Water sharing should top the list
We have learned that the Teesta water sharing agreement may not be signed during Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's upcoming visit to India. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's reluctance is often cited as a major reason for the delay. What's your view on this?
In the 37th meeting of the Joint Rivers Commission in Delhi, the then Bangladesh Water Resources Minister Ramesh Chandra Roy demanded 50-50 distribution of the Teesta water at Gazaldoba point. At that time, he expressed satisfaction by getting 3,500 cusec of water without asking for it, and said that by holding talks we could get more water (The Daily Star, March 18, 2010). In January 2011, after a secretary level meeting, it was in the air that the Teesta water sharing agreement was imminent, with the formula of dividing the flow 50-50, keeping aside 20 percent of the total flow for the river. But then we heard some contradictory standpoints of the then Bangladesh government in the media. The then PM's advisor Dr. Moshiur Rahman said that experts were yet to know the volume of water of the Teesta. He said, "So, we will measure the volume of the water in the next 17 years. Later, we will go for a permanent treaty." (The Daily Star, September 3, 2011). The Hasina-Manmohan Summit in Dhaka on September 7, 2011 ended with no agreement on the Teesta water. It was in the media that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee wanted to give Bangladesh 25 percent share only, and so the summit failed. On September 8, the then Bangladesh foreign secretary Mijarul Quayes said at a press conference, "Teesta agreement is finalised; we are not to give any more concession." Thus it is not clear what actually is in the proposed agreement.
What is the logic behind building the Ganges Barrage? What are some of the risks for Bangladesh if this barrage is constructed?
"Although the Indian government promises to do no harm to Bangladesh by their intervention in the common rivers at various president, prime minister or ministerial level talks, widespread mining in the Meghalayas is discharging toxic wastes in the rivers of haor areas and also untreated sewage from Agartala city is coming to the rivers of Bangladesh.
We need a barrage on the Ganges River inside Bangladesh in order to divert water to the Sundarbans and supply irrigation water to the G.K. Project and Pabna Project areas. There is no big risk in this project. But the proposed location of the barrage at Habaspur, Rajbari, is too far from the G.K. Project area. So it will not be possible to supply water to the project area from this barrage. We have heard that monsoon water will be stored in the proposed Ganges Barrage. But storing monsoon water in the Ganges Barrage is impossible for practical reasons. Moreover, a barrage only regulates gates to let flood water flow and control lean flows, while a dam is built to store river water for producing electricity and there is provision for letting flood waters pass through spillways. Indians are objecting to this barrage saying that if built, it would inundate Indian territories. We have Teesta Barrage only 8 km away from the border. It is not causing any inundation across the border to the Indian territories. The Ganges Barrage in Bangladesh should be relocated at a site near the G.K. Project head works, which is about 50 km away from the border.
How can we ensure fair share of water for both countries? How does India's unilateral move such as the river linking project, construction of dams, etc., affect our trans-boundary river management?
Basin-wide river management for the Ganges or the Brahmaputra can be done for navigation purpose only. Basin-wide river management for other purposes will give control of our rivers to India. The present day norms for non-navigational uses of international rivers are governed by the UN Watercourse Convention of 1997. Article 7.1 of this convention states that "Watercourse States shall, in utilising an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States." And article 7.2 says that "where significant harm nevertheless is caused to another watercourse State, the States whose use causes such harm shall, in the absence of agreement to such use, take all appropriate measures, ..., to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation." India is already diverting Teesta water through its River Interlinking Canal #1, which is causing significant harm to our life and economy. But because both Bangladesh and India have not ratified this convention, we have to resolve the issues of trans-boundary rivers bilaterally.
What are the other water related concerns of Bangladesh that should be addressed in the upcoming visit but are not getting due attention?
Although the Indian government promises to do no harm to Bangladesh by their intervention in the common rivers at various president, prime minister or ministerial level talks, widespread mining in the Meghalayas is discharging toxic wastes in the rivers of haor areas and also untreated sewage from Agartala city is coming to the rivers of Bangladesh. These are the issues that should get attention in trans-boundary river talks.
Comments