INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Water & Development Publications - Helsinki University of Technology TKK-WD-05

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: Constraints and opportunities with a focus on the Ganges and the Brahmaputra River Basins Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology

HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Water & Development Research Group

Water & Development Publications - Helsinki University of Technology

Integrated Water Resources Management: Constraints and Opportunities with a focus on the Ganges and the Brahmaputra river basins Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology to be presented with due permission of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture for public examination and debate in Auditorium R1 at Helsinki University of Technology (Espoo, Finland) on the 29th of May, 2009, at 12 o’clock noon.

Helsinki University of Technology TKK Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering TKK Water resources research unit

Helsinki University of Technology TKK TKK Water resources research unit P.O. Box 5200 FIN-02015 TKK www.water.tkk.fi/global

© Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman 2009 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-951-22-9874-7 ISBN 978-951-22-9875-4 (PDF) ISSN 1797-254X

Layout and cover by Tiina Merikoski Printed by Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, Finland

This publication is available electronically at www.water.tkk.fi/global/publications

i ABSTRACT OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION

HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY P.O. BOX 1000, FI-02015 TKK http://www.tkk.fi ://www.tkk.fi

Author

Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman

Name of the dissertation: Integrated Water Resources Management: Constraints and Opportunities with a focus on the Ganges and the Brahmaputra river basins Manuscript submitted

04.02.2009

Date of the defence

29.05.2009

Manuscript revised

29.04.2009

x Article dissertation (summary + original articles)

Monograph Faculty

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture

Department

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Field of research

Water resources

Opponent(s)

Dr. Kai Wegerich, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Pre-examiners

Prof. Anthony Turton and Dr. Juha Uitto

Supervisor

Prof. Olli Varis

Abstract: The key aims of this thesis are to identify the constraints and opportunities of implementing the integrated water resources management (IWRM) concept at both the policy and field level. IWRM has been chosen as a focus of this study as all contemporary international conferences, summits, regional water policies and declarations promote the IWRM concept for the effective and efficient management of water resources. The thesis has two parts. The first part reviews the evolution of the IWRM concept and the principles that have been developed at international conferences over the last three decades.Through two case studies on the EU Water Framework Directive (2000) and the Fourth World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration (2006), an attempt is made to analyse the current implementation status of IWRM principles in practice. The findings suggest that existing policies tend to take a rather narrow view of the concept and have largely failed to incorporate the principles. This part also identifies the seven future challenges in implementing IWRM in practice. Water resources management is multidimensional in nature. In transboundary river basins, implementing the IWRM concept is even more complex as it involves more than one sovereign nation sharing the same water. The second part of the thesis focuses on implementation of IWRM in the transboundary river basin context. This part provides indepth analyses focusing on the integrated management of the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins that are shared by China, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh. It identifies the various dimensions of water conflict among the riparian countries and their views on integrated management of the basins. It analyzes the existing bilateral treaties between the riparian countries and identifies the constraints and benefits of integrated water management along the basins. Practical recommendations for the integrated management of the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins are formulated. The findings suggest that it is imperative to coordinate all water related development plans and aspirations of riparian nations through effective transboundary cooperation to promote implementation of the IWRM concept in the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins. This thesis also identifies the principles associated with transboundary water resources management that are necessary to facilitate IWRM implementation in international river basins. Water research and science play an important role in advancing the principles of IWRM and the implementation of the process. This thesis is an attempt to contribute to this process and facilitate integrated Ganges and Brahmaputra basins management. Keywords: Integrated Water Resources Management, Principles, Implementation, EU Water Framework Directive, World Water Forum, Transboundary river basin, Ganges basin, Brahmaputra basin ISBN (printed) 978-951-22-9874-7 ISBN (pdf)

978-951-22-9875-4

ISSN

Language

English

Number of pages

1797-254X 42 + app. 112 p

Publisher

Water & Development Publications – Helsinki University of Technology

Print distribution

TKK Water resources research unit

x The dissertation can be read at http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/

ii

LIST OF APPENDED PUBLICATIONS This thesis is based on the following Publications, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals.: I:

Rahaman, M. M. & Varis, O., 2005. Integrated Water Resources Management: Evolution, Prospects and Future Challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 1: 15-21.

II:

Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O. & Kajander, T., 2004. EU Water Framework Directive vs. Integrated Water Resources Management: The Seven Mismatches. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(4): 565-575.

III:

Rahaman, M. M. & Varis, O., 2008. Mexico World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration 2006: A Dramatic Policy Shift? International Journal Water Resources Development, 24(1): 177-196.

IV:

Rahaman, M. M., 2009. Principles of International Water Laws: Creating Effective Transboundary Water Resources Management. International Journal of Sustainable Society. In Press. Accepted 10 November 2008. 17 pages.

V:

Rahaman, M. M., 2009. Integrated Ganges Basin Management: conflicts and hope for regional development. Water Policy, 11(2):168-190.

VI:

Rahaman, M. M., 2009. Principles of Transboundary Water Resources Management and Ganges Treaties: An analysis. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 25(1):159-173.

VII:

Rahaman, M. M. & Varis, O., 2009. Integrated Water Management of the Brahmaputra Basin: Perspectives and hope for regional development. Natural Resources Forum, 33(1): 60-75.

Publications I–VII, reprinted with permission, are copyrighted as follows: Publication I copyright © 2005 by Authors; Publication II copyright © 2004 by Taylor & Francis, Publication III copyright © 2008 by Taylor & Francis; Publication IV copyright © 2009 by Inderscience; Paper V copyright © 2009 by IWA Publishing; Publication VI copyright © 2009 by Taylor & Francis; Paper VII copyright © 2009 by United Nations.

iii

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION Contribution of the author to Publications from I to VII is as follows:

I:

The author of this thesis is responsible for the basic idea, planning the paper and review of the IWRM recommendations. The author is mainly responsible for identifying the challenges and writing the paper. Professor Varis wrote portions of the paper and provided comments during the writing stage.

II:

The basic idea comes from the author and Professor Varis. The author is responsible for the profound review of the EU Water Framework Directive. The author is mainly responsible for the identification of the seven mismatches and writing of the paper. Professor Varis wrote portions of the paper and provided comments during the analysis of the results and the writing stage. Mr. Kajander assisted in writing portions of the paper.

III:

The basic idea comes from the author. The author is responsible for planning the paper, analysing the policy documents, identification and interpretation of the findings and writing the paper. Professor Varis participated in writing the paper and provided comments during the writing stage.

IV:

The author is fully responsible for the paper.

V:


VI:


VII:

The basic idea comes from the author. The author is responsible for planning the paper, collection and analysis of data and information, interpretation of the results and writing of the paper. Professor Varis provided comments during the analysis of the results and the writing stage.

iv

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research work has been carried out at the Water Resources Research Unit of Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology. I am most grateful to Professor Olli Varis and Professor Pertti Vakkilainen for providing the guidance, motivation and invaluable support to make this research possible. Their support to me is always unconditional. Both of them guaranteed my academic freedom to conduct independent scientific research. I am privileged and truly honoured to have their interest and trust on my research. I am grateful to Dr. Anthony Turton and Dr. Juha Uitto for pre-examining the manuscript and providing valuable and encouraging comments. I am thankful to Dr. Kai Wegerich for being the opponent of the dissertation. I would like to thank all the present and former colleagues at Water and Development Research Group, Helsinki University of Technology. I am deeply indebted to Professor Olli Varis for his enthusiastic and inspirational supervision during the whole doctoral research. I would like to thank Ulla Heinonen, Tommi Kajander, Dr. Matti Kummu, Marko Keskinen, Katri Mehtonen and Mira Käkönen for their friendship and support. I want to acknowledge the excellent support of all staff members and students of the Water Resources Research Unit, Helsinki University of Technology. I want to thank following individuals for their support at different stages of my research: Professor Ari Jolma, Professor M. Maniruzzaman Miah, Professor Jahir Uddin Chowdhury, Iswer Raj Onta, Tula Shah and Dr. Salman M. A. Salman. Thanks to Tiina Merikoski for mastering the publication and layout procedure. I want to acknowledge the financial support from various organisations for this research. The work was mainly funded by The Graduate School for Real Estate, Construction and Planning (KIRSU), Research Council of the Helsinki University of Technology and Finnish Foundation for Technology Promotion (Tekniikan edistämissäätiö, TES). Additional funding was provided by Maa- ja Vesitekniikan Tuky ry. (MVTT) and Sven Hallin Foundation. I would like to express heartfelt thanks to my parents, brothers, all family members, relatives and friends for their constant inspiration to move forward. In particular, I am most grateful to my mother, Rehena Begum Mazumder, for her lifetime struggle and sacrifices for my education and achievement. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Sabina, for encouragement.

Espoo, 30 April 2009 Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman

vi

This work is dedicated to my Mother

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Appended Publications

ii

Author’s Contribution

iii

Acknowledgements

v

Table of Contents

vii

List of Figures

ix

List of Tables

x

1 Introduction

1

1.1 Background

1

1.2 Structure of the dissertation

1

1.3 Objectives

2

2 Methodologies

3

3 Results and Discussion: IWRM at Policy Level

5

3.1 IWRM: Evolution and Key Principles

5

3.1.1 Dublin 1992: International Conference on Water and Environment

5

3.1.2 Rio de Janeiro 1992: UN Conference on Environment and Development

6

3.1.3 The Hague 2000: Second World Water Forum & Ministerial Conference

6

3.1.4 Bonn 2001: International Conference on Freshwater

7

3.1.5 Johannesburg 2002: The World Summit on Sustainable Development

7

3.1.6 The Third World Water Forum - Kyoto 2003

7

3.2 IWRM Principles and Practice: A Case Study on EU WFD

8

3.3 IWRM Principles and Practice: A Case Study on Mexico World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration

8

3.4 Future Challenges of IWRM

9

3.5 Transboundary Water Resources Management Principles

11

4 Results and Discussion: IWRM at Field Level

13

4.1 Integrated Water Resources Management of the Ganges River Basin: Constraints and Opportunities

13

4.1.1 Ganges Basin Water Resources

13

4.1.2 Conflicts over Water

14

4.1.3 Water Cooperation along the Ganges Basin

14

4.1.4 Views of Riparian Countries on Integrated Ganges Basin Management

17

4.1.5 Key Findings and Recommendations

18

viii

4.2 Transboundary Water Management Principles and Ganges Treaties

20

4.3 Integrated Water Resources Management of the Brahmaputra Basin

20

4.3.1 Brahmaputra Basin Water Resources

20

4.3.2 Views of Riparian Countries on Integrated Brahmaputra Basin Management

21

4.3.3 Key Findings and Recommendations

22

5 Concluding Remarks

25

References

27

Annex I: List of abbreviations

30

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1

The Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basins and locations of the measurement stations. 1: Pandu 2: Bahadurabad 3: Kaunia 4: Hardinge Bridge 5: Farakka.

3

The internationally agreed water management principles and the EU Water Framework Directive focus on different issues. Does the EU require others – mainly developing and transition countries – to follow a different set of principles than it requires from its member countries?

8

Average 10-day discharge (dry season flow, January–May, 1934–1995) of the Ganges measured at Hardinge Bridge and water allocation in the 1977 Agreement and the 1996 Treaty.

15

Figure 4

Riparian views on integrated Ganges basin development.

17

Figure 5

The New Indian line (Brahmaputra-Ganges Link Canal) and some proposed dams in the Brahmaputra. A. Tista Low Dam III, B. Tista Low Dam IV C. Rangit D. Tista IV E. Lachen F. Tista V G. Sonkosh H. Manas I. Subansiri J. Dihang K. Dibang L. Lohit M. Tipaimukh N. Jogigopa barrage.

18

Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers: Average monthly discharge (1956-1979) measured at Pandu, Bahadurabad and Hardinge bridge.

22

Hydropower potential and production from hydro plants (at end-2005) in some developed countries (on the left) and Ganges and Brahmaputra basins and neighbouring countries (on the right). Source: WEC, 2007:277-291.

23

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 6

Figure 7

x

LIST OF TABLES Table 1

Transboundary water management principles and relevant articles of international conventions, agreements/treaties.

11

Ganges basin area distribution and water resources (n/a means not available). Sources: Rangachari & Verghese, 2001: 82; Pun, 2004: 11; Onta, 2005: 149; IIDS, 2000.

14

Table 3

Chronology of water conflicts and cooperation between India and Bangladesh.

16

Table 4

Transboundary water resources management principles and relevant articles 1996 Ganges and Mahakali Treaties.

20

Brahmaputra basin area distribution (n/a means not available). Sources: Sarma, 2005: 73; NHPC, 2008; Tianchou, 2001:110; Rangachari & Verghese, 2001:82; CWC, 2008; DOT, 2007; NPB, 2008.

21

Table 2

Table 5

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND Over the past decades, it has become obvious that water professionals, policy makers or water ministries alone can no longer resolve the water problems of a country or a river basin. The problems are too complex, interconnected and multidimensional to be handled by any one institution or one group of professionals. In the current century, water problems will continue to grow and become more acute and affect other development sectors like agriculture, energy, industry, environment and health. Water can no longer be viewed in isolation as a single resource, without the explicit and simultaneous consideration of other related development sectors, and vice-versa (Biswas, 2003). Hence, an integrated approach to water management is necessary for ensuring maximum benefits from the utilisation of the water resources. Since the United Nations Conference on Water (1977), international water professionals, in alliance with all concerned stakeholders, have promoted the use of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) concept for effective and efficient management of water resources worldwide. The Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership defined IWRM “as a process, which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems,” and emphasized that water should be managed in a basin-wide context, under the principles of good governance and public participation (GWP, 2000; 2003). IWRM has been identified as one of the basic water resources management approaches in several

recent important commitments, declarations and recommendations, such as those of Agenda 21, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (2002) and the World Water Forums. In the WSSD Plan of Implementation (2002), the preparation of IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005 for all major river basins of the world was one of the major water related targets. The need for IWRM is particularly urgent in the 263 river basins, which are shared by two or more states and in which nearly half of the territory and population of the world are located. International rivers basins account for 60% of all the water that flows in world’s rivers. A total of 145 nations have shared waters with their neighbours (Wolf et al. 2003). Integrated planning for efficient river basin management is hampered by the difficulties of coordinating between riparian states with diverse and often conflicting needs (UNESCO & Green Cross International, 2003). Not only should policies and goals be developed, but so should practical frameworks based on agreed principles for implementing joint river basin management through efficient institutions and productive participation of all riparian states. Better theoretical understanding of the IWRM approach, associated principles and the existing water resources management challenges of a river basin is vital for implementing the IWRM concept and achieving efficient water management along the river basin.

1.2 STRUCUTURE OF THE DISSERTATION The thesis comprises seven separate publications and this compendium of the publications summarising the objectives (section 1.3), methodologies (section 2) and results and

2

RAHAMAN, M.M.: Integrated Water Resources Management: Constraints and Opportunities

discussion (sections 3 and 4) of the research. Section 5 presents the concluding remarks of this summary.

1.3 OBJECTIVES The overall objectives of this thesis can be divided into two sub-groups: a) identifying the constraints and opportunities of IWRM implementation at policy level (covered in Publications 1 to IV) and b) identifying the constraints and opportunities of IWRM implementation at field level (covered in Publications 1, IV to VII). More specifically, this thesis has eight objectives. These are as follows: 1. Analysing the evolution of the IWRM concept and identifying the future challenges of its implementation (covered in Publication I). 2. Identifying IWRM principles and critically analysing the main outcomes of international water events focusing on IWRM (covered in Publications I, II and III). 3. Identifying the current implementation status of IWRM principles in practice (covered in Publications II and III). 4. Identifying transboundary water resources management principles that are necessary for promoting IWRM implementation in international river basins (covered in Publication IV). 5. Identifying various dimensions of water conflicts, water cooperation, future development plans and perspectives of riparian countries and impediments and benefits of IWRM in the Ganges river basin (covered in Publications V, VI and VII). 6. Analysing the existing bilateral treaties in the Ganges river basin in relation to the transboundary water recourses management principles identified in Publication IV (covered in Publication VI).

7. Analyzing the future development plans and perspectives of riparian countries and constraints and benefits of IWRM in the Brahmaputra river basin as Publication V shows it is relevant to achieve IWRM in the Ganges Basin (Publication VII). 8. Identifying key steps to be considered to facilitate IWRM implementation in the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins and to promote regional development (covered in Publications V, VI and VII).

3

2 METHODOLOGIES

The methodologies used in the appended publications (I to VII) are elaborately described in each appended publication. The methodologies used are summarised in the following. Publications I, II and III: Review and comparative analysis of the outcome, action plan, recommendations and declarations of the major international water events and policy tools related to the development of IWRM principles: United Nations Conference on Water (1977), International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), Second World Water Forum (2000), European Union Water Framework Directive (2000), International Conference on Freshwater (2001), World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) and Third World Water Forum (2003),

Fourth World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration (Mexico, 2006). These studies also include literature reviews and scrutinizing international, regional and national water policies. Publications IV and VI: Review and analysis of the scope of international legal tools and treaties related to transboundary water resources management principles: ILA Helsinki Rules (1966), United Nations Watercourses Convention (1997), Ganges Treaty (1996) and Mahakali Treaty (1996). These studies also include scrutinizing Indus Waters Treaty (1960), SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (1995), Sava River Basin Agreement (2002), Mekong Agreement (1995), UNECE Water Convention (1992), ILA Berlin Rules (2004), Stockholm Declaration on

CHINA

New Delhi

Brahm aputra Riv

NEPAL

Tis ta

si

Lohit

eng

1

3

5 ly oogh

Farakka Barrage

Legend

Kam

r

Thimphu

Man ash

ve

Son

BHUTAN Sunkosh

Ri

k da

n Ga

es

Kathmandu

li

siri ban

rna

er Su

â un m Ya

Ka

Ga ng

Ko

bal

Cham

INDIA

MYANMAR

H

Rivers

INDIA 2 BANGLADESH Meghna River 4 Dhaka

Kolkata

International borders Brahmaputra basin Meghna basin Ganges basin

0

500 km

Bay of Bengal

Figure 1 The Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basins and locations of the measurement stations. 1: Pandu 2: Bahadurabad 3: Kaunia 4: Hardinge Bridge 5: Farakka.

4


Human Environment (1972), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). These studies include methodologies used in Publications I to III. Publications V and VII: Data have been collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data and information have been collected from relevant organisations and experts during altogether six-month research trips to the study area (Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan) by the author in 2004, 2005 and 2007. Discharge data for the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers were obtained from the Bangladesh Water Development Board and the Global Runoff Data Centre, Germany (see Figure 1). The study includes analysis of the water related bilateral agreements between the riparian countries. Secondary data have been collected from various international, governmental and local organizations as well as published journal articles, books, documents and reports.

5

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: IWRM AT POLICY LEVEL

The first part of this section briefly summarises the evolution of the IWRM concept and its key principles (subsection 3.1). This is followed by the summary of key results and discussion of Publications I to IV (subsections 3.2-3.5) that focus on the constraints and opportunities of implementing the IWRM concept at policy level.

3.1 IWRM: EVOLUTION AND KEY PRINCIPLES IWRM is not a new idea. In a number of countries, water management has been institutionalised in an advanced and integrated manner over centuries. Embid (2003) writes that Spain was probably the first country to organize water management on the basis of river basins, as it adopted the system of confederaciones hidrográficas in 1926. Over the last several decades, there have been serious attempts to implement IWRM in different global regions. In the 1940s, an early version of IWRM occurred when the Tennessee Valley Authority began to develop the water resources for that region (Barkin & King, 1986; Tortajada, 2004). A later example occurred in 1960 in Hessen, Germany, where Integrated Water Resources Management Planning was prepared on the basis of a multidisciplinary integrated approach (Berg, 1960; cited in Kaitera, 1963). Another example is Finland, which produced integrated basin-wide development plans, institutionalised the process by establishing the National Board of Waters, and implemented those plans (NBWF, 1974; Vakkilainen 2003). At the United Nations Conference on Water (Mar del Plata, 1977), IWRM was the recommended approach to incorporating the multiple competing uses of water resources. After that, several

international events have been held with a focus on water issues. Among them, the most influential events such as the International Conference on Water and Environment (Dublin, 1992), UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), Second World Water Forum (The Hague, 2000), International Conference on Freshwater (Bonn 2001), World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, 2002), Third World Water Forum (Kyoto, 2003) and Fourth World Water Forum (Mexico, 2006) collectively led to breakthroughs that thrust the IWRM concept onto the international water and development agenda. Publications I and II critically analyse the outcomes of the Mar del Plata, Dublin, The Hague, Bonn and Johannesburg events. Publication III analyses the outcomes of the Rio De Janeiro, Kyoto and Mexico Events. Below the key outcomes of six major international water events are briefly summarised.

3.1.1 Dublin 1992: International Conference on Water and Environment In January 1992, the International Conference on Water and Environment Issues for the 21st Century, was held in Dublin, Ireland. Current thinking on the crucial issues in water resources is heavily influenced by the Dublin Principles, which are (ICWE, 1992): 1. Fresh water is a finite, vulnerable and essential resource, which should be managed in an integrated manner.

6


2. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. 3. Women play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water. 4. Water has an economic value and should be recognized as an economic good, taking into account affordability and equity criteria.

3.1.2 Rio de Janeiro 1992: UN Conference on Environment and Development The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as The Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. This Summit, attended by 108 Heads of State or Government of the world, was the most influential of its kind. The key declaration adopted in Rio was Agenda 21, which was endorsed by 178 States.

3.1.3 The Hague 2000: Second World Water Forum & Ministerial Conference World Water Forums, organised by the World Water Council and held every three years since 1997, are the largest international events in the field of water. The key aim of this series of global water events is to enable multi-stakeholder participation and dialogue to influence water policy making at the global level, thus assuring better living standards for people all over the world and a more responsible social behaviour towards water issues in-line with the pursuit of sustainable development (FWWF, 2006). On 17-22 March 2000, the Second World Water Forum was held in The Hague, Netherlands. The key issues raised in the Forum related to IWRM are (WWC, 2000): 1. Privatisation: To achieve water security, water must be everybody’s business but, on the other hand, the government monopoly on water management should not be replaced by a private monopoly.

Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 exclusively dealt with freshwater issues (UNCED, 1992). Seven programme areas are proposed for the freshwater sector:

2. Changing the full cost for water services: Users should in fact be charged the full cost of the services – with appropriate subsidies made available to the poor.

1. Integrated water resources development and management

3. Right to access: Water is not only considered essential for human health, it is also desperately needed by millions of poor women and men in rural areas for productive reasons: to grow the family food or generate income. Right of land and use of water are key determinates for people’s potential to break the poverty trap.

2. Water resources assessment 3. Protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems 4. Drinking water supply and sanitation 5. Water and sustainable urban development 6. Water for sustainable food production and rural development 7. Impacts of climate change on water resources

4. Participation: Water can empower people and women in particular, through a participatory process of water management. Participation implies sharing of power, democratic participation of citizens in elaborating or implementing water policies and projects, and in managing water resources.

7


3.1.4 Bonn 2001: International Conference on Freshwater In December 2001, the International Conference on Freshwater took place in Bonn, focusing on water as a key to sustainable development. The Bonn Conference was the major preparatory event in the water field towards the Johannesburg Summit of 2002. The conference reviewed the role of water in sustainable development, took stock of progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and identified how its implementation can be improved. It is built on many previous efforts and conferences, which have defined the challenges, development principles and policies related to water and sustainable development. There is often a gap between making such policies and putting them into practice. So the conference focused on practical ideas. The Bonn Keys are listed below (ICFW, 2001): 1. The first key is to meet the water security needs of the poor. 2. Decentralization is the key. The local level is where national policy meets community needs. 3. The key to better water outreach is new partnerships. 4. The key to long-term harmony with nature and neighbour is cooperative arrangements at the water basin level, including across waters that touch many shores. For this reason IWRM is needed to bring all water users to the information sharing and decision making tables. 5. The essential keys are stronger, better performing governance arrangements. 3.1.5 Johannesburg 2002: The World Summit on Sustainable Development At the end of August and beginning of September 2002, The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg, South Africa. The main points focusing on WSSD

Plan of Implementation relating to IWRM are listed below (WSSD, 2002): 1. Developing IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005 for all major river basins of the world. 2. Developing and implementing national/ regional strategies, plans and programmes with regard to IWRM. 3. Improving the efficiency of water uses. 4. Facilitating the establishment of publicprivate partnership. 5. Developing gender sensitive policies and programmes 6. Involving all concerned stakeholders in all kinds of decision-making, management and implementation processes.

3.1.6 The Third World Water Forum Kyoto 2003 The forum was held in March 2003 in Kyoto, Japan. The forum suggested IWRM as the way to achieve sustainability regarding water resources. The ministerial declaration addressed the necessity of sharing benefits equitably, engaging with propoor and gender perspectives in water policies, facilitating stakeholder participation, ensuring good water governance and transparency, building human and institutional capacity, developing new mechanisms of public-private partnership, promoting river basin management initiatives, cooperating between riparian countries on transboundary water issues, and encouraging scientific research. The ministerial declaration also vowed support to enable developing countries to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals, and for developing IWRM and water efficiency plans in all river basins worldwide by 2005, the target set at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (TWWF, 2003a; 2003b).

8


3.2 IWRM PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY ON EU WFD To examine the gap between IWRM principles and practice, as a case study, Publication II takes one of the most influential and contemporary water policy tools into consideration, namely, the EU Water Framework Directive (EU WFD). The outcome of four major international water events concerning IWRM, namely, the International Conference on Water and Environment (Dublin, 1992), the Second World Water Forum (The Hague, 2000), the International Conference on Freshwater (Bonn, 2001) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) are compared with the EU WFD. The aim is to analyse how the EU WFD complies with the principles concerning IWRM agreed in major international water events and to focus on the mismatches between them. When the principles of IWRM and the EU WFD are compared, seven notable mismatches are found (Figure 2), even though several EU countries played a leading role in those international water events and EU countries also follow the outcome of these conferences when they donate aid for development in developing countries. Consequently the question arises whether the outcomes of different international conferences regarding IWRM are not effective and efficient enough to sufficiently influence EU policies for

better water management or whether developing and developed countries are required to use a different set of IWRM principles? Finally, why does the EU adopt different principles in its own water policies from those it promotes in global forums – should it follow the former or the latter ones when aiding developing countries? Although international organisations and the world scientific community offered commonly agreed theoretical principles of IWRM to be applicable worldwide, in practice, these principles are often overlooked by the international community. Often there is a huge gap between principles and practice.

3.3 IWRM PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY ON MEXICO WORLD WATER FORUM’S MINISTERIAL DECLARATION On 16-22 March 2006, the Fourth World Water Forum was held in Mexico City. Around 20,000 people from around the world participated in 206 working sessions. The Forum was attended by official representatives and delegates from 140 countries, including 120 mayors, 78 ministers, 150 legislators, 1395 journalists, experts, NGOs, companies, and civil society representatives (WWC, 2006). On 22 March 2006, The Ministerial Conference adopted the Mexico Forum’s Ministerial Declaration (hereinafter Mexico Declaration).

Figure 2 The internationally agreed water management principles and the EU Water Framework Directive focus on different issues. Does the EU require others – mainly developing and transition countries – to follow a different set of principles than it requires from its member countries?

9


It is worthwhile to mention that the World Water Forums are not organised under the United Nations and therefore their declarations are not binding in nature but rather bona fide recommendations. However, Ministerial Declarations of the World Water Forums decidedly influence the global water policies and water resources management practices. Since these declarations have global significance and contribute noticeably to shaping national and international water policies worldwide, Publication III analyses the scope of the Mexico Declaration (2006) in comparison with globally accepted water management principles. In Publication III, it is revealed that the Mexico Declaration does not incorporate the following ten globally accepted water management principles: 1. There are no policy guidelines and recommendations for ecosystem conservation. 2. There are no policy guidelines for achieving food security and rural development through agricultural water management. 3. The impacts of global climate change on water resources are not included. 4. The role of inland fisheries and aquaculture towards effective water resources management are not included. 5. Mexico Declaration does not recognise the necessity of transboundary river basin management. 6. There is no clear guideline for the active participation of all stakeholders in the management of water resources. 7. Mexico Declaration does not recognise the interconnection between water and sustainable forest management.

8. The need for data and information sharing, technology transfer, and research and development are not included. 9. There is no instruction for incorporating the environmental and social consideration in hydropower development projects. 10.There is no guideline for implementing integrated water resources management. The challenges of development and management of water resources are closely linked at local, national, regional and global levels. The future of the world water security will be decisively affected by the ways in which countries manage their water resources. Primarily because of the importance of the Fourth Mexico World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration in shaping the national and regional water policies worldwide, the exclusion of major water management principles discussed above would produce fragmented and unsustainable water resources management.

3.4 FUTURE CHALLENGES OF IWRM The international community now recognises IWRM as the most efficient and effective water resources management mechanism to enhance economic well-being, social equity, and environmental sustainability. In practice, though, implementation of the IWRM concept is challenging. The two case studies presented in Publication II and III (sections 3.2 and 3.3) reveal that existing policies tend to take a rather narrow view of the concept and have largely failed to incorporate the principles. Future challenges remain in reducing the gap between theoretically agreed principles and implementation. The integration of different sectors related to water management is a difficult and challenging task. Moreover, the problems and solutions associated with IWRM implementation in different regions are not universal. Overly general or universal policies and guidelines for implementing IWRM may become counterproductive.

10


Publication I identifies seven points and approaches that need to be addressed by water professionals far more carefully than in the contemporary guidelines to successfully implement IWRM. These are summarised as follows: 1. Privatisation: Privatisation of the water sector needs to be approached with caution, and far more attention must be given to the issue’s many facets than is done in today’s ideological debate. 2. Water as an economic good: The application of economic principles to the allocation of water is acceptable and provides a simple tool for the development of water services in a more efficient direction. However, water should not be treated as a market-oriented commodity when it comes to domestic use for very basic needs (Gunatilake & Gopalakrishnan, 2002; Rahaman and Varis, 2005), particularly for people in extreme poverty. More discussion, analysis, study, and commitment are needed in deciding whether water is a common or an economic good. 3. Transboundary river basin management: The necessity of river basin management received positive attention at The Hague Forum, the Bonn Conference, and the WSSD summit; however, no clear mechanism for implementing the river basin management concept into practice has been suggested. An increasing number of countries are experiencing water stress; nevertheless, in most river basins, mechanisms and institutions to manage water resource disputes are either absent or unsatisfactory (UNESCO & Green Cross International, 2003). Not only should plans and goals be developed, but so should practical frameworks for implementing joint river basin management through efficient institutions and productive participation

1

of all riparian states. In addition, a greater focus on legal institutional arrangements is necessary, as it is practically absurd to implement integrated policy without some legal bindings. A common policy, including a supporting legal framework, is vital for implementing integrated transboundary river basin management. 4. Restoration and Ecology: IWRM principles do not clearly focus on or address the mechanism of river restoration, which is necessary for sustainable water resources management in areas that have undergone or are presently subjected to notable modifications. 5. Fisheries and Aquaculture: Fisheries and aquaculture are crucial for human survival and poverty reduction; they provide an inexpensive source of protein to meet nutritional demands in many parts of the world, and therefore should command special attention within IWRM. 6. Need to Focus on Past IWRM Experience: During the 1970s, many European countries implemented a considerable number of comprehensive watershed plans that resemble today’s IWRM plans. One example is Finland, which produced basinwide plans,1 institutionalised the process by establishing the National Board of Waters, and implemented those plans (NBWF, 1974; Vakkilainen, 2003). One of many implementations was the countrywide construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants, which at that time were already more advanced than current plants in many countries that promote IWRM worldwide. Unfortunately, the current IWRM mechanism does not focus on this kind of highly balanced experience in integrated plans, which would facilitate more concrete IWRM development.

See, e.g., the plan for the Lower Kymi River (NBWF 1974), which served as a guiding framework for water district authorities in Finland (Vakkilainen, 2003).

11


7. Spiritual and Cultural Aspects of Water: Water is one of our compelling links with the sacred, with nature, and with our cultural heritage (Dooge, 2003). Regrettably, the current IWRM mechanism does not properly acknowledge water’s spiritual and cultural dimensions.

some of the shortcomings in meeting IWRM challenges. These are not comprehensive since, as mentioned before, conditions vary enormously, but these issues are important in many localities, even though neglected in the concurrent IWRM discourse.

The success of IWRM mostly depends on its implementation competence. The main challenge is the practical implementation of the theoretically agreed-upon IWRM principles (Lahtela, 2001; Biswas, 2005). Publication I has identified only

3.5 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES Publication IV identifies the transboundary water resources management principles that are associated with the integrated management of

Table 1 Transboundary water management principles and relevant articles of international conventions, agreements/treaties. Principles

Relevant Articles Helsinki Rules (1966)

UN Watercourses Convention (1997)

International Treaties

Reasonable and equitable utilization

Articles IV, V, VII, X, XXIX (4)

Articles 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19

1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (Article 2), 2002 Sava River Basin Agreement (Articles 7-9), 1995 Mekong Agreement (Articles 4-6, 26), 1992 UNECE Water Convention (Articles 2.2c)

Not to cause significant harm

Articles V, X, XI, XXIX (2)

Articles 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21(2), 22, 26(2), 27, 28(1), 28(3)

1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (Article 2), 2002 Sava River Basin Agreement (Articles 2, 9), 1995 Mekong Agreement (Articles 3, 7, 8), 1992 UNECE Water Convention (Articles 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3)

Cooperation and information exchange

Articles XXIX (1), XXIX (2), XXXI

Articles 5(2), 8, 9, 11, 12, 24(1), 25(1), 27, 28(3), 30

1960 Indus Waters Treaty (Articles VIVIII), 1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (Articles 2- 5), 2002 Sava River Basin Agreement (Articles 3-4, Articles 14-21), 1995 Mekong Agreement (Preamble, Articles 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 15, 18, 24, 30), 1992 UNECE Water Convention (Articles 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

Notification, consultation and negotiation

Articles XXIX (2), XXIX (3), XXIX (4), XXX, XXXI

Articles 3(5), 6(2), 11-19, 24(1), 26(2), 28, 30

1960 Indus Waters Treaty (Articles VII [2], VIII), 1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (Articles 2[9], 2[10]), 2002 Sava River Basin Agreement (Part Three and Four, Article 22), 1995 Mekong Agreement (Articles 5, 10, 11, 24), 1992 UNECE Water Convention (Article 10)

Peaceful settlement of disputes

Articles XXVI-XXXVII

Article 33

1960 Indus Waters Treaty (Article IX, Annexure F, G), 1995 SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (Article 7), 2002 Sava River Basin Agreement (Articles 1, 22-24, Annex II), 1995 Mekong Agreement (Articles 18.C, 24.F, 34, 35), 1992 UNECE Water Convention (Article 22, Annex IV)

12


shared watercourses. The study reveals that the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, obligation not to cause significant harm, principles of cooperation, information exchange, notification, consultation and peaceful settlement of disputes are widely acknowledged by modern international conventions, agreements and treaties (Table 1). These principles form the basis of the 1966 Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers and the 1997 UN Convention on NonNavigational Uses of International Watercourses. These principles could serve as guiding principles and provide a framework for further dialogue among the riparian countries for creating effective transboundary water resources management of shared watercourses. Table 1 summarises the key results of Publication IV.

13

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: IWRM AT FIELD LEVEL

Water policies provide guiding principles and framework for IWRM, but the implementation of these principles and framework requires understanding of the complex and multidimensional nature of water resources development and management at field level. As mentioned in the Introduction (subsection 1.1), this understanding is even more important in international river basins in order to expand the knowledge base regarding the constraints and opportunities of implementing IWRM. This section summarises the key results and discussion of Publications V to VII (subsections 4.1-4.3) that deal with the constraints and opportunities of implementing the IWRM concept at field level with two case studies from Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins located in South Asia.

4.1 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OF THE GANGES RIVER BASIN: CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Publication V examines the sources of water conflicts and previous cooperation between the riparian countries in the Ganges basin. It identifies the issues related to the utilization of the Ganges water resources, regional water-based development potentials and views of riparian countries on integrated Ganges basin management. It then identifies potential benefits from integrated Ganges basin management and recommends guidelines to overcome the constraints on integrated Ganges management. This section gives a brief overview of the Ganges river basin based on Publication V and the key findings of Publication V.

4.1.1 Ganges Basin Water Resources The Ganges basin is located 70–88°30’ east longitude and 21–31° north latitude. The river Ganga rises in the Gangotri glacier in India. Many important tributaries including Mahakali, Gandak, Kosi, and Karnali originate in Nepal and China (Tibet). The Ganges river has a total length of about 2600 km and the total drainage area is about 1080000 square kilometres shared by China, Nepal, India and Bangladesh (Table 2, Figure 1). The river finally empties into the Bay of Bengal. The rivers of Nepal contribute more than 45% of the total flow of the Ganges and nearly 70% of its dry-season (January to May) flow reaching Farakka (for details see Publication V). The temporal and spatial distribution of water resources is one of the main challenges for sustainable water management in the Ganges basin and, hence, for attaining food security and achieving socio-economic development. During the monsoon months (June–October), there is abundant water but during non-monsoon months (January–May) the countries become water stressed (Biswas & Uitto, 2001). At Farakka, the Ganges has an average annual flow (1949–1973) rate of 12,105 m3 s-1. During June–October, the average flow is 24,526 m3 s-1, whereas during January–May the average flow is only 2,199 m3 s-1 (GRDC, 2006). The current legacy of mistrust, perceptional differences, lack of cooperation and vision among the riparian countries of the basin make the integrated development and utilisation approach to the Ganges basin’s huge water resources a difficult task (Ahmad et al., 2001; Onta, 2005). An important factor in the context of managing Ganges water is

14


Table 2 Ganges basin area distribution and water resources (n/a means not available). Sources: Rangachari & Verghese, 2001: 82; Pun, 2004: 11; Onta, 2005: 149; IIDS, 2000. Country

Drainage area (1,000 km2)

Arable land (1,000 km2)

Population (2001) (million)

Surface water availability (10 9 m3)

Ground water availability (10 9 m3)

India

861

602

440

525

171

Bangladesh

46

30

37

197

222

Nepal

140

26

23

208

12

China (Tibet)

33

Negligible

1

n/a

n/a

Total

1080

658

501

930

205

the fact that Nepal controls the headwaters of the Ganges and regional development of the Ganges is being limited to bilateral talks and arrangements.

source of water conflict between the two riparians due to the reduced dry season flow in Bangladesh. Table 3 presents the chronology of water conflicts and cooperation between the two nations.

4.1.2 Conflicts over Water

Sarada (1920), Kosi (1954) and Gandak (1959) barrage agreements between India and Nepal are the key sources of water conflicts and mistrust between the two upstream riparians of the basin (for details see Publication V). This acute mistrust even led Nepal to incorporate Article 126 (2) in its constitution in 1990, which requires that any “treaty” pertaining to natural resources and certain other matters be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the country’s parliament (Onta, 2001:110; Marty, 2001:207).

This detailed conflict analysis reveals that the conflict over the Ganges water between Bangladesh (the then Pakistan) and India3 dates back to 1951 when India decided to construct the Farakka barrage in order to divert water from the Ganges to the Hooghly river by a 42-kilometer long feeder canal with a carrying capacity of 1133 m3/ sec (Abbas, 1984; Figure 1). The 2246-meter long Farakka barrage (completed in 1974), located 17 km upstream of Bangladesh near Monohorpur, was built without consultation with Bangladesh and began operation on 21 of April 1975 (Samarkoon, 2004). It stands close to the point where the main flow of the river enters Bangladesh, and the river Hooghly (a distributary of the Ganges) continues in West Bengal past Kolkata. Since the commissioning of the barrage, the Ganges flow in Bangladesh measured at Hardinge bridge point decreased substantially during dry season (JanuaryMay) (Figure 3), which causes socio-economical and environmental problems for Bangladesh (Mirza, 2004; Samarakoon, 2004; Crow et al., 1995). Until today, Farakka barrage is the key

2

4.1.3 Water Cooperation along the Ganges Basin The history of water cooperation along the Ganges basin dates back to 29 April 1875 when an agreement was signed between the British Government and the State of Jind for regulating the supply of water for irrigation from the western Jumna canal (amended on 24 July 1892). On 29 August 1893, the Agreement between the British Government and the Patiala State regarding the Sirsa branch of the Western Jumna Canal was signed (IWLP, 2008; Beach et al., 2000:168).

This figure includes ground water availability for the whole of Bangladesh India and Pakistan gained independence in 1947. From 1947 to 1970, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan that was known as East Pakistan. In 1971, Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan. 3

15


Average dry season flow at Hardinge bridge (January - May) 3500

2500

3

Discharge (m /s)

3000

2000 1500 1000 500

M3

M2

May 1

A3

A2

Apr 1

M3

M2

Mar 1

F3

F2

Feb 1

J3

J2

Jan 1

0

Month (10 day period) Average 1934-1975 (Pre-Farakka)

Average 1975-1995 (Post Farakka)

Release to Bangladesh at Farakka (1977 Agreement)

Release to Bangladesh at Farakka (1996 Treaty)

Figure 3 Average 10-day discharge (dry season flow, January–May, 1934–1995) of the Ganges measured at Hardinge Bridge and water allocation in the 1977 Agreement5 and the 1996 Treaty.6

After that, six bilateral agreements/treaties and three Memorandums of Understanding (MoU)4 have been signed between the riparian countries. The agreements/treaties are as follows:

4

1959. The treaty was subsequently amended on 30 April 1964.

1. 1920 Agreement between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and India (the then British Empire) for constructing Sarada barrage on the Mahakali river.

4. Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and the Government of the Republic of India on sharing of the Ganges waters at Farakka and on augmenting its flows, signed on 5 November 1977 in Dhaka.

2. Agreement between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India concerning the Kosi Project, 25 April 1954. The treaty was subsequently amended on 19 December 1966.

5. Treaty between Nepal and India concerning the integrated development of the Mahakali river including Sarada barrage, Tanakpur barrage and Pancheshwar Project, 12 February 1996, signed in New Delhi.

3. Agreement between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India on the Gandak Irrigation and Power Project, signed in Kathmandu 4 December

6. Treaty between the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and the Government of the Republic of India on sharing of the Ganga/Ganges waters at Farakka, signed on 12 December 1996 in New Delhi.

Agreement concluded at the administrative level is known as Memorandum of Understanding (Birnie & Boyle, 2002:13). According to Article II (ii) of the 1977 Ganges Water Agreement, in case the Ganges flow at Farakka reduces substantially, Bangladesh will get 80% of the water allocated in the Agreement. This is widely known as the Guarantee Clause. 6 Subject to the conditions of the 1996 Ganges Water Treaty: a) India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed 991 m3 s-1 of water in alternate three 10-day periods during the period from 11 March to 10 May (Article II and Annexure I); b) if actual availability corresponds to the average flows of the period 1949–1988 (Annexure II); c) if the flow at Farakka is above 1,415 m3 s-1 (Article II). 5

16


Table 3 Chronology of water conflicts and cooperation between India and Bangladesh. Time Line

Outcome

1951

Pakistan (Bangladesh after 1971) officially objected to India’s plan to construct Farakka barrage on 29 October 1951.

1961

India officially admitted the unilateral construction of the barrage on 30 January 1961.

1972

On 24 November 1972, India and Bangladesh signed statutes of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission (JRC).

1974

Farakka barrage construction is completed.

1975

On 18 April 1975, Bangladesh allowed India to divert 310-450 m3 /sec of Ganges water from 21 April to 31 May 1975 to test the feeder canal of the Farakka barrage through a ministerial level declaration. Farakka barrage started operation on 21 of April 1975.

1976

India continued unilateral diversion of the Ganges flow beyond the stipulated period in the 1975 ministerial declaration throughout the 1976 dry season and withdrew 1133 m3 /sec of water (full capacity of the feeder canal) at Farakka. Bangladesh raised the issue at the United Nations. On 26 November 1976, the UN General Assembly adopted a consensus statement, which directed both countries to urgently negotiate a fair and expeditious settlement of the Farakka problem to promote the well being of the region (UN, 1976).

1977

Upon the direction of the United Nations, India and Bangladesh signed the 1977 Ganges Water Agreement for the duration of 5 years.

1978

According to the instructions of the 1977 Agreement (Articles VIII-XI), Bangladesh and India exchanged their official proposals for augmenting the dry season flow of the Ganges. The Bangladesh side proposed augmentation of dry season flow through building storage reservoirs in Nepal. India proposed augmentation through diversion of water from the Brahmaputra river to the Ganges river. Neither side agreed to the other’s proposal.

1982

A MoU was signed between the two countries for sharing dry season flow of Ganges at Farakka in 1983 and 1984.

1985

There was no agreement for the 1985 dry season (January to May). In November, a MoU was signed for three years (1986-1988), which expired on 31 May 1988.

1986

On 29-31 October 1986, a team of experts from Bangladesh and India officially approached Nepal regarding the potential water storage projects at upstream of the Ganges basin in Nepal. The meeting ended without any outcome.

1988

1985 MoUs expired. No agreement for the period 1988-1996.

1993

Bangladesh raised the issue at the Commonwealth Summit held in Cyprus in October 1993.

1995

On 23 October 1995, Bangladesh again raised concern in the 50 th UN General Assembly about the negative consequences on Bangladesh due to the unilateral water diversion at Farakka barrage.

1996

An agreement on sharing the Ganges water at Farakka was signed for the duration of 30 years.

2005

In the 36th Indo-Bangladesh JRC meeting, held on September 2005, Bangladesh again proposed to have tripartite talks involving Nepal for building water reservoirs in Nepal in order to augment the dry season flow of the Ganges.

17


4.1.4 Views of Riparian Countries on Integrated Ganges Basin Management Analyses of the viewpoints of the three riparian countries on the Ganges basin development reveals that Nepal wants to exploit the basin’s huge hydropower potential, whereas Bangladesh wants the water managed in such a way as to minimize flooding during monsoon months and water shortage during dry months. India, on the other hand, wants to divert water from the north eastern Brahmaputra basin for augmenting dry season flow of the Ganges basin and for reducing flood during monsoon (Figures 4 and 5; Publication V). Bangladesh claims that the augmentation of the Ganges water should be solved within the Ganges basin through constructing storage reservoirs in upstream Nepal and that there is enough water. On the other hand, India’s proposal claims that diverting water from the Brahmaputra to the

Ganges is the best solution for flow augmentation during the dry season. Put simply, Bangladesh always wants to share water over time multilaterally by involving Nepal; India wants to share water over space bilaterally with Bangladesh. In short, there is an unresolved dilemma between the proposals of Bangladesh and India, whether to share water over time or space. Due to the problems that Farakka barrage in the Ganges river has caused, Bangladesh is worried that India has a similar plan to siphon off water from the Brahmaputra river (Novak, 1993:214) as well as the Meghna river through the proposed River Interlinking Project or New Indian Line (see Figure 5). Nepal wants to attain maximum benefits from the multilateral and/or bilateral water development projects. The hydropower potential of Nepal is 83000 MW, of which 42000 MW is economically feasible. The identified 22 large storage reservoirs

India’s Proposal: Brahmaputra- Ganges Link Canal Bangladesh’s proposal: Reservoirs in Nepal A-Pancheswar E-Seti

B-Chisapani F-Trisulganga

C-Kaligandaki (1) D-Kaligandaki (2) G-Sapt Kosi

Figure 4 Riparian views on integrated Ganges basin development.

18


in Nepal would have a live storage capacity of around 82 x 109 m3. Nepal advocates the sharing of benefits from water use - whether from hydropower, agriculture, flood control, flow regulation, and the preservations of healthy aquatic ecosystems - not the benefits from water itself. The mistrust caused by the Sarada, Kosi and Gandak agreements and subsequent developments has led Nepal to be very cautious and suspicious regarding water issues (Onta, 2001; Marty, 2001; for details see Publication V). Most often, other riparians fail to understand that controlling Nepal headwater without consulting, compensating, and offering reasonable benefits to Nepal from the proposed projects is not practically possible.

have been a source of antagonism between the riparian countries. The findings suggest that integrated Ganges basin management based on regional cooperation between Nepal, India and Bangladesh holds opportunities for mutual benefits. The four types of benefits – to the river, from the river, reducing the costs because of the river and beyond the river – could offer environmental, social, economic and political benefits for the riparian countries. The integrated management approach has the potential to reverse the conflict into cooperation and promote sustainable development throughout the Ganges basin. Publication V recommends that the following issues are worth serious consideration in order to overcome the current impediments to the achievement of integrated Ganges development:

4.1.5 Key Findings and Recommendations The control of water is the control of livelihood. The control of the Ganges river has become a source of tension and dispute and an issue of sovereignty and strategic necessity in the region. Past bilateral efforts have not been conducive to the balanced development of the resources, and

1. The conflict analysis shows that Bangladesh and India are the key players in the Ganges basin. Nepal’s official concerns had not been effectively taken into account while preparing Bangladesh’s 1978 proposal for

CHINA New Delhi

Brahm aputra Riv

NEPAL mbal

er

Ko si

ak

r

Son

N

INDIA

Rivers

Dhaka

I

J

K

L

Lohit

INDIA

M BANGLADESH Meghna River

Hoo

Legend

ghly

Farakka Barrage

eng

nd

ive

Kam

Ga

sR

Sunkosh

F E D BHUTAN C B Thimphu G H A

Kathmandu

li

Manash

rna

ge

Tis ta

Ka

Ga n

siri ban Su

â un

m Ya

Cha

MYANMAR

Kolkata

International borders

Proposed dams

Brahmaputra basin

Jogigopa-Tisa-Farakka Canal

Meghna basin Ganges basin

0

500 km

Bay of Bengal

Figure 5 The New Indian line (Brahmaputra-Ganges Link Canal) and some proposed dams in the Brahmaputra. A. Tista Low Dam III, B. Tista Low Dam IV C. Rangit D. Tista IV E. Lachen F. Tista V G. Sonkosh H. Manas I. Subansiri J. Dihang K. Dibang L. Lohit M. Tipaimukh N. Jogigopa barrage.


water storage reservoirs in Nepal. On the other hand, India’s proposal for constructing major dams in the Brahmaputra basin had not included consultation with China and/or incorporated China’s views and future plans for development of the basin. Both plans have major weaknesses as both overlooked the burning necessity of consulting with the upstream countries, Nepal in the Ganges and China in the Brahmaputra. Controlling Nepal’s water without consulting with Nepal is certainly not feasible. It is also imperative to bring China into regional consultation to ensure that future development plans by China would not undermine the Brahmaputra basin development efforts proposed by India. 2. The Farakka controversy tends to overshadow the main problem of Ganges basin water management. Addressing temporal and spatial distribution of water, which is the key challenge to the region, must be at the forefront. Insufficient water availability in the non-monsoon period is the key reason for the conflict. Water storage in the monsoon period to augment the dry season flow could ensure water availability round the year. Nepal’s huge hydropower and water storage potential should be utilized by multilateral cooperation. In addition, the water storage and hydropower potential of the Brahmaputra basin should be utilized by the riparian countries with a broader and open-minded collaboration with China, which controls the headwaters of the Brahmaputra. 3. Past bilateral approaches show that the absence of multilateral integrated management poses difficulties for efficient and effective Ganges basin water management. Lack of effective institutional mechanisms to implement the treaty causes water conflict and mistrust among the riparian countries. A multilateral management approach with a joint river

19

basin institution is vital. Effective dispute resolution mechanisms should be mutually agreed before any multilateral arrangement is finalized. 4. Benefits and costs associated with joint river management should be evaluated properly. Submergence of land, displacement of people upstream and downstream benefits resulting from flood control, flow regulation and hydropower generation must be taken into account before the storage projects are built. 5. Sharing hydro-meteorological, physical, environmental and socio-economic data among riparian countries is very important for the integrated management of the Ganges basin water resources. Information sharing usually engenders good will and can provide confidence-building measures among riparians. Unfortunately, India and Bangladesh classify river flow data as secret and use the lack of mutually acceptable data as a tactic to promote their own national interests (Beach et al., 2000: 51; Abbas, 1984; Fairless, 2008:280; Ohja & Singh, 2005:2). Through the India–Bangladesh Joint River Commission, mutually agreed hydrological data should be made publicly available. Mechanisms for “open information flow” should be included in future treaties. 6. India, Bangladesh and Nepal all proposed to construct large dams for integrated Ganges basin management (see Figures 4 and 5). As the region and all proposed dam sites are located in earthquake sensitive areas (ASC, 2008; Rangachari & Verghese, 2001: 108), sufficient care should be taken in terms of earthquake resistant design, constant vigilance during maintenance and construction, and rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced people.

20


Table 4 Transboundary water resources management principles and relevant articles 1996 Ganges and Mahakali Treaties. Principles

Ganges Treaty (1996)

Mahakali Treaty (1996)

Reasonable and equitable utilization

Articles IX, X

Articles 3, 7, 8, 9

Not to cause significant harm

Articles IX, X

Articles 7, 8, 9

Cooperation and information exchange

Preamble, Articles IV-VII, VIII, IX

Preamble, Articles 6, 9, 10

Notification, consultation and negotiation

Article IV-VII

Articles 6, 9

Peaceful settlement of disputes

Preamble and Article VII

Articles 9, 11

4.2 TRANSBOUNDARY WATER MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND GANGES TREATIES Publication VI concentrates on analysing the content of the 1996 Mahakali Treaty between Nepal and India and the 1996 Ganges Treaty between India and Bangladesh to find out to what extent the principles of transboundary water resources management (see Publication IV and section 3.5) are addressed in existing treaties. These two latest treaties of the Ganges basin are selected for this study as both were signed during the negotiation process of the UN Watercourses Convention (1997) and valid for significantly longer period, 75 years and 30 years respectively. The findings of Publication VI reveal that both treaties incorporated the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, obligation not to cause significant harm, principles of cooperation, information exchange, notification, consultation and peaceful settlement of disputes (see Table 4).7 The inclusion of these internationally accepted transboundary water resources management principles in two bilateral treaties, concluded by three riparian countries, Nepal, India and Bangladesh, offers plenty of common ground and a window of opportunity to foster integrated water resources development and management along the Ganges basin that is suggested by Publication V. These principles could serve as

7

guiding principles for water based collaborative development endeavours and for promoting multilateral cooperation among the riparian countries in the region. 4.3 INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OF THE BRAHMAPUTRA BASIN Publication V (see section 4.1) identifies that it is imperative to bring China into regional consultation to ensure that future Brahmaputra basin development plans by China would not undermine the Brahmaputra basin development efforts proposed by India in relation to the integrated management of the Ganges river basin. So, Publication VII analyses the ongoing and future water development plans of India and China as well as Bhutan for the Brahmaputra basin management in more detail. It identifies the constraints and benefits for cooperation and regional development through integrated management of the Brahmaputra basin. This section gives a brief overview of the Brahmaputra river basin based on Publication VII and the key findings of Publication VII.

4.3.1 Brahmaputra Basin Water Resources The Brahmaputra river basin is located 82°-97° east longitude and 21°-31° north latitude. The Brahmaputra is known as Tsangpo or Yarlung

However, the absence of arbitration mechanisms makes the 1996 Ganges Treaty a less effective legal instrument than the 1996 Mahakali Treaty. For critical analyses of the water sharing mechanisms of the 1996 Ganges Treaty, see Tanzeema & Faisal, 2001; Salman and Uprety, 2002:170-183; Rahaman, 2006.

21


Table 5 Brahmaputra basin area distribution (n/a means not available). Sources: Sarma, 2005: 73; NHPC, 2008; Tianchou, 2001:110; Rangachari & Verghese, 2001:82; CWC, 2008; DOT, 2007; NPB, 2008. Country

Drainage area (103 km2)

% of area of basin

% of total area of country

Arable land (km2)

Population (million) (1999)

Hydropower potential (103 MW)

% of basin’s total hydropower potential

China (Tibet)

293

51.1

3.1

n/a

2

110

53.4

Bhutan

38.4

6.7

100

2,956

0.635

30

14.6

India

195

34.0

5.10

55,000

31

66

32

Bangladesh

47

8.2

32.64

36,000

47

0

0

Total

573.4

100

93,956

80

206

100

Zangbo in China, Brahmaputra in India and Jamuna in Bangladesh. The Tsangpo originates at an altitude of 5,150 m about 250 km to the northeast, in the Kailash range in China (Bandayopadhyay, 1995: 417). Many important tributaries including Lhasa, Dibang, Lohit, Subansiri, Amochu, Wangchu, Sunkosh, Manash and Tista originate in China, India and Bhutan. The river has a total length of 2,880 kilometres and the total drainage area of the Brahmaputra is about 573,394 square kilometres shared by China, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh (Figure 1; Table 5). The river finally empties into the Bay of Bengal in Bangladesh. At Pandu (Assam), the Brahmaputra has an average annual (1956-1979) flow rate of 18,099 m3 s-1 and flow volume of 571 x 109 m3 (GRDC, 2006). At Bahadurabad (Bangladesh), the Brahmaputra has an average annual (1956-1979) flow rate of 19,331 m3 s-1 and flow volume of 610 x109 m3 (BWDB, 2007) (Figures 1 and 6). At Bahadurabad, during January-April the average flow is 5,186 m3 s-1, whereas during June to October the average flow is 35,712.5 m3 s-1. Of the total annual flow 77% occurs during the monsoon season (June-October). At Bahadurabad (1956-2006), the highest recorded flow is 103,128 m3 s-1 on 8 September 1998 and the lowest recorded flow is 2,702 m3 s-1 on 1 April 2001 (BWDB, 2007). The enormous hydropower potential of Brahmaputra basin is still mostly untapped.

4.3.2 Views of Riparian Countries on Integrated Brahmaputra Basin Management Analysis of the viewpoints of the three riparian countries reveals that Bangladesh insists that Ganges and Brahmaputra are two separate river basins and those should be managed independently without any inter-basin water transfer (Publication V). Accordingly, the augmentation of the Ganges water should be solved within the Ganges basin through storage reservoirs in Nepal and that there is enough water. On the other hand, India insists that diverting water from the Brahmaputra is the best solution for flow augmentation and resolving the water problem in both the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins. Bangladesh has objected to India’s plan on the grounds that Bangladesh needs 5,100 m3 s-1 of water alone for irrigation from the Brahmaputra during February to April. At Bahadurabad, Bangladesh, during February to April, the average flow (1956-2003) is 5,684 m3 s-1. Sharing dry season flow of Tista river, a tributary of Brahmaputra, to meet the water requirements of the twin Tista Projects in Bangladesh and India, is a source of tension between the two countries. Through New Indian line, India plans to divert water from the Brahmaputra to the Ganges basin (see Figures 4 and 5; Publication V). To exploit the hydropower and water storage potential, this plan involves construction of dams and reservoirs in

22


the Brahmaputra basin area in Bhutan and India (Figures 5 and 7; Table 5). India wants to divert water from the Brahmaputra basin to the Ganges basin to increase agricultural production in other water scarce regions in India. India is striving to develop the enormous hydropower potential of the Brahmaputra basin for meeting the increasing energy demand of the country. India promotes Brahmaputra water resources and hydropower development through bilateral cooperation with Bhutan, excluding China and Bangladesh. Bhutan has a history of friendly cooperation with India regarding hydropower development since 1961. Thus, for Bhutan, exploiting hydropower potential with financial and technical support from India is a prime concern. On the other hand, China, which controls the headwaters of the Brahmaputra, wants to utilise the huge hydropower potential of Brahmaputra to meet its growing energy demand (see Table 5; Figure 7) and divert water from the Brahmaputra basin to other water scarce river basins of the country. Like India, China has also chosen a unilateral approach to the Brahmaputra basin’s hydropower and water resources development, excluding India and Bangladesh.

4.3.3 Key Findings and Recommendations The findings of Publication VII suggest that integrated Brahmaputra basin management based on regional cooperation between China, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh holds opportunities for mutual benefits. The four types of benefits – to the river, from the river, reducing the costs because of the river and beyond the river – could offer environmental, social, economic and political benefits for the riparian countries. The integrated management approach has the potential to promote sustainable development throughout the Brahmaputra basin as well as the Ganges basin. Had the riparians been more attentive to the potential benefits of the integrated management of the Brahmaputra basin water resources, the regional development might have taken place earlier and perhaps most importantly, the split between Bangladesh and India over Ganges and Brahmaputra basins water management might have not developed, changing completely the character of South-Asian water conflicts. Integrated and coordinated Brahmaputra water resources management offers prospects for development of the entire South Asia region. To achieve that, Publication VII recommends that the following issues are worth serious consideration:

50 Pandu (Brahmaputra)

Discharge 1000 m3/sec

45 40

Bahadurabad (Brahmaputra)

35

Hardinge Bridge (Ganges)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Figure 6 Brahmaputra and Ganges rivers: Average monthly discharge (1956-1979) measured at Pandu, Bahadurabad and Hardinge bridge.

ahmaputra and Ganges Rivers: Average Monthly Discharge (1956-1979) measured at Pandu, Bahadurabad and Hardinge Bridge.

23


1. Long-term energy security is at the heart of the Brahmaputra basin development due to its huge untapped hydropower potential. China and India are striving to develop the enormous hydropower potential of the Brahmaputra basin for meeting the increasing energy demand of the respective countries. However, the absence of bilateral and/or multilateral institutional arrangements and agreements between the riparian countries for the integrated management of Brahmaputra water resources constitutes an ongoing threat to future development plans within the basin. 2. Sustainable and integrated management of water and energy involving all co-riparians of the Brahmaputra basin, i.e. Bhutan, Bangladesh, India and China should be ensured. In this respect, streamlining water and energy policies of the riparian countries is utmost important. Internationally accepted principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM) need to be addressed properly in the national water policies. Publications I, II and III identified and analysed these principles in detail. Rahaman and Varis (2007) analysed to what extent IWRM principles

are incorporated in the national water policies of India (2002) and Bangladesh (1999). The study concludes that although these policies are a good beginning, certain fundamental principles of IWRM are not addressed properly in those policies e.g. good governance, impact of climate change on water resources, river basin management plan and transboundary cooperation, and sharing data and information regionally. Addressing the internationally agreed IWRM principles properly in national water policies might contribute to streamlining different policies and legal, institutional and governance frameworks related to IWRM and hence, might promote the implementation of IWRM principles and plans (cf. Siddiqi & Tahir-Kheli, 2004: 9192, 101, 168). 3. Due to geographical proximity and huge hydropower potential that is around 123000 MW, Nepal and Myanmar are also relevant for ensuring regional energy security. So cooperating with Nepal and Myanmar regarding hydropower development to enhance regional energy security might also be a worthwhile consideration.

HYDROPOWER Potential and production 0

50

100

150

200

Norway

250

HYDROPOWER Potential and production

Pakistan

68%

Switzerland

70%

0

TWh per year

Percentage

Myanmar Bhutan

Italy Austria Finland

56% 52% 59%

Production Technically feasible potential

Nepal India China

500

TWh per year 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 11.7 % 1.3 % 2.0 % 1.7 % 14.8 % 13.6 %

Figure73:Hydropower Hydropower Potential andand Production from Hydro Plants (at end-2005) in some developed countries (on the left) and (on Brahmaputra Figure potential production from hydro plants (at end-2005) in some developed countries the left)basin’s and neighbo and Ganges and Brahmaputra basins and neighbouring countries (on the right). Source: WEC, 2007:277-291.

24


4. Sharing hydro-meteorological, physical and environmental data among riparian countries is very important. Although China constitutes 51.10% of the Brahmaputra basin, due to lack of data and information, most previous studies, including this one, left out in-depth discussion of Brahmaputra basin water resources and development plans in China. This is true for India as well where key data regarding Brahmaputra and Ganges basin water resources are classified (cf. Fairless, 2008:280; Ohja & Singh, 2005:2; Publication V). Recognising that sharing of information and data is crucial and that in the world there exist both effective and non-effective examples of data sharing mechanisms, it would be worthwhile to undertake further research to provide guidelines for a data sharing mechanism that would possibly suit and become workable in the context of the Brahmaputra river basin. 5. Internationally accepted transboundary water resources management principles, e.g., theory of limited territorial sovereignty; principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation; obligation not to cause significant harm; and principles of cooperation, information exchange, notification, consultation and peaceful settlement of disputes could serve as guidelines and framework for further dialogue for ensuring effective integrated water resources management of international river basins (for details see Publication IV). Both India’s and China’s plans overlooked the burning necessity of consulting with other riparian countries. Owing to the exclusion of other riparian countries, both plans would be a violation of internationally accepted transboundary water management principles identified in Publications IV and VI. To reduce conflict and utilise the full potential of integrated water resources management, future bilateral and multilateral treaties between the riparian countries should include these principles.

6. As the Brahmaputra region and all proposed dam sites are located in earthquake sensitive areas (ASC, 2008; Mirza et al., 2001:39; Publication V), sufficient care should be taken in terms of earthquake resistant design, constant vigilance during maintenance and construction, rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced people and downstream impact in the event of dam breach during flood time.

25

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Water research and science play an important role in advancing the principles of IWRM and the implementation of the process (UN, 2008:54). This requires a solid theoretical and practical understanding of the IWRM concept, associated principles and continuous research in different international, regional, national and local contexts. This thesis makes an attempt to develop and advance the understanding of IWRM principles and to identify the constraints and opportunities of implementing IWRM concept. The key findings from the appended publications are summarised in sections 3 and 4 and elaborately presented in each appended publication. The general concluding remarks of this thesis, based on seven appended publications (I-VII), can be summarised in the following points:

of IWRM and their implementation. As IWRM is a process where the IWRM principles need to be continuously developed, this thesis identified, but is not limited to, seven principles and approaches that need to be addressed by water professionals far more carefully than in the contemporary guidelines to facilitate the IWRM implementation process. These are: privatization, water as an economic good, transboundary river basin management, restoration and ecology, fisheries and aquaculture, lessons learned from past IWRM experience and the spiritual and cultural aspects of water (Publication I).

1. Over the last three decades, world water professionals have developed the principles of IWRM in major international water events. And yet, in practice, implementation of the IWRM principles is challenging. The results from two case studies on the EU Water Framework Directive (2000) and the Mexico World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration (2006) suggest that international and regional water policies and declarations often take a rather narrow view of the concept and have largely failed to incorporate the internationally accepted IWRM principles (Publications II and III). At policy level, there is a huge gap between theoretically agreed principles of IWRM and their implementation.

3. To promote IWRM implementation in international river basins including the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins, this thesis identified, but is not limited to, seven transboundary water resources management principles that could serve as guiding principles and framework for further dialogue among the riparian countries. These are: the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, obligation not to cause significant harm, principles of cooperation, information exchange, notification, consultation and peaceful settlement of disputes (Publication IV, VI). The IWRM concept should consider including and acknowledging these principles as a prerequisite for integrated transboundary water resources development and management (Publications IV, V, VI and VII).

2. Future challenges remain in reducing the gap between theoretically agreed principles

4. In-depth case studies from the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins in South Asia

26


suggest that in international river basins, it is imperative to coordinate all water related development plans and aspirations of riparian nations to promote implementation of the IWRM concept (Publications V and VII). 5. Addressing temporal and spatial distribution of water resources and hydropower ambitions of riparian nations are the two key driving forces behind integrated water resources development and management along the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins (Publications V and VII). 6. The analyses presented and steps suggested in this thesis could reduce the water conflicts, promote cooperation and facilitate regional development through efficient and integrated water development and management along the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins (Publications V, VI and VII). 7. It is widely accepted that cooperation among the riparian countries is vital for promoting integrated water resources development and management along the transboundary river basins. However, it is obvious that cooperation among riparian countries always seems challenging. The case studies from the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins suggest that, to promote cooperation and implement IWRM in international river basins, shifting the focus from the water sharing approach to the benefit sharing approach among the riparian countries might produce better results (Publications V and VII). 8. The case studies from the Ganges and Brahmaputra river basins suggest that, to promote IWRM implementation in transboundary river basins, there needs to be a greater focus on institutional arrangements for data sharing and joint management and

transboundary water development and management agreements (Publications I, IV, V and VII). In order to identify the current implementation status of IWRM principles at policy level, this thesis analyses the outcomes and requirements of the International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), Second World Water Forum (2000), European Union Water Framework Directive (2000), International Conference on Freshwater (2001), World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) and Third World Water Forum (2003), Fourth World Water Forum’s Ministerial Declaration (Mexico, 2006). It is suggested that future research should analyse other international, regional and national water policies and declarations to develop the IWRM concept and associated principles. At field level, this thesis analyses the constraints and opportunities of IWRM implementation in two international river basins. It focuses on international macro issues related to IWRM in the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins, while acknowledging that research on micro level issues are also imperative for facilitating IWRM implementation in all international river basins. Each river basin is unique in its characteristics and problems as well as contemporary management approaches and potential solutions to future challenges. So, further research is recommended in other river basins focusing on linking international, national and local level issues to advance the IWRM implementation process.

References

27

REFERENCES Abbas, B. M., 1984. The Ganges water dispute. Dhaka: University Press Limited. 2nd edition. Ahmad, Q. K., Biswas, A. K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M. M., 2001. A framework. In: Ahmad, Q. K., Biswas, A. K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M. M. (Eds.), GangesBrahmaputra-Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development. Dhaka: University Press Limited, pp. 1-29. Amateur Seismic Centre (ASC), 2008. 10 Largest Quakes – South Asia. Available at: http://asc-india.org/ lib/south10.htm. Accessed August 25, 2008. Bandayopadhyay, J., 1995. Water Management in the Ganges-Brahmaputra Basin: Emerging Challenges for the 21st Century. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 11: 411-442. Barkin, D. & King, T., 1986. Desarrollo Economico Regional (Enfoque por Cuencas Hidrologicas de Mexico). México: Siglo XXI Editores, 5ª edición. Beach, L. H., Hammer, J., Hewitt, J. J., Kaufman, E., Kurki, A., Oppenheimer, J. A. & Wolf, A., 2000. Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Resolution: Theory, Practice and Annotated Reference. Tokyo: UNU Press. Berg, K., 1960. Die Wasserwirtschafliche Rahmenplanung in Hessen, Wiesbaden (In German). Birnie, P. & Boyle, A., 2002. International Law and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press. Biswas, A.K., 2003. Water policies in the developing world. In: Tortajada, C., Braga, B. P. F., Biswas, A.K. & Garcia, L. E. (Eds.), Water Policies and Institutions in Latin America. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12. Biswas, A.K., 2005. Integrated Water Resources Management: a reassessment. In: Biswas, A.K., Varis, O. & Tortajada, C. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management in South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 325-341. Biswas, A. K. & Uitto, J. I., 2001. Preface. In: Biswas, A. K. & Uitto, J. I. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basins. Tokyo: UNU Press, pp. xi-xiv.

Dooge, J.C.I. (Ed.), 2003. Water and Ethics: Preliminary version, UNESCO and International Hydrological Programme CD-ROM. Paris: UNESCO. DOT, 2007. Bhutan: Land of Thunder Dragon. Thimpu: Department of Tourism, Royal Government of Bhutan. Embid, A., 2003. The transfer from the Ebro basin to the Mediterranean basins as a decision of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan: the main problems posed. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 19: 399-411. Fairless, D., 2008. Muddy Waters. Nature, 452:278-281. FWWF, 2006. Official Website of the Fourth World Water Forum. Available at: http://www.worldwaterforum4.org. mx. Accessed 24 July, 2008. GRDC, 2006. Discharge data obtained from The Global Runoff Data Centre, D - 56068 Koblenz, Germany. Gunatilake, M.H. & Gopalakrishnan, C., 2002. Proposed water policy for Sri Lanka: the policy versus the policy process. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 18: 545-562. Global Water Partnership (GWP), 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Technical Advisory Committee, Background Paper No. 4. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership Secretariat. GWP, 2003. Integrated Water Resources Management Toolbox, Version 2. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership Secretariat. ICFW, 2001. Brief Conference Report including Ministerial Declaration, The Bonn Keys and Bonn Recommendations for Action are available from the website: http://www.water-2001.de/outcome/reports/ Brief_report_en.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2004. ICWE, 1992. Dublin Statement, International Conference on Water and Environment, Dublin, 29-31 December 1992. Available at: http://www.gdrc.org/uem/ water/dublin-statement.html. Last accessed August 28, 2008. Institute of Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), 2000. Augmenting the Lean Season Flow of Ganges. Kathmandu: IIDS.

BWDB, 2007. Daily discharge data obtained from Processing and Forecasting Circle, Bangladesh Water Development Board, Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

IWLP, 2008. Official website of the International Water Law Project. Available at: http://www. internationalwaterlaw.org/. Accessed 12 August, 2008.

Crow, B., Lindquist, A. & Wilson, D., 1995. Sharing the Ganges: The Politics and Technology of River Development. Dhaka: University Press Limited.

Kaitera, P. 1963. Maankuivatus. In: Maa-Ja Vesirakentajan Käsikirja. Helsinki: Maa-ja vesirakennusinsinöörien yhdistys, pp. 179-225. (In Finnish).

Central Water Commission (CWC), 2008. Official website of the Central Water Commission, Government of India. Available at: http://www.cwc.gov.in/. Accessed January 28, 2008.

Lahtela, V., 2001. Integrated Water Resources Management in West Africa – A Framework for Analysis. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.

28


Marty, F., 2001. Managing International Rivers: Problems, Politics and Institutions. Bern: Peter Lang AG. Mirza, M. Q. (Ed.), 2004. The Ganges Water Diversion: Environmental Effects and Implications. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Mirza, M.Q., Warrick, R.A., Ericksen, N.J. & Kenny, G.J., 2001. Are floods getting worse in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna Basins? Environmental Hazards, 3: 37-48. NBWF, 1974. Summary Report of the Integrated Water Resources Development Plan for the lower parts of the Kymi River. Helsinki: National Board of Waters, Finland. NHPC, 2008. Official website of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited, Government of India. Available at: http://nhpcindia.com. Accessed January 22, 2008. Novak, J. J., 1993. Bangladesh: Reflections on the Water. USA: Indiana University Press. National Portal of the Royal Government of Bhutan (NPB), 2008. Fact File. Available at: http://www. bhutan.gov.bt/government/aboutbhutan.php. Accessed 13 March, 2008. Ojha, C.S.P. & Singh, V.P., 2005. Introduction. In: Singh, V.P., Sharma, N. & Ojha, C.S.P. (Eds.), The Brahmaputra Basin Water Resources. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.1-16. Onta, I. R., 2001. Harnessing the Himalayan waters of Nepal: A case for partnership for the Ganges Basin. In: Biswas, A. K. & Uitto, J. I. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basins. UNU Press, Tokyo, pp. 100-121. Onta, I. R., 2005. Status of the integrated water resources management in Nepal. In: Biswas, A. K., Varis, O. & Tortajada, C. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management in South and South-East Asia.. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp.148-177. Pun, S. B., 2004. Overview: Conflicts over the Ganges? In: Subba, B. & Pradhan, K. (Eds.), Disputes over the Ganga.. Panos Institute South Asia: Nepal, pp. 3-20. Rahaman, M. M., 2006. The Ganges Water Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of 1977 Agreement and 1996 Treaty. Journal of International & Peace Studies, 1-2: 195-208 Rahaman, M. M. & Varis, O., 2005. The Ethical perspective of Water: Dilemmas and Future challenges. In: Afgan, N., Bogdan, Z., Duic, N. & Guzovic, Z. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems. Croatia: University of Zagreb, pp. 39-51.

Rahaman, M.M. & Varis, O., 2007. Towards Integrated Water Resources Management along the Ganges basin: An analysis of the Water Policies of the Riparian countries. Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimension of the Global Environmental Change, 24-26 May, 2007, The Netherlands. Rangachari, R & Verghese, B.G., 2001. Making water work to translate poverty into prosperity: the GangesBrahmaputra-Barak Region. In: Ahmad, Q.K., Biswas, A.K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M.M. (Eds.), GangesBrahmaputra-Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development. Dhaka: University Press Limited, pp. 81-142. Salman, M.A.S. & Uprety, K., 2002. Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia’s International Rivers: A Legal Perspective. Washington, DC : The World Bank. Samarakoon, J., 2004. Issues of livelihood, sustainable development and governance: Bay of Bengal. Ambio, XXXIII (1-2): 34-44. Sarma, J.N., 2005. An Overview of the Brahmaputra River System. In: Singh, V.P., Sharma, N. & Ojha, C.S.P. (Eds.), The Brahmaputra Basin Water Resources. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.72-87. Siddiqi, T.A. & Tahir-Kheli, S. (Eds.), 2004. Water Needs in South Asia: Closing the Demand-Supply Gap. Hawaii: Global Environment and Energy in the 21st Century. Tanzeema, S., & Faisal, I.M., 2001. Sharing the Ganges: A critical analysis of the water sharing treaties. Water Policy, 3 (1): 13-28. Tianchou, L., 2001. The Hydrological Characteristics of the Yarlung Zangbo River. In: Daming,H., Guoyou, Z. & Kung, H. (Eds.), Towards Cooperative Utilization and Co-ordinated Management of International Rivers. New York: Science Press New York & The United Nations University, pp. 104-111. Tortajada, C., 2004. Institutions for IWRM in Latin America. In: Biswas, A.K., Varis, O. & Tortajada, C. (Eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management in South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 303-324. TWWF, 2003a. Summary Forum Statement. The Third World Water Forum, 16-23 March 2003. Online. http:// www.world.water-forum3.com/en/statement.html. Accessed October 10, 2003. TWWF 2003b. Ministerial Declaration. The Third World Water Forum-Ministerial Conference, 16-23 March 2003. Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/ policy/environment/wwf/declaration.html. Accessed 12 November 2007.

References

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992. Agenda 21. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/ english/agenda21toc.htm. Last accessed 14 November 2008. UNESCO & Green Cross International, 2003. From Potential Conflict to Co-operation Potential: Water for Peace. Japan: UNESCO & Green Cross International. United Nations (UN), 1976. Situation arising out of the unilateral withdrawal of the Ganges waters at Farakka: Consensus statement. Adopted by the UN General Assembly, thirty first session, Eightieth meeting, Agenda item 121, 26 November. UN, 2008. Report on the sixteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, E/ CN.17/2008/17. Available at http://www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/documents/docs_csd16.htm. Accessed 12 August 2008. Vakkilainen, P., 2003. Personal Communication. Professor, Water Resources Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, November 13. Wolf, A.T., Yoffe S.B., & Giordano, M., 2003. International waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy, 5(1): 29–60. World Energy Council (WEC), 2007. Survey of Energy Resources, 2007. London: WEC. WSSD, 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, A/Conf. 199/20. New York: United Nations. Available at: http://www.unctad.org/en/ docs/aconf199d20&c1_en.pdf . Accessed 10 November 2008. World Water Council (WWC), 2000. Final Report. Second World Water Forum and Ministerial Conference: Vision to Action. Marseilles: World Water Council. WWC, 2006. Official Website of the World Water Council. Available at: http://www.worldwatercouncil. org. Accessed 7 May, 2006.

29

30


ANNEX I: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations have been used in the text:

EU WFD

European Union Water Framework Directive

GWP

Global Water Partnership

ICFW

International Conference on Freshwater

ICWE

International Conference on Water and Environment

IWRM

Integrated Water Resources Management

SADC

South African Development Community

UN

United Nations

UNCED

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

WSSD

World Summit on Sustainable Development

WWF

World Water Forum

PUBLICATION I

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy http://ejournal.nbii.org

ARTICLE

Integrated water resources management: evolution, prospects and future challenges Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman & Olli Varis Water Resources Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, PO Box 5200 Espoo, 02015 Finland (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] )

This paper analyzes the evolution of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at international conferences over the past three decades and addresses the prospects of IWRM in resolving the current water crisis. It also identifies seven crucial challenges to implementing IWRM. Our rivers and aquifers are the life-blood of the planet. To achieve sustainable development, we must manage our most vital natural resource, water, in an integrated manner, or precisely through Integrated Water Resources Management. Since water is fundamental to many aspects of life, and to the surrounding natural environment, there is a need not only to review IWRM’s evolution in the last three decades, but also to identify future challenges to its implementation. KEYWORDS: water resources, water management, sustainable development, conferences, international agreements, rivers, world problems, developing countries, water conservation

Authority began to develop the water resources for that region (Barkin & King, 1986; Tortajada 2004). A later example occurred in 1960 in Hessen, Germany, where Integrated Water Resources Management Planning was prepared on the basis of a multidisciplinary integrated approach (Berg, 1960, cited in Kaitera, 1963). At the United Nations Conference on Water in the Mar del Plata (1977), IWRM was the recommended approach to incorporate the multiple competing uses of water resources. Although in the 1980s, water disappeared, for the most part, from the political agenda, the situation changed in the 1990s, thanks to the efforts of a number of conferences and international organizations. Efforts such as the International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), Second World Water Forum (2000), International Conference on Freshwater (2001), World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002) and Third World Water Forum (2003) collectively led to breakthroughs that thrust IWRM onto the political agenda. Driven by the question of the main challenges to implementing IWRM, this paper reviews the evolution of IWRM as a concept from Mar del Plata 1977 to Kyoto 2003 and address the prospects of IWRM in resolving current water crises. It then identifies seven crucial—but often overlooked—challenges in current practice, which should be addressed when implementing IWRM.

Introduction In 2002, at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), The Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership defined Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) “as a process, which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems,” and emphasized that water should be managed in a basin-wide context, under the principles of good governance and public participation. Historically, we can go back centuries, if not millennia, to discover forerunners of the present IWRM paradigm. In a number of countries, water management has been institutionalized in an advanced and integrated way over centuries. In Valencia, Spain, for example, multistakeholder, participatory water tribunals have operated at least since the tenth Century. Embid (2003) writes that Spain was probably the first country to organize water management on the basis of river basins, as it adopted the system of confederaciones hidrográficas in 1926. Over the last several decades, there have been serious attempts to implement IWRM in different global regions. In the 1940s, an early version of IWRM occurred when the Tennessee Valley ! 2005 Rahaman & Varis

Spring 2005 | Volume 1 | Issue 1 15

Rahaman & Varis: Integrated Water Resource Management

IWRM in the International Agenda FROM Mar del Plata 1977 to Kyoto 2003

International Conference on Water and Environment - Dublin 1992 Fifteen years after the Mar del Plata Conference, water was back on the international agenda. In January, 1992, the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) was held in Dublin, Ireland to serve as the preparatory event, with respect to water issues, to the Rio United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Conference. The Dublin Conference was expected to formulate sustainable water policies and an action program to be considered by UNCED. The conference reports set out the recommendations for action at the local, national, and international levels, based on the following four guiding principles (ICWE, 1992):

A critical review of the evolution of IWRM in the international agenda, from the UN Conference on Water held in Mar del Plata in 1977 to the Third World Water Forum of Kyoto in 2003, follows.

United Nations Conference on Water (Mar del Plata 1977) In 1977, the UN Conference on Water was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina. Its goals were to assess the status of water resources; to ensure that an adequate supply of quality water was available to meet the planet’s socioeconomic needs; to increase water use efficiency; and to promote preparedness, nationally and internationally, so as to avoid a water crisis of global dimensions before the end of twentieth century. The conference approved the Mar del Plata Action Plan, which was the first internationally coordinated approach to IWRM. The plan had two parts: a set of recommendations that covered all the essential components of water management, and twelve resolutions on a wide range of specific subject areas. It discussed assessment of water use and efficiency; natural hazards, environment, health and pollution control; policy, planning and management; public information, education, training and research; and regional and international cooperation (Biswas, 2004). The Mar del Plata conference was a success, in part due to the active participation of the developing world and the discussions on various aspects of water management, specifically the country and region specific analyses. The conference considered water management on a holistic and comprehensive basis, an approach recognized as one of the key IWRM issues in the 1990s. To provide potable water and sanitation facilities to all, and to accelerate political will and investment in the water sector, the conference recommended the period 1980 to 1990 as the International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade. The Mar del Plata conference was undoubtedly a major milestone in the history of water resources development for the 20th century. Viewed from any direction, the conference has become an important yardstick in water resources management, particularly for IWRM. Regrettably, transboundary water resources management was not discussed comprehensively, and an implementation scheme for the Action Plan was not developed during the discussion (Biswas, 2004). While the 1980s were key as far as implementing the Mar del Plata principles, gradually, water faded from international agendas, so much so that the Brundtland Commission Report (WCED, 1987), which laid the cornerstones to the concept of sustainable development in international policy, hardly addressed the issue of water.

! ! ! !

Principle one recognized fresh water as a finite, vulnerable, and essential resource, and suggested that water should be managed in an integrated manner. Principle two suggested a participatory approach, involving users, planners, and policymakers, at all levels of water development and management. Principle three recognized women’s central role in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water. Principle four suggested that water should be considered as an economic good.

The fourth principle became highly debated and was opposed by water professionals from the developing world. They argued that no water development initiatives could be sustainable if water was considered an economic good without considering the issues of equity and poverty. The main successes of the Dublin conference were that it focused on the necessity of integrated water management and on active participations of all stakeholders, from the highest levels of government to the smallest communities, and highlighted the special role of women in water management. The Dublin conference recommendations were later consolidated into Chapter eighteen of Agenda 21 in Rio de Janeiro, 1992. The major limitations of the Dublin conference were that it was, for the most part, a meeting of experts rather than an intergovernmental meeting, and that it did not consider the outcomes of Mar del Plata. Unlike Mar del Plata, there was a lack of active participation from the developing world, which was later heavily criticized. Many water professionals and decisionmakers from the developing world not only criticized the Dublin principles, especially the fourth, but also criticized the failure of the participants to indicate how the principles could be implemented in the context of complex water management scenarios in the developing countries. The shortcomings of the Dublin Principles would later be addressed in the Second World Water Forum and the concurrent Ministerial Conference in 2000. In spite of the aforementioned problems, current thinking regarding the crucial issues of IWRM is heavily influenced by the Dublin Principles.

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy | http://ejournal.nbii.org 16

Spring 2005 | Volume 1 | Issue 1


Second World Water Forum & Ministerial Conference (The Hague 2000)

International Conference on Freshwater - Bonn 2001

On 17-22 March 2000, the Second World Water Forum was held in The Hague, the Netherlands, with more than 5,700 participants from all over the world. Unlike Mar del Plata and Dublin, this Forum did not just gather intergovernmental participants and experts, but included a range of stakeholders related to water management from the developing and developed world. This would become key to the Forum’s success, and to its participants’ satisfaction. With its theme, From Vision to Action, the Forum brought together a wide array of documents addressing visions produced and structured by the World Water Council and invaluable views in reforming the water sector, better addressing the need to integrate water management. Unlike Dublin, The Hague Forum carefully considered the outcomes of previous water initiatives and acknowledged water’s social, environmental, and cultural values. The participants of The Hague forum suggested applying equity criteria, along with appropriate subsidies to the poor, when systematically adopting full-cost water pricing. The Forum acknowledged that food security, ecosystem protection, empowerment of people, risk management from water related hazards, peaceful boundary and transboundary river basin management, basic water demands, and wise water management are achievable through IWRM. To meet the challenges related to IWRM, the Ministerial Declaration (WWC, 2000) called for institutional, technological, and financial innovations; collaboration and partnership at all levels; meaningful participation of all stakeholders; establishment of targets and strategies; transparent water governance; and cooperation with international organizations and the UN system. “Making Water Everybody’s Business” was another theme. Water privatization and public-private partnerships were widely promulgated as means to achieve the vision objectives. However, many water professionals opposed privatization, arguing that the water sector is interrelated to many functions that demand government presence, i.e. flood control, drought alleviation, water supply, and ecosystem conservation (Shen & Varis, 2000). The Forum also acknowledged that the right to land and access to water is key to breaking out of the poverty trap. Moreover, it was pointed out that water could empower people, and women in particular, through a participatory management process. Unlike Mar del Plata and Dublin, at the Hague Forum the main challenges to implementation were discussed extensively and, afterwards, the Forum’s visions were converted into action programs for the participating countries. This led to the birth of the Global Water Partnership, which now plays a central role in coordinating the Framework for Action. The Second World Water Forum was successful not only for putting IWRM on the political agenda, but also for endorsing the active participation of the developing world’s water stakeholders, and for gathering world water leaders and communities together.

In close co-operation with the United Nations, Germany hosted, in December 2001, the International Conference on Freshwater in Bonn. The aim of the conference was to contribute to solutions for global water problems, and to support preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, 2002, and the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto, 2003. The conference reviewed all previous water resources development principles and recognized that there was often a gap between policy development and practice. In a novel way, the Bonn Conference focused on practical implementation, not only identifying challenges and key targets, but also recommending action programs to implement policies in the field (ICFW, 2001). The Bonn Keys, which summarized the conference discussions, highlighted the key steps toward sustainable development through meeting water security needs of the poor, and promoting decentralization and new partnerships. To achieve these steps, it suggested IWRM as the most capable tool. The Bonn Conference recommended prioritizing actions in the fields of governance, mobilizing financial resources, building capacity, and sharing knowledge. The Bonn Recommendations for Action addressed, at the lowest appropriate level, issues such as poverty, gender equity, corruption mitigation, and water management. The Conference identified a set of actions necessary to mobilize financial resources: strengthening public funding capabilities, improving economic efficiency, and increasing official assistance to developing countries. In the field of capacity building, it prioritized the need for education and training regarding water wisdom, research, effective water institutions, knowledge sharing, and innovative technologies. The Conference also recommended that WSSD harmonize water issues with overall sustainable development objectives and integrate water into national poverty reduction strategies. The Bonn Conference should be commended by the water world for connecting the views of the developing and developed world and impartially divulging practical implementation problems. It also provided action programs, a historical milestone for making IWRM truly effective in the field. The key success of the Bonn Conference was the adoption of the Bonn Recommendations in the WSSD Plan of Implementation (WSSD, 2002).

World Summit on Sustainable Development Johannesburg 2002 The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002, should be recognized as a success because it put IWRM at the top of the international agenda. The WSSD’s Plan of Implementation includes IWRM as one of the key components for achieving sustainable development. It provides specific targets and guidelines for implementing IWRM worldwide, including developing an IWRM and water efficiency plan by 2005 for all major river basins of the world; developing and implementing national/regional strategies, plans, and




programs with regard to IWRM; improving water-use efficiency; facilitating public-private partnerships; developing gender-sensitive policies and programs; involving all concerned stakeholders in a variety of decisionmaking, management, and implementation processes; enhancing education; and combating corruption. For the most part, it seems that the Bonn Conference recommendations were adopted within WSSD, and IWRM has now become the most internationally accepted water policy tool. The WSSD outcomes also encouraged major donors to commit themselves to implementing IWRM in the developing world. A number of broad strategic partnerships were declared at Johannesburg; the EU, in particular, launched a series of partnerships on Water for Sustainable Development with Africa, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The international political recognition, at WSSD, of IWRM as the mechanism to achieve sustainable water management will dramatically and positively change the water world for the years to come. It is probable that IWRM will become the most integral part of all water initiatives, as was observed at the third World Water Forum in Kyoto, 2003.

promote cooperation between countries and international organizations. A range of organizations and countries-including the World Water Council, Global Water Partnership, UNESCO, UN-HABITAT, FAO, UNEP, IUCN, UNICEF, Australia, the Netherlands, the EU, and Japan - made commitments to develop the water sector. Over 100 such commitments have been confirmed, and this number could double (TWWF, 2003a).

IWRM: Overly General Maxims Must Be Avoided Seven Factors Towards a Successful IWRM Implementation The last three decades of summits and megaconferences were essential in raising the international community’s awareness of the urgency of integrated water management. Over time, wise water management has been recognized as an effective way to improve quality of life. Three decades of conferences have resulted in many commitments to IWRM that, unfortunately, were often not implemented. Although IWRM is the current buzzword of water resources development, future challenges remain in reducing the gap between theoretically agreed policies and implementation. The integration of different sectors related to water management is very challenging. Moreover, the problems and solutions associated with IWRM implementation in different regions may not be universal. Overly general or universal policies and guidelines for implementing IWRM may become counterproductive. Below, we highlight seven points and approaches that need to be addressed by water professionals far more carefully than in the contemporary guidelines to successfully implement IWRM.

The Third World Water Forum - Kyoto 2003 Over 24,000 people from around the world attended the third World Water Forum, held in March 2003 in Kyoto, Japan. The key issues were safe, clean water for all, good governance, capacity building, financing, public participation, and various regional topics (TWWF, 2003a). A two-day Ministerial conference resulted in the release of a ministerial declaration on a range of water issues, including water resource management, safe drinking water and sanitation, water for food and rural development, water pollution prevention and ecosystem conservation, as well as disaster mitigation and risk management (TWWF, 2003b). The forum again recommended IWRM as the way to achieve sustainability regarding water resources. The ministerial declaration addressed the necessity of sharing benefits equitably, engaging with pro-poor and gender perspectives in water policies, facilitating stakeholder participation, ensuring good water governance and transparency, building human and institutional capacity, developing new mechanisms of public-private partnership, promoting river basin management initiatives, cooperating between riparian countries on transboundary water issues, and encouraging scientific research. The ministerial declaration also vowed support to enable developing countries to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals, and for developing IWRM and water efficiency plans in all river basins worldwide by 2005, the target set at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (TWWF, 2003b). Putting stakeholders and water ministers from around the world together in a MultiStakeholder Dialogue (MSD) table for the first time in water history was another key achievement. In addition, a proposal to establish a network of websites to follow the Portfolio of Water Actions received the fullest support of all participants. This will result in information sharing and

Privatization Privatization and public-private partnership were extensively disseminated at the Hague forum, the Bonn conference, and the WSSD summit. Although the privatization concept presently discourages subsidies, it overlooks the fact that, in Europe, initial water infrastructure development was based on massive subsidies. Some critics fear that privatization may encourage fragmentation, which IWRM seems to overcome. Privatization of the marketable aspects of water may result in single-purpose planning and management, which raises a question of open information channels and transparency. Moreover, for the developing world where basic infrastructure is not yet complete, a question remains of whether applying full cost recovery is ethical or practical. Water resource management by public or government organizations also has many success stories, e.g. in Finland and other European countries (Shen & Varis, 2000). It is important that IWRM not only deals with water supply and wastewater treatment, but combines many other functions, including flood control, poverty alleviation, food




this reason, water should be managed based on river basins, not only on administrative boundaries. The necessity of river basin management received positive attention at the Hague Forum, the Bonn Conference, and the WSSD summit; however, no clear mechanism for implementing the river basin management concept into practice has been suggested. Existing river basin commissions all over the world face difficulties enforcing basin plan provisions in other sectors, as well as regarding riparian governments. Other challenges include the lack of effective local participation, the absence of formal agreements on international water allocations, the limits on pollution, and the economic and military power imbalance between upstream and downstream countries. An increasing number of countries are experiencing water stress;1 nevertheless, in most river basins, mechanisms and institutions to manage water resource disputes are either absent or unsatisfactory (UNESCO & Green Cross International, 2003). Not only should plans and goals be developed, but so should practical frameworks for implementing joint river basin management through efficient institutions and productive participation of all riparian states. In addition, a greater focus on legal institutional arrangements is necessary, as it is practically absurd to implement integrated policy without some legal bindings. A common policy, including a supporting legal framework, is vital for implementing integrated transboundary river basin management.

production, ecosystem conservation, drought management, and sustainability, and that the government’s presence is vital in the effective implementation of IWRM. Therefore, privatization of the water sector needs to be approached with caution, and the issue’s many facets must be considered far more than is happening in today’s ideological debate.

Water as an Economic Good Water is recognized as an economic good in many international declarations, such as those reviewed above, as well as in the policies of major lenders and donors. However, there is a risk in fostering the notion of water as a commodity, because it shifts the public perception away from a sense of water as a common good, and from a shared duty and responsibility. A simple and straightforward solution, designed on the basis of pure economic efficiency, has the potential of ending up unsustainable. For the improvement of water infrastructure in the developing world, subsidies are vital. The principle of full cost recovery sometimes handicaps developing nations that are striving to provide basic needs by subsidizing their basic water infrastructure (Rahaman & Varis, 2003). However, water is a basic human need and access to minimum quantities of safe water (20 liters per person per day) should be everyone’s right. Lack of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, and irrigation is directly related to poverty and poor health. For example, in South Asia 300 million people have no safe drinking water and 920 million people have no adequate sanitation (WWC, 2000). In many developing countries, the very poor actually pay a great deal for water relative to their income, but these costs are often hidden. Water is priced by all urban societies, and the poor often have no choice but to pay high prices, spending between 5-10% of their income; however, in contrast in most industrialized countries, the lower-middle class spends 1-3% of their income on potable water and sanitation (Selborne, 2000). For example, in OECD countries, households spend about 1% of their income on water; on the other hand, in Onitsha, Nigeria, the poor spend as much as 18% of their income on water (Rogers et al., 2002). The application of economic principles to the allocation of water is acceptable, and provides a simple tool for the development of water services in a more efficient direction. However, water should not be treated as a marketoriented commodity when it comes to domestic use for very basic needs (Gunatilake & Gopalakrishnan, 2002), particularly for people in extreme poverty. More discussion, analysis, study, and commitment are needed in deciding whether water is a common or an economic good.

Restoration and Ecology In the last three decades, the highly visible effects of environmental degradation have sparked public outcry, particularly in the United States and Europe, resulting in river restoration initiatives. “Channelization” is the term used to embrace all processes of river channel engineering for the purposes of flood control, drainage improvement, maintenance of navigation, reduction of bank erosion, and relocation for highway construction. Channelization, together with a myriad of other activities, such as construction, land-use change, urbanization, and waste disposal, creates a wide range of biological impacts, principally on benthic invertebrates, fish, and aquatic vegetation. In addition, due to the lowering of water tables in adjacent floodplains, natural vegetation and wildlife are also threatened (Brookes, 2002). In North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union, 71% of the large rivers (premanipulation mean annual discharge !350 m3/s) are affected by dams and reservoirs, inter-basin diversion, and water abstraction (Buijse et al., 2002). Headwaters are impacted by the construction of dams, which cause the most damage, whereas lowland sections are mostly affected by floodplain reclamation and channelization. As a consequence, riverine floodplains are among the most endangered landscapes worldwide (Olson & Dinerstein, 1998). In Germany (Junk, 1999) and along the Mississippi (Gore & Sheilds, 1995), for example, only about

Transboundary River Basin Management Water should be recognized as a tool for community development, peace building, and preventive diplomacy. Water can have an overreaching value capable of coalescing conflicting interests and facilitating consensus building among societies. To incorporate all of the physical, political, and economic characteristics for a river basin, a process for cooperative watershed management is vital. For

1

A country is said to experience "water stress" when annual water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per person.




10% of the former floodplains are in a near natural state. In most riverine systems after damming or channelization, hydrological connectivity between the river and its floodplain is restricted to groundwater pathways in which geo-morphological dynamics are mostly absent; migration of permanent aquatic organisms, such as fish or aquatic mollusks, has ceased, affecting overall biodiversity (Buijse et al., 2002). IWRM principles do not clearly focus on or address the mechanism of river restoration, which is necessary for the sustainable water resources management in areas that have undergone or are presently subjected to notable modifications.

current plants in many countries that promote IWRM worldwide. Unfortunately, the current IWRM mechanism does not focus on this kind of highly balanced experience in integrated plans, which would facilitate more concrete IWRM development.

Spiritual and Cultural Aspects of Water Water is the common symbol of humanity, social equity, and justice. It is one of our compelling links with the sacred, with nature, and with our cultural heritage (Dooge, 2003). A case in point is the Ganges River in South Asia, which has a very strong spiritual and cultural significance to all Indians, Bangladeshis, and Nepalese. Regrettably, the current IWRM mechanism does not acknowledge water’s spiritual and cultural dimensions. Without recognizing these, it is possible that all efforts towards sustainable water resources management may be piecemeal and ephemeral.

Fisheries and Aquaculture Fisheries and aquaculture are crucial for human survival and poverty reduction; they provide an inexpensive source of protein to meet nutritional demands in many parts of the world, and therefore should command special attention within IWRM. Unfortunately, fisheries are generally undervalued in terms of their contribution to food security, income generation, and ecosystem functioning (LARS2, 2004). FAO (2000) estimates that between 15 and 20% of animal protein consumed by humans is derived from aquatic animals, and that fish is eaten more than any other type of animal protein. In 1999, the world average consumption of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks was 16.3 kg per person. Among the world’s thirty countries with the highest proportion of fish consumption, twenty-six are developing nations. Fish is particularly important for the nutrition of the poor. Aquaculture is the most rapidly growing industry when looking at protein production for human consumption. Although aquaculture and coastal and marine fisheries do not directly rely on freshwater, the input of nutrient and sediment from inland streams, particularly into estuaries and coastal zones, results in an interplay between marine and inland water ecosystems that is not addressed sufficiently in the present IWRM debate. The same goes for fisheries.

Conclusion IWRM has unquestionably become one of the mainstream initiatives discussed by governments. The major challenge remains its effective implementation in the field. The conviction that IWRM can provide sustainable water security for every citizen into the twenty-first century has forced water professionals and IWRM to become more responsible to world citizens, especially towards the poor. The main hurdle lies in the practical implementation of the theoretically agreed-upon IWRM policies (Lahtela, 2001, Biswas, 2005). IWRM could be reduced to an idealistic buzzword if water professionals fail to overcome this hurdle. The seven points discussed in this paper should be incorporated within IWRM policies and principles to overcome implementation challenges and to ensure sustainable water resources management. A practical challenge to the concept of IWRM is found at two levels. First, water is related to development and societies in countless ways. Its priorities and relative importance vary enormously from one place to another. Second, water must be seen as one factor in a broader context (Varis, 2005). We have a feeling that, whereas summit meetings scrutinize and promote concepts such as Integrated Water Resources Management, Integrated Forestry Management, Integrated Pest Management, and so forth, the different concepts and related policies are not integrated. This paper has discussed only some of the shortcomings in meeting IWRM challenges. The palette examined was not comprehensive since, as mentioned before, conditions vary enormously, but these issues are important in many localities, even though neglected in the concurrent IWRM discourse. We leave the second level of challenge to future analyses, since it, indeed, deserves a profound and focused analysis. The water sector is sparse in integrating its integrated plans, compared to other tightly related sectors, such as energy, agriculture, and forestry. This would be comical if it were not true.

Need to Focus on Past IWRM Experience Integrating Lessons Learned Although IWRM has received increasing international attention in recent decades, historical precedents present lessons. The current IWRM mechanisms have not properly considered similar previous attempts. Lessons from past initiatives are vital to the implementation of IWRM principles and policies. During the 1970s, many European countries implemented a considerable number of comprehensive watershed plans that resemble today’s IWRM plans. One example is Finland, which produced basin-wide plans,2 institutionalized the process by establishing the National Board of Waters, and implemented those plans. One of many implementations was the countrywide construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants, which at that time were already more advanced than 2

see, e.g., the plan for the Lower Kymi River; NBWF 1974, which served as a guiding framework for water districts authorities in Finland after Vakkilainen, 2003.




Shen, D. & Varis, O. 2000. World water vision: balancing thoughts after The Hague. Ambio 29(8): 523-525. Tortajada, C. 2004. Institutions for IWRM in Latin America. In Biswas, A.K., Varis, O. & Tortajada, C. (Eds.) Integrated Water Resources Management in South and Southeast Asia. pp. 303-324. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. TWWF, The Third World Water Forum. 2003a. Summary Forum Statement, http://www.world.water-forum3.com/en/statement.html. February 21, 2005. TWWF, The Third World Water Forum. 2003b. Ministerial Declaration Message from the Lake Biwa and Yodo River Basin. http://www.world.water-forum3.com/jp/mc/md_final.pdf. February 21, 2005. UNESCO & Green Cross International. 2003. From Potential Conflict to Cooperation Potential: Water for Peace. Japan: UNESCO & Green Cross International. Vakkilainen, P. 2003. Personal Communication. Professor, Water Resources Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. November 13. Varis, O. 2005. Externalities of integrated water resources management in South and Southeast Asia. In: A.K. Biswas, O. Varis, & C. Tortajada (Eds.): Integrated Water Resources Management in South and Southeast Asia: 1-38. Oxford University Press, Delhi. WCED. 1987. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WSSD. 2002. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, A/Conf. 199/20. http://www.johannesburgsummit.org. February 21, 2005. WWC. 2000. Final Report. Second World Water Forum & Ministerial Conference. Vision to Action. Marseilles: World Water Council.

Acknowledgement The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor Pertti Vakkilainen for his critical and useful comments, guidance and suggestions during the writing of this publication. The comments and ideas of Tommi Kajander and Virpi Stucki are greatly appreciated.

References Barkin, D. & King, T. 1986. Desarrollo Economico Regional (Enfoque por Cuencas Hidrologicas de Mexico), México: Siglo XXI Editores, 5ª edición. Berg, K. 1960. Die Wasserwirtschafliche Rahmenplanung in Hessen, Wiesbaden (In German). Biswas, A.K. 2004. From Mar del Plata to Kyoto: a review of global water policy dialogues. Global Environmental Change Part A 14: 81-88. Biswas, A.K. 2005. Integrated Water Resources Management: a reassessment. In A.K. Biswas, O. Varis, & C. Tortajada (Eds.) Integrated Water Resources Management in South and Southeast Asia. pp. 325-341. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Brookes, A. 2002. Channelized Rivers: Perspectives for Environment Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Buijse, A.D., Coops, H., Staras, M. Jans, L.H., Van Geest, G.J., Grift, R.E., Ibelings, B.W., Ossterberg, W., & Roozen, F.C.J.M. 2002. Restoration strategies for river floodplains along large lowland rivers in Europe. Freshwater Biology 47: 889-907. Dooge, J.C.I. (Ed.) 2003. Water and ethics: Preliminary version. UNESCO and International Hydrological Programme CD-ROM. Paris: UNESCO. Embid, A. 2003. The transfer from the Ebro basin to the Mediterranean basins as a decision of the 2001 National Hydrological Plan: the main problems posed. International Journal of Water Resources Development 19: 399-411. FAO. 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Gore, J.A. & Shields, F.D., Jr. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? Bioscience 45: 145-152. Gunatilake, M.H. & Gopalakrishnan, C. 2002. Proposed water policy for Sri Lanka: the policy versus the policy process. International Journal of Water Resources Development 18: 545-562. GWP. 2003. Integrated Water Resources Management Toolbox, Version 2. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership Secretariat. ICFW. 2001. Brief Conference Report including Ministerial Declaration, The Bonn Keys and Bonn Recommendations for Action. http://www.water-2001.de/outcome/reports/Brief_report_en.pdf. February 21, 2005. ICWE, International Conference on Water and Environment. 1992. The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. http://www.unesco.org/science/waterday2000/dublin.htm. June 22, 2004. Junk, W.J. 1999. The flood pulse concept of large rivers: learning from the tropics. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 115(11): 261-280. Kaitera, P. 1963. Maankuivatus. In Maa- ja Vesirakentajan Käsikirja. pp. 179225 Helsinki: Maa-ja vesirakennusinsinöörien yhdistys (In Finnish). Lahtela, V. 2001. Integrated Water Resources Management in West Africa –A Framework for Analysis. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Water Resources Laboratory. LARS2. 2004. LARS2 Statement- Fisheries issues in large rivers. Second International Symposium on the Management of Large Rivers for Fisheries, 11-14 February, 2003, Cambodia. http://www.lars2.org/Statement_and_Actions_Required.pdf. February 21, 2005. NBWF. 1974. Summary Report of the Integrated Water Resources Development Plan for the lower parts of the Kymi River. Helsinki: National Board of Waters, Finland. Olson, D.M. & Dinerstein, E. 1998. The Global 2000: a representation approach to conserving the earth’s most biologically valuable ecosystems. Conservation Biology 12: 502-515. Rahaman, M.M. & Varis, O. 2003. The ethics of water: some realities and future challenges. CD Proceedings of 2nd Dubrovnik Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, 1520 June 2003, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Rogers, P., Silva, R., & Bhatia, R. 2002. Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy 4: 1-17. Selborne, L. 2000. The Ethics of Freshwater Use: A Survey. Paris: UNESCO.



PUBLICATION II

!"#$% &$'()%*$' A$5$0(=