The dam treaties
RATAN BHANDARI
Nepal and India share a huge amount of Himalayan fresh water. The rivers originating in the Himalaya pass through Nepal first and then through India and Bangladesh on their way to the sea. The development and management of these trans-boundary rivers and waters has been a big challenge for all these co-riparian countries, mainly Nepal and India, as China and Bangladesh were not brought into the picture when water treaties were negotiated.
India and Nepal have signed three such treaties, the Koshi (in 1954), Gandak (1959) and Mahakali (1996). All these agreements are regarded as being unequal and unjust in terms of their joint management and benefit sharing. There has been a big controversy over the provisions of these treaties and weak implementation and delivery of the expected results to local farmers, communities and the nations as a whole.
One of the most disappointing factors has been lack of post-project assessment of the Koshi and Gandak projects as regards their economic, social and environmental consequences. If such studies had been done, we could have avoided this year's Koshi disaster. Linking this flood or similar other inundation problems to climate change is rubbish! In fact, it is just the opposite. The people of the Gandak had launched a massive protest last year which prompted governmental officials of the two countries to meet, discuss their problems and make promises to address them. In the case of the Mahakali, the treaty has remained a defunct document for the past 12 years. The main obstacle to its implementation, which is mainly the construction of the Pancheshwar dam, is India's misinterpretation of the treaty's provisions regarding the right and use of the Mahakali River's water -- not on the basis of equal sharing and benefits, but on the basis of the remaining water from the Sharada Barrage. On the other hand, there is growing demand for a complete review or replacement of the existing Mahakali treaty.
There are also problems and controversies over the construction of a series of unilateral embankments on or near the Nepal-India border (on Indian territory near Dasgaja). These structures cause flooding, destruction and displacement of thousands of villages and people every year. Nepal has raised questions regarding a number of embankments such as Mahalisagar and Russiawal-Khurdalotan. But other constructions have taken place without negotiations at the governmental level or consultation with the affected people of the two countries.
There is now a new trend regarding negotiation of water treaties and implementation of projects. Instead of the Indian government conducting them, they are now done by Indian public and private companies. For example, the Arun III and Upper Karnali dam projects were given to the Sutlaj Jal Vidyut Nigam (a public company) and GMR (a private company) respectively through private agreements and licensing. Dealing with companies is more complex than dealing with the government as they can be less transparent, accountable and responsible with regard to economic, social and environmental benefit matters. Very often, repression and human rights violations of the local people occur in the implementation of such company-led or private sector projects.
There is also a trend of signing agreements and awarding licenses to non-Indian foreign companies when all surplus water is diverted to India with no riparian benefits to Nepal or direct advantages like export of electricity. Such is the case with the West Seti Hydroelectricity Project in west Nepal in which an Australian company Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) is the license-holder and contractor.
The new government of Nepal has been advised under pressure to produce 10,000 MW in 10 years largely for export to India. For us, the plan will be a catastrophe. It will cause more problems and conflicts as no attempts have been made to learn from the past and apply emerging criteria, principles and standards in dam building, water and energy benefit sharing and ecological conservation. The key issues for
joint campaigns are
(a) Come up with bilateral (Nepal and India) and multilateral (e.g., Nepal, India, Bangladesh in the case of the Koshi) regional frameworks on trans-boundary rivers and water sharing based on the principles of equality and equitability as appropriate.
(b) Guarantee co-riparian rights and benefits to all the countries involved.
(c) Stop implementation of any inter-linking of river projects both in India and China as well as construction of structures and embankments without conducting formal treaties in democratic consultation with the local people and river-basin communities.
(d) Develop a compliance framework for all Nepal-India and regional water and energy projects based on the criteria, guidelines and standards of the laws of the respective countries, international human rights and environmental obligations and findings of the World Commission on Dams report.
(e) Conduct post-project assessments, review of existing treaties and compensation and reparation to victims of dam projects, reservoirs, inundation and barrages.
(f) Promote economically and socially cheaper and better alternative projects and energy resources for the region.
(g) Stop building infrastructure projects that cause serious climate change and destruction of the Himalayan ecosystem. Unless the people of Nepal, India and the region work together on these issues as common needs and threats, there will only be more conflict over water and rivers resulting in more poverty and more ecological disasters.
(The author is coordinator of the Water & Energy Users' Federation-Nepal or WAFED.) Source: The Kathmandu Post, 19 February 2009
Nepal and India share a huge amount of Himalayan fresh water. The rivers originating in the Himalaya pass through Nepal first and then through India and Bangladesh on their way to the sea. The development and management of these trans-boundary rivers and waters has been a big challenge for all these co-riparian countries, mainly Nepal and India, as China and Bangladesh were not brought into the picture when water treaties were negotiated.
India and Nepal have signed three such treaties, the Koshi (in 1954), Gandak (1959) and Mahakali (1996). All these agreements are regarded as being unequal and unjust in terms of their joint management and benefit sharing. There has been a big controversy over the provisions of these treaties and weak implementation and delivery of the expected results to local farmers, communities and the nations as a whole.
One of the most disappointing factors has been lack of post-project assessment of the Koshi and Gandak projects as regards their economic, social and environmental consequences. If such studies had been done, we could have avoided this year's Koshi disaster. Linking this flood or similar other inundation problems to climate change is rubbish! In fact, it is just the opposite. The people of the Gandak had launched a massive protest last year which prompted governmental officials of the two countries to meet, discuss their problems and make promises to address them. In the case of the Mahakali, the treaty has remained a defunct document for the past 12 years. The main obstacle to its implementation, which is mainly the construction of the Pancheshwar dam, is India's misinterpretation of the treaty's provisions regarding the right and use of the Mahakali River's water -- not on the basis of equal sharing and benefits, but on the basis of the remaining water from the Sharada Barrage. On the other hand, there is growing demand for a complete review or replacement of the existing Mahakali treaty.
There are also problems and controversies over the construction of a series of unilateral embankments on or near the Nepal-India border (on Indian territory near Dasgaja). These structures cause flooding, destruction and displacement of thousands of villages and people every year. Nepal has raised questions regarding a number of embankments such as Mahalisagar and Russiawal-Khurdalotan. But other constructions have taken place without negotiations at the governmental level or consultation with the affected people of the two countries.
There is now a new trend regarding negotiation of water treaties and implementation of projects. Instead of the Indian government conducting them, they are now done by Indian public and private companies. For example, the Arun III and Upper Karnali dam projects were given to the Sutlaj Jal Vidyut Nigam (a public company) and GMR (a private company) respectively through private agreements and licensing. Dealing with companies is more complex than dealing with the government as they can be less transparent, accountable and responsible with regard to economic, social and environmental benefit matters. Very often, repression and human rights violations of the local people occur in the implementation of such company-led or private sector projects.
There is also a trend of signing agreements and awarding licenses to non-Indian foreign companies when all surplus water is diverted to India with no riparian benefits to Nepal or direct advantages like export of electricity. Such is the case with the West Seti Hydroelectricity Project in west Nepal in which an Australian company Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) is the license-holder and contractor.
The new government of Nepal has been advised under pressure to produce 10,000 MW in 10 years largely for export to India. For us, the plan will be a catastrophe. It will cause more problems and conflicts as no attempts have been made to learn from the past and apply emerging criteria, principles and standards in dam building, water and energy benefit sharing and ecological conservation. The key issues for
joint campaigns are
(a) Come up with bilateral (Nepal and India) and multilateral (e.g., Nepal, India, Bangladesh in the case of the Koshi) regional frameworks on trans-boundary rivers and water sharing based on the principles of equality and equitability as appropriate.
(b) Guarantee co-riparian rights and benefits to all the countries involved.
(c) Stop implementation of any inter-linking of river projects both in India and China as well as construction of structures and embankments without conducting formal treaties in democratic consultation with the local people and river-basin communities.
(d) Develop a compliance framework for all Nepal-India and regional water and energy projects based on the criteria, guidelines and standards of the laws of the respective countries, international human rights and environmental obligations and findings of the World Commission on Dams report.
(e) Conduct post-project assessments, review of existing treaties and compensation and reparation to victims of dam projects, reservoirs, inundation and barrages.
(f) Promote economically and socially cheaper and better alternative projects and energy resources for the region.
(g) Stop building infrastructure projects that cause serious climate change and destruction of the Himalayan ecosystem. Unless the people of Nepal, India and the region work together on these issues as common needs and threats, there will only be more conflict over water and rivers resulting in more poverty and more ecological disasters.
(The author is coordinator of the Water & Energy Users' Federation-Nepal or WAFED.) Source: The Kathmandu Post, 19 February 2009
