WATER WARS WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ASIA

Gen 1. Water conflict is a term describing a conflict between countries, states, or groups over an access to water resources. The United Nations recognizes that water disputes result from opposing interests of water users, public or private. 2. A wide range of water conflicts appear throughout history, though rarely are traditional wars waged over water alone. Instead, water has historically been a source of tension and a factor in conflicts that start for other reasons. However, water conflicts arise for several reasons, including territorial disputes, a fight for resources, and strategic advantage. 3. These conflicts occur over both freshwater and saltwater, and between international boundaries. However, conflicts occur mostly over freshwater; because freshwater resources are necessary, yet limited, they are the center of water disputes arising out of need for potable water. As freshwater is a vital, yet unevenly distributed natural resource, its availability often impacts the living and economic conditions of a country or region. The lack of cost-effective water desalination techniques in areas like

the Middle East, among other elements of water crises can put severe pressures on all water users, whether corporate, government, or individual, leading to tension, and possibly aggression. Recent humanitarian catastrophes, such as the Rwandan Genocide or the war in Sudanese Darfur, have been linked back to water conflicts. Causes 4. Scarcity and misuse of fresh water pose a serious and growing threat to sustainable development and protection of the environment. Human health and welfare, food security, industrial development and the ecosystem on which they depend, are all at risk, unless water and land resources are managed more effectively in the present decade and beyond than they have been in the past. Water is a vital element for human life, and any human activity relates somehow to water. Unfortunately, it is not a renewable resource and in the future there will be a lot of water problems. Moreover, some people state that future wars will be fought for water. 5. Water conflicts occur because the demand for water resources and potable water extend far beyond the amount of water actually available. Elements of a water crisis may put pressures on affected parties to obtain more of a shared water resource, causing diplomatic tension or outright conflict. 1.1 billion people are without adequate drinking water; the potential for water disputes is correspondingly large. Besides life, water is necessary for proper sanitation, commercial services, and the production of commercial goods. Thus numerous types of parties can become implicated in a water dispute. For example, corporate entities may pollute water resources shared by a community, or governments may argue over who gets access to a river used as an international or inter-state boundary. 6. The broad spectrum of water disputes makes them difficult to address. Locale, local and international law, commercial interests, environmental concerns, and human rights questions make water disputes complicated to solve combined with the sheer number of potential parties, a single dispute can leave a large list of demands to be met by courts and lawmakers. Economic and Trade Issues 7. Waters viability as a commercial resource, which includes fishing, agriculture, manufacturing, recreation and tourism, among other possibilities, can create dispute even when access to potable water is not necessarily an issue. As a resource, some consider water to be as valuable as oil, needed by nearly every industry, and needed nearly every day. Water shortages can completely cripple an industry just as it can

cripple a population, and affect developed countries just as they affect countries with less-developed water infrastructure. Water-based industries are more visible in water disputes, but commerce at all levels can be damaged by a lack of water. 8. Water pollution poses a significant health risk, especially in heavily industrialized, heavily populated areas like China. In response to a worsening situation in which entire cities lacked safe drinking water, China passed a revised Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law. The possibility of polluted water making it way across international boundaries, as well as unrecognized water pollution within a poorer country brings up questions of human rights, allowing for international input on water pollution. There is no single framework for dealing with pollution disputes local to a nation. 9. International organizations play the largest role in mediating water disputes and improving water management. From scientific efforts to quantify water pollution, to the World Trade Organizations efforts to resolve trade disputes between nations, the varying types of water disputes can be addressed through current framework. Yet water conflicts that go unresolved become more dangerous as water becomes more scarce and global population increases.

INDUS WATERS TREATY Gen 10. The Indus Waters Treaty is a water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank (then the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). The treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960 by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Mohammad Ayub Khan. The treaty was a result of Pakistani fear that since the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India, it could potentially create droughts and famines in Pakistan, especially at times of war. However, India did not revoke the treaty during any of three later IndoPakistani Wars.

MAP SHOWING THE INDUS RIVER SYS IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Provisions of the Treaty 11. The Indus System of Rivers comprises three Western Rivers the Indus, the Jhelum and Chenab and three Eastern Rivers - the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi; and with minor exceptions, the treaty gives India exclusive use of all of the waters of the Eastern Rivers and their tributaries before the point where the rivers enter Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan has exclusive use of the Western Rivers. Pakistan also received one-time financial compensation for the loss of water from the Eastern Rivers.

12. The countries agree to exchange data and co-operate in matters related to the treaty. For this purpose, the treaty creates the Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner appointed by each country. History and Background 13. The waters of the Indus basin begin in the Himalayan mountains in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. They flow from the hills through the arid states of Punjab and Sindh, converging in Pakistan and emptying into the Arabian Sea south of Karachi. Where once there was only a narrow strip of irrigated land along these rivers, developments over the last century have created a large network of canals and storage facilities that provide water for more than 26 million acres (110,000 km2) - the largest irrigated area of any one river system in the world. 14. The partition of British India created a conflict over the plentiful waters of the Indus basin. The newly formed states were at odds over how to share and manage what was essentially a cohesive and unitary network of irrigation. Furthermore, the geography of partition was such that the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India. Pakistan felt its livelihood threatened by the prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that fed water into the Pakistani portion of the basin. Where India certainly had its own ambitions for the profitable development of the basin, Pakistan felt acutely threatened by a conflict over the main source of water for its cultivable land. World Bank Involvement 15. The World Bank proposed a Working Party made up of Indian, Pakistani and World Bank engineers. The World Bank delegation would act as a consultative group, charged with offering suggestions and speeding dialogue. 16. While Pakistan insisted on its historical right to waters of all the Indus tributaries, and that half of West Punjab was under threat of desertification the Indian side argued that the previous distribution of waters should not set future allocation. Instead, the Indian side set up a new basis of distribution, with the waters of the Western tributaries going to Pakistan and the Eastern tributaries to India. India and Pakistan were unable to agree on the technical aspects of allocation, let alone the implementation of any agreed upon distribution of waters. Finally, in 1954, after nearly two years of negotiation, the World bank offered its own proposal, stepping beyond the limited role it had apportioned for itself and forcing the two sides to consider concrete plans for the future of the basin. The proposal offered India the three eastern tributaries of the basin and Pakistan the

three western tributaries. Canals and storage dams were to be constructed to divert waters from the western rivers and replace the eastern river supply lost by Pakistan. 17. While the Indian side was amenable to the World Bank proposal, Pakistan found it unacceptable. The World Bank allocated the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers to Pakistan. This new distribution did not account for the historical usage of the Indus basin, or the fact that West Punjab's Eastern districts could turn into desert, and repudiated Pakistan's negotiating position. The World Bank proposal was more in line with the Indian plan and this angered the Pakistani delegation. They threatened to withdraw from the Working Party and negotiations verged on collapse. 18. In December 1954, the two sides returned to the negotiating table. The World Bank proposal was transformed from a basis of settlement to a basis for negotiation and the talks continued, stop and go, for the next six years. 19. One of the last stumbling blocks to an agreement concerned financing for the construction of canals and storage facilities that would transfer water from the eastern Indian rivers to Pakistan. This transfer was necessary to make up for the water Pakistan was giving up by ceding its rights to the eastern tributaries. The World Bank initially planned for India to pay for these works, but India refused. The Bank responded with a plan for external financing supplied mainly by the United States and the United Kingdom. This solution cleared the remaining stumbling blocks to agreement and the Treaty was signed by the Prime Ministers of both countries in Karachi on September 19, 1960. Present Status 20. The agreement set up a commission to adjudicate any future disputes arising over the allocation of waters. The Permanent Indus Commission has survived two wars and provides an on-going mechanism for consultation and conflict resolution through inspection, exchange of data, and visits. The Commission is required to meet regularly to discuss potential disputes as well as cooperative arrangements for the development of the basin. Either party must notify the other of plans to construct any engineering works which would affect the other party and to provide data about such works. In cases of disagreement, a neutral expert is called in for mediation and arbitration. While neither side has initiated projects that could cause the kind of conflict that the Commission was created to resolve, the annual inspections and exchange of data continue, unperturbed by tensions on the subcontinent.

WATER SHARING BETWEEN INDIA AND BANGLADESH

Gen 21. Bangladesh is crisscrossed with more than 300 rivers, 54 of which are common to India. The 315-km long Teesta river is one of them. It begins from Tso Lhamo Lake in northern Sikkim, flows past the Sikkim-West Bengal border into Jalpaiguri, and then into Bangladesh, where it merges with the mighty Brahmaputra.

MAP SHOWING MAJ RIVER SYS IN BANGLADESH

Teesta Agreement 22. While there is no shortage of water in the river during monsoon, an acute paucity is felt the rest of the year, resulting in a 1983 understanding on an ad hoc sharing of the Teesta during these lean periods. According to that agreement, 36 percent of the flow is allocated for Bangladesh and 39 percent for India, leaving a quarter to be decided upon later. But due to the differences over the data on water flow, this agreement has never been finalised. 23. That was all set to change two months ago, and analysts were already looking at the Teesta treaty as a model for other water-sharing deals between the two countries. Perceiving a threat to the interests of West Bengal, however, newly elected Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee refused to join Prime Minister Singhs entourage. And

because under the Indian Constitution water is a state subject, without Banerjees consent the river deal could not materialise. 24. Under the 1983 Teesta river water agreement, presently, India and Bangladesh share 75 per cent of the rivers waters on a 39 and 36 per cent basis, respectively. As a friendly gesture, India had reportedly decided to share the remaining 25 per cent water with Bangladesh on a 50:50 basis. When Mamta Banerjee refused to accompany Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh on 06-07 Sep 2011, the Agreement on the Teesta could not be signed for which the governments of India and Bangladesh had worked for months because of objections raised by Kolkata on the alleged increase of water share to Bangladesh. 25. Another important aspect is the question of proportionality, in the sense of the number of people being dependent on a particular river basin in a country, which needs to be factored into any discussion on the water issue. For example, in percentage terms, out of the total drainage area of the Ganga, 79 per cent belongs to India, less than five per cent to Bangladesh and almost 14 per cent to Nepal. This clearly demonstrates that the Ganga has a greater flow in India in comparison with the other riparians. In terms of population as well, while almost 500 million Indians are dependent on the river, only 23 million Bangladeshis do so. However, Bangladesh is a deltaic country it needs more water per capita than India to keep the problem of salinity under control. A study needs to be carried out to determine what level of water flow has to be maintained for the good health of the people and the land. Both India and Bangladesh should also maintain a regular channel of communication to maintain this level of water flow. Further, India should agree in principle that it will not let water go below this level. Tipaimukh Project 26. Even as the resentment over not signing the Teesta Agreement has not yet died down completely, another controversy has erupted over the dam on Barak river near the confluence of the Barak and Tuivai rivers; a controversy that has been sparked by the signing of a promoters agreement between the Government of Manipur, the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) and the Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN) on October 22, 2011 to set up a joint venture company to build the Tipaimukh project on the Barak has raised hackles in Bangladesh. Bangladesh fears that the construction of the dam would greatly reduce the flow of the Barak river in Bangladesh as well as adversely affect its two downstream channels - Kushiyara and Surma. Reduced water flow, according to Bangladeshi experts, would wreak havoc on the ecology, turn northeast Bangladesh into a desert and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people.

27. This has given rise to frenzied protests against the dam in Bangladesh by the government, the opposition as well as different civil society groups. The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chief Khaleda Zia wrote a letter to the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently in which she raised a number of demands like stopping the Tipaimukh project and conducting a joint survey before India undertakes any activity. Bangladeshs water resource minister threatened to go to the international court on the dam issue if India did not stop work. 28. During Sheikh Hasinas January 2010 visit to India and again during the Indian prime ministers September 2011 visit to Bangladesh, Dr. Manmohan Singh assured that nothing would be done on Tipaimukh that harm Bangladeshs interests. But these assurances have not been able to inspire confidence among the people as well as political parties of Bangladesh. This controversy raises several issues, which need to be taken into account by both countries. 29. India had been trying to allay these fears by arguing that the Tipaimukh multipurpose hydroelectric project would in fact help in flood moderation, improve river navigation and aid the fisheries sector in Bangladesh. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh even promised that India would not do anything that would harm the interest of Bangladesh.

INDO CHINA BRAHMAPUTRA DISPUTE

THE BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER SYS

Gen 30. The Brahmaputra River flows 2,900 km from its source in the Kailas range of the Himalayas to its massive delta and the Bay of Bengal in Bangladesh. It flows through China, India, and Bangladesh, but its watershed includes Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma as well. The river drops steeply from the heights of the Tibetan Plateau through the worlds deepest valley (5,075m) into northeast India where the river eventually merges with the Ganges and Meghna rivers to form the largest river delta in the world (60,000km2).The Brahmaputra basin covers 651,334 km2 (WRI), 58% of which lies in India and 20% in China. The Dispute 31. Of particular concern for New Delhi is the prospect of China damming the Brahmaputra River in Tibet (where the river is called the Yarlung Tsangpo). In mid2010, Beijing was forced to admit to planning such construction after Indian satellites revealed that preparations for such construction activities were taking place. Although China has repeatedly denied the possibility of the project adversely affecting the amount of water-flow into India (or Bangladesh), Indian authorities suspect the transparency of the data on which Beijing says it is basing such statements.

32. The Chinese government is also said to be planning a large-scale diversion project for the Brahmaputra. If carried out, this would feed around 200 billion cubic metres of water into the Yellow River. History of Tense Diplomatic Relations between India and China 33. In 2000, India accused China of not sharing hydrological data on the flow of the Brahmaputra River through the Chinese territory resulting in widespread devastation and floods. At least 40 people died. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2002 to coordinate data sharing pertaining to water level, discharge and rainfall. The data provided by China has helped in flood-forecasting and given the Indian Water Ministry a better understanding of the river system. Any plan to divert the Brahmaputra will have to be made known to the Indian Water Ministry beforehand in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding. 34. The two components of the diversion scheme would include the construction of the worlds largest hydroelectric plant on the Great Bend of the river on the Tibetan plateau; the second is the diversion of the waters northwards across hundreds of kilometers to Chinas northwestern provinces. 35. In early 2003, China organized a feasibility study for a major hydropower project along the section of the Brahmaputra River which flows through China. This section of the river, which later flows into India and Bangladesh, has a water energy reserve of about 68 million kilowatt, or 1/10th of the national total. If successful, this project would divert 200 billion cubic meters of water annually to the Yellow River. 36. Although highly beneficial for Chinese interests, the effects on India and Bangladesh will be devastating. The major concerns are as follows :(a) Decreased water flow which will impact irrigation practices and local livelihoods. Environmental experts report that roughly 60% of the total water flow will fall drastically if China is successful in constructing this dam on the Brahmaputra. (b) The environmental impact will result in an increased salinity of the water.

37. In 2006, the Chinese government denied the existence of plans to divert water resources from the Brahmaputra to provide fresh water for the Northwest provinces away from India and Bangladesh.

38. Current numbers estimate that China has only 8% of the worlds fresh water to meet the needs of 22% of the worlds people. To further compound this problem, the countrys water resources are not equally distributed. Southern China, with roughly 700 million people, has 4/5th of its water and northern China, with 550 million people, has 1/5th of the water. Current Status 39. Jiao Yong, vice minister at China's ministry of water resources, told a press conference in Beijing on 12 Oct 2011 that although there is a demand among Chinese to make greater use of the Yarlung Tsangpo (Tibetan name for the Brahmaputra), "considering the technical difficulties, the actual need of diversion and the possible impact on the environment and state-to-state relations, the Chinese government has no plan to conduct any diversification project in this river".

MULLAPERIYAR DAM DISPUTE

LOC OF MULLAPERIYAR DAM

MULLA PERIYAR DAM & AREA UNDER THREAT

Gen 40. The Mullaperiyar Dam has been a bone of contention between the TN and Kerala Governments. Mullaperiyar Dam is constructed over the source of the Periyar River in Kerala. During the rule of the British in India a 999-year lease was made and accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu has been operating the dam. The Periyar National Park is located around the backwaters of this dam. The dam was built by British under the supervision of Benny Cook. The dams purpose was to divert the

waters of the west-flowing Periyar River eastwards, since it caused widespread floods in the Travancore region, by constructing a masonry dam and diverting the water from the reservoir by way of a tunnel across the watershed and the Western Ghats to the rain shadow region of the Theni Sivaganga District and Ramanathapuram districts of Tamil Nadu. The lease provided the British the rights over all the waters of the Mullaperiyar and its catchments, for an annual rent of Rs. 40,000. About 60,000 ha in Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram, and Dindigul districts in present day Tamil Nadu were intended as beneficiaries of irrigation waters from Mullaperiyar. Water is brought through a 1.6 km long tunnel till the Tamil Nadu-Kerala border and then flows through open canals to Vagai River in Tamil Nadu. From there a network of canals take the water to the fields. 41. The dams reservoir level is the bone of contention between the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments. Since 1970, Kerala has argued that the dam having outlived its life of 50 years is unsafe to maintain water at 46.3 metres, the full reservoir level, and it should be restricted to 41.45 metres. In 1979, the Central Water Commission, the premier government agency dealing with dam safety was asked to look into the matter; it suggested reduction of water level to 41.45 metres as an emergency measure along with other measures to strengthen the dam. Tamil Nadu agreed to this limit. Another committee headed by the then cwc chairperson B K Mittal was appointed in 2001 to look into the matter. It stated that the reservoir level be raised to 43.28 metres, after the strengthening measures were implemented. This was to be on an interim basis, and later reservoir levels could go up to the original level of 46.3 metres. 42. The government of Tamil Nadu has proposed an increase in the storage level of the dam from the currently maintained 136 feet to 142 feet. The Kerala government has opposed this move, citing safety concerns for the more than hundred year old bridge and especially for the thickly populated districts downstream. 43. However, Kerala is asking for the construction of a new dam saying that the existing structure had outlived its safety and longevity. Tamil Nadu, insists that raising water levels in Mullaperiyars reservoir is necessary to irrigate large tracts in the state. 44. In 1998, all Mullaperiyar-related cases were transferred to the Supreme Court which, in its order of February 2006, observed that the dispute is not a water dispute. It allowed raising the reservoir level to 43.28 metres and directed Tamil Nadu to carry out the strengthening measures suggested by cwc, and restrained Kerala from causing any obstruction.

45. In March 2006 Keralas Legislative Assembly passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Amendment Act, 2006. The amendment empowered Keralas Dam Safety Authority, a body mandated in 2003 by the original Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, to evaluate safety of all dams in the state. It also has the power to advise the government to suspend the functioning or to decommission a dam if public safety demands. Twenty two dams constructed during 1895-1963 including the Mullaperiyar dam were brought under KDSAs jurisdiction. 41.45 metres was fixed as safe height for Mullaperiyars reservoir. Tamil Nadu took the matter back to the Supreme Court. It filed a petition on March 31, 2006 to declare the Kerala act as unconstitutional. 46. In July 2009, the Kerala government has claimed that with the building of a new dam, 300 m downstream of the present Mullaperiyar reservoir, the safety of the people of Kerala can be a assured from the existing high-risk structure, which can fail at any time , endangering lives, according to news sources. 47. A detailed report of this issue had been presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking sanction for decommissioning of the existing dam and building a new one in its place. 48. In October 2009 a study by IIT, Roorkee had discovered that the dam would collapse if at any time an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale happened and that nearly forty lakh people who were fearfully anticipating this have to be reassured by allowing the new dam to be built. 49. In Feb 2010, the Supreme Court demanded a review of the safety aspect of the Mullaperiyar. The apex court appointed a senior committee to study the safety of the dam, discuss increasing its water level above 136 feet and evaluate Keralas demand for a new dam. 50. People in Kerala feel that the 1886 deed should not be continued since it was forced upon the Travancore ruler. In 1970, Kerala did revise the original deed and got fishing rights. It also increased the rent to Rs 30 an acre (0.4 ha) from Rs 5, but water remained free for Tamil Nadu. 51. People in Tamil Nadu argue that Kerala is eyeing extra water from the Mullaperiyar reservoir to generate electricity. Power generation at the Idukki reservoir, downstream of the Mullaperiyar dam will come to a halt if the reservoir level is increased from 41.45 metres to 46.3 metres. The Kerala government, however, maintains that the

Idukki project was designed after discounting the 46.3 metres water storage in the Mullaperiyar dam. 52. Farmers in Tamil Nadu maintain that water rights have already been established during the past century and cannot be reverted. The Kerala government, however, argues that the gross area irrigated by the Mullaperiyar reservoir actually increased from 24,280 ha in 1896 to 69,200 ha in 1970-71 (when the water level was 46.3 metres) to 92,670 ha in 1994-95 (when water level was reduced to 41.45 metres). But Tamil Nadu claims that this is due to the modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai project, which reduced seepage losses by 6.7 thousand million cubic feet. Current Situation 53. Kerala is worried that a strong earthquake might damage the dam and cause widespread destruction. It is seeking a new dam and has offered to fund and build it, but Tamil Nadu does not agree. Experts from Kerala side say if a quake strikes and the dam is damaged, over four million people and their property in districts of Idukki, Kottayam, Alappuzha, Ernakulam and parts of Thrissur would be washed away. 54. The Supreme Court, on 13 Dec 2011, said the apprehensions of Kerala regarding the safety of the dam could not be brushed aside since the water level in the dam had gone up beyond 136 ft on four days from November 26 to December 2, coupled with earthquakes. The Bench made it clear to Tamil Nadu that it should maintain the water level at 136 ft. 55. A day after the Supreme Court asked both Kerala and Tamil Nadu to cool tempers, major political parties of Kerala, including the Congress and the Left parties, on 14 Dec 2011 announced that they were calling off their respective agitations over the Mullaperiyar dam issue. Representatives of the parties said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had assured them he would do his best to find an amicable solution to the issue over which political parties and organisations in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been pitted against each other in recent weeks. 56. The Tamil Nadu Assembly on 15 Dec 2011, in a special sitting, adopted a unanimous resolution, calling upon the Kerala government to make suitable amendments to the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 to enable the water level of the 116-year-old Mullaperiyar dam to be raised to 142 feet. Moved by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, the resolution also asked the Kerala government not to create hurdles to the execution of the remaining strengthening measures for facilitating the water level to be raised to 152 ft eventually.

57. Allaying the apprehensions of the people of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court appointed-Empowered Committee (EC) on 03 Jan 2012 informed the Committee that the recent tremors in that region did not have any impact on the Mullaperiyar and Idukki dams and that the dams were safe. THE WAY AHEAD 58. Disputes over water will only aggravate in the future considering that there are enough drivers pushing the region closer towards the brink of a serious water stress conflict. The way ahead would require all users to undertake the following steps to minimise and control the clear risks arising from the disputes:(a) The spirit of sharing of these transboundary rivers has to be fostered, considering the growing water scarcity, growing demands and the compelling need for interdependence. Countries in the subcontinent including China have their respective developmental needs to take care of. This can be done best if there is camaraderie and understanding amongst them. (b) It is critical to depoliticise water as an issue, bring all these countries to the table and increase dialogue and transparency amongst them. (c) It is important for these countries to develop their own efficient water management systems as well as learn best practices from others to minimise wastage and ensure conservation. (d) Bilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation and coordination are essential. Regional mechanisms like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could be effectively used for this purpose. South Asian countries also have to involve China in all these efforts considering that it is increasingly a critical actor in regional water disputes.