Tipaimukh: Disaster or opportunity?
A lot is being said about Tipaimukh and its impact on Bangladesh; so much so that people really feel threatened and are worried by the extent to which the highest-degree-adjectives and expressions are being used by many (including "water-experts," opinion leaders, and political leaders) about its disastrous impacts.
The situation has been worsened by the style in which India has decided to start construction of a dam on a trans-boundary river (Barak-Surma) without taking Bangladesh into confidence and without signing any agreement with Bangladesh on sharing the water of Barak-Surma River.
I do express my concerns with the feelings of the people, but have strong reason to doubt the sweeping remarks and frightening statements being made by many, as those are not supported by data and information.
In this respect, I refer to two reports: (1) Northeast Regional Water Management Plan (NRWMP) (September 1993) and (2) Northeast Regional Model (NERM) (Final Report, March 1995), which were prepared under the Flood Action Plan (FAP-6).
In connection with preparation of the NRWMP, the Tipaimukh Project (dam and barrage) was also studied, which was supported by running a mathematical model. The findings of the mathematical model and the reports are contrary to what many people are writing and saying.
While some people say that there will be a catastrophic disaster (moha biporjaya) if the Tipaimukh Project is implemented; and that the dam will have a devastating impact on Bangladesh, both in the dry and the wet seasons, findings of the simulation study by mathematical model suggest the following:
During an average flow year
Dry season flows will be increased substantially: Increase in dry season water levels would also occur on the Kushiyara and Surma rivers (for example, water levels during March should increase by 1.5 m at Sherpur). These increased dry season flows will provide benefits for navigation, irrigation, and fisheries, but could also reduce drainage from some areas. (NRWMP, September 1993, p.92).
Flood flows on the Barak river will be moderated: The corresponding water levels at Amalshid (on the Indian side) would be reduced by about 1.6m. Similar changes would be expected along the Kushiyara and upper Surma rivers. This should reduce the frequency of spills from the Kushiyara and upper Surma rivers, reduce the extent of inundation in the Sylhet basin and reduce channel erosion and sediment transport rates along the two rivers. (ibid, p.91)
Effect of dam failure by earthquake
The Tipaimuk dam is located in a sensitive earthquake zone. (ibid, p.46) Assuming a flooded area of 100 km by 100 km and a released volume of 10 km3, the average depth of flooding is estimated to be 1.0 m above the ambient flood level. (ibid, p.48, 49)
The flood peak at Amalshid will occur approximately two to three days after the dam fails, and flooding will continue for 10 days or more. The flood wave will require approximately 24 hours to reach Amalshid.(ibid, p.48)
The probability of dam break failure is low based on the history of observed failures and the type of fill material, but some allowance must be made for earthquakes and the possibility of operational errors. (ibid, p.47) Dr. Zahiruddin Ahmed, Professor of BUET, in a recent interview, also said that it was possible.
There are references to the Tipaimukh Project in several places in the reports, but none of those conflicts with what has been cited above. I don't like to over-emphasise the findings of the model study as the report suggests: "Assessment of the impacts is preliminary as it is based on sketchy information regarding the design and operation of the project (NERM, Final Report, p.75)." Nevertheless, referring to the model study is more logical and convincing than making notional statements.
Effect on the eco-system
Many "experts" have stated that the impact of the project will be catastrophic for the eco-system of haor areas and the north-eastern region; but there is no mention about the impact of the Tipaimukh Project on the eco-system in the NRWMP, 1993. I cannot imagine that the study would have missed addressing the impact of the project on the eco-system, had it been so disastrous. I also cannot imagine that there was no capable environmentalist in the consultancy team or in the panel of experts to point out this very important aspect.
Here, I want to make a general remark. Some people mentioned that the US has stopped building dams. It's true -- the US and big donors are against building dams; but it has reasons other than the interest of developing countries or protecting nature.
The two reports mentioned above are not confidential. Unfortunately, they are rotting in darkness when the issue is being discussed with all seriousness. Even Dr. Ainun Nishat, who was a member of the panel of experts for the FAP studies, and Mr. Tauhidul Anwar Khan, former member of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission, did not refer to those reports when they spoke on the Tipaimukh Project. Somebody may argue that that study is 15 years old, but this does not justify the sweeping remarks and the frightening statements. About the data and information, the report mentions that "information obtained through the Joint Rivers Commission provides a minimally adequate description of the project which has been used to make preliminary assessments of impacts on the region (NRWMP, p.91)."
Now the question is: How should the Tipaimukh Project issue be handled?
Firstly, a brief look at history may be useful. After formation of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission, the first meeting was held in the backdrop of a heavy flood in the Assam and Sylhet region. The two countries agreed to form a Study Group "to assess immediately the flood situation in the Sylhet area of Bangladesh, in Cachar district and other adjoining areas in India in order to formulate short-term and long-term measures for reducing the flood damage in the region. In this connection, the commission noted that a project for the construction of a storage reservoir on the Barak river had been investigated. The commission felt that this was a useful project and formulation of this project should be expedited, taking into consideration conditions in Bangladesh (first meeting of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission, New Delhi, June 25-26, 1972)."
Some preparatory work for the joint study was also started. Later, things did not proceed as they should have.
In 1978, the Tipaimukh Project came to Bangladesh's knowledge. It transpires from various articles that India went ahead without involving Bangladesh. That was not what India should have done from a good neighbour's point of view. It also transpires that the Bangladesh governments and the "knowledgeable quarters" did not do enough on the issue. Now, India is reported to be ready to take-off.
Secondly, Bangladesh had been working for river-basin development, co-operation among the co-riparian countries, and construction of reservoirs (dams) upstream for flood regulation and irrigation. Over the last decade, strong forums have emerged to try to push the water issues -- although it is not an easy task. The water forums are strongly promoting the issues that Bangladesh has been pursuing for long.
The Ministerial Declaration of the World Water Forum in Istanbul (March 16-23) states:
"We will take, as appropriate, concrete and tangible steps to improve and promote co-operation on sustainable use and protection of trans-boundary water resources through coordinated action of riparian states, in conformity with existing agreements and/or other relevant arrangements, taking into account the interests of all riparian states concerned. We will work to strengthen existing institutions and develop new ones, as appropriate and if needed, and implement instruments for improved management of trans-boundary rivers (para 16).
"We resolve to develop, implement and further strengthen transnational, national and/or sub-national plans and programs to anticipate and address the possible impacts of global change. Investment efforts to establish necessary infrastructure, to increase storage need to be scaled up, taking into account water efficiency (para 9)."
On the above premise, even at this stage, having no malice toward India for its unilaterally going-ahead attitude, I think most people will agree with me that we should consider the Tipaimukh Project from our national interest. If it does not conflict with our national interest why should we oppose it, and if there is any opportunity why should we not try to reap benefit from it? Anyway, it depends on co-operation, frank discussion and negotiation between the two countries. For that matter, we need to analyse, study and evaluate all aspects of the project.
There is no better way than that India gives us the necessary reports, data and information for our evaluation; otherwise, we have to do it with whatever data and information we have and can generate. We need to ensure that both the countries benefit, and that there is a win-win situation. This approach is supported by the initiative taken in 1972 and the 1993 Northeast Regional Water Management Plan, which suggests in its Development Strategy:
"In particular, in some cases, it would be in Bangladesh's interest to invest in upstream catchment projects (outside Bangladesh) in return for some control over water flows from catchment areas outside Bangladesh. Because of the region's location, such actions would have a particularly high incidence if impact in regional development (p.103, 104)."
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we should not hesitate to say "no to Tipaimukh" if it conflicts with our overall national interest. That is a national consensus. However, before saying so, let us examine and explore whether the Tipaimukh Project is really a disaster or an opportunity. I think there can be a consensus on this also.
Comments