Oped»
The dam plan
NOV 23 - Nepal has enormous water resources and rivers flowing to the sea via India and Bangladesh. Conflicts over the utilisation of these rivers and the issue of benefit-sharing among all the co-riparian states are on the rise. There have been no regional or multi-lateral water and benefit-sharing frameworks or arrangements to date.
Nepal and India have many conflicts over the issue of benefit-sharing in relation to several trans-boundary rivers. There have been criticisms and controversies even with regard to the river-sharing arrangements which are bound by official bilateral treaties and agreements such as the Koshi 1954 (as revised in 1966), Gandak 1959 (amended 1964) and the Mahakali 1996, including three private sector projects in recent years, West Seti, Upper Karnali and Arun 3. The case of the new West Seti dam project involving a private sector Australian company SMEC has raised fresh controversy as it largely benefits India without any investment cost to the lower riparian country.
The most interesting and disturbing common feature of all these official and bilateral agreements is that no issue of co-riparian benefits has been properly addressed with Nepal as an upper co-riparian state and Bangladesh as a lower co-riparian state in the case of the Koshi River. The West Seti high dam project is now at the centre of a controversy as to whether and how Nepal should claim and receive co-riparian benefits from India once the project is completed and additional water is diverted to India through the Karnali River.
The 750 MW West Seti project is located in the far western part of Nepal. Although it is a domestic river, a huge amount of stored water will be diverted from the powerhouse directly to India through the Karnali River. It will allow India to irrigate 80,000 to 600,000 hectares of land. According to the environmental impact assessment report of the project, the length of the West Seti reservoir would be 25.1 km and the total storage capacity is estimated to be about 1,566 million cubic metres (m3) of the 195-metre high dam. Although, there is no information available on the quantum of flood control benefit, 90 m3 of augmented flow during the dry season (from the West Seti) is worth US$ 83 million (equivalent to Rs. 5.81 billion) annually based on the principle set forth by the agreement between Lesotho and South Africa for the purpose. We could also develop a mechanism to share such benefits using the precedent set by the Columbia Treaty.
Although there have been many discussions at official and unofficial levels in the past few years about making arrangements for co-riparian benefit based on the valuation of total additional consumptive advantage from the dam, there has been no progress and no understanding has been reached to date. The West Seti has become the first river project in which the issue of riparian benefit for Nepal has become one of the core issues of controversy. The local people and activist groups took the matter to the Supreme Court of Nepal asking it to issue directives to the government to present the project agreement for parliamentary ratification as it involves the fundamental issue of ensuring co-riparian benefit for Nepal from India from the economic benefit it generates.
Article 156 of the Interim Constitution, as in the case of Article 126 of the 1990 Constitution, provides for the ratification of any treaties and agreements relating to the sharing and utilisation of any natural resource, water and energy resources in this case. However, the Supreme Court delivered a very disappointing judgement concluding that agreements involving companies, as opposed to those between governments, are not subject to the above provision of the constitution requiring parliamentary approval. Now Nepal’s water experts, academics and activists are campaigning for the incorporation of clear provisions in the new constitution that the recently elected Constituent Assembly is drafting so as to cover all trans-boundary natural resources and related issues whether they involve governments or private entities.
India’s proposed and on-going Inter-Linking of Rivers Project (ILRP) has also raised fundamental controversial issues regarding its own inter-state, e.g., the case of the Ganga River diversion from Bihar state of India, and several trans-boundary co-riparian issues involving not only Bangladesh as a lower riparian country but also Nepal and Bhutan as upper riparian countries. China also enters the picture separately because it is also reportedly aiming to undertake various large-scale diversion and inter-linking of rivers projects of its own. So far, the concerns and opposition expressed by Bangladesh officially has not been addressed by India. If the ILRP is implemented without any consultation with and the approval of Bangladesh, and if its adverse effects are not negotiated and mitigated in advance, it will take up the issue at international forums such as the United Nations or even the International Court of Justice in The Hague as a declaration of virtual “water war”! Nepal has not expressed any concerns officially yet despite the fact that the ILRP issue is already at the top of the Nepal-India water conflict debate. It is yet unknown whether Bangladesh has done anything or not in this regard.
In this context, the first and fresh case of the West Seti provides ample opportunities for both Nepal and India to address and resolve the issue of sharing co-riparian benefits. It is also hoped that some kind of bilateral and multi-lateral frameworks will emerge gradually aiming for true regional cooperation with regard to the vast Himalayan waters and their utilisation in the region to the just and reasonable satisfaction of all the co-riparian countries.
(The author is coordinator of Water and Energy Users’ Federation-Nepal, WAFED)
ratanji@gmail.com
Headlines
Advertisements
