India, Bangladesh: Water Disputes and Teesta River Diplomacy

India and Bangladesh share 54 rivers between them. Despite setting up a Joint River Commission for water management as early as 1972, tensions between the countries on how to share resources recently came to a head in a dispute over the Teesta River. At stake are the lives of countless people from West Bengal and Bangladesh who depend upon the river for survival. To date, only one comprehensive river pact has been signed by India and Bangladesh – a 1996 bilateral treaty that established a 30-year water-sharing arrangement between the two countries. This was set to change in September 2011 when India’s Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, was due to sign a pact with his Bangladeshi counterpart regarding access and use of the Teesta River. 

 

Aerial View of the Teesta River. Flickr photo by Prato9x (CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The Teesta - which has its source in Sikkim - flows through the northern part of West Bengal in India before entering Bangladesh, where after coursing through about 45km of irrigable land, merges with the Brahmaputra River (or Jamuna when it enters Bangladesh). In 1983, an ad-hoc water sharing agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh, whereby both countries were allocated 39% and 36% of the water flow respectively. The new bilateral treaty expands upon this agreement by proposing an equal allocation of the Teesta River.

However, the deal fell through when the then newly elected Chief Minister of West Bengal, Ms. Mamata Banerjee, refused to approve the treaty, fearing that the loss of higher volume of water to the lower riparian would cause problems in the northern region of state, especially during drier months.

  

The river Ganges, flowing through Hrishikesh, India. Flickr Photo by Sanj@y (CC-BY-2.0)

Given that water is a state issue in India, and that Banerjee’s political party, the All India Trinamool Congress, is a key coalition partner of the ruling central government, the deal could not go through without her approval. While a large section of the Bangladeshi populace as well as the Indian media vilified her rigid stance, her opposition to the terms of the treaty was not without its share of support.

In May 2012, during a visit to India, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Ms. Dipu Moni, warned that bilateral relations would be complicated if India fails to deliver on the Teesta water-sharing agreement. Despite this pressure tactic, the treaty remains a slow burner as India continues its efforts of domestic political consensus building. However, the Indian Minister for External Affairs, S.M. Krishna tried to diffuse tensions and assured Bangladesh that India remains committed to an early solution on the issue of sharing Teesta waters. 

 

Jamuna (Brahmaputra) river in Bangladesh. Flickr photo by bengal*foam (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Bangladesh also wants a quick resolution to the issue, and may even be willing to soften their stance because of mounting pressure at home to get the deal done. Bangladeshi journalist and blogger Farid Ahmed writes:

It is apparently quite clear now that…Bangladesh for now has failed to ensure that India inks a deal…to share water of common rivers, mainly Teesta … Now it is Bangladesh which has to do what it should have started long ago. Apart from traditional diplomacy, they should have transmitted the feelings of its public to those on the other side of the border. The sky is locked for Dhaka as no Bangladeshi channels are broadcasted by Indian cable operators… Most Indian newspapers were supportive for Bangladesh’s cause on Teesta. That’s a positive side. What about engaging with West Bengal’s public?

Nevertheless, looking beyond the political rhetoric, West Bengal’s concerns about water security for its northern region cannot be overlooked and need to be allayed. India is already beginning to feel the strain on its water security given the ever rising demands for more water for its burgeoning population. According to a 2010 report ‘Water Security for India: The External Dynamics’ published by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA):

India is facing a serious water resource problem and as trends suggest, it is expected to become ‘water stressed’ by 2025 and ‘water scarce’ by 2050

Both countries, therefore, need to develop a well thought out, balanced treaty that will enable equitable sharing of the waters of the Teesta, thereby enhancing bilateral ties and reducing the possibility of water conflict.

This post was first published on the ISN blog, cross-posted on Global Voices Online.

Conflict of multiple objectives and the need to make trade-offs critical challenges in the management of Commons, says Jairam Ramesh

In the first post of the series, we saw what Shri Jairam Ramesh, India's Minister of Environment and Forests, had to say on the global commons (climate change) in his keynote address at the inaugural session of the 13th biennial IASC International Conference in Hyderabad. 

In this post we will look at what he had to say about the regional (rivers and aquifers) and local commons (management of forests).

Addressing the issue of regional commons, the Minister said:

Central to the management of regional commons, is the existence of multiplicity of objectives and the extent to which you are going to have tradeoffs amongst these objectives. Take a river basin for example. 20 years ago, the concept of a minimum environmental flow did not exist in our policy discourse. So, we planned a series of Hydel power projects, we planned a series of irrigation projects, we had a series of drinking water projects, and today we are finding that many of our important and ecologically sensitive river systems we do not have what now ecologists are coming to call as the minimum environmental flow. 

How do we deal with issues of minimum environmental flow when we have multiple pressures on the commons , when we have multiple pressures on the river systems. We have pressure from the need for developing Hydel projects, we have pressure for drinking water to reach a larger population, but at the same time, unless we are able to assure a minimum environmental flow in these rivers, the very ecological basis of having these regional commons gets lost. And this is an issue which is becoming increasingly important in the policy discourse. 

Shri Ramesh also took the opportunity to point out some of the challenging decisions that he has had to take recently in this regard. He said,

I have had to face severe opposition, on my decision to put a stop on Hydel projects in the upper reaches of the Ganga in the state of Uttarakhand. Even after much of the work had gone on, on some of these Hydel Projects. There was a Hydel project on which we had spent a 1000 Cr of Rs. and 40% of the work had already been done and I had to wage a battle for a year to get that project scrapped because had we continued with that project we would have interfered with the minimum environmental flow of the river Bhagirathi which has not just religious and cultural significance to most Indians but also ecological significance. These are the types of conflicts and tradeoffs that we have to make increasingly in the regional commons of which water is going to be the most important.

 On the issue of forest management (which he described as local commons), Shri Ramesh stated:

We have over 70 million hectares of Forest cover in our country, roughly 21 % of the geographical area and for the last 30-40 years, the theology of Forest planning has been that 1/3rd of India should come under forests. But I have asked for the last 19 months, what is the source of this theology? Where did this theology originate that 1/3rd of India should come under Forest cover. Till today, I have not got a satisfactory answer to this most basic of questions.

That’s why I think the time has come for us to make a radical shift in our approach from the preoccupation with the quantity of forests to a greater attention to the quality of forests.

Explaining why he felt that this shift was essential, the Minister said that given the various pressures on the land today, sticking to the ideology of trying to get 1/3rd of India under forest cover would not be very practical. According to him,

With 70 Million hectares of Forest cover, and 40% of it, open, degraded forests, the challenge before us is to  improve just the quality of forests, rather than chasing the mirage of bringing 1/3rd of India under Forests. We know, because of the demographic and the development pressure, that it is not going to be possible.

...the carbon sequestration potential of Indian forests was estimated to be roughly 10% for the mid 90s, but it has gone down because as the economic growth increases, as we sustain 8-9% growth, we will not be able to compensate for the loss of forest cover. Our estimate is that by 2020 the annual carbon sequestration potential of our Indian Forests would be somewhere between 6-7% of our annual greenhouse gas emissions. If we are able to even maintain the 6-7% range, that would be a major contribution.

Acknowledging that forests not only play an ecological role but a very critical social and economic role as well, Shri Ramesh admitted that often policy makers overlooked the latter functions of the forest and stated there was a need for a change in mindset in this respect. He stated

We know that not just ecologically, in terms of social and economic values, our forests play a very important role The people who have worked with Indian Forests know, that over 200 - 250 million Indians depend on forests for their livelihoods a fact which is very often forgotten by forest department. I hasten to add that I very much include myself and I think the challenge before us, in managing this huge local commons called the Indian Forests, is to recognise not just their ecological value to be brought into public discussion, but also the age-old economic and social functions our forests perform, which unfortunately over the years, our laws have not been able to recognise and enshrine; our challenge in managing the local commons lies in changing the mindset that we have had in managing the forests and recognising not just the quantity of forests, but the quality of forests, and also in recognising that forests have not just an ecological function but more importantly and fundamentally a very important social and economic function.