Water Wars

Top of Form

Updated: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:21 IST

How to share a river

M.S. Menon : Fri Jun 15 2012, 02:26 hrs

The focus should shift from water rights to water needs

A report on global water security released by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on World Water Day made startling revelations on the risk of water wars in the coming decades. According to the report, which was based on the assessment of federal intelligence agencies, lack of fresh water to meet the needs of a surging population would create tensions within and between states, causing global instability and conflict. The use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism would become a reality in the near future.

The possibility of water wars occurring in this century has been forecast before, by Ismail Serageldin, vice president of the World Bank in the 1990s, Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general in 2002, and Ban Ki-moon, the current UN secretary-general.

A recent study by David Zhang in the journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, which analysed more than 8,000 wars in the past, establishes that the main triggers for those wars was resource shortage. Experts predict that by 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population is likely to live in countries facing severe shortage of water — which could lead to large-scale conflict.

Many war analysts do not subscribe to this view on looming trouble over water, since, according to them, such wars are not cost-effective. This argument does not stand to reason since no war is cost-effective. The last century witnessed wars for the control of rivers — between Egypt and Sudan over the Nile (1958); between Israel and the Arabs over the Jordan river (1967), etc.

Some experts are optimistic since many states that share rivers have signed treaties for their utilisation, and such agreements are considered resilient enough to survive conflicts. For example, India with Pakistan on the Indus; the US with Mexico and Canada for their common rivers; Brazil with Paraguay on the Parana river; Egypt with sub-Saharan countries on the Nile, etc. They point out that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between India and Pakistan (1960) has survived two wars and many war-like situations due to its inbuilt resilience.

This contention also has certain limitations, as revealed by the working of these treaties in the last few decades. India is unhappy with the Pakistan-biased treaty provisions and is insisting on a review. Likewise, Paraguay feels that the Itaipu treaty (1973) favours Brazil and needs to be renegotiated. Sub-Saharan countries in Africa are insisting that Egypt review the Nile water treaty (1929). However, the beneficiaries — in these cases Pakistan, Brazil and Egypt — are not willing to review the agreements. Tensions are building.

There are also cases where unilateral actions, ignoring treaty provisions, are simmering discontent. For example, the action of the US in lining the All-American Canal in the Colorado basin, ignoring the Colorado river treaty (1944), thereby affecting the riparian rights of Mexican farmers, has caused tension in the region. The US has also taken up a project to divert the waters of North Dakota’s Devil Lake without consulting Canada, ignoring their Boundary Water Treaty (1909) and causing strained relations between the two.

In many countries, these disputes are waiting to erupt into major conflicts. For instance, the disputes around the waters of the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya among the Central Asian republics, and China’s proposals to divert major rivers like the Brahmaputra and Mekong, ignoring strong protests from downstream countries.

Unfortunately, international laws on water in their present form may not be able to arrest such a situation. The UN is also helpless because the Convention on International Water Courses adopted by it in 1997 is yet to be ratified. All concerned would agree that the root cause of the conflicts is the shortage of the resource. Hence the solution lies in improving its availability to meet the optimal needs.

Global institutions like the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) and the World Water Council could step in to initiate dialogues based on water needs rather than water rights. Already the ICID is propagating the concept: “share benefits instead of claiming water rights from a common river”. The ICID is also encouraging global trade in “virtual water” (the water consumed to make food products) to help arid countries get their food products and reduce demands on irrigation water, since a kilo of rice grain production consumes about 1,500 litres of water while producing a kilo of meat requires 30,000 litres.

Meanwhile, supply and demand management issues have to be studied by water professionals to come up with an effective strategy for improving water availability and preventing pollution.

Water wars in this century could become a reality: the warning signals are already visible. The disaster has to be averted with suitable measures.

The writer is former member secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
express@expressindia.com

Indian River linking Project

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

·          

Rivers run through it 

M.S. Menon : Tue Mar 13 2012, 03:33 hrs

After Supreme Court’s nudge, Centre should expedite river-linking

The Indian River Linking (IRL) Project is back in the news after the Supreme Court asked the Centre and state governments to participate in planning its implementation. The court has also directed the Union government to set up a committee, comprising representatives from various government departments and ministries as well as experts and social activists, to chart out a plan.

For decades, several proposals for the project were discussed and studied by a number of high-powered committees. They all recommended early implementation to mitigate the havoc created by recurring floods and droughts. However, not even a single link has been constructed so far. The project is limping from pre-feasibility to feasibility studies and from preliminary to detailed investigations, with the stage of implementation nowhere in sight.

The reasons for this state of affairs are not far to seek. While states are busy quarrelling with each other on their water rights, the Centre makes the plea that water is a state subject under the Constitution and hence it would not be able to suo motu intervene in such disputes. Though many high-powered bodies had advised the Centre that Entry 56, List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution gives ample powers to the Union government to regulate interstate rivers which contribute more than 80 per cent to the annual water resources of the country, the Centre has not taken any initiative to use these provisions to promote projects to generate benefits.

The main objection from some water-rich states is that they do not have any surplus water to spare. They insist that it will be possible for them to utilise all their waters and do not agree to the basic philosophy of inter-basin water transfer as a method for correcting the natural imbalance of inequitable distribution of the resource.

Water is also not high enough in the political agenda to demand instant attention and hence, even though billions of cubic metres of water flow into the sea unutilised every year, no concrete action is taken to mitigate the devastation and suffering caused to the people by frequent floods and droughts. The powers that be appear to be happy taking ad hoc decisions to survive a situation, ignoring long-term needs. The apex court’s intervention should compel them to do the needful.

Some have objected to the IRL project by raising the bogey of environmental impacts while transferring water from wet to dry areas, conveniently ignoring the benefits accrued by such projects within the country and abroad. Prophets of doom have condemned the project, stating that the IRL canal systems would prove to be an open sewer crisscrossing the country. Similar forecasts had been made earlier on the Golden Quadrilateral road project — that the national highways would turn into conveyor belts of noxious emissions!

A few others meanwhile stand up for minor dams, saying small is beautiful. The concept is fine, but not fully reliable for harnessing water resources, when monsoons play with the fortunes of farmers and shortage of drinking water becomes a reality.

The proposals for the interlinking of rivers represent a great challenge and opportunity as they form part of a better tomorrow to free millions from miseries resulting from both harmful abundance and acute scarcity of water. The country cannot afford to go slow on these well-studied proposals, considering water’s role as an engine for development. Now that the apex court has sought a committee to be set up for facilitating the implementation of the project, some progress could be expected.

One of the main issues for the committee will be to make water-endowed states agree to release surplus water to deficit ones. If a provision can be introduced in the proposals to compensate donor states for the economic cost of surplus water given to the project, they may agree to a transfer as they can use the compensation to meet their needs. The compensation can be decided on the basis of an agreed criterion, either in cash or in sharing the power that is generated, agricultural produce, etc. As both donor and donee states will benefit from this provision, it will be a win-win situation. Further, it will ensure that both states use water only to meet their requirements and not waste the resource.

The committee will also be confronted by issues of environmental impact and rehabilitation of people affected by the project. Since the apex court will be monitoring these, transparency and justice can be expected in the implementation.

Long-distance transfer of water is not an end in itself; it is a means to a greater end — that people are no longer at the mercy of floods and droughts. So far, we have indulged in too much analysis and done too little. It is time to act so that the project becomes a reality in the near future.

The writer is former member secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
express@expressindia.com