Bangladesh needs trans-boundary water policy

India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan have planned 552 hydropower projects in the Himalayas. Some of these are under construction, some have been completed and still others are on the drawing board. When they are implemented some of them will impact Bangladesh.
The Himalayan mountain range is the centre point from which scores of Asian rivers originate. The Ganges, Brahmaputra and the tributary of Irabarti are the major rivers that also flow through Bangladesh. Our country shares waters of 54 rivers with India and 3 with Myanmar.
If upstream countries divert normal water flow through dams, we will see many of our rivers dry up, our irrigation system destroyed and life killed in our water bodies. If the water flowing through these common rivers is not managed well, it can flood a large part of Bangladesh each year.
India is planning and implementing several projects to dam up our common rivers. The fact is that we are not even taken into confidence about their intentions. We are not privy to the progress made in the projects upstream.
When a dam is built, the river valley is first tampered with and there is a great loss of habitat there. Second, the dam leads to a change in the morphology of the downstream river bed and (in our case) the delta. Our coastline changes too, due to changed sediment load. An important aspect is change in the quality of water downstream. The nutrient load of a river is depleted. Biodiversity, which is unique to a river, then changes as organisms begin to flow in low quantities.
All these changes also lead to changes in climate conditions. Siltation occurs with variation in water table, and aquatic life is disturbed in the lower riparian areas. There is little or no recharge of ground water aquifers and therefore there is a rise in pollution. However, the greatest effect is on the socio-economic environment. Due to less water available downstream, there is little or no employment. People have less drinking water. Production in factories slows down too. The economy can go into a tail spin. Public agitation begins. People start to move to areas where more water is available. Internal migration becomes the norm and the state is forced to rehabilitate masses of people in already crowded areas.
Under these circumstances, Bangladesh needs to craft a trans-boundary water policy, if it does not want to face future political and economic chaos.
But before we do that we need to first understand the legal principles which guide the regime of trans-boundary rivers. The principle of equitable use of trans-boundary water resources and the obligation not to cause harm in the management of trans-boundary water resources must be understood. There are these three different paths towards these goals:
Signing treaties or agreements that just stop short of allocating water between riparian states. These are treaties that define navigation rights of the states through which the river runs through or to combat pollution in the common river;
Initialing agreements allocating water between states;
Signing agreements for joint management of internationally shared rivers.
A river is described as international if it flows geographically through or between territories of sovereign states. From a legal point of view, any river becomes international if a riparian state does not have all the powers over the waters of that river. In Bangladesh, we have no control over the flow of 57 rivers flowing through our territory, out of a total of 800 rivers and tributaries.
The UN Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses (yet to be in force) provides a framework for cooperation within international river basins. From the first century of the present millennium there have been more than 3,600 instruments relating to international water courses. Some 286 international agreements or treaties are also in place. However, most treaties concerning shared waters are bilateral and relate to specific rivers.
Treaties are guided by customary international law or state practice. Such guidelines are based on one or more of the following doctrines:
1) Harmon Doctrine of Absolute Sovereignty: This claims absolute freedom of a riparian state, often the upper riparian. However, this has never got international acceptance;
2) Doctrine of Absolute Riverian Integrity: Here a state may not alter the natural flow of a river passing through its territory in any manner that will affect the water in another state;
3) Doctrine of Limited Territorial Sovereignty: This happens to be the most accepted doctrine in resolving international water disputes. It follows the general legal obligation to use ones property in a manner that it will not cause injury to others;
4) Doctrine of Communality of International Waters: This treats the total volume of basin water (in our case we have three river basins : the Padma, the Meghna and the Brahmaputra) as a shared resource. Each river basin is a single geographic and economic unit that overlaps two or more states, and its resources from the rivers must be shared.
5) Doctrine of Correlative Rights: This emphasises the best utilisation of joint water resources rather than on ownership rights.
From these doctrines, certain legal norms have evolved. They are:
The duty to cooperate and negotiate;
Prohibition of practices that can cause major injuries to other states (like Tipaimukh Dam);
The duty to prior consultation; and
Principle of equitable utilisation of shared resources.
We must therefore choose from the above and firm up our position. We must also seek out the legal international norms that will protect our national interest when we sit down to manage the freshwater resource flowing through our land. Several experts have said that we may embrace a combination of the Doctrine of Limited Territorial Sovereignty, the Doctrine of Communality of International Waters and the Doctrine of Correlative Rights.
Our diplomats and water experts should brainstorm intensively with politicians to craft the most appropriate trans-boundary water policy. We have very little time in hand, as India is rushing to build structures as well as work on river linking projects. Any structure that will divert the waters of the common rivers would mean disaster for Bangladesh. We are already faced with the vicissitudes of climate change. We cannot afford a double jeopardy.
We may also consult with international legal experts, the World Bank and other multilateral agencies. If need be we should raise our voice in the United Nations or take our case to the International Court to get our rights established, if bilateral negotiations are purposely delayed or adverse outcomes are anticipated.
In this matter, we are reminded of a saying by Franklin Roosevelt: "To reach a port, we must sail -- not tie at anchor. Sail and not drift." Today, our water policy must not remain adrift.

The writer is a former Ambassador and is a regular commentator on contemporary matters.
E-Mail : [email protected]