioned statement in early April 2003, it did not generate much interest. While the appraisal process goes on in India for the interlinking of rivers project, Bangladesh should prepare its responses and remain alert, assuming that the Indian scheme would be implemented. It may be mentioned here, though, that the Indian scheme is very complex and complicated and can have far-reaching, irreversible adverse consequences within India, which may be damaging to many areas, particularly in the basins from which water will be transferred, and in many respects (economic, social, environmental). The question remains as to what would be the net benefit. That is, its economic, social, and environmental implications may be such that the implementation of the project could be a matter of much regret years down the line. In this context, it may be mentioned that, according to Indian experts, highlighted in newspapers and TV channels, the large-scale river bank erosions now occurring in Maldah and Murshidabad are due to the Farakka Barrage and, also, there are serious questions being raised about the fulfillment of its primary objective of saving the Kolkata port. In fact, there were voices raised in India against the advisability of the Farakka Barrage before it was constructed. As a result of the Farakka Barrage, Bangladesh has been severely suffering and the sufferings and damages in India may eventually turn out to be large. The barrage may, therefore, turn out to be a loss-loss situation for both the countries. Regarding the scheme of interlinking rivers, there are strong voices being raised in India in relation to its adverse economic, social and environmental consequences, particularly in the Ganges-Brahmaputra basins within India from which waters will be transferred. Inter-state issues are coming into the forefront, of which satisfactory solutions could be intractable. We know about the works of some of the people involved in such exercises in India. It will serve the interest of millions of people of India and Bangladesh that professionals and other civil society groups in Bangladesh establish contacts and work together with those groups in India to uphold people's interests in both the countries and raise facts-based and analytically formulatednot emotional, rhetorical, or rabble rousingvoices against the scheme that could spell disaster for millions in India and Bangladesh. The GBM region, stretching across Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Bhutan and China (Tibet), contains about 40% of the world's poor, despite the fact it has huge water and other natural resources. Studies have shown that sensible development and utilization of these water and other resources of the region under a mutually beneficial, cooperative framework within the region will help augment growth and reduce poverty in the region much faster. On the other hand, transfer of waters from this region will severely damage the prospects of this region's development and poverty reduction. The Helsinki Rules (Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, adopted in Helsinki in 1992) and the UN Convention (Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Use of International Watercourses, 1997) on international watercourses provide that all co-riparians of an international river or a lake must have equitable access to good quality water from it and that all co-riparians shall take all appropriate measures against causing adverse tranaboundary effects. While the Helsinki Rules were adopted by some European countries, the UN Convention has not been ratified by either Bangladesh or India. Yet both of these Conventions may still be invoked as internationally recognized principles, but a strong basis exists in this regard for Bangladesh in the 1996 30-year Ganges [Water Sharing] Treaty between India and Bangladesh, to which both the countries are, by Treaty, committed. The following two Articles of the Treaty may be quoted here: "Article IX. Guided by the principles of equity, fairness and no harm to either party, both the Governments agree to conclude water sharing Treaties/Agreements with regard to other common rivers." "Article VIII. The two Governments recognize the need to cooperate with each other in finding a solution to the long-term problem of augmenting the flows of the Ganga/Ganges during the dry season." Clearly, therefore, the two countries have bound themselves by Treaty not to cause harm to the other party and establish fairness and equity in using waters of the Ganges as well as other common rivers. The two countries are also bound by this Treaty to work together to augment the flows of the Ganges waters during the dry season. Further, in the preamble of the Treaty, it has been stated that the fair and just solution be found without affecting the rights and entitlements of either party and that the two countries are determined to promote and strengthen their relations of friendship and good neighbourliness. Hence, the grand Indian scheme of interlinking rivers, without first reaching an accommodation with Bangladesh, violates the above mentioned two Articles and Principles enshrined in the Ganges Treaty. In accordance with the above mentioned provisions of the Ganges Treaty, India is required to discuss with Bangladesh all major projects of interventions in the common rivers before taking them up, to find mutually agreeable way forward. The recognition of the above mentioned internationally acclaimed Principles and the inclusion of the above mentioned Articles and Principles in the Ganges Treaty provide a strong basis for, and should be so used by, Bangladesh to negotiate with India for equitable shares of all the common rivers and to formulate arguments that India is required to reach an accommodation with Bangladesh before taking further steps towards implementing its grand scheme of interlinking rivers. In order to strengthen this argument all possible implications of reduced water flows to Bangladesh, as a result of the interlinking of rivers in India, should be worked in both qualitative and quantitative terms in respect of all sectors including agriculture, industry, eco-system, human health, fishery, and river transportation. Other concerns of adverse effects that may result from reduced transboundary water flows in different parts of Bangladesh would include water supply and sanitation, ground water recharge, water pollution, salinity ingress, drying up of wetlands, loss of biodiversity, and loss of mangroves. It is not enough to say that reduced water flows will have severe adverse implications in all these respects; it is necessary to undertake appropriate studies to quantify as far as possible and derive research-based qualitative conclusions relating to all of these impact areas. The exercise can be undertaken on the basis of different assumptions concerning the availability of water through the common rivers during the dry season, assuming that the interlinking of rivers project will go ahead in India. Such studies should be completed as soon as possible towards strengthening the arguments based on the principles of equity, fairness, and no harm done to either party as a result of water sector actions taken by one party. In the meantime i.e. as the proposed studies are planned and undertaken, though, it is necessary to bring together immediately whatever data and information are available from various sources to highlight as much as possible the likely adverse impact. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while this process of protesting and negotiating with India goes on, it is important that the National Water Management Plan, which includes the Ganges Development Area Options Study that has recommended the construction of a barrage on the Ganges to supply water to south west Bangladesh, need to be approved without further loss of time. And, following the approval efforts must be mounted to prioritize water sector activities within the framework of the National Water Policy and National Water Management Plan. One priority would certainly be the construction of the Ganges Barrage, which should be taken up seriously by mobilizing resources for feasibility and detailed engineering studies and, then, to earnestly take up the matter of the construction of the barrage. The barrage will enable the water available under the Ganges Treaty during the dry season to be purposefully utilized, most of which now goes down to the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh's approach to water management has to be two-pronged. One is to strengthen the planning and implementation of the water sector projects in the country and the other is to enhance the country's capability (through research, dialogues, networking, and building public opinion through appropriate dissemination activities) to negotiate effectively with India, keeping the principles of justice and fairness for both the countries in perspective, for an equitable share of the waters of all international rivers coming down to Bangladesh from India. Dr. Qazi Kholiquzzaman
Ahmad |
|
||||||||||
|
Home • Feedback• Contact us |
||||||||||||
