The fifth meeting of the Joint Committee on Water Resources (JCWR) concluded on Nov. 22, 2009 in Nepal. The Ministry of Energy (that represented the Nepali side) is busy blowing its trumpet about the achievements of this meet, but there are some troubling facts that have been overlooked. The supposed achievements have been on issues regarding inundation problems due to the Laxmanpur Barrage and the formation of the Pancheshwor Development Authority (PDA). Yet, the issues that really needed to be discussed at this meet have not been dealt with.

Regarding the agreements reached, there are still lots of issues that cast a shadow of doubt. For example, regarding the inundation due to Laxmanpur Barrage, it was agreed five years ago at the third High Level Technical Committee (HLTC) meeting to allow unregulated flow of Gandheli and Sotia Nala through the Kalkalwa bund so as to address this problem. It must be noted that this same issue remained inconclusive at the second HLTC meeting and the then Parliamentary Committee had presented a report recommending to the government that the barrage be demolished. The severity of this issue is clearly reflected in the chain of events of the time. Yet, after almost five years since the agreement, India has not taken any steps towards fulfilling its commitment. It seems absurd how this issue could even find a place in the agenda of the recent JCWR meeting. Although an understanding has been reached (again), how can the commitment of the Indian side be trusted in the light of past actions?

About the formation of the PDA, as reported in an editorial of this newspaper some days ago, it has been reported that Nepal was offered only menial jobs. It was only after hard bargaining that an understanding was reached to appoint the CEO through open competition and the ACEO would be selected by the opposing country through open competition. Regarding this “open competition”, it must be clear about how “open” this competition must be. The issue of appointment of a CEO for the 309 MW Upper Tamakoshi Hydroelectric Project is still fresh in our minds. The terms and conditions of the competition were that the candidate required “at least five years’ experience as project chief in hydropower projects costing more than US$ 200 million”. These conditions were set forth so that not a single Nepali national qualified for the post.

Regarding the appointment of a CEO for the PDA, it was stated in the terms of reference (TOR) that the “CEO will be appointed by the authority either from India or Nepal, on competitive basis having requisite qualifications, relevant experience and proven track record”. Now, what is troubling about this point is that the requisites regarding the experience and proven track record would surely be beneficial to the Indian side, for there is no Nepali person who has been a CEO of a project of the size of Pancheshwor. The best deal would have been for the CEOs to be appointed from both countries and to let them serve alternate terms.

However, the most important issue that was overlooked in this entire meeting was the issue of the Sunkoshi Storage Cum Diversion Scheme (SSDS) also known as the Sunkoshi-Kamala Diversion Project. According to a study conducted by JICA in 1985, the project would irrigate almost over 300,000 hectares of command area in Nepal between the Saptakoshi River and the Uriya River in Parsa. In the irrigation sector, the SSDS is probably the best project that can provide year-round irrigation in this region. When discussing the Saptakoshi High Dam Project, the Indian side raised security issues and the most important issues of the SSDS were not discussed at all.

India has proposed building a 269-m high dam at Barahakshetra on the Saptakoshi River which would submerge the proposed dam site at Kurule for the SSDS. The Indian side has been sticking to the high dam proposal for almost 30 years now, although it knows that it means submergence of the Kurule dam site. It’s unfortunate that such a sensitive issue did not find its way to the agenda in this recent meeting, and the discussions remained limited to petty security issues.

Nepal should have made a firm stand on the issue of the SSDS as Nepal has nothing to gain from the Saptakoshi High Dam Project but everything to lose. It should have bargained for the construction of the SSDS first and then the issue of the Saptakoshi Project could have been revised in the changed perspective. Based on a feasibility study conducted on the Karnali Chisapani Project, A.B. Thapa, a known water resources specialist, concluded that of the total water diverted from the SSDS, 35 percent would be actually used in irrigating Nepali land while India would be getting for free almost 65 percent of the water as return flow. It was also estimated that 15 percent of the water would find its way to the deep subsurface aquifer and the remaining 50 percent would be returned as surface and shallow subsurface water. This could be easily tapped on Indian territory for irrigation purposes. Thus, the SSDS would be a win-win situation for both countries, whereas the Saptakoshi High Dam Project would be nothing more than a second version of the infamous 1954 Koshi Treaty.

Lastly, the most interesting part of the fifth JCWR meeting was that Indian Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood himself represented the Indian side. On the Nepali side, the team was led by the secretary of the Ministry of Energy (technically speaking, the Ministry of Hydropower). On one side, there was the great diplomat who had once been portrayed as a player in toppling even the governments of Nepal, and on the other side there was our secretary with almost no relevant experience in the water resources sector. This fact shows the dedication and seriousness of the Indian side regarding water resources and our apparent apathy. Now that the first ministerial level JMCWR meeting is scheduled to be held in Delhi, it is imperative that we incorporate a similar deal of seriousness and sense of responsibility. These issues that mean so much to Nepal’s water resources sector must not be left overlooked. What we need then is proper preparation, good homework and a robust team to defend one’s stance.

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.