“Fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and wars in the future. ” – Kofi Annan, former U. N. Secretary-General in 2001 Background of the Study 1. Water is directly related with the survival of human kind and it is crucial unlike other resources, because it does not have choices and alternatives. As a consequence of global warming and pollution, importance of water has increased much. Some “2 billion people” already lack water supplies.
Water use has risen six-fold over the past 70 years. By 2050, it is estimated that 4. 2 billion people live in countries that cannot meet people’s daily basis needs. South Asia is a region of water abundance and scarcity. “Issues concerning water allotment are the basic strategic distress over the state relations billion people will be” (Kshatri 2004, 4).
2. The melted snow of the Himalayas plays an important role in Water Resources of South Asia, which are shared by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan via several international rivers.
South Asia (SA) is facing deficit of; useable water for the existing and future needs, deterioration of water resources, management inefficiencies and development concerns. The infrastructure development and the efforts given, is considered inevitable in the region for the hydropower generation. 3. Although water has been considered as an indispensable means of economic development and social welfare, greater need of water resources are the main issues of contention. With the increase in uses of water resources, inter and intra state contest between various countries has surfaced.
In your opinion are water resources over or undervalued in the United States? Water is the most important life element to humans after oxygen. Without water human can live only up to 3 days after which they would die. Today water represents a great and profitable industry for the fact that the producers of the main US soft drinks need water, as well as the ordinary citizen who use water for their ...
The South Asian rivers has alternative cycle of excess and scarcity as there use to be a flood and water level decreases in short span of time. Such flexible cycle is leading to conflicts over water-sharing. However, the crisis is precipitated because of the decreasing water quality and the inefficient and the inequitable way the resource is managed and utilized. Throughout India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, water shortages are increasingly triggering conflict. Statement of the Problem . Access to water has become a part of many states’ national security concerns, with one group of research (the “Neomalthusians”) connecting contest over water as a possible beginning of vicious conflict. Other researcher (Institutionalists or “Cornucopians”) are more positive about the impact of water, highlighting the cooperative facet of shared waters and disagreeing that divergence over shared waters are managed better through cooperation than through military threats.
Whilst these general schools of thought differ about how differences over water will be managed, though, both identify that disagreements over water are expected to occur. 5. The necessity of water has been emphasized in such a way throughout the world, that states and nations are being dragged into the battle zone to take control of it. May it be for the human survival, agriculture or industrial purpose, water has been put into priority by the nations all over the world.
The scholars and the body of scholarships have stated the positive aspects of water keeping a lime light upon the fact about how the ongoing discussion over the control of the water bodies are settled better through table talks rather than the talks with guns and weapons. However, it is more likely that the race for the control of the water body just through the table talks is not likely to be concluded. 6. The growing use of water is the only reason for the depletion of fresh water from the face of the earth.
This is the reason why the states and the nations will be put forward into the battle zone just to take control of the remaining water bodies. Which is resulting in the colonization of the water bodies under the perspective of the national security calling it ‘the military claim’? Although, the share of environmental resources as a likely cause to conflict has been the rising subject of extensive research, and these links have dominated the post-Cold War note in environmental security, a vast deal of attention is yet to be put to water resources, due to their fundamental significance for human existence.
About the Mekong River I- The land and its resource II- People and livelihood and water III- Water and work a- Feeding Millions b- Powering Development c- Fueling Trade d- Moving People and Goods e-Bringing People Together IV- Special Place a- The Tonle Sap b-The Mekong Delta c-Deep Pools B- Mekong Development I- What is the Basin Development Plan? II- Why is a Basin Development Plan Needed? III- ...
As global claim for water swell up but utilizable freshwater resources reduce, several research have been carried out to imply that water shortage is and will be a chief basis of armed conflict; but little methodical research has examined this theme from a national security perspective i. e. the militarization of the river claim. 7. While taking SA into consideration, the most important and abundant factor for the development is water. This factor is thus regarded as a very crucial in keeping the relation between the countries.
However understanding and peaceful the countries may seem, the water factor has been affecting the inter-state relationships now and will be doing the same in the future in an ever increasing fashion. The ups and downs in the relationship are sure to result in the armed conflict as the water resources being the only cause. Accounting to the issues of water; this research paper focuses in the security issues and the interrelated political situation caused by the water resources of the river basin of the SA. 8.
At the same time as water resources in the SA are central in the improvement of bilateral and multilateral regional relations, the consistent politics of water resources and security issues have historically inclined regional politics and ensuing armed conflicts, and will persist to do so in the future. Furthermore, water is becoming meager resource in the SA and it is most likely to act as a major place in the design of regional bilateral and multilateral relationships and have an impact on the conflicts or cooperation.
Because of the origin, flow, and use of these water resources in SA it exceeds the present national borders and is likely to shape indispensable bilateral and multilateral, political, economic, social and security interaction more firmly in the future. Therefore the transnational management and use of river water resources in the SA is likely to have broader geopolitical insinuation and connections. In this context: what are the interrelated political and security issues for the water resources of the river basins in SA?
Tatyana Gol bin Essay When you are happy, you never think that it can end in a second. Ofcourse, if you always had tried to imagine something bad, you would not have been so happy. After an incident I had had once, I understood that happiness could be just one step away from loosing it. I was seventeen. Summer was in the air, but we could not enjoy it because it was the time of our graduation and ...
And what are the probabilities of the Onset of the river conflict and the Militarization of River Claims in South Asia? Scope 9. As water is considered as one of the most critical non-traditional security concern and its distribution is seen as a potential contributor to conflict and cooperation; these linkages have to be drawn with the post-Cold War interest in environmental security. Within this genre, the paper has very much focus on the significance of water resources, due to their indispensable significance for human continued existence.
Moreover, the paper has distantly analyzed the prevailing situations of the water resources in many South Asian countries which are claimed for beginning to experience moderate to severe water shortages, brought on by the concurrent effects of agricultural growth, industrialization and urbanization. Additionally where river claims do appear, this paper has explored the environment under which these assertions are expected to become militarized. Objectives of the Study 10. The main objective of this paper is to study and analyze the probable conflict in SA due to the scarcity of Water in the region i. e.
Water Basins with reference to the Armed Conflict over International Rivers and the Onset and Militarization of River Claims. Within this framework, the paper has focused upon the following specific objectives in order to project the true meaning of SA’s future with the conflict over water resources. (a)To explore the proposition of Water as a cause for conflict or co-operation? (b)To explain water shortage, stress, scarcity and insecurity aspects of water scarcity as a threat to Security. (c)To explore the Issues and Challenges on water conflicts in SA. (d)To examine the probability of militarized conflicts on the issues of water in SA.
Significance of the Study 11. This research work based on a notional framework for the study of river claim origins as well as militarization, has primarily focused on water stress and river institutionalization. Thus, the study of the resultant hypotheses is likely to break new ground by studying river claim onset systematically, as well as by searching Water Basins shared by South Asian states rather than dealing with all rivers individually from upstream to downstream sharing. Finally, the research has given prospects and numerous propositions on the issues of water and national security for future research in this area.
Question: Water is an increasingly valuable resource, but people continue to waste a lot of it. Some governments want to impose permanent water restrictions on domestic and agricultural use. Others feel we should put more effort into recycling water. Discuss these views and give your opinion. Although we have thought about the sustainability of the water for a long time, it remains many arguments ...
Hypothesis 12. The research model is about two states that share an international river. One of these two states is the upstream state that has the access to the water resources of the river before it reaches the downstream state and uses the water of the river for various purposes; human consumption, industry, irrigation, and damming for hydroelectric power generation are some of the most prominent. If it decides to do so, there may be some consequences on the quantity or quality of the river’s water that reaches the downstream state.
This may alter the quality of water that the other state, which is downstream, receives. If the downstream state feels that the use of water by the upper state has changed the quality and quantity of the water it receives then it may demand from the upstream state to stop such actions in order to protect its interest. The offspring of such issues may create a crisis which the two states may choose to settle peacefully or may threaten to use military force to settle the dispute. 13. The researcher has focused on his general model.
The researcher discusses the conditions when states are most likely to be involved in disputes over international water (as the downstream state makes claims of the upstream state concerning its activities) which may create conditions for militarized disputes. In this paper the researcher has focused on water disputes as the only issue affecting the relationship of states that may lead to militarized conflict rather than possible indirect affect of water scarcity on non water disagreements. Water Scarcity (Supply and Demand) 14. Water scarcity is usually seen as the primary factor that starts conflicts.
From the researcher perspective of the general model, it is water scarcity that makes states to make demands on each other. Once such claim has been made, the high levels of scarcity may accelerate the militarization process. This does not mean that all river claims in the presence of water scarcity will lead to conflicts; however, the Neomalthusians may be correct about the military force being a viable option in order to fulfill the demands of water 15. Once river claims have begun, the researcher anticipates that high levels of scarcity also augment the risk that such claims will be militarized.
There are many reasons why we need to treat our water, and there are also many different ways we can treat our water. Water is very important to our survival. Regulations are set so that our water is healthy for us to drink. Without those regulations there could be things in our water to cause us to be sick. Some problems in parts of the country are heavy metals. One of the best ways to see if you ...
When water is enormously insufficient, access to the partial supply will likely be taken as a zero sum problem; especially by a downstream state that sees its already scarce supply threatened by an upstream state, and the need to guarantee enough supplies of this vital resource seems likely to lead to deliberation of the threat or use of military force. This is not to state that all river assertions in the existence of water scarcity will guide to armed conflict, but the researcher imagines that (the Neomalthusians are likely to be correct about the military being seen as a viable option under such conditions.
The researcher’s hypothesis is thus: (a)Hypothesis: Water sharing issues between countries of SA are likely to turn into (ir) regular militarized conflicts. Methods and Sources 16. The researcher begins by investigating conditions under which states are most likely to disagree over river claims. The researcher feels that this issue has never been investigated from national security perspective. Moreover, the researcher focuses to investigate the condition under which these issues are likely to become militarized.
Though, this research is ultimately intended to cover all regions of the South Asia, due to its vastness the necessary focus will be only on the rivers flowing over India, Nepal and Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. Operationalization of Variables 17. The research dependent variable will be the occurrence of a river claim between two states that share an International river. Thus the data has been derived from the Water basins data compiled by the South Asian states on their agreements.
In brief, a river claim involves dialogues and signed agreements between official government representatives of two or more nation states regarding the use or abuse of international water. For the reasons of the study of claim onset, the researcher has formulated a dummy variable that specify whether or not a new river claim instigates over a particular river between two riparian states on that river. The researcher has also made efforts to differentiate between divergent types of river claims in another set of analyses, to resolve whether diverse issues have methodically dissimilar effects on different types of river claims.
The Essay on The Conflict Between Individual and State and the Grammatical Fiction in Darkness At Noon
The Conflict Between the Individual and the State and the Grammatical Fiction in Darkness At Noon “The Party denied the free will of an individual-and at the same time exacted his willing self-sacrifice.” The obvious contradiction of the above definition of the Communist party is depicts the conflict between the individual and the State in Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon. Koestler’s ...
Limitations of the Study 18. Since the subject is related with the data based analysis, which covers the broad area, field study is not possible and more difficult to find the real and up dated facts and figures. As only a little research has been done with reference to SA, the fractional publications and the reports limited the researcher to analyze the issue of water conflict superficially. Thus, this research has mainly been focused on the four countries of SA; Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan.
Since Sri Lanka does not share land borders with other nations and Afghanistan and China do not have water disputes their case is not included in the subject of the research. Likewise, as the water relation with Bhutan is mostly favored by her neighbour; it is also not under the scope of the research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURES 19. Ever since the end of the Cold War Gleditsch (2001), Gleick (1993), Rogers (1997), Yoffe (et al. 2004) have seen a growing notice in the concept of environmental security as a part of a broader notion of human security (e. g. The effects of insufficiency or profusion of special natural resources have put on an important place in this line of research. Water is chiefly an essential resource and has received substantial notice (Beaumont 1997; Gleick 1993; Kalpakian 2004; Klare 2001; Lonergan 2001).
The Neomalthusians, consider on water as a basis of violent conflict. This approach was initially developed from Thomas Malthus writings about the connection between population pressure and societal capacity for supporting means of livelihood in ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ (1798).
Although not adopting such a strict view of the situation as Malthus, the Neomalthusians dwell on population growth in combination with other factors such as economic and industrial development. In concert, such factors are likely to create shortage through either amplified demand on an inadequate resource or degradation of the resource. Insufficiency will in turn guide to securitization of the resource, disagreements over the use of the resource will occur, and violent conflicts are likely to result from these disagreements. “Neomalthusian” opinion accepts support from several sources. 0. Only 3% of the world’s water is freshwater, and most of that amount is not directly accessible for use; because it is sheltered up in icecaps or deep aquifers or because it is polluted. According to the most recent Human Development Report (UNDP, 2006), more than one billion people lack access to clean water and another report by United Nations Environment Programme (1999) forecasts that if present system of escalating expenditure continues, two out of every three persons will live under water-stressed situations by the year 2025.
These figures differ from countries or regions, though, as reachable freshwater is circulated very unequally. Most of the nations with low water accessibility today also have a high rate of population growth, so the trouble appears likely to swell further in the future (Beaumont, 1997).
21. According to Neomalthusians, the disagreements disputes due to the water scarcity may lead to the military involvement to solve the matter. Amid the Neomalthusian theorists, Homer–Dixon and his associates have carried out the best-known body of work linking resource scarcity and environmental degradation to conflict (Homer-Dixon, 1994, 1999).
Since the race for the control of the resources is more likely to occur in the fields of the non renewable resources, it is within in these premises that the military conflict is sure to occur. 22. Though these studies put forward some support for the Neomalthusian view, other verification supports a more positive view. More optimistic researchers, often educated by liberal institutionalist theory, suggest that cooperation over shared waters is a more likely result than conflict (Keohane & Ostrom 1994).
The large number of water agreement; more than 3,600 water-related agreements were signed between the years 805-1984 alone offer extensive support for this case (Wolf 2002: 189).
Swain (2002) agrees, noting that case studies from the Ganges, Tigris-Euphrates, and Indus river systems proposes that water disagreements do not form basis for grave conflicts, and signifying that the “mainstream core assumption” that water disputes cause conflict is faulty and must be severely dissected.
In fact Giordano, Yoffe, and Wolf (2003), while exploring international interactions over rivers between the years 1948–99 were able to recognize only seven incidents of water conflict and no shots were fired in three of these seven. 23. The book “Water and Hydro-Conflict in South Asia: Issues and Challenges”, an article for Institute for Environmental Security, written by Ziaul Haque is reviewed. This book includes the detail sides of the water shortage and the safety of water. The article covers importantly in trans-boundary water sharing concerns between the states in SA.
It encompasses the three basins of SA with the joint treaties and the accords between the states concerning the upstream and downstream water consumers. Although the article has gone throughout on the every aspects of the water collection in basins and the trans-boundary issues and the using accords, it is unable to examine the resource and its utilization by data. Yet it is unclear to work on River claim issues in SA but has gone through the likely difference concerns on water use in the continent.
The article focuses the restraint for river basin administration and nature of intra-state and inter-state relations. Moreover, the book offers the accurate facts of three basins which is the chief basis of the study. 24. The book named “Trans-Boundary Water Sharing Issues: A Case of South Asia”, Journal of Political Studies produced by Iram Khalid is also reviewed. The book focuses that the water concern is steadily becoming the main focus between the interstate relations and rising water shortage has made SA a water-strained region.
It covers four major rivers basins of SA which forms from Himalayas and irrigates huge area of this region; thereby offer edibles and living to the vast population. The four main co-riparian states are India-Pakistan and India–Bangladesh-Nepal lying in west and east correspondingly. The book has given stress that water scarcity is becoming the issue of conflict in this region. With the increasing population, industrial, agricultural and domestic uses, glaciers are melting and causing environmental degradation.
Conflicts over water issue are growing among the countries and the people of this area. The question of hydropower generation and commercial irrigation is issue of great concern and a source of controversy. The present paper is an attempt to analyze this issue. The outcome shows that not a single policy alternative will eliminate the clashes on water scarcity; but a multifaceted and synchronized strategy is necessary to address the rising concerns. The Author has come across the Trans-Boundary, hydro-electric power, water stressed, combined approach and water sharing issues in his publication.
Though it has described Nature of Issue in South Asia, Pakistan’s Growing Water Scarcity, India’s Water Concerns, India-Pakistan Water Controversy and India-Bangladesh water controversy, it is not able to focus the conflict leading sector on the use of water from the prospect of water management but has used a cooperative approach. 25. The paper named “Conflict and co-opertion on trans-boundary waters in south asia” written by Deepa Karthykeyan is also reviewed. She elaborates on trans-boundary water sharing in south asia, Indus water treaty, Ganges water treaty, water controversy and Mahakali controversy.
She has encompassed Good water economics and Good water politics in her paper. She has highlighted “The growing body of literature on conflicts over scarce water resources and their ‘security implications’ point out to the growing significance of such a ‘water-led’ discourse in the foreign policy formulation of countries. While India has traditionally favored a bilateral approach in dealing with its neighbors on topic of sharing trans-boundary waters, such a position will create a more ifficult situation for India to discuss sustainable resolutions with its neighbors on regions of common concerns. This doesn’t involve that a multi-lateral or regional approach, on issue of being the next best option, is the lone way to reach sustainable answers in all situations”. Hence she has suggested as “A thorough consideration of the essential diplomatic tools, whether bilateral or multilateral in nature, should be employed by India by de-linking herself from a ‘one size fits all’ approach in the establishment of her policies considering the positions of her neighbouring countries”.
The author states that “To enter at a practical solution to inter-state water arguments India should thus beat her ‘statist’ menace in the foundation of its foreign policy posture and hold a range of conventional and unconventional options to find a solution with her fellow riparian countries so as to allow the competent and sustainable allocation of trans-boundary waters in South Asia”. 26. Apart from these literatures, some additional materials were also explored during the course of research which includes the various journals, papers, newspapers, magazines and websites.
The article, Water Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation, written by Rajendra K Kshatri gives the idea about in which circumstance water crisis may turn to conflict and the ways of cooperation. The paper presented by Annabelle Houdret in 5th Pan-European Conference of International Relations, The Hague, 2004, Water as a security concern – conflict or cooperation? , is also reviewed to understand Water security: Qualitative factors of conflict and cooperation potential in an approach to conflict transformation. All four articles and papers of Aaron T. Wolf are reviewed.
An article, History of Acute International Water Conflict, investigates the reality of historic water conflict and draws lessons for the plausibility of future “water wars. ” Next article, Conflict and Cooperation along International Waterways, points water not only as a cause of historic militarized divergence, but as the resource which will pull combatants to the battlefield in the 21st century. Other Papers, Case Study of Trans-boundary Dispute Resolution: the Ganges River debate and Case Study of Trans-boundary Dispute Resolution: the Indus Water Treaty, together in production with Joshua T.
Newton details all facts of the River basin of Ganges and Indus. Homer-Dixon’s ‘Environment, Scarcity and Violence’ and ‘Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases’ are also reviewed to study environment and the depletion. Fresh water depletion and the conflict or water wars are reviewed from his theories of environmental degradation. All these articles have elaborated a various aspects related to the water resource and possibilities of future conflict.
In addition, some articles written by various experts in the context of water issue available in internet are also reviewed. The various articles and research papers available in the internet about water in prospects of conflict have been also referred to make the paper comprehensive which describes the various water issues with regards of increasing water scarcity and possible future conflict. CHAPTER III HISTORIC ARGUMENT AGAINST “WATER WARS” 27. “Water” and “war” are two themes being evaluated together with growing frequency.
The 261 international watersheds (Wolf et al. in review), with a little less than one half of the land mass of the globe, affect almost 40% of the world’s population. Water is a fundamental resource to several levels of human existence for which there are absolutely zero substitutes; it disregards political boundaries, oscillates in both space and time, and has several conflicting demands on its use. The issues of water management are compounded in the international sphere by the truth that the international law that oversees it is poorly developed, and unenforceable.
As a consequence, articles in the academic literature (Cooley 1984; Starr 1991; Remans 1995 and others) and popular press (Bulloch and Darwish 1993; World Press Review 1995) point to water as not only as a root of historic armed conflict, but as the reserve which will bring competitors to the battleground in the 21st century. Consistently, writings on “water wars” point to the dry and aggressive Middle East as a case of a worst-case scenario, where militaries have in fact been marshaled and gun fired over this scant and valuable resource. 28.
The fundamental dispute for “water wars” is as follows: Water is a resource crucial to all facets of a nation’s survival, from its populations’ biology to their economy. The shortage of water in an arid and semi-arid atmosphere leads to strong political pressures, often termed to as “water stress,” a term coined by Falkenmark (1989).
In addition, water not only disregards the political boundaries, it eludes institutional categorization and evades legal generalizations. Interdisciplinary by character, water’s natural management unit, the watershed; twists both institutional and legal capability often past capacity.
The 1997 Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses Commission, which took almost 27 years to take shape, replicates the difficulty of bringing together legal and hydrologic details: while the Convention offers a lot of important principles for assistance, together with accountability for cooperation and cooperative management, they also institutionalize the inherent up/downstream disagreement by calling for both “equitable use” and an “obligation not to cause substantial harm. These two principles are in implied conflict in the set of an international waterway: up-stream riparians have backed that the importance between the two principles be on “equitable use,” as that principle provides the desires of the present the equal weight as that of the past. 29. On the contrary, down-stream riparians have pressed for importance on “no significant harm,” which efficiently defends the pre-existing uses normally instituted in the lower areas of most of the streams.
The Convention too offers few useful guidelines for allotment — the heart of most water conflict. Allotments are to be supported on seven pertinent factors, which are to be considered with as a whole. Also, international law merely allows itself with the duties and rights of the states. Several political units who might argue water rights, thus, would not be embodied, such as the Palestinians and the Kurds along the Jordan and the Euphrates respectively.
Moreover, issues are heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) only with the assent of the parties concerned, and no practical enforcement mechanism subsists to back up the Court’s verdicts, excluding in the most intense cases. A nation with critical national interests can then deny utterly the court’s jurisdiction/findings (Rosenne, 1995).
With all the details and boundaries involved, it is barely astonishing that the International Court of Justice has declared only one case concerning international water law.
Thus, international water being a essential and non-substitutable reserve pouring and swinging across time and space, of which legal principles are blurred and contradictory, and which is being practically more narrowed with every increase in population or standard of living – one gets a convincing case that, in the words of World Bank vice-president Ismail Serageldin, “the wars of the next century will be about water” (quoted in New York Times, 10 August 1995).
Water and Conflict 30. Westing (1986) suggests that, “competition for limited… freshwater… eads to severe political tensions and even to war”; Gleick (1993) explains water resources as armed and political ends, using the Jordan and Nile as examples; Remans (1995) draws on case studies from the South Asia, South America and Middle East, as “well-known examples” of water as a source of militarized conflict; Samson and Charrier (1997) mark that, “several conflicts connected to freshwater are by now evident,” and suggest that, “rising conflict emerge ahead”; Butts (1997) opines that, “history is full up with instances of vicious divergence over water,” and names four Middle Eastern water sources chiefly at jeopardy; and Homer-Dixon (1994), citing the Jordan and other water conflicts, finishes that “the renewable resource more liable to kindle interstate resource war is the river. Water and Cooperation 31. The account of conflict resolution in water issues, in distinction to that of other conflict, is much more inspiring. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) have recognized 3,600 plus treaties linking to global water resources between the year of 805 and 1984, the bulk of which involves with the aspect of navigation (UN FAO 1978; 1984).
Since 1814, about 300 treaties have been agreed which relate with non-navigational issues of water management, flood management or projects related to hydropower. 32. The historic realism has been fairly diverse from what the “water wars” literature would have one believe.
In contemporary history, merely seven minor clashes have been fought over international waters — consistently new inter-related problems also factor in. Equally, over 3,600 treaties have been signed previously over different sides of international waters, roughly 150 in this century which relates with water qua water, many viewing incredible grace and originality for handling with this scarce resource. Arguments 33. Presiding an argument on the future on history only would be improper. A piece of the case for future “water wars,” after all, is that we are accomplishing unparalleled order on fairly diminishing clean water supplies. Other opinions along the likelihood of “water wars” chase although, as we are arguing the future, each has less facts in its help than the historic argument. a)Strategic:Of the 261 international watersheds — there are only a handful on which the given scenario is even possible (the Nile, Plata, and Mekong come to mind), and several of those either have open treaties or ongoing negotiations for a treaty. Finding a position for a “water war” rolls out to be as complex as accepting the basis for launching one. (b)Shared Interest:Each treaty exemplifies sometimes better compassion to the single situation and needs of every basin and a lot of fact. Thus the shared interests will bring a common waterway. (c)Institutional Resiliency:An additional factor adding to the strength of international watersheds is that once mutual water regimes are recognized through treaty, they turn out to be extremely tough over time, even between hostile riparians. d)Economic:It is persuasive to add an economic issue against “water wars. ” Water is neither a costly product nor is it mainly scarce. Full-scale warfare, on the other hand, is enormously costly. A “water war” merely will not cost out. 34. There is an immense and growing literature on the prospect of “water wars” – they position water not only as a reason of historic militarized conflict, but as the resource which will get combatants to the combat zone in the 21st century. The historic truth has been fairly different. In today’s times, about seven minor scuffles have been fought over global waters – customarily other inter-related concerns also factor in.
On the contrary, over 3,600 treaties have been ratified historically over different aspects of international waters — 145 in this century on water qua water — many presenting great elegance and originality for dealing with this vital resource. This is not to state that arm conflict has not been waged over water, only that such arguments usually are among tribes, water-use sector, or states. What we look to find, in fact, is that geographic degree and strength of conflict are inversely connected. Therefore it is sensible to say that water wars are neither strategically coherent nor economically viable. It is no surprise that Delli Priscoli (1997) explains water as, “humanity’s great learning ground for building community. ” 35.
Alam (1997) has appropriately called this concept of water as a resource which surpasses conventional thinking about resource-related arguments, “water rationality. ” Nations don’t, and possibly won’t, wage war over water. But nor are international institutions sufficiently prepared to resolve water conflicts. The 145 agreements that govern the world’s international watersheds, and the international law upon what they are made, are in their relevant infancies (Hamner and Wolf, 1998).
Above half of these treaties have no monitoring aspects whatsoever and, possibly as a result, two-thirds don’t define specific allotments and four-fifths don’t have enforcement instruments.
Furthermore, those treaties that do assign definite quantities, allot a fixed quantity to all riparian states but one – that one state should then recognize the remainig of the river flow, despite the fluctuations. Lastly, multilateral basins are, roughly without exclusion; run by bilateral treaties, excluding the integrated basin management long-supported by water managers. 36. Despite the institutional set up, it is obvious that no single discipline – nor law, nor economics, nor engineering – will give all of the solution for diffusing water conflicts. Relatively, policymakers and their establishments need to include a lively dialog amid all approaches to this significant resource.
Histories of severe water disputes are: (a)1948 – The India and Pakistan divide left the Indus basin divided in a complex fashion. Disagreements over irrigation water aggravated pressures in the still-disputed Kashmir region. Twelve years of World Bank led negotiations lead to the 1960 Indus Waters Agreement. (b)February 1951 – September 1953. Syria and Israel traded intermittent gun shots over Israeli water expansion works in the Huleh basin. (c)January – April 1958. Amid the awaiting talks over the Nile waters, general elections in Sudan, and an Egyptian vote on Sudan-Egypt alliance, Egypt drives an ineffective military mission into the region in row between the two countries.
However, the anxieties were pacified with the signing of the Nile Waters Treaty. (d)June 1963 – March 1964. The 1948 boundary demarcation left Somali nomads under the rule of the Ethiopians. The border clashes between Ethiopia and Somalia over the disputed territory in Ogaden desert, that contains a little of the critical water resources left several hundred are killed before cease-fire was declared. (e)March 1965 – July 1966. Syria and Israel had exchanged fire over “all-Arab” plan to pass on the headwaters of the Jordan River, most possibly to prevent Israeli “national water carrier,” a diversion plan that was out-of-basin from the Sea of Galilee. (f)April – August 1975.
A low-flow year next to the Euphrates, as upstream dams were being filled, the Iraqis claimed that the stream reaching its territory was unbearable, and requested the Arab League to intervene. As a result in May 1975, Syria blocked its airspace to Iraqi planes and both Syria and Iraq allegedly relocated troops to their border. Only arbitration on the part of Saudi Arabia broke the increasing conflict. (g)April 1989 – July 1991. The death of the two Senegalese peasants over the grazing rights along the Senegal River, which forms the boundary between Mauritania and Senegal sparkled flaming tensions in the region. Some hundred were killed as civilians across the border on either side of the river attacked each other before both nations used their army to reinstate order.
Periodic fighting was regular phenomena until peace was restored diplomatically in 1991. 37. Obviously the link between water shortage and conflict has developed over the past two decades to the fact that it might turn into an ideologically supremacy. It was Kofi Annan who in March 2001 declared: “and if we are not careful, future wars are going to be about water and not about oil. ” As J. A. Allan propounded the notion of “virtual water” to explain the water essential to grow food which is imported. Importing a ton of food was practically alike to importing the equivalent quantity of water required to grow that same food. CHAPTER IV WATER CONFLICT IN SOUTH ASIA : ISSUES AND CHALLENGES 38.
South Asia is not scarce in water resource but better utilization is the main problem. One research of World Bank (WB) indicates that water of South Asia can sustain the demand up to 2025 but development and management is essential. The distribution of environmental resources as a potential contributor to conflict has been the subject of considerable research, and these linkages have dominated the post-Cold War interest in environmental security. Within this genre, much attention has been given to water resources, owing to their vital importance for human survival. Perhaps no other resource—other than oxygen—is so intricately linked to human health and survival.
Water is considered, therefore, as one of the most crucial non-traditional security issues. Today, many South Asian countries are beginning to experience moderate to severe water shortages, brought on by the simultaneous effects of agricultural growth, industrialisation, and urbanisation. As the region’s population growth continues to surge, the demand for water is increasing substantially, without a concomitant increase in water resources. Indeed, clean freshwater is not only essential for human life, but also for economic development and agriculture. 39. Consequently, a severe reduction in water resources can damage a nation’s economy and food supply.
Such a scenario could potentially lead to social unrest and exacerbate existing ethnic, racial and societal conflicts. A parallel problem is that these same economic and social problems may systematically erode a government’s ability to deal with them. In extreme cases governance itself may be undermined, resulting in internal chaos and national collapse. The international “spill over” effects of such outcome, such as mass refugee outflows would be destabilizing for neighboring countries. The world’s freshwater supply is finite. In the post Cold War era, the definition of security is being expanded to include a host of nontraditional issues.
Regardless of how water security defined, there is a consensus that freshwater scarcity poses a very serious, complex and potentially wide-ranging threat to regional stability. 40. This danger could be visible itself in numerous ways, such as openly in the shape of fierce conflict on freshwater resources, or in some way, by forcing large-scale exodus and famine. To fully understand the complication of the water security issue, it has to be observed on three levels: Human Security, Internal Security and Governance, and International Security.  Water poses both a threat and an opportunity. Increasing scarcity of clean fresh water impedes development, undercuts human health, and plays critical roles along the conflict continuum between and within states. 41.
Today, population growth, surging demands for food and bio-fuels, global increases in living standards, and changing weather patterns mean there is even less water to go around. Meanwhile, scant supply and inadequate regional and global management have fueled tensions both within and between nations. The United Nations estimates 300 potential conflicts over water exist around the world today. Water-related violence often occurs on the local rather than international level, and the intensity of conflict is generally inversely related to geographic scale. And while conflicts often remain local, they can also impact stability at the national and regional levels.
Even if international disputes over water- related issues do not typically cause violent conflict, they have led to interstate tensions and significantly hampered development, such as along the Nile, Mekong, Euphrates, Amu Darya, Syr Darya, and Ganges rivers. The likelihood of conflict rises as the rate of change within the basin exceeds the institutional capacity to absorb that change. South Asia is increasingly becoming a water-stressed region. Water shortage is triggering conflict in the region of South Asia. With the growing population, industrial, agricultural and domestic uses, glaciers are melting, and environment is degrading, resultantly, the rivers are also becoming a bone of contention between countries and communities in this area.
The question of utilization of water for hydropower generation and commercial irrigation is a matter of great concern and causing conflicts. Pakistan is one of the world’s most arid countries in which average rainfall is less than 240mm a year. According to a UN report Pakistan is about to become a ‘water scarce’ country. Pakistan has limited water resources. Indus River and its tributaries are the largest water source in here and about two-thirds of water supply for irrigation and in homes is gained from the Indus and its associated rivers. Water Scarcity: Access Vs Availability 42. Water scarcity is a more relative concept describing the relationship between demand for water and its availability.
The demands may vary considerably between different countries and different regions within a given country depending on the sectoral usage of water. A country with a high industrial demand or which depends on large scale irrigation will therefore be more likely to experience times of scarcity than a country with similar climatic conditions without such demands. Countries such as Rwanda, for example, would be classified by most standards as suffering water shortage but, because of low industrial and irrigation utilization would not be classified as water scarce. Water stress is the indicative result of shortage which may appear itself as growing conflict over the sectoral use, a reduction in service sectors, low crop yield, famine etc. This term is similar to the term “drought”. 43.
There are a number of problems related to determining water shortage and water scarcity. In general, national average figures are used which mask annual variability from year to year, seasonal variability and the regional variability within countries. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations regards water as a severe constraint on socio-economic development and environmental protection at levels of internal renewable water availability of less than 1 000 m3/capita. At levels of water availability of less than 2000 m3/capita, water is regarded as a potentially serious constraint and a major problem in drought years. Water scarcity provides a measure of the sensitivity of a given situation to drought.
In situations where the average availability of water per capita is low, even slight variations can render whole communities unable to cope and create disaster conditions. The Causes of water scarcity are Population growth, Food production, Climatic change and variability, Land use, Water quality, Water demand, Sectoral resources and institutional capacity, Poverty and economic policy, Legislation and water resource management, International waters, Sectoral professional capacity, Political realities, and Sociological issues. 44. Most of the world’s water, about 97. 5 percent, exists as salt water in the oceans and seas. Of the world’s 2. 5 percent of freshwater, roughly 99 percent is either trapped in glaciers and ice caps, held as soil moisture or located in water tables too deep to access.
Thus, only about one percent of the world’s total freshwater supply is readily available for consumption by humans, animals and for irrigation. Moreover, the world’s population is growing by about 80 million people a year, implying increased freshwater demand of about 64 billion cubic metres a year. Water stress occurs when a country’s annual water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic metres per person. When these levels reach between 1,700 and 1,000 cubic metres per person, occasional water shortages are likely to occur. Availability refers to the physical presence of adequate water supplies, whereas access refers to the ability of people within a particular country or region to actually receive or gain access to clean freshwater.
Obviously, these are two distinct types of problems, although they can both be present in a region experiencing water stress or water scarcity. 45. In early 2009, Pakistan was on the brink of a water disaster, as the availability of water which was 5,000 cubic meters per capita 60 years ago has come down to 1,200 m3. In 2020, it can fall to about 800 cubic meters per capita, far below the 1000 threshold. In Pakistan, Primary driver for large storage dams appears to be irrigation and agriculture, while power generation is secondary, though increasing electricity demands is also becoming an important factor. Pakistan can store only 30 days of water, while India can store for 120-220 days and Egypt up to 700 days and the US can store up to 900 days of water. Pakistan has only three major dams having 6,385 MW capacity as compared to India having 74 with a capacity of 15,208 MW; Pakistan has seven hydro projects under construction while India has 37; Pakistan has planned 35 hydro projects with a capacity of 33,769 MW, while India has planned 318 projects with the capacity of 93,615 mw.  Water as a Security Concern 46. Water security is the capacity of a population to ensure that they continue to have access to potable water. Water security is rapidly declining in many parts of the world. According to the Pacific Institute, “While regional impacts will vary, global climate change will potentially alter agricultural productivity, freshwater availability and quality, access to vital minerals, coastal and island flooding, and more. Among the consequences of these impacts will be challenges to political relationships, realignment of energy markets and regional economies, and threats to security”. 47.
The debates on reconceptualising security and integrating non-military threats like factors of human development into its definition have evolved significantly during the past 15 years. Especially since the UNDP adopted the term “Human Security” in 1994, various concepts and perspectives from different professional, cultural and geographical background have enriched the discussions. Environmental and social criteria have found their way into a concept that used to be restricted to the quantity and quality of military equipment. International organisations like NATO and the UN integrate environmental factors into their threat analyses and the control over natural resources (not only petrol and diamonds but increasingly also water) became a strategic goal of national security policies.
Within these debates, the status of freshwater resources is a recurring issue and we are already getting used to the regular alarming environmental reports on their further depletion and degradation. The important role this element plays as a key factor of human development at the household as well as at a wider political and economic level explains its strategic value. At the same time, water resources lie at the heart of many processes of the ecosystem and are therefore particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation (Falkenmark and Lindh 1993; UN 2003; UNESCO 2003).
The rising demand, with a diminishing supply of freshwater resources, justifies particular attention to this element within the debates on environmental security.
After the prevalence of scenarios on coming “water wars” (Starr 1991) it has, a least within the scientific community, been generally recognised that water resources become a security issue today mainly at the intrastate level and do not frequently lead to violence between states (Falkenmark and Lindh 1993; Wolf, Shira et al. 2003; Dabelko, Carius et al. 2004).
At the national or local level, environmental change can, in combination with other factors, exacerbate existing rivalries and trigger violent conflict by sharpening distinctions among groups (Bachler 1994; Bachler 1996; Biermann, Petschel-Held et al. 1998; Homer-Dixon 1999).
48. Many of the factors relevant for human wellbeing and development are directly or indirectly linked to freshwater resources.
The intersection of these factors shows that the significance of water scarcity is even multiplied by these interdependent evolutions and that the depletion and degradation of the resource has therefore far-reaching consequences. We distinguish here between different dimensions such as the demographic and the urban, the sanitary, the agricultural and the climatic one. This list of dimensions of water security is certainly not exhaustive. Its aim is to point to examples of how freshwater resources already have an important impact on human development and how such a categorisation can help to the understanding of structural roots of antagonistic interests related to water security.
Thereby sustainable approaches in dealing with these structural causes of conflicts and cooperation can be developed. Additionally, many of the world’s poorest regions are also the ones where demographic growth and urbanisation rates are highest (demographic and urban dimensions).
In the rapidly growing urban but also in the rural areas the low percentage of safe water access and wastewater treatment, combined with poor household and community sanitary conditions, is a major contributor to disease and malnutrition, particularly among children (sanitary dimension).
One billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and 1. 7 billion have inadequate sanitation facilities.
Most of the countries where the situation of freshwater is critical today or expected to be critical within the next 20 years belong to the developing world. Their GDP and employment rates are highly dependent on agricultural production and therefore highly sensitive to climatic change. What we call here the agricultural dimension of water security is therefore often a delicate political topic. Agricultural growth is considerably increased in recent years through investment in large-scale irrigation projects. Up to 90% of the total water consumption is spent for agriculture in many developing countries, while this proportion has decreased to an average of 30% in the industrialised world (see map below).
Still, many countries had to restrain from their strategic goal of self-sufficiency in food production. It appears that the agricultural dimension of water security is one where the linkages between the evolution of the resource and the resulting socio-political consequences are very clear. Uncoordinated decision-making and divergent competences and interests of the key actors responsible for issues of water management and conservation often lead to competing claims of different sectors. The relevance of these implications for domestic security issues is reflected by the fact that in many countries the ministry of the interior possesses the largest competence regarding water issues. 49.
India has long standing water disputes in South Asian with her neighbors on distribution of water resources particularly rivers. These disputes are increasing their intensities gradually; as the demand for fresh water is increasing. There is the possibility that if present demographic, economic and environmental challenges may precede then this tension may lead to crisis like situation and probably wars between India and its neighbors thus threatening regional stability. India is in a much better position than Pakistan because of her geographical proximity to Tibet, Kashmir, Himalayas, and the Bay of Bengal. However, the demand for water continues outstripping the supply. The basic driver for hydropower is for growing electricity needs in India. The push or hydropower in India mainly comes from the need to meet the power demands of the 9% plus annual growth rate. Overall for the country, peak power demand in the year 2007- 08 was 108,886 MW, as the max out power demand met was 90,793 MW; there was a shortfall of 18,093 MW or 16. 6% of peak demand. Pakistan has developed only 12% of 55,000 MW of its hydel potential, while India and China 30% of their potential and rich countries 70%. Intra-state/Domestic conflicts 50. Within states, water scarcity can assume an increasingly contentious and violent role when, for example, water-dependent sectors such as irrigated agriculture can no longer sustain farming livelihoods, leading to de-stabilising migration flows.
At the local level, competition over water use, its availability and allocation can lead to low-scale violence, which can escalate into instability within states and across sub-regions. Tensions between citizens and authorities over water issues may initially manifest themselves in the form of civil disobedience. They may, however, also escalate into acts of sabotage and violent protest if adequate political participation is not possible. As stress on fresh water supplies goes up due to population increase, economic growth and pollution, access to water, its allotment and use, are getting increasingly critical concerns that may have profound consequences on societal stability.
However, intra-state conflicts may of the various kinds. 51. In India also, Cauvery waters disputes had erupted violence between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over irrigation rights to the water of Cauvery River. The demand of water is increasing and every country of the region has water disputes in inter/intra state level. So the potential water conflicts are likely to occur in future between those countries of region who has shared river basin. Such possible major river which could be the source of conflict in South Asia one are the river Ganga, Bramhaputtra and Indus.  52. Conflict is most likely to occur over water when disputes involve access to water of adequate quantity and quality.
Even when water supplies are not severely limited, allocation of water among different users and uses (agriculture and urban residents, for example) can be highly contested. Degraded water quality, which can pose serious threats to health, is also a source of potentially violent disputes. Finally, when water supplies for broadly irrigated regions decline either in terms of quantity or quality, those declines can spur migrations that could politically destabilise the receiving cities and/or neighbouring countries.  53. Water’s importance in sustaining human livelihoods can indirectly link it to conflict. Water is a basic resource for agriculture, which is traditionally the largest source of livelihoods.
If this livelihood is no longer available, people are often forced to search for job opportunities in the cities or turn to other, often illicit, ways to make a living. Migration—induced by lack of water, sudden droughts and floods, infrastructure construction (dams), pollution disasters, or livelihood loss—can produce tensions between local and incoming communities, especially when it increases pressure on already scarce resources. And poverty due to livelihood loss has been identified as a common denominator of the causes of conflict in most of the civil wars that emerged in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America during the last decade. 54. However, it is not the lack of water that makes way to conflict, but the insufficient way the resource is administered and managed.
There are many reasons why water management fails, including lack of adequate water institutions, inadequate administrative capacity, lack of transparency, ambiguous jurisdictions, overlapping functions, fragmented institutional structures, and lack of necessary infrastructure. Disaggregated decision-making often produces divergent management approaches that serve contradictory objectives and lead to competing claims from different sectors. And such claims are even more likely to contribute to disputes in countries where there is no formal system of water-use permits, or where enforcement and monitoring are inadequate. Controversy also often arises when management decisions are formulated without sufficient participation by local communities and water users, thus failing to take into account local rights and practices.
Direct violent conflicts over water are most likely on a local level, for example, over the privatisation of drinking water or access to a water point. The current management capacity to cope with (mis)match between water demand and supply is evaluated through: (1) efficiency of water use (measured as the GDP produced per unit of water use); and (2) human health conditions (measured by level of access to sanitation facility).
Although the per capita GDP in the Indus Basin is more than double that of the GBM and Helmand basins (Table A), water use efficiencies in all three basins are very low. About 50 per cent of the people of the Indus basin have access to improved sanitation facilities, while the corresponding figure in both the GBM and Helmand Basins is about 40 per cent.
Considering transboundary institutional arrangements for coordinated water resources development and management, and policies/ agreements, communication mechanisms, and cooperation for water resources management, both the GBM and Indus River basins can be considered moderately vulnerable (MC). Inter-state/International Conflicts 55. The world is rife with conflicts over waters, especially over use and management of trans-boundary waters. Rivers with trans-boundary nature, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Barak etc are becoming subjects of controversy over the right to manage the waters. Given that water flow ignores political and community boundaries, decisions in one place affect water use elsewhere.
In the case of shared river basins, water use upstream can affect downstream quality and quantity, thus creating the potential for conflicts of interest. Powerful countries use “utilization potential”, both technical ability and infrastructure to use water resources. Compound human, political and physical interactions can make the management of shared water systems especially difficult. The UN’s third ‘World Water Development Report’, presented ahead of the fifth World Water Forum warns of increased regional rivalry over water-related issues which will threaten fragile states by mounting security challenges.  The Strategic Importance of Water in SA 56.
Water is increasingly viewed as a strategic resource, one that has to be protected and valued. The great civilisations of the world have evolved around water and SA is no exemption. In SA, water covers the socio-cultural, socio-economic and political structure in the lives of some 1. 5 billion people. Water resources is key to agriculture, hydropower, and to sustain the aquatic environment. The region is endowed with great rivers that are the lifelines of the regional economy. Water is giving life, not only to organisms, but also to economies. The region’s economy and predominantly rural livelihoods heavily depend on the timely arrival and performance of the monsoons.
The monsoon is the most significant climate event: it carries over 70 percent of the region’s annual precipitation in only four months. Because water is of critical importance for human survival, the well-being of nations often depends on its access to water.  57. The insufficiency of fresh water has in the past led to violent conflict, and is currently the source of international tensions, but one should not simply assume that population growth will inevitably lead to war over water. Technology, pricing, conservation, trade, and industrial and agricultural policy changes may mitigate water scarcity and alter the prescription for conflict.
Research on environmental security issues generally accepts the multiple causes of conflict, but fresh water is undeniably an important variable. Given assumed population growth, changes in climatic conditions, and the imbalance of water resource supply and demand, it will continue as a source of tensions; it could become the determinant variable in future international conflict. This article examines the strategically important environmental security issue of water resource scarcity, imbalances in fresh water supply and demand, methods of mitigating water scarcity, conditions that are likely to signal when water resources may lead to conflict, and policy options that might help us to change that equation.  58.
Most of the water on the earth, some 97 percent, is contained in the world’s oceans and is therefore of little use for essential agriculture, drinking, or most industrial uses. Only three percent of the water on the earth is fresh and, of this, more than two percent is locked away in the polar ice caps, glaciers, or deep groundwater aquifers, and is therefore unavailable to satisfy the needs of man. 63. Furthermore, only 0. 36 percent of the world’s water in rivers, lakes, and swamps is sufficiently accessible to be considered a renewable fresh water resource. The supplies of useful fresh water are finite, and most of the forms in which it is used have no substitute.
Our fresh water is made available through the hydrologic cycle in which solar radiation evaporates ocean water, which subsequently falls to land as rain and returns to the sea as runoff through rivers or aquifers. Precipitation, then, is the original source of all fresh water; it is highly variable in its geographical occurrence. Precipitation in large sections of the world is inadequate to support substantial agriculture, populations, or industry. Migrations, along with exponential population growth, have increased the number of people living in marginal, arid lands, where survival depends upon the availability of scarce water resources. 59. At the ame time, scientists have warned of coming changes to the earth’s climate and increasing periods of unstable weather patterns and rainfall. It is not yet clear whether such variations result from industrialized society and the activities of man that may give rise to global warming, or are simply part of a long-term global climate cycle which man has yet to define. The uneven global distribution of fresh water is striking. Most global rainfall occurs in the equatorial zone that stretches from South and Southeast Asia across Africa into Central America and the Amazon Basin. In general, rainfall decreases north and south of this zone. By itself, the Amazon River accounts for 20 percent of average global runoff, compared to all of Europe with only seven percent.
Areas chronically short of fresh water include parts of the western United States and northern Mexico; much of Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia; and small portions of South and Central America. Water-scarce countries should receive close examination, because of the rainfall variability within the borders of a given country. For eg; Southeastern China benefits from seasonal monsoons and has sufficient water supplies, while the North China plain, a fertile area that accounts for 25 percent of the country’s grain harvest, has water scarcity problems. Over-pumping aquifers to support wheat and millet cultivation has caused approximately one third of Beijing’s wells to go dry, with the water table dropping between one and two meters annually.
This condition is indicative of the water scarcity problems of this agriculturally and industrially important region of the country. China’s situation is particularly important since that country, with approximately one-quarter of the world’s population, can claim only eight percent of its fresh water resources. Unlike the case of other natural resources, it is sometimes difficult to declare that certain countries do or don’t meet standards for water sufficiency. Nevertheless, World Bank statistics identify approximately 20 countries that have been declared chronically water scarce. The list includes Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt, Kenya, Somalia, and Singapore. 6] Other strategically significant countries with pronounced rainfall variability include Pakistan, Mexico, and India.  60. While the Middle East has been the focus of most attention, several locations in Asia also have water resource problems. The Indus River basin, which begins in Tibet and has the downstream riparian states of India and Pakistan, has long been a source of conflict between those two states. The British partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 complicated the management of water from the Indus, disrupting an irrigation system that had endured for nearly 5000 years. Shortly after the partition, conflict arose as East Punjab (India) withheld water flows to canals in West Punjab (Pakistan).
These destabilizing tensions continued until 1960 when, under the leadership of the World Bank, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed on the principle of equitable apportionment of Indus water resources. India has struggled elsewhere with artificial colonial borders and riparian environments. In the east, conflict exists between India and Bangladesh concerning the Ganges River, which flows from the Himalayas through India and Bangladesh, where it joins the Brahmaputra to finally empty through multiple delta exits into the Bay of Bengal. In 1975, India began diverting water from the Ganges upstream from Bangladesh; the latter, deprived of Ganges water, took the dispute to the United Nations. 61.
As a result of the United Nations’ examining the issue, a settlement was reached in 1977 called The Agreement on Sharing of the Ganges Waters. While designed to last only five years, the agreement continues to govern water flows on the Ganges; from the Bangladesh point of view, the agreement provides the important aspect of natural river flows during the dry season. The recent agreement between Nepal and India concerning upstream tributaries to the Ganges, however, includes irrigation schemes, flood control, and hydroelectric dams. Unquestionably this agreement will affect the quantity of the water reaching Bangladesh; without a revision of the 1977 agreement, there is potential for renewed conflict between India and Bangladesh over the Ganges.
With current population trends, the worldwide per capita supply of water will be reduced by approximately 33 percent by the year 2025. If this situation comes to pass, one can expect additional competition for scarce resources, territorial encroachment, regional instability, and conflict. In such an environment, certain concepts should be of importance to strategists.  Climate Change and Water Security in South Asia 62. The impacts of climate change in the form of higher temperatures, more variable precipitation, and more extreme weather events threaten the water supply to millions of people living near South Asia’s numerous river basins. The Ganges river basin alone is home to some 500 million people.
The massive concentration of people around river basins, compounded by high and persistent poverty rates illustrates the vulnerability of the region to current hydrological shocks and longer-term climate change. The region remains highly vulnerable to droughts and floods that not only devastate lives and livelihoods, but also undermine progress on economic growth and poverty alleviation. 63. Every year, some part of the region is usually in the grip of a devastating drought or in the fury of a flood. Climate change might exacerbate the damage caused by such events. It is predicted to amplify current levels of variability, and may fundamentally change most hydrological systems. With its heavy reliance on the monsoons and snow-fed rivers, water availability in the region is highly sensitive to climate change.
With the ever increasing demands of expanding human populations, horrifying effects of climate change and irresponsible use of water we head towards extremely testing times. The development and use of the water resources of basin have been changing over decades, as more and more people are recognizing the economic, social and cultural importance of water. The pressures on water resources are mounting due to competing demands from different users in the basin. The irrigation sector comprises a major water user (about 88 per cent) in the GBM basin. The additional population growth in coming years will result in greater pressures on the available water resources, and specially irrigation in the Ganges sub-basins of India (Ziaul, 1998).
CHAPTER V TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER SHARING AND DISPUTES IN SA 64.
Trans-boundary watercourses traversing different states present a challenge in terms of management as they constitute different states with different interests as per their national needs and different groups of people in the different states with different needs. Water connects the whole of South Asia historically and geographically and binds the countries of the region. Simultaneously, contentious issues of cross-border water distribution, utilisation, management and mega irrigation/hydro-electric power projects are gradually taking centre-stage in interstate relations as water scarcity increases and both drought and floods make life too often miserable.
The issues of water distribution and management not only bring countries into conflict, but also provinces/states and regions within countries. Known the diminishing resources of water, the subject of food, and water security as its most critical part, are going to presume astronomical proportions. 65. As water quality degrades or the quantity available has to meet rising demands over time, competition among water users intensifies. This is nowhere more destabilizing than in river basins that cross political boundaries. But experience shows that in many situations, rather than causing open conflict, the need for water sharing can generate unexpected cooperation. Despite the complexity of the problems, records show that water disputes can be handled diplomatically.
The last 50 years have seen only 37 acute disputes involving violence, compared to 150 treaties that have been signed. Nations value these agreements because they make international relations over water more stable and predictable. In fact, the history of international water treaties dates as far back as 2500 BC, when the two Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma crafted an agreement ending a water dispute along the Tigris River – often said to be the first treaty of any kind. Since then, a large body of water treaties has emerged. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, more than 3,600 treaties related to international water resources have been drawn up since 805 AD. The majority of these deal with navigation and boundary demarcation.
The focus of negotiation and treaty-making in the last century has shifted away from navigation towards the use, development, protection and conservation of water resources. Legal agreements on water sharing have been negotiated and maintained even as conflicts have persisted over other issues. The Indus River Commission survived two wars between India and Pakistan. The more than 3,600 agreements and treaties signed are an achievement in themselves, but a closer look at them still reveals significant weaknesses. What is needed are workable monitoring provisions, enforcement mechanisms, and specific water allocation provisions that address variations in water flow and changing needs. 66.
The 1997 United Nations Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses is one international instrument that specifically focuses on shared water resources. It established two key principles to guide the conduct of nations regarding shared watercourses: “equitable and reasonable use” and “the obligation not to cause significant harm” to neighbours. However, it is up to countries themselves to spell out precisely what these terms mean in their watersheds. There is a consensus among experts that international watercourse agreements need to be more concrete, setting out measures to enforce treaties made and incorporating detailed conflict resolution mechanisms in case disputes erupt.
Better cooperation also entails identifying clear yet flexible water allocations and water quality standards, taking into account hydrological events, changing basin dynamics and societal values.  67. The water issue is gradually becoming the prime focus between the interstate relations. Increasing water shortage has made South Asia a water-stressed region. South Asia has four major rivers basins. They originate from Himalayas and irrigation of vast area of this region; thereby provide edibles and livelihood to the huge population. The four main co-riparian states of the region are India-Pakistan and India– Bangladesh-Nepal are lying in west and east respectively. Water shortage is becoming the bone of contention in this region.
With the growing population, industrial, agricultural and domestic uses, glaciers are melting and causing environmental degradation. Conflicts over water issue are growing among the countries and the people of this area. The question of hydropower generation and commercial irrigation is issue of great concern and a source of controversy. The present paper is an attempt to analyze this issue. The research shows that no single policy alternative will eliminate the disagreements on water scarcity; but a multifaceted and synchronized strategy is necessary to address the rising challenges.  68. Since water security directly impacts human security, it is a potential source of conflict.
More than 263 trans-boundary river basins are present in the world and over three billion people depend on hundreds of Trans -boundary aquifers. South Asia has four major rivers basins, i. e. , the Brahmaputra, Indus, Ganges and the Meghna which provide livelihood to millions of people in this region. The South Asian river basins irrigate millions of hectares of fields and provide livelihood to millions of people in this geographical location. South Asian region’s four main co-riparian states are India-Pakistan and India–Bangladesh–Nepal lying in the west and in the east respectively. Water distribution, its utilization, its management and above all the hydroelectric power projects are affecting the upper and lower riparian countries.
Water security is gradually becoming an epicenter of interstate relations and water scarcity is increasing the miseries of people of this area. In South Asia’s case, timing is also an important issue. As in the case of Pakistan ‘if India fill its dams when water is needed for crops in Pakistan, it will be disastrous for Pakistani peasants and the planting season over there’.  Basins and Indian Water Linkage Project 69. When we talk about the South Asian Region, India comes in a centre for any kind of issue. As it is a strong nation with a largest number of the population so as to the requirement of resources. Three major river systems the Ganga, Brahmaputra and Indus of this region are also centralised in India.
If we closely observed the behavior and attitudes of India towards the other three co-basin nations (Nepal, Pakistan & Bangladesh); the variety in the terms and condition in the treaty can be found with each nations. Even the treaty has not been followed and well implemented by India rather it is misinterpreting and exploiting the resources in its favor. In such conditions it is obvious that each nations of the region will try to achieve more resources in their favor. Such activities have a possibility to increase the tensions in the region and boost the future conflict. 70. Throughout India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, water shortages are increasingly triggering conflict.
In India water shortages pose both a social and economic threat; the internal dispute of Narmada and Cauvery rivers is one of the examples among the disputes. Although the freshwater resources are abundant, they are not well distributed to fulfill the need of the population. With the huge amount of pollution being dumped in the freshwater supply, clean water is becoming scarce to the mass of people and tensions can easily escalate in this region. 71. The Ganga, Brahmaputra and Indus are the major river systems crosses the borders of five different countries; Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan and India. India shares the border with all South Asian countries so as the rivers. The Hindu Kush-Himalayan region is one of the largest storehouses of fresh water in the world.
The three Himalayan Rivers, Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra arise within 300 km from each other in the Himalayan glaciers. The Indus Ganga and Brahmaputra basin “alone supports over half billion people” (Singh, Trans-boundary Water Politics and Conflicts in South Asia) whose livelihood is based on agriculture. Water supply in rivers of this region remains seasonal in nature. The Indus, Ganga, Brahmaputra and Meghna river systems exhibit a remarkable variation in the temporal and spatial availability of water and the hydrology of rivers follows the rainfall pattern. “About 80% of the total annual flow occurs between June to September, with the remaining 20%” occurring during the rest of the months (ibid. ).
The water discharge of these major rivers has been as: |Discharges of Major River Systems | |S. No. |Name of River |Area in Mn. Sq. Km |Annual Discharge (M. Cosm) | |1 |Ganges |1. 05 |4,93,400 | |2 |Brahmaputra |0. 58 |5,10,450 | |3 |Indus |0. 46 |2,07,800 | (Source: K. L.
Rao, India’s water Wealth, New Delhi, 1975, p 43) (a)The Ganga- Brahmaputra River System: The eastern water basin of the Himalayas is the watershed formed by two main river systems; the Ganges and the Brahmaputra accompanied by river Meghna. All of these ultimately fall in the Bay of Bengal after crossing Bangladesh. The total length of these rivers is estimated “about 1,758,000 sq km, of which 8 percent lies in Bangladesh, 8 percent in Nepal, 4 percent in Bhutan, 62 percent in north-eastern India and 18 percent in the Tibetan region of China. ” The area covered in India is arable plain; flat and rich land in Bangladesh; steep hills in Nepal and arid plateau in Tibet. In this way Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and the Tibetan region of China form and co basin countries of the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin ( Upreti 1993, 41-42) .
The total water resources carried by the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers are “42,426 and 55,535 Million Cubic Meters (MCM) respectively (Indus being 7691 million cubic Meghna in the last 100 kms)” (ibid).
The entire surface water irrigation system of India, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh is based on the water of these three rivers. The ground water resources of the region are also drawn from these river systems (ibid. ).
The Brahmaputra river system posses a vast energy potential of “about 40,000 MW in northeast India and may be, 50,000MW or more” along Indo-Tibet Brahmaputra bend, could be a major resource feeding into an international Trans- Himalayan grid (Verghese 1990, ix).
b)The Indus River System (IRS):“The aggregate mean annual flow of Indus River and its tributaries, when they emerge from the Himalaya foot hills is about 170 Million Acre Feet (MAF) more a twice that of Nile, three times that of Tigris and the Euphrates combined and ten times of annual flow of Colorado” (Gulhati 1973, 18).
Five main tributaries from the east the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej have an aggregate length more then 2800 miles. “From the Himalayan snows to the Arabian Sea, the Indus River System has drainage of 450000 square miles” (ibid).
(c)Indian River Linking Project:Indian River linking project has been an issue of a region while it is directly related to four countries Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India.
Although, the development of a navigable waterway from Nepal to Bangladesh through Indian Territory, if techno-economically feasible. Would be an added attraction for both specially Nepal which has been chafing at its landlocked status (Verghese op. cit. , 379).
But, major problem is that, India has not taken consent from the other countries of the region. Since, India had never considered a policy of an equitable benefit and no harm to other country in past treaties and agreement, river linking project has already created an environment of havoc among other countries of the region. 72. Highly ambitious river linking mega project of India may pose a threat in whole region especially to Bangladesh and Nepal.
The general concept of the project is that the Ganges flows can be augmented by construction of high dam in Bhutan and Nepal; could bring significant benefits to the region. But such huge projects will have social, economic and environmental effects. Project will submerge the large area of Nepal and Bhutan; it may decrease a level of water flow in river Brahmaputra; large number peoples will be displaced. Without pre political consent of the other countries it is not possible to implement such project and if India does so will definitely be a causes of future conflict. The very important for project is that it requires a careful planning and coordinated effort.
Generally “A water project designed to provide multiple benefits cannot provide optimal benefits on all counts” (Dixit op. cit. 374) and psychological fear of Indian hegemonic attitude in past treaties will make unenthusiastic to Bangladesh and Nepal to go for new treaty. Now the situation is that other nation are reluctant to go for a new treaty until they are assured about the management of socio-ecological impact and sharing of benefit. The real intention and attitude of India will be a more vital here and if India tries to enforce such large project rather going for cooperative way will definitely be a cause of conflict and may remain as a major issue in future. India – Bangladesh Water Disputes 3. Bangladesh is the downstream and deltaic portion of a huge watershed, thereby being naturally vulnerable due to the quantity and poor quality of water that flows into it from the upstream. All major rivers flowing through Bangladesh originate outside its borders. India shares 54 trans-boundary rivers with Bangladesh, including the major rivers of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna, making water management a major issue between the two nations. The many rivers crossing the India-Bangladesh border provide the basis for a series of ongoing disputes between the two countries, particularly India’s efforts to divert water destined for Bangladesh.
Disputes include disagreements over the Farraka Barrage, the Teesta River project and the River Linking Project. The critiques of Tipaimukh dam to be built in Manipur is moving beyond imposed frontiers, the traditional expression of concerns once confined limitedly in Manipur and parts of Bangladesh now resonates from afar. The issue has now moved from the confines of Manipur Assembly discussion to the British and Bangladesh parliamentary debates to the deliberations of several United Nations human rights forums. The Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh discussed the contentious issue at the recently concluded Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit, July 2009 in Egypt.
Massive rallies, protest meetings, strikes and other forms of protest against the dam continues to gain momentum in Bangladesh. 74. The peoples’ concerns in Bangladesh are based on their bitter experience of severe water shortage and multifaceted impacts after commissioning of Farakka Barrage over the Ganges River by India. Concerns raised include staggering environmental degradation, economic crisis and hydrological drought. The damming of Barak River, seriously limiting free flowing Surma and Kushyara rivers will disrupt agriculture, irrigation, drinking water supply, navigation etc and reduce recharge of ground water during lean season, affecting all dug wells and shallow tube wells.
Bangladesh gets 7 to 8 percent of its total water from the Barak River. The Surma-Kushyara with its maze of numerous tributaries and distributaries support agriculture, irrigation and navigation, drinking water supply, fisheries, wildlife in the entire Sylhet division and in peripheral areas of Dhaka division and industries like fertilizer, electricity, and gas. The dam would also leave millions jobless with the drying up of the two rivers. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies, fed by the Barak, in the Sylhet region for fishing, agriculture and allied activities. The Barak-Surma-Kushyara is an international river with Bangladesh as a lower riparian country.
The resolution of Tipaimukh dam seriously needs a multilateral, inclusive and human rights based approach to development and sensitivity to the concerns & established rights of all affected peoples (Ziaul, 1998).
75. Ganges is shared by India with Nepal, Bangladesh and China. The main issue is of sharing of the Ganges water during the lean period. In 1951, India decided to construct a barrage across the river Ganges at place of Farakka present in West Benga. It was to divert water by the Bhagirati- Hoogly system. It will benefit port of Calcutta. Pakistan objected. India began construction of the FB unilaterally in 1960 and was completed in 1974. Water shortages occurred in Bangladesh by blockade of the Ganges water by Farakka barrage.
Sudden water releases can cause floods and extensive damage in the rainy season including the loss of property and human lives. India consulted Bangladesh for test operation of the FB and feeder canal. The then PM Sheikh Mujib agreed to India’s proposal for test operation of the barrage and feeder canal. Initially, in 1975 India was allowed to river to flows varying from 11000 to 16000 cusec for a period of 41 days from 21 April to 31 May 1975 with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. 76. India started diverting the Ganges water in the upstream unilaterally in 1976 and 1977 by violating this understanding.
It affected environment, agriculture, industries, fisheries, navigation, river regime, salinity contamination in the surface and ground water. Bangladesh presented matter in UN General Assembly in 1976. India signed an ad hoc agreement for five years on Ganges water sharing in 1977. Sharing proportion of Bangladesh and India was 60:40 respectively with a minimum flow of 34,500 for Bangladesh and 20,500 cusec for India. In case of decrease in flow at Farakka under extreme situation Bangladesh was guaranteed with 80 percent of its share during each of the slots. Both are going on in the Joint Rivers Commission which has held a meeting in March 2010 after a gap of 5 years.
Formed in 1972, this commission is the highest forum for dispute resolution between two countries. India is planning to build a project to divert water of Ganges and Barhamputra. It is also a bone of contention between two countries. India says that proposed project is to resolve the problems of drought and flood by water diversion from ‘surplus river basins’ to ‘deficit river basins’ in the country. The plan threatens the life of more than 100 million people in Bangladesh. More than 80 percent of Bangladesh’s small farmers grow rice and they depend on water coming from India. Indians are constructing of the massive Tipaimukh barrage on the Barak river with a capacity of 1500MWs to entertain Indian state of Assam.
This is again another violation of International River Law because Indians are doing it without taking Bangladeshi government into confidence.  77. In terms of water-disputes the Ganges water dispute is one of the longest running. Its value is that it also has provided an insight into several of the processes which are used to overcome such disputes. It is from the case-study that the flaws and dangers of unilateralism, the complications of bilateralism, and the difficulties of the multilateral system can all be seen. Indo-Bangladesh relations have highlighted that it is important to find a solution that is favourable to all parties concerned. Unilateral approaches to disputes can never be seen as a win-win situation.
The express purpose of pursuing a unilateral solution is to promote your own interests over the interests of others. The result is generally that the other parties involved become agitated or suffer grievances as a result of one party’s actions, as can be shown through India’s withdrawals during periods of the dispute, and the devastating effects that these withdrawals had upon Bangladesh. Therefore there can be little chance of a dispute that is resolved by unilateral actions being a satisfactory resolution to all parties. There is a potential for a satisfactory outcome through bilateral modes. 78. The process will indeed remain unresolved until there is an eventual outcome.
It is also much more favourable than a simple implementation of wishes by a bigger nation over a smaller nation. However, this is again not a perfect system. Bilateral disputes can be drawn out with little sign of resolution, as has been exhibited by the Indo-Bangladesh process which has lasted since the early 1970s. The stalemate that can eventuate often leads to the parties shifting towards the unilateral or bilateral process (as India and Bangladesh respectively did).
A shift to a unilateral action is highly unfavourable, while a shift towards multilateral action would suggest that this should have been adopted earlier or even to begin with.
This is compounded when it becomes evident that bilateral resolutions are often only temporary, and even then lack the tools to enforce the agreement. Multilateral action has only been briefly touched at in the Ganges dispute, but it appears to be an increasingly likely way forward in an agreement that has already reached bilateral highs which were not converted into a permanent solution (such as in the 1996 agreement or even the 1971 Treaty).
An increasing focus is being placed upon water disputes, and this can even be seen through increasing international attention being paid to Mother Ganga. It is multilateral forums at the regional or global level that promise the greatest opportunity of fair resolutions and lasting agreements that can be enforced. 79.
However, if the Ganges dispute has taught the global society anything it is that it is difficult to encourage countries to become involved in multilateral processes if it is possible that they could lose international face or even lose concessions within the dispute. There is no set method which is best for all water-sharing agreements. Unilateral actions can be seen as understandable or devastating. Bilateral actions can be seen as highly effective or virtually a waste of time. Meanwhile multilateral actions are seen as an attractive option, but are not necessarily attractive to the parties involved. Even if the multilateral approach is taken, should it be in the form of a third-party mediator, regional body or global institution.
Since 1971 the Indian and Bangladeshi governments have at stages entertained the idea and use of all of these solutions, ranging from unilateral withdrawals; to the involvement of Nepal; to appeals to the UN. However, the dispute remains up in the air. The problems involved are many and varied, but the final goal dictates the need for resolution. These characteristics are by no means unique to the Ganges conflict, and are becoming more and more pressing. Pressures on the global freshwater supply dictate that further clashes are around the corner, while old conflicts continue to present new problems (Joel, 2000).
India – Nepal Water Issues 80.
In South Asia’s case, the major problem behind the water issue seems to be the political mistrust. In India-Nepal issue, this element is escalating the conflict. Nepal is the upper riparian state in the shared Himalayan waters of South Asia. The major rivers of Nepal, like the Mahakali and Karnali, originate in the Himalaya and fall into Ganges. The Karnali, Sapta Gandaki and Sapta Koshi, all trans-Himalayan rivers flowing through Nepal, contribute 71 per cent of the dry season flows and 41 percent of the annual flows of the Ganges. Nepal’s hydropower generation capability is some 83,000 MW in total, out of some 42,000 MW is financially and technically feasible. Only one percent is tapped so far.
It is estimated that the cost for the production of Nepal’s capacity of 42,000 MW would come roughly to US$ 80 billion and for 25,000 MW; it would be around US$ 50 billion. As an upper riparian, Nepal has a different relationship with India and faces many problems about the projects proposed by India. Nepal is concerned about inundation and backwater effects of the proposed storages and link canals. Nepal’s mistrust, beside other factors, has been reinforced by what it perceives to be various unequal treaties, starting from Sharada Dam construction (1927), 1950 Treaty and Letters of Exchange of 1950 and 1965, Koshi Agreement (1954), Gandak Agreement ((1959), Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996).
There is a variance in the boundary of Maha Kali river since 1816 when East India Company signed a treaty. In 1997 this issue escalated when Nepal wanted for formulation of treaty regarding this matter. Both countries have their own claims about its source. India favours Lipu Lekh as its source but Nepal favours the Limpiyadhura. Sino Indian border lies near this region and because of its close proximity it is very important. The Nepalese feel that they have been ‘cheated’ in these agreements and projects. Opinion about Mahakali Treaty is divided in Nepal. The main issues pertain to potential benefit from these projects regarding flood control, irrigation and power generation.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, a number of agreements have been signed between India and Nepal. 82. The Sarada Agreement (1920): On the Mahakali River, (now encompassed within the Mahakali Integrated Development Treaty), The Sarada Agreement stipulated the following: Formed the basis of the Sarada Barrage built to irrigate United Provinces (today’s Uttar Pradesh).
Transferred 4000 acres on the eastern bank of the Mahakali to India to build the Sarada Barrage in exchange for 4000 acres of forested land in areas further to the east as well as Rs. 50,000 compensation for Nepal, Out of the annual flow of approximately 650 cumecs (cubic meters per second) Nepal could withdraw 4. 5) of water during dry season and 13 in the wet season, which could be further increased to 28. 34 cumecs if water was available and No specification given regarding India’s withdrawal amount. In effect, it was limited only by the scale of the technology it was able to employ. After the treaty, both the left and the right bank of the river near the Sarada Barrage came under India’s control. 83. The Koshi Project Agreement, (1954): The treaty was signed to build a barrage on the Koshi river to confine the river (which shifts course frequently), prevent floods in Bihar and divert water for irrigation. The 1. 15 km barrage, completed in 1962, is wholly in Nepal, and the Eastern Main Canal is entirely in India.
Nepal is allowed to withdraw water from Kosi and its tributaries for irrigation and other purpose; India has the right to regulate the ‘balance’ at the barrage site from time to time for irrigation and to generate hydro power from eastern main canal. With the “Kosi sell-out” furor in Nepal, the Kosi Agreement was revised in 1966. The Western Main Canal first passes through a 35 km stretch of Nepal territory. The Western main Canal, completed only in 1982, was designed to irrigate 356,000 hectares as far west as Darbhanga. Nepal was to receive water from the Western Canal to irrigate 11,000 hectares. The other major component of the project was the 220 km of embankment “jacketing” the Kosi on both banks.
Recently, the two countries have agreed to jointly investigate the Kosi Multi purpose project which includes a high dam in upstream Nepal near Barakshetra, the details of which are to be prepared under the Indo-Nepal Mahakali Treaty. 84. The Gandak Irrigation and Power project Agreement or the Gandak Agreement, (1959): This Agreement allowed India to construct a barrage on the Gandak (Narayani in Nepal) at its own cost at the India-Nepal border near Bhaisalotan village. The barrage was designed to irrigate 920,000 hectares in western Bihar and 37,000 hectares in western Nepal from the Eastern Main Canal, and 930,000 hectares in eastern UP and 20,000 hectares in Nepal from the Western Canal. Although the treaty specified Nepal’s share of water, quantum of water that could be withdrawn by India was left unspecified. The treaty was subsequently amended in 1964. 85.
The Mahakali Integrated Treaty, (1996):It was Signed between India and Nepal in 1996, the Mahakali Integrated Treaty (referred to as Mahakali Treaty) looks at the integrated development of the Mahakali River, including the Sarda barrage, Tanakpur barrage and Pancheshwar Project, and tries to develop a principle of sharing cost and benefits, and recognises (for the first time) Nepal’s prior water right. The treaty recognises the Mahakali as a boundary river on major stretches between the two. Sarada Barrage: Nepal to have the right to supply of 1,000 cusecs of water from the Sarada Barrage in the wet season (May 15 to October 15), and 150 cusecs in the dry season (October 16 to May 14).
India is required to maintain a flow of no less than 350 cusecs downstream of Sharda Barrage in the Mahakali River to maintain and preserve the river ecosystem. Tanakpur Barrage: Nepal to continue having sovereignty over the land (2. 9 hectare) needed for building the eastern afflux bund, as well as a hectare of the pondage area.
In exchange Nepal to have, free of cost, 1,000 cusecs of water in the wet season and 300 cusecs in the dry season, and 70 million Kwhrs of electricity (as against the earlier agreed figure of 20 million Kwhrs) from the Tanakpur power station, with transmission line to its border. 86. Half the incremental power generated at Tanakpur after augmentation of river flows with the commissioning of the Pancheswar dam, to be supplied to Nepal at half the operational and any additional cost. India too also constructs an all weather road connecting the Tanakpur barrage to Nepal’s East-West Highway, including bridges en route. There is provision for the supply of 350 cusecs of water for the irrigation of Dodhara Chandni area.
Pancheswar Project: A joint Indo-Nepal Hydroelectric project on Mahakali River on the basis of a 50:50 cost benefit split, which remains the most controversial part of the treaty. Setting up of Joint Indo-Nepal Mahakali River Commission However, intricacies of the Mahakali Treaty have been steeped in mistrust and accusations, both in terms of India–Nepal relations, and within Nepal internal politics. A lot of heat has been generated over the interpretation of the treaty, the presence of Indian troops in disputed upstream territory of Kalapani, the issue of water rights, the selling price of electricity, the environmental impact of the infrastructure project and the displacement of as many as 65,000 people as a result of the project. India-Pakistan Water Disputes 87.
The water controversy between Pakistan and India lies in the little consideration paid by Britishers, at the time of partition, in the demarcation of boundaries between Pakistan and India. When borders were drawn between India and Pakistan, the origin of river Beas, Chenab, Jhelum and Sutlej was neglected. India practiced this in 1948, when it blocked flow of Sutlej River into Pakistan and caused severe damage to Pakistani agriculture. The issue further created suspension and mistrust between the two rivalry states. As In the wake of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, the issue was raised again in India to scrap the treaty. M. S. Menon sturdily advocated abrogation of the Indus Water Treaty. ‘India’s intent to withdraw from the Indus Water Treaty can severely hurt Pakistan.
If India walks out, it will trigger serious problems of water shortages in Pakistan as India will be able to divert and use its equitable share of Indus waters which she cannot do due to the existing treaty provisions of the treaty. He argued that ‘the option available to us is due to non-acceding of Pakistan to UN Security Council’s Resolution 1373 on denial of sanctuaries and support to terrorists’. In the world, the Indus river system and its tributaries together make up one of the largest irrigation canals spanning 1,800 miles. Millions of people in northwestern India and Pakistan get water from it. In order to provide hydropower and irrigation Dams and canals built and they have dried up stretches of the Indus River (Iram, 2010).
The Sutlej River rises near Mansorovar in Tibet and meets the Chenab and the Indus rivers after traversing through India and Pakistan. The Ravi follows a north-westerly course after originating near Rotang Pass in Himalayas. Near Dalhousie it turns to the south-west and enters Punjab near Madhopur. It flows as India-Pakistan border for some distance and join the Chenab River. Near the Rohtang pass, the Beas originates in Bias Kund. Near Harika, it joins the Sutlej River. In a spring at verinag, the Jhelum originates in the south-eastern part of Kashmir. The Chenab is formed by the confluence of the Chandra and Bhaga rivers at Tandi located in the upper Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh India. The total length of the Chenab is approximately 960 kilometer.
The first challenge arose as division of the subcontinent blocked the irrigated land of Punjab from the waters of the Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers. The headwork’s of the eastern rivers fell under Indian control. After the expiry of standstill agreement on 31 March 1948 for the allocation of water in the Indus basin, irrigation system India shut off water supplies from the Ferozpur headworks to the Dipalpur Canal and to the Pakistan. After negotiations with World Bank mediation (1952-1960), the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) signed between India and Pakistan in 1960. The World Bank continues to serve a procedural role in settling differences between the two countries.
The IWT allocated three eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) to India and three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan. The IWT has remarkably survived despite wars the between parties, although serious differences are present over various projects being undertaken by India over Jhelum (2 projects) and Chenab (9 projects) rivers (Ibid).
89. In many reports by UN, a clear warning for Pakistan and India has been repeated. The real cause behind the threat is the rising temperature which will cause glaciers to melt and it will increase people migration and water shortage, because water is a great mobilizing force, behind people’s movement from one place to another.
Both countries will be affected by this situation. The two nuclear armed neighbors are already having the experience of wars, conflicts and many crises – rivers flowing to Pakistan from India have emerged as a recent bilateral flash point. As the water scarcity increases in South Asia, India having the largest rural population in the world about 1 billion in 2009 is having many problems. In the region water is essential to food and industrial production. To match the demand, the states of region are in the effort to take new steps and to plan new projects. As on 24 May 2003, India Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee launched ‘1150,000 MW Initiative. This initiative fast tracked hydropower development by taking up time-bound preparation of the Preliminary Feasibility Reports (PFRs) of 162 new hydroelectric schemes totaling around 50,000 MW. India has plans to build this capacity by 2017 and then, in the 10 years following, to add another 67,000 MW of hydropower. Pakistan has objected to the construction of 67 projects by India on the Indus River. India has not shared the pre-feasibility studies with the basin states of South Asia which is giving rise to apprehensions in co-riparian countries. On Jan. 28, 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari in an article in Washington Post warned: “The water crisis in Pakistan is directly linked to relations with India.
Its resolution could prevent an environmental catastrophe in South Asia, but failure to do so could fuel the fires of discontent that may lead to extremism and terrorism. ” 90. Again, in UN, Pakistan’s concern was repeated by Pakistani President, as he stated that: “Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India’s move to block Pakistan’s water supply from the River Chenab. ” Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Sardar Assef Ahmad Ali while speaking at a seminar on 3 January, 2010 stated India will have to stop stealing Pakistan’s water as it can initiate a new war on water issue. On the same day, Ayub Mayo the Chief of Pakistan Muttahida Kisan Mahaz said the irrigation system of Pakistan is damaged by stealing water by India in violation of the treaties.
Jamaat Ali Shah who is Pakistan’s top water negotiator on water issue also showed deep reservations over the issue. Indian position is that it is not violating the IWT and all the projects are constructed according to the requirements of the Treaty. India has commissioned 11 projects; another 24 are under active consideration in Chenab, 13 projects are commissioned; 74 power potential schemes in Jhelum and 9 projects are commissioned/under construction in Indus (Ibid).
CHAPTER VI DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS 91. The tense political atmosphere in SA that dominates the individual and collective interests of the region tends to further perpetuate these state-led misconceptions associated with water use and development.
The political space amongst the nations in SA is one defined by hostility and a long history of political rivalry. The shift in political boundaries that followed partition had a disrupting influence on the historical continuity and the geographical contiguity of the territories within the region, making the political relations that persist between India and her neighbors one of mutual suspicion and hatred (with the exception of Bhutan).
This has reinforced the state-led militaristic discourse on water in the region. Water sharing in SA with some emphasis on the Indus and Mahakali rivers provide with a good template to enable a comparative understanding of the various issues of conflict and co-operation on trans-boundary water sharing in the region. 92.
The Northern part of the Indian sub-continent in SA consists of two major water systems that commonly originate in the Himalayas and are trans-boundary in nature. For almost half the world’s population, water-related dreams and fears intersect in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau. The Indus river system with its extensive network of tributaries namely the Ravi, Beas, Sutlej, Chenab and Jhelum that begin in Tibet and flows out into the Arabian Sea near the Karachi port. Likewise, the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna river system which is on the eastern side is commonly shared among Nepal, Bangladesh and India supporting the largest number of the world’s poor in one region.
The Indus river system in the West finds its origin in the Tibetan plateau in the vicinity of China, runs a course through the Ladakh district of Jammu and Kashmir, and finally merges into the Arabian Sea near Pakistan’s port city of Karachi. The water dispute over the sharing of the Indus traces its origin to the extensive development of irrigated agriculture in the undivided Punjab basin. While partition disrupted the consolidated development of irrigation, the dispute over water sharing in the North Western region contrary to popular perception was not a direct result of partition but preceded it. A notable example of this phenomenon was the dispute between the provinces of Sind and Punjab as early as 1935.
The Indian Independence act of 1947 created the State of Pakistan and merely internationalized the dispute adding a statist element to the already complex problems of water sharing. The major bone of contention over the use of the Indus waters in the West revolved around the strong dependence of both the newly formed nations on man-made irrigation projects as the major source of water supply given the semi-arid climatic nature of these regions. Initially in the absence of any agreements, any effort at diverting water to maintain the irrigation works in the Indian region automatically reduced water flow to Pakistan. This fuelled the already growing discontent amongst Pakistanis against India, the upper-riparian state and a regional rival. 93.
It was only in 1948 that a stand still agreement was signed between these two riparian countries and in accordance to this agreement, India conceded to release waters to Pakistan. Moreover, India maintained that Pakistan could not claim any share waters as a matter of right. Pakistan highly displeased with such a legal status quo pushed for a more equitable distribution of all the common rivers. This culminated in the signing of the Indus Water Treaty on September 19, 1960 with the active intervention of the World Bank. The water sharing formula prescribed by this Treaty was quite simple; three Western rivers namely, Chenab, Jhelum and the Indus were allocated to Pakistan and the three Eastern Rivers, the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej were given to India.
The treaty also provided for an Indus River Commission with representatives from both Pakistan and India. It was responsible for periodical exchange of data and resolution of disputes if any. The powers of upper-riparian India were restricted through the insertion of conditions in the Treaty. The World Bank also provided the two parties with enormous financial assistance to develop their rivers for non-consumptive purposes as long as they fell in line with the conditions laid out by the Treaty. This helped to ease Pakistan’s insecurity vis-a-vis India and provided a strong base for co-operation. The Indus Water treaty of 1960 is often cited as an example of bilateral co-operation even when conflicting situations exist. 94.
This Treaty despite all its short comings set a precedent for the amicable sharing of water resources in SA. While the power inequities and political antagonism do continue to slow down the process of negotiation, a full fledged confrontation between the two nations on the water front has not been witnessed. This again does not imply that the Indus Water Treaty has been successful in preventing the two nations from engaging in water disputes. Besides, there are certain contentious issues that keep coming up on the political scene like the Salal hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir, the Tulbul project (known as the Wular Barrage in Pakistan) and more recently the Kalabagh controversy.
These remain unresolved on account of the lack of a comprehensive dialogue between the nations on the issue of trans-boundary water sharing and a concerted national policy on assessing the human and environmental impacts of large supply side-interventions through the construction of dams. The Indus Water Treaty is also often criticized for being a sub-optimal solution that disregards principles of integrated water management. However despite these short comings it is difficult to marginalize the important role played by the Indus Water Treaty as it continues to be an interesting template to compare and contrast other water treaties in the SA region. Perceptions on the Treaty on India-Pakistan and Possibilities of Conflict 95. As compared to the earlier times when bilateral treaties were just an instrument of tatesmanship generally outside the ambit of public discourse, there is much more awareness and resultant discussions on state policies and decisions generally played out on the mainstream media. In such times it becomes imperative for nations to act as per the public opinion on a matter. While democracies aim to leverage public opinion on an issue, autocracies / dictatorships try to instigate public opinion on an issue. It therefore becomes imperative to analyse the prevailing public opinion on the issue to gauge the possibility of conflict or otherwise. Indian Perspectives 96. In a rather unusual setup, the management of the river waters in India is overseen by twelve different agencies looking after different facets. The lead agency is however the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR).
The official website of the ministry gives no particular leads as to the Indian position on the Indus Water Treaty and therefore it can be assumed that the Indian Government continues to be steadfast on the principles enshrined in the treaty without any need for reconsideration on the contents of the treaty. 97. While the Indian official establishment remains largely silent on the issue, the strategic community in India has deliberated on the issue at great lengths. The general consensus remains that India has displayed munificence which is unparalleled in the world. In this extraordinary treaty, India has voluntarily given away four-fifths of the total water of the Indus Water System for exclusive use by Pakistan. 32] It is said that Pakistan managed a better deal in the treaty because the treaty took into consideration factors like water use patterns upto 1947 when the irrigation system of what eventually became Pakistan was far better than that to its east. This fact has also been conceded by Mr Niranjan Gulhati, the Chief Indian Negotiator, who states in his book that the treaty was concluded without any study being concluded on the irrigation, energy or other benefits which could have accrued to India.  There is a growing realisation that with a growing population and rapid industrialisation, India is going to become more and more water stressed and therefore the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty may need a relook to be more contemporary in practical application.
This however is not accepted in Pakistan which looks at the Indus Water Treaty as an unequal and discriminatory treaty in which Pakistan has been wrongfully denied three rivers. Pakistan’s Perspectives 98. As stated above, an average Pakistan national is made to believe that the Indus Water Treaty is an unequal treaty aimed at robbing Pakistan of its rightful share of the water from the Indus basin. This sentiment is echoed by Iqtidar H Siddiqui, a renowned Pakistani hydrologist who states that Pakistan had to agree to the provisions of the treaty under virtual duress since it was not in a position to take on India militarily.  He further goes on to describe the treaty as “Grabbing Pakistan’s Water Resources in the Name of a Shining Example of Sharing of Waters of (an) International River. ” 99.
There remains a counterview that Pakistan’s water woes are more due to the mismanagement of its water resources as well as the disproportionate allocation of the Indus Waters to West Punjab. Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the then Pakistan Foreign Minister had this to say on the issue, “Is India stealing that water form you? No, it is not. Please do not fool yourselves and do not misguide the nation. We are mismanaging that water. ” The same sentiment is also echoed by Iqtidar Siddiqui in which he blames dereliction of duty, corruption, outdated procedures and equipment and unjust distribution of water among others as the reasons for shortage of water in Pakistan.  100.
However no amount of admissions of failings by the Pakistani establishment will ever drown the voice of the hardliners to include jihadist groups like Lashkar – e – Toiba who continue to blame India for Pakistan’s water woes. This coupled with the Pakistan Governments moves to open water as a bilateral issue aims at whipping up public opinion against India as well as hide the inherent failings in Pakistan’s water distribution system.  State of the Affairs 101. As seen above, both nations will continue to agree to disagree on the reasons for shortage of water. While India would like a greater portion of the waters of the Indus system, Pakistan will continue to clamour for more water citing the inherent ‘injustice’ meted to Pakistan while the Indus Water Treaty was being drafted almost six decades ago. Both countries move inexorably towards water stress.
On one side is India which is rapidly industrialising and whose population is growing fast. It may not be before long that it dawns upon India that due to its munificence on the issue, the Indus Water Treaty in its present form is the biggest hindrance towards self sufficiency in water. On the other hand there is Pakistan, essentially an arid nation with a river running through it. While Pakistan is not industrializing, her economy remains predominantly agricultural and that too dependent on the Indus River. With a 75. 6% External Dependency of freshwater, Pakistan would only like to hedge itself against any disruptions in the supply of waters of a river which is essentially the lifeline of Pakistan. 124.
It is very evident that there exists a very ‘uneasy status quo’ and that both nations would like to alter it to its advantage. The moot question that remains is that will this be done in a peaceful manner or will this be the source of the next war between the two nuclear power states which have fought four wars in six decades. Possibilities of Conflict 103. In his seminal book on water related conflicts Brahma Chellaney opines that water can become a trigger for future conflicts.  The same has been said by Ismail Serageldin, former World Bank Vice President who in 1995 warned: “Many wars of this century were about oil, but wars of the next century will be about water.  It becomes very clear from the above that like in the past wars have been fought for scarce resources and slowly but surely, water has started figuring in this list of scarce resources. The dangerous part is that while other resources do have a substitute, water has none and therefore nations when pushed to the corner will fight it out and that too very viciously. 104. In the case of India and Pakistan what exacerbates the situation is the fact that while the source of the Indus River lies in Chinese controlled Tibet, it flows through Indian administered Kashmir which also happens to be the centre of a six decade old dispute between the two nations which has already led to four wars.
In the most recent round, India and Pakistan have been locked in a war of words over the run of the river hydel project on Kishenganga River being built by India. Pakistan contends that this will reduce river flows to India, a point which is denied by India. India states that the project is in line with the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty. This has not convinced Pakistan who resorted to international arbitration on the issue. At present Pakistan has managed a stay on construction activities. Another bone of contention is the Baghliar Dam issue where Pakistan again objected to the Indian construction of a hydel project on the Chenab River. In this regard an expert committee has opined in favour of India, a decision which Pakistan refuses to accept and plans to contest. 105.
While at present, all issues are being addressed by the countries through the bilateral route under the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty, but given the charged situation in the sub-continent things always have the possibility of flaring up. The rising rhetoric in Islamabad coupled with statements by Lashkar-E-Taiba accusing India of ‘stealing’ Pakistan’s water always portend the possibility of a conflict which may also be perpetrated by non state actors with / without collusion of Pakistan. Across the border, such a sentiment is also expressed by Iqtidar Siddiqui when he predicts that, “Repeated violations of the Indus Water Treat may lead to South Asia’s first water war… ” He also says that resolution of the Kashmir Issue is the only way to prevent the same from happening. Ganga-Bramhaputra-Meghna Basin 106.
Given the diversity of agro-climatic, social and economic conditions in the four riparian countries—Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh—this basin is clearly one of the most complex river basin systems in the world. Rapid expansion in agricultural water use is a common phenomenon across the world and access to water is central for the livelihoods of the huge population that this basin supports directly or indirectly. It is therefore pertinent to examine the impact of various attributes of security, availability of fresh water, impact of climate change and the like of these river systems and how they form a very crucial element of sustaining the millions that depend on it. 107.
The key issues affecting the projected flow of the Ganga and Brahmaputra basins are diversion, water quality and climate change. Nearly 60% of the Ganga River discharge is reduced after passing the Farraka Barrage. Diversion of river waters has a significant impact on the surrounding environment. The Brahmaputra and the Ganga rivers have enough flow to sustain their environmental quality. For the Brahmaputra, these range from 20. 7% of natural mean annual runoff, with a severe amount of environmental damage expected, to 78. 2%, a level that would best preserve the ecosystem and natural habitat of the river. At this highest level of conservation, only 264 cubic kilometers are left available for agricultural,