How can Bangladesh prepare for renewal of Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty?

The 30-year treaty, signed in December 1996, concerning the sharing of the Ganges water between Bangladesh and India, is set to expire in December this year. It is necessary to renew this treaty in a timely manner. Reaching an agreement on such a critical and contentious issue as the Ganges Treaty requires significant preparation.

The Joint River Commission is the responsible body for this matter. This commission is supposed to hold four "general meetings" a year. This has not happened in recent years. On 21-23 May, a meeting took place in Kolkata, and on the first day, the measurement methods of the Ganges flow at Farakka were observed.

However, there is a discrepancy between the statements of Bangladesh and India regarding whether the renewal of the Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty was discussed at the meeting. Bangladesh has indicated that the issue was raised and discussions were initiated, but the Indian representatives did not make any such claim.

Needless to say, this issue should be of interest mainly to Bangladesh, as India can control how much of the Ganges flow reaches Bangladesh due to its upstream position. Therefore, Bangladesh needs to take initiative and prepare.

Firstly, determining Bangladesh's position concerning the treaty.
Secondly, determining and executing what needs to be done to ensure this position is accepted. Thirdly, preparing an appropriate team for the discussions.

These three tasks are interrelated. For example, what needs to be done to ensure Bangladesh's position is accepted largely depends on that position. Similarly, what kind of team can most effectively represent Bangladesh’s stance in negotiations with India also largely depends on that position.

To date, the discussions between India and Bangladesh over shared rivers can be described as having a "commercial" viewpoint towards rivers. In this discussion, rivers are primarily considered commercial resources, and their water flowing into the sea is regarded as waste. This perspective does not emphasise the natural role of rivers.

The opposite is a "nature-based" viewpoint towards rivers, which emphasises the natural role of rivers. This role has two particularly important aspects. One is acting as a crucial node in the Earth's water cycle. Water evaporates from the sea, is carried by air, meets obstacles at mountains, rises, cools, turns into rain or snow, falls to the ground, and then returns to the sea via rivers.

Secondly, each river creates and sustains its specific ecosystem within its valley. Overall, these two roles are essential for the ecological balance of the planet. Experience shows that a commercial perspective is short-sighted; damaging a river's natural role harms its long-term commercial and economic role. Conversely, a nature-based perspective is farsighted; protecting the river’s natural role ensures it can fulfill its economic role.

Before the industrial revolution, human society was accustomed to a nature-based approach towards rivers because there wasn’t the technology capable of significantly harming a river's natural role. But post-industrial revolution, such technology emerged, leading industrial or industrialising countries to build large structures like dams, barrages, and levees (embankments) on rivers.

Initially, while these structures provided some economic benefits, their adverse effects gradually became apparent. Therefore, from the 1970s onwards, developed countries began reverting to nature-based approaches towards rivers, leading to the removal of hundreds of dams and barrages and efforts to reclaim floodplains lost due to levees.

However, in many developing countries, including India and China, the commercial approach towards rivers still dominates, and examples of this can be seen in Bangladesh as well. Engaging in discussions with India over rivers' flow, based on a commercial approach, will ultimately endanger Bangladesh itself. India can argue the necessity of various commercial uses for river waters, claiming none is left for Bangladesh.

In reality, we are witnessing examples of this. For instance, India has refused to release any water from the Teesta for Bangladesh during the dry season. Mamata Banerjee clearly stated, “There is no water to spare for Bangladesh. ” Similarly, India is reluctant to provide Bangladesh with the Ganges dry-season water, as they claim it is needed to maintain the navigability of Kolkata port.

The necessity of the treaty should primarily concern Bangladesh, as India can control how much of the Ganges flow reaches Bangladesh due to its upstream position.

Discussions between India and Bangladesh on shared rivers to date can be described as having a “commercial” outlook on rivers.

India is advancing its inter-basin water transfer project, whose main objective is to divert water from the Brahmaputra basin to the west and south of India.

Using such commercial reasons, India constructs numerous dams and barrages on these upstream rivers and their tributaries, leaving minimal water for the Ganges and Teesta rivers to flow into Bangladesh, especially during the dry season.

Additionally, India is advancing its inter-basin water transfer project, targeting the diversion of water from the Brahmaputra basin to the west and southward directions in India. It also plans to build the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river, a tributary feeding the Meghna river, Bangladesh's third-largest river, and the Fulertal barrage in the Cachar district. If these are implemented, water will reduce in the Meghna basin, causing various unintended changes and crises to the seasonal river flow cycle.

To counter India's commercial approach to rivers, Bangladesh might attempt to adopt a commercial approach itself. In fact, Bangladesh has done so until now. For example, in the wake of the Farakka Barrage construction, Bangladesh adopted the "Ganges-Kobadak (G-K) project" across greater Kushtia, Jessore, and Khulna districts to claim that it requires Ganges water for irrigation from India.

Similarly, in face of India constructing the Gajoldoba Barrage, Bangladesh built the Teesta Barrage project in Dalia in the 1980s to claim the necessity of Teesta water for irrigation from India.

But neither of these succeeded. The G-K project could not stop the Farakka Barrage's construction. Rather, due to Farakka, the G-K project could not progress beyond the first unit of the first phase. The experience with the Teesta Barrage in Dalia is even more dire. The unstable flow has disrupted and distorted the entire Teesta river in Bangladesh.

Thus, within the framework of a commercial approach, Bangladesh has almost no chance of succeeding in discussions with India. Instead, the nature-based approach will be more suitable for Bangladesh on this matter.

Firstly, by adopting this approach, the preservation of Bangladesh's riverine nature, environment, and ecosystems will take precedence.

Secondly, progressing from this stance would make it difficult for India to ignore Bangladesh's arguments, as international acknowledgment of rivers' natural roles is gaining strength.

A significant evidence of this is the United Nations' 1997 Convention on international river usage. This convention is beneficial for Bangladesh for several reasons. Firstly, it emphasises the natural role of rivers. For example, Article 20 of the convention states that partner countries will separately and, where applicable, jointly protect and care for the ecosystem of international rivers.

Article 23 explains that the riverine ecosystem includes the delta and estuary, and therefore, when Bangladesh demands during discussions with India that all rivers flowing from India maintain or restore their full natural flow to protect its aquatic ecosystem, preserve floodplains and tidal flats, maintain deltaic formation processes in estuaries, and save the coastal Sundarbans, it won't just be Bangladesh's claim. It will be a claim expressed by the international community through the UN convention.

Secondly, even concerning rivers' economic (commercial) use, the UN’s 1997 convention imposes obligations that favour Bangladesh. For instance, Article 7 of this convention states that “any utilisation of international rivers by one state must ensure that no significant harm is inflicted on partner states. If such harm does occur, the responsible state will discuss with the affected state to offer compensation and implement other remedies to mitigate this harm. ”

It is noteworthy that this convention acknowledges "customary use" of rivers and Article 6 states that assessing damage should consider whether a partner state's customary use of the river has been adversely affected.

It is evident that from the perspective of the UN’s 1997 convention, India’s Farakka or Gajoldoba Barrage is not permissible because these barrages have largely obstructed the customary use of the Ganges and Teesta rivers in Bangladesh, degraded floodplain and tidal ecosystems, put the coastal Sundarbans at risk, and caused immeasurable harm to Bangladesh overall.

Therefore, in aiming to renew the Ganges Treaty, Bangladesh needs to take two primary actions. Firstly, change the perspective or philosophy towards rivers. The existing commercial approach must be replaced by a nature-based approach towards rivers.

Secondly, promptly sign and ratify the UN's 1997 convention on international river usage in the parliament. These two measures will help Bangladesh prepare for negotiations with India to renew the Ganges Treaty. However, even after completing these two tasks, many more will remain. We will discuss these in the second part.

#Nazrul Islam is a professor at the Asian Growth Research Institute and a former head of UN Development Research.

*The views expressed are the author's own.

#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam