Water Woes In South East Asia: Geo-Ecology Of Trans-Border River System And Dams Between And

Amrita Chatterjee, Dr Dipayan Dey Institute of Management Studies Dehradun, India

Abstract Himalayan rivers flowing through the Indo Nepal borders of Ganga Basin has made the floodplains of vulnerable to devastating flood rendering thousands of hectares of land as waterlogged fallows. Irrigation barrages control most of the tributaries modifying the flow of the main rivers and considerably influence aquatic biodiversity. Impacts on the fertile floodplains where empolderment for rice farming is practiced have already modified to an extent of more than 50% of the floodplains of Bihar state along the Indo Nepal borders. The international water regulation issues on high dams between India and Nepal is still in a stalemate whereas politicized Flood Games have become annual rituals of assuring flood hit people. The present paper reviews the problem from a conservationist angle in an attempt to suggest alternative policies and practices to save the ecology of these wetlands.

Key Words: Rivers and Dams, Trans-border issues, South East Asia

Introduction Drained mainly by the eastern Himalayan Rivers, the Ganges basin provides geo-ecologically diverse features, which are reflected in its resources. Being one of the most populous places on earth, there is, consequently, a substantial demand and competition for resources, particularly the water itself. Irrigation barrages control most of the tributaries modifying the flow of the river and considerably influence aquatic biodiversity. Impacts on the fertile floodplains where empolderment for rice farming is practiced have already modified to an extent of more than 50% of the floodplains of Bihar state along the Indo Nepal borders. The diverse and productive aqueous agro-environment of the basin is already under anthropogenic pressure and this is likely to increase in future. The present population of the Basin is around 500 million, which by 2030 would cross over to a billion, with almost half below the poverty line (Chapman 1995). This plain remains submerged under floodwaters for around 100-120 days a year between July and October. Major rivers of Nepal that contribute over 40 % of the total flow of the Ganges and over 70 % of its dry-season flow are Mahakali, Karnali, Gandak and Kosi of which the last two are looked up as the “sorrow of Bihar”. The total amount of water though enough to meet the social, economical and environmental requirements of this part of the basin, land man ratio and per capita food grain availability is steadily declining. The integrated development and utilisation approach of the basin’s huge natural resources have never been sought by the regional countries due to past differences in perception, legacy of mistrust, lack of political vision, and lack of goodwill (Ahmed et al. 2001). Basin Ecology Located in the north of Gandak-Kosi interfluves of Middle Gangetic Plains of North India at an altitude of 85-125 meters above sea level, the floodplains of North Bihar constitutes of a series of alluvial cones formed by master streams along with lower gradient slopes between them. The plain is absolutely featureless without even a single hill having an average gradient of 9.5 to 6.2 cm/Km towards southeast. Tributaries of the master streams meet at acute angles constituting dendritic drainage. In between the Gandak and Kosi system flows the Burhi Gandak, a tributary of Ganga that receives the floodwaters of Bagmati and distributes in the Gandak-Kosi systems (Sharma and Coutinho 1980). Gandak rises in the central at an elevation of 7600 meters and flows for 425 Km draining 48,500 sq. Km. of which the catchments in India is 9540 sq. Km. the average annual flow is 522X108 cubic meters. Kosi originates in the Nepal Himalayas and also has seven constituent rivers originating from the snow peaks of Sikkim, Nepal and Tibet of which, Arun and Tamur are important. They join in Nepal and flow for 730 Km draining 86900 sq Km. of which 21,500 sq Km is in India. Its average annual flow is 617X108 cubic meters (Information Bulletin of Water Resources Dept. Bihar, 1993). Below the Chatra gorge, where Kosi enters the plain, there is a sudden break of slope having no sufficient space for the river to pass gradually through stages of grading and maturity (Enayat 1965). Thus the river has shifted its course westwards by 112 Km in 200 years, converting 7000-8000 sq. Km of arable land to waste wetlands. Vast amounts of sediment are transported downstream by the river and distributed across the fringing floodplains during the period of inundation. Ultimately, a large proportion of the sediment is transported beyond the coastal delta and into the Bay of Bengal. Estimates of the quantity of topsoil transported through the main channel are of the order of 240 million m³ yr ¯¹ (CPCB 1984), which is one of the highest sediment loads of any river. Within the catchments area there exist extreme variations in flow, both spatial and seasonal, to the extent that the mean maximum flow is 52.3 times greater than the mean minimum flow (Welcomme 1985). The flood season is more protracted in the lower sections of the river. The snow fed streams result from the melting of snow and glaciers from the heights of the Himalayas, which wash down heavy loads of sediments from the underlying moraines. Though there is some debate as to the relative roles of precipitation in the upstream catchments area or local rains in the annual flooding patterns (Chapman 1995), matter of considerable concern is in the upland regions, particularly in Nepal, that deforestation and degrading land practices are leading to increased erosion with higher sediment loads and charged flooding patterns within the river. The northern tributaries which enter on the left bank after descending from the Himalayas in Nepal, principally the Karnali (), the Buri Gandak, Gandak and Kosi rivers provide around 60% of the water within the basin. Floods and Water logging in Bihar The Existing Scenario Bihar (Figure 1a and 1b), after its bifurcation into Bihar and Jharkhand, has an area of 94163 squire kilometers and a population of 82.88 millions with a population density of 880 per sq Km. The 432 kilometer long Ganga bifurcates the state into two parts. There are 8 major rivers namely the Ghaghra, the Gandak, the Burhi Gandak, the Bagmati, the Adhwara group of rivers, the Kamla, the Kosi and the Mahananda. None of these rivers barring the Burhi Gandak originates in the state and they enter Bihar either from UP, West Bengal or Nepal. Burhi Gandak too, has most of its catchments in Nepal. There are 22 districts, located on the north of the Ganga and this alluvial plain, commonly known as north Bihar, is highly prone to flooding every year. About 76 per cent of the total area of north Bihar (5.4 million hectares) is reported to be flood prone and 81 per cent of the population there claims to earn its living through agriculture. This makes this area a tough place to earn one’s livelihood from an otherwise very fertile land. To prevent shift of the rivers and to save a vast population from annual flooding, most of these rivers were embanked in the five-year plan periods undermining the debate of over hundred years against embanking of the rivers. Some 3465 kilometer long embankments were built along these rivers during the plan period to protect 29.28 lakh hectares (LH) of land at a cost of Rs. 1827 Crores (till March 2003). At the same time, the flood prone area of the state has raised from 25 LH (1954) to 108.81 LH (2002-when last assessed) in the said period. The balance of about 80 lakh hectares of the flood affected area is yet to be tackled for which, apparently, no money is available as all the money that is allocated for flood control is consumed in maintaining the already constructed embankments. There has been, virtually, no addition in the embankment length of the rivers in Bihar for the past 17 years. The embankments along the rivers are in a dilapidated condition and 11 kilometers length of them was washed away in 2000-01 and another 25 kilometers in 2001.Thus, the state has been left with 3430 kilometers length of embankment now. It is amazing that despite the loss of 35 kilometers length of the embankments, the flood-protected area of the state remains the same at 29.28 LH. Some 9.41 LH land remains waterlogged in the state and a proposal to drain 4.41 LH of land at a cost of Rs. 941 Crores is awaiting sanction. According to the annual report of the Water Resources Department of Bihar (2002-2003), out of 9.41 LH waterlogged area in the state, some 1.5 lakh hectares of water logged land in the state has been cleared of water logging in the past. Of the remaining 7.91 LH waterlogged land, 2.5 LH is reported to be beyond redemption and the suggested use of that land is said to be that of aquaculture, fish farming and bio-drainage5. To save itself from the humiliation of answering inconvenient questions regarding water logging, the government has already declared Kusheshwar Asthan block, in Darbhanga district, as a bird sanctuary in 1994. The Planning Commission has directed the state to constitute a special task force to study the problem of water logging in the state and suggest measures to curb the menace. The task force identified 11 such schemes in the Gandak Command and 13 in the Kosi Command to be taken up at an estimated cost of Rs. 318.08 Crores (1998) to clear 1.5 lakh hectares of land from water logging. No effective work, however, has yet been done on the drainage for past 18 years because of paucity of funds. The government allocated a sum of Rs. 5 Crores in 1998-1999. But just as no work was done for past so many years, it was resolved to resurvey the schemes and as a result the expenditure on drainage that year was very nominal. Only one drainage scheme worth Rs. 101.808 lakhs was taken up for construction in 1999-2000 and only 886 hectares of land was freed from waterlogging. In 2001-2002, the expenses under this head were limited to only Rs. 90 lakhs. Should that pace continue, it will take centuries to free the state from the menace of water logging even if the price level of 1998 is maintained. Flooding of the Plains- With the onset of monsoon, the embanked Bagmati usually overtops the Muzaffarpur-Sitamarhi road near Runnisaidpur and cuts off Sitamarhi from rest of the world and inundates the blocks of Katra and Aurai while breaches in the embankment of the Bagmati upstream devastate the districts of Sheohar and Sitamarhi. By the time one responds to the Bagmati floods, the Kamla and the Bhutahi Balan smash their embankments into smithereens and inundate the districts of Darbhanga, Madhubani and , and the Burhi Gandak takes care of Samastipur, almost simultaneously. By the time some efforts are made to tackle the floods of the Bagmati, the Burhi Gandak and the Kamla; the Saran and Champaran embankment on the Gandak follows the suit devastating the districts of West Champaran, East Champaran, Vaishali, Saran, Siwan and Gopalganj. The notorious Pipra-Piprasi embankment on the Gandak, bordering the state of Uttar Pradesh has got a rare distinction of breaching every year. There was a lull period for a few years, in the last decade, when the Ahiraula Dan-Pipra embankment in UP in the upstream of Pipra- Piparasi embankment were getting inflated with flood waters. It is said that ‘Only dark clouds are sufficient to bring floods in the districts of Saharsa, Madhepura, and Bhagalpur (Naugachhia)’ as the lower areas in these districts start getting filled as the snowmelt starts in the Himalayas. Kosi that actually comprises of seven rivers of Himalayan origin coming through Nepal, ravage these districts and then the flood waters inches towards Katihar through Kursela where it joins the mainstream of the Ganga eroding its banks in Begusarai. Mahananda on the other hand, along with its tributaries, devastates the districts of Katihar, Araria, Purnea and Kishanganj to complete the picture. This annual story is repeated every year. According to the reports available from the relief and rehabilitation department till 28th September 2004, 18.83 million people were hit by floods that spread over 25 out of 37 districts, 205 blocks, 2268 Gram Panchayats, and 8208 villages of which 5788 remained marooned for over a fortnight and 679 are still engulfed. Over 1376 persons and 3592 cattle had perished in this year’s flood besides destruction of 4,78,589 houses. Dams in Nepal-India border The Kosi Multipurpose Project (Fig 2) Though seen as a “sell-out” by many in Nepal, large dams namely Sarada (1920), Kosi (1954) and Gandhak (1959) in Ganges basin were wholly financed by India and mostly benefited India. These barrages were constructed on or close to the Nepal-India border and were based on India’s initiatives and needs (Onta 2001). Floods seriously affected Nepalese during 1993 that followed a breach in the Klahanie dam built on one of the tributaries of the Bagmati. Forgotten though, such long term recurrence of floods justify her no interest in building dams in upper watershed, while in the same basin, floods that inundate Indian districts of Sitamarhi and Sheohar are an annual ritual of devastation. But Nepal has every reason to be interested in the power that is going to be produced from these dams because that fetches her revenue. She might also get benefited, to an extent, by irrigation that may be available to her in the terai areas. However, in terms of flood control, it remains a non-issue in Nepal just as floods in Bangladesh do not find many takers in India. The fact India also needs power, more than she need to control floods, and that is the reason when these proposed dams make any news, it is the megawatts, and not the area to be protected in million hectares, that is counted. Benefits of flood control are incidental and relate to emergencies and can very easily be sacrificed for power production that runs through the year. It is essential for flood control that part of the reservoir be kept empty to provide a flood cushion all the time, though that is not allowed by ‘power brokers’. Irrigation and power production go hand in hand but flood control is purely a welfare measure and unfortunately do not generate any revenue. It is high time to understand the environmental economics of flood and the flood control objective of these proposed dams should be de-linked from power production and irrigation. Past Cooperation between Riparian Countries An important factor in the context of managing Ganges water is the fact that Nepal controls the headwaters of the Ganges and regional development of the Ganges is being limited to bilateral talks and arrangements and this approach may adversely affect each of the riparian states. Recently, although bilateral, a climate of mutual trust and confidence has been created through the signing of the Mahakali treaty between India and Nepal (January 1996) and the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty between Bangladesh and India. The Sarada barrage on the border river Mahakali was constructed by India in 1920 after exchanging some land between Nepal and India. In 1954 (subsequently revised in 1966), India and Nepal signed an agreement to construct the Kosi barrage at Bhimnagar. The agreement to construct the Gandak barrage at Baisaltan was signed between Nepal and India in 1959 (subsequently amended in 1964). These barrages are wholly financed by India and mostly benefited India. These early Indo-Nepal water resources co-operation were seen as “sell-out” by many in Nepal, although it was considered reasonable from India’s viewpoint. India’s water resources development in the international river close to the border of Nepal has been perceived as “not-so-friendly activities” by Nepal. This acute mistrust even led to adopt article 126 (2) in the Nepal constitution, which requires that any “treaty” pertaining to natural resources and certain other matters to be ratified by a two-thirds majority by the country’s parliament (Onta 2001). The Mahakali Treaty was signed on January 1996 between Nepal and India concerning the integrated development of the Mahakali River including the Sarada barrage, Tanakpur Barrage and Pancheshwar Project (Malla et al. 2001). While analysing the view points of each country for Ganges Basin Development it reveals that India and Nepal want to exploit the basin’s huge hydroelectric power-generating potential (table 2& 3), whereas Bangladesh wants the water managed in such a way as to minimize flooding during monsoon months and water shortage during dry months. (Hydro potentials ???? refer kosi conflict 1) Bangladesh has suffered from severe water shortage in the past and will continue to rely on Ganges in the future as its main supply of water. Bangladesh strongly advocates implementation of large dam projects upstream reaches of Ganges at appropriate sites under a comprehensive regional plan to be chocked out jointly by the co-basin country. Bangladesh wants Nepal to construct large storage dams to regulate the lean season flow of the Ganges and augment the Ganges water so that the needs of both India and Bangladesh in lean seasons could be catered for. The total storage capacity of high dam projects in Nepal’s of the order of 88 bcm of live storage that would regulate over 95% of the total annual flow (Bangladesh Nepal Joint Study report). The storage reservoirs can hold the vast monsoon runoff within Nepal and they will play a very significant role in mitigating adverse flood in India and Bangladesh. Augmentation potential in Nepal during the dry season can range from 2,400 to 4,950 cumecs. These incremental flows alone are over four times the present lean season flows in the Ganges at Farakka. A single storage facility such as the Karnali project alone has the augmentation potential to more than double the existing flow low flow of the Ganges (Huda 2001). Inter-basin Transfer of River Water On the other hand India wants to develop inter-basin transfer of water from the Brahmaputra basin to the Ganges Basin through a link canals as the Brahmaputra has plenty of water mostly untapped. India highlighted that this inter-basin transfer of water would be feasible to minimise the flood hazards as the floods in the Brahmaputra came in advance of two months compared to the Ganges. But Bangladesh showed negative views about this proposal, as it would create the same problem like Ganges in Farakka. India doesn’t want to construct large dam projects in Nepal, as there are possibilities to be dependent on Nepal for water. Nepal wants to sell hydropower to India and Bangladesh and also wants to be benefited from enhanced/ developed inland waterways in one of its major rivers, mainly the Kosi, to have access to the sea for its export trade. In the case of augmentation of low flow in the Ganges at the Farakka barrage, the Kosi high dam would be an appropriate scheme because of its proximity to Farakka, and Nepal should seek access to the sea by developing a navigation channel from Nepalese territory. Nepal wants to get reasonable share from the proposed high dam projects and wants that those high dam will be fully constructed in Nepalese territory. In Nepal, opinion is that “no deal” is better than a bad deal. Nepal hopes that sooner or later India will listen to Nepal’s concern (Onta 2001). Hopes ahead: Sustainable and Coordinated Development Integrated Ganges basin management has the potential to improve economical, socio-environmental, and overall situation of riparian countries dramatically. The areas of potential fields of cooperation and benefits of integrated Ganges Basin development between India and Nepal can offer “win-win” situations for all riparian countries that would be reasonable and acceptable to be accepted by every country (Sadoff and Grey 2002). In absolute terms, the total amount of water in Ganges basin is enough to meet the social, economical and environmental requirements of the riparian countries. Coordinated management approach of an international river could offer four types of benefits, benefits to the river; benefits from the river; reduction of costs because of the river; and benefits beyond the river (Sadoff & Grey 2002). In case of Ganges basin these four types of benefits is achievable. Below, I am shortly summarising these four types of benefits in Ganges basin. Benefits to the River The deterioration of both surface and ground water quality is now a serious concern for all riparian states in Ganges Basin. Integrated river basin management of Ganges basin will offer the opportunity to improve water quality, sustaining biodiversity, maintaining river flow characteristics, and industrial pollution to the river. Join cooperation in water quality monitoring at all rivers in the basin, inter-country standardisation of water quality parameters, real time data exchange regarding water quality through an integrated mechanism will ensure safe and cleaner water quality. By achieving cleaner water quality, the fisheries sector could be developed. One of the main challenges for water quality improvement in international rivers, streamlining legislation for improving water quality, also can be achieved through cooperation between riparian countries. As for example “EU Water Framework Directive” (2000/60/EC) adopted by European Union is playing an important role for achieving overall water quality in Europe. Benefits from the River Coordinated Ganges basin management has the huge potential to improve the overall economical situation of the three riparian countries. The most imminent fields of development are hydropower, meeting the agricultural needs for the increasing population of the basin, and flood and drought management. To achieve Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, integrated management of Ganges basin is the best tool. Most importantly MDG number one, “To halve the proportion of people living on less than 1 dollar per day and the proportion of people suffering from hunger”, is definitely achievable through coordinated management. Perhaps, this is the only way to achieve so. Nepal’s 83,000 MW hydropower potentials can be utilized efficiently, which could meet the demand of India and Bangladesh, and hence promote industrialisation and other economic activities. Although the identified economically feasible potentials are about 40,000 MW, in modest load curve, Nepal’s energy market lies in the northern and eastern regions of India as well as Bangladesh and possibly even in Pakistan. The installed power capacity of Bangladesh is only 3,000 MW and the country’s hydropower potential is limited due its flat terrain. India’s total installed hydropower generation capacity is about 22,000 MW, which is only 25 percent of the country’s total installed power capacity. India’s demand for electricity is growing at an average 8-9 percent annually (Ahmed et al. 2001). As for example, Northern India, alone, remains short of power to the tune of more than 50,000 MW (Institute of Integrated Development Studies, 1997; cited in Onta 2001). To meet the growing demand for electricity and hence to ensure common economic development of the Ganges region, the international cooperation between the riparian countries is necessary to exploit Ganges huge hydropower potential through a regional grid. Hydropower is a renewable source of energy, which also does not emit greenhouse gases (except little amount due to rotting vegetation in reservoirs) and cost effective. The integrated regional development for proper utilisation of Ganges hydropower potential will not only ensure economic sustainability, but also ensure a sustainable environment for future generation of Ganges water citizens. Wise management of Ganges water through large-scale storage dams and reservoirs in upstream, will facilitate and ensure the flow of water during dry season and hence increase agricultural activity. This integrated approach will also reduce the threat of sudden flooding every year, especially in downstream India and Bangladesh. The total storage capacity of high dam in Nepal is about 88 billion cubic meters of live storage, which is enough to regulate 95 percent of the total annual flow (Bangladesh-Nepal Joint Study Team 1989, cited in Huda 2001). Adverse devastating floods are creating enormous loss to Bangladesh. Flood Action Plan efforts taken in 1990 by Bangladesh government after devastating flood of 1988 were abandoned in 1996 due the fact that effective flood control measures need cooperation from upper riparian countries (Bangladesh Ministry of Water Resources 1997). This kind of flood can only be managed upstream in Nepal and India. Besides flood control the stored water would help for augmenting the flow of Ganges during dry season. The fact remains clear that the dry season flow of the Ganges at Farakka is insufficient to meet the water demands for both Bangladesh and India. Nepal’s augmentation potential, which is about 2,400 to 4,950 cumecs, alone are over four times the present lean-season flows in the Ganges at Farakka. This regulated flow can be also used to irrigate 27 million hectares of land and most of this water will be utilised by water-hungry co-basin countries, India and Bangladesh, since Nepal has very limited agricultural land (Huda 2001). This will enhance the quality of life in the region through achieving nutritional self sufficiency. Water regulation in Ganges basin will also offer other tangible benefits. Nepal is a landlocked country and north-eastern states of India are seeking for direct access to other parts of India. Flow augmentation in Nepal could ensure round the year navigation and also provide a riverine transit through Bangladesh from Nepal to seaport and direct access for the north-eastern states of India (Huda 2001; Onta 2001). India can be benefited economically through getting cheap electricity from Nepal and also generating their own hydroelectric potential, ensuring water in dry season, and mitigation of floods. For Bangladesh, the downstream country of Ganges basin, the most important benefit will be its mitigation of floods that causes a usual threat to their agriculture, their economy. By giving transit to India, it can also earn huge customs levy. However, for the achievement of successful cooperation between the countries, political vision; wisdom; mutual trust and goodwill are necessary. All major infrastructures can be co financed by three riparian states and managed by a coordinated organisation through win-win tradeoffs. As for example, in the Senegal Basin, there are co-owned infrastructure assets with a legal and institutional framework. The Manantali dam is located 300 km inside of Mali but jointly shared by Mauritania, Mali and Senegal. Lesotho is earning 5 % of the country’s GNP from the transfer of water to Gautang, South Africa (Sadoff et al. 2002). Reducing the Costs Because of the River The control of rivers and river flows has long been a source of political tensions, an issue of sovereignty, strategic necessity, national pride, and occasional exchange of fire, between Arab and Israelis; Indians and Bangladeshis; Americans and Mexicans; and all 10 riparian countries of Nile Basin (Beach et al. 2000). Sadoff and Grey (Sadoff et al. 2002) mentioned that water plays a significant part in a number of recent and current disputes and conflicts around the world, so it is difficult to unbundle the importance of shared waters in the dynamics between riparian states from other contributory factors in conflict. International cooperation can ease tensions over shared water, and provide gains in the form of the savings that can be achieved, or the costs of non cooperation or dispute that can be averted. These tensions and costs are always present at a very high degree in case of Ganges basin and create enormous challenges for regional development. Long-term benefits from cooperation in Ganges basin development may save the costs of non-cooperation arising because of the river (Sadoff et al. 2002). Water is a source of conflict, mistrusts, and disputes between the three riparian states of Ganges basin. Indian diversions of Ganges water through Farakka barrage, is a long-term source of tremendous political tensions, mistrust and non-cooperation between India and Bangladesh (Beach et al. 2000). In case of Sarada barrage (1920), Kosi barrage (1954) and Gandak barrage (1959), was seen as a no friendly activities in Nepal (Onta 2001). India’s recent $125 billion River Interlinking Project already creates tension in the region. Environmentalist fears that this unilateral plan may create a long-term crisis in the region (The Guardian, 24 July 2003). Recently Bangladesh Government placed an official note to India claiming that this plan will create a serious water crisis in Bangladesh. Bangladesh fears that diversion of water from the Brahmaputra and the Ganges, which provides 85% of the country's fresh water flow in the dry season, would cause an ecological disaster (BBC, 2003). Integrated development of Ganges Basin can ease tensions over shared waters, regional relations, and political economy impacts and it has the potential for shifting policy to cooperation from disputes, and a policy shift to food and energy security away from self-sufficiency. All previous water management approach in Ganges basin was bilateral. If Ganges basin can be managed by an integrated plan with the participation of all riparian countries, it will reduce the risks for conflict and even in some cases, reduce military expenditure. Coordinated international approaches in any multilateral water project will relief this kind of tension between countries. Co-operation with regards to share water in Ganges basin definitely strengthen relations between riparian countries and catalysing broader co-operation, integration, and stability. Cooperation in shared water resources between countries will enhance the cooperation and integration in other fields beyond the river. Benefits beyond the river Cooperation in the management of international rivers often contributes to the political processes and institutional capacities that open the door of other coordinated actions between riparian, promoting cross border cooperation beyond the river. Improved coordinated management of rivers offers the opportunities of development in regional infrastructure, markets, and trade. The easing of tensions between the riparian states due to water sometimes offer cooperation in other sector unrelated to water that would not have been feasible under strained relations (Sadoff et al. 2002). The indirect opportunities for development through integrated management of Ganges basin are regional trade relations, industrialisation due to the available hydropower, educational development through the exchange of expertise in different sectors, cross border relationship due to ease of tension, gas export from Bangladesh to India, achievement of development and stability in Northern part of India through a easy communication by transit through Bangladesh, regional cooperation in health sector. As whole world is now passing through a new era of regional coordination (i.e. European Union, ASEAN, NAFTA), this kind of cooperation will facilitate the regional integration between the countries in South Asia. The Ganges basin cooperation will create a web of interdependency between riparian states due to its major role in energy, agriculture, and flood control roles. As for example, Thailand and Laos continued their relation in hydroelectric trade during the period of tensions between the countries in the last decade, which enables them to build their friendly relations. Integrated Ganges basin management has the potential to make the region economically solvent through the cooperation beyond the river. Concluding Discussion Perhaps the greatest single impact at present is for the diversion and storage of water from the river for irrigation. The annual run-off into the Ganges basin is approximately 469 billion m³. Of this, an estimated 85 billion m³ is diverted by barrages, either into canal systems for irrigation and storage or for hydro- electric schemes. Of this diverted water, 60% is accounted for canal projects (Natarajan 1989). Every major tributary has at least one barrage across it. On each northern tributary from Nepal there are barrages at the border region with India. Water storage potential in Nepal is only 88 billion cubic meters (Tanzeema et al 2001; Onta 2001 and Biswas 2001) and 147480 Km2 basins in Nepal sustain just 22 million people where as in India the area is 860000Km2 sustaining 270 million people. In the upland areas of the basin in Nepal, the greatest impacts are said to be due to erosion and increased sediment load from deforestation and from the need to impound water for hydropower generation. The extent of forest removal and increased erosion, however, seems to be short of real information. There is evidence that deforestation is a long-term, historical process which may not have accelerated greatly in recent times (Messerli and Hofer 1995). It has also been shown that for a basin the size of the Ganges, the sediment delivery ratio is less than 10% and that consequently the main channel carries only a modest amount of sediment from the mountains and that, consequently, anthropogenic influences in the mountains have only a limited impact on the plains (Hamilton 1987). It is possible that most of the sediment in the main river comes from storage places and channel erosion (Messerli and Hofer 1995). The other feature of upper basin use is the harnessing of the rivers for hydropower. Nepal has a great potential for hydropower but as yet only 0.27% of its assessed potential is being employed. The rather scattered nature of its own population renders micro projects and run of-the river schemes good options for domestic generation. Under ideal circumstances run-of-the river projects can avoid many of the environmental disadvantages of storage dams but cases can be seen in Nepal where all the water of the river passes down the adduction tunnel with negligible flow remaining between inlet and outlet. This can provide as much a barrier to fish and navigation as a dam wall. It is, however, difficult to substantiate in this dynamic fluctuating tidal environment with great annual variations, mainly because of a lack of historical, baseline data. This indicates the importance of good pre and post implementation studies around such structures. Alike Bangladesh in most of the parts of Kosi floodplains the principal process of compartmentalization is not of the river itself but of the floodplains to facilitate the cultivation of rice. Some 40% of the floodplain has been modified by empolderment for flood control or flood control with irrigation. This has led to a compartmentalization of distribution of aquatic and wetland biodiversity. A systematic investigation of the impacts of flood control and irrigation schemes on fisheries showed that there is a reduction in bio-diversity within polders of 19-25% but, most significantly, a reduction in migratory species up to 95% with the main emphasis being on the small floodplain resident species or black fishes (de Graaf et al 2001). An exercise in habitat restoration which focused on the clearing of silted channels connecting floodplains to the main river channel increased the proportion of migratory species caught subsequently, including major carp for 2% of the catch to 24% and increased the yield 926 Kg. ha¯¹ per year (CNRS 1995). The control of water is the control of livelihood. The control of Ganges river has become a source of tension and dispute and an issue of sovereignty, strategic necessity in the region. Past bilateral efforts have not been conducive to the balanced development of the resources, and have been source of antagonism between the riparian countries. The four types of benefits, i.e. benefits to the river; benefit from the river; benefit because of the river; and benefit beyond the river offers “win-win” situations for each riparian state. It will provide environmental, economic, political and indirect economical benefit for the riparian countries. It has the potential to reverse the conflict to cooperation. References 1. Abbas, B.M. (1982) The Ganges water dispute (University Press Limited, Dhaka). 2. Ahmed, J.U. (Ed.) (2003) National documentation on the problems of Arsenic and Farakka (International Farakka Committee, Inc., New York). 3. Ahmed, Q.K., Biswas, A.K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M.M. (Eds.) (2001) Ganges-Brahmaputra- Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development (University Press Limited, Dhaka). 4. BBC (2003) Row over India River Scheme, British Broadcasting Corporation, Internet edition, 13- 08-03 (BBC, UK) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3148355.stm). 5. Bangladesh Ministry of Water Resources (1997) Bangladesh Water and Flood Management Strategy: An Update Following the Signing of the Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty (Ministry of Water Resources, Dhaka). 6. Bangladesh-Nepal Joint Study Team (1989) Report on Mitigation Measures and Multipurpose Use of Water Resources. Dhaka and Katmandu: Ministry of Irrigation, Water Development and Flood Control, Dhaka and Ministry of Water Resources, Katmandu. 7. Biswas, A.K (2001) Management of international rivers: Opportunities and Constraints, In: Biswas, A.K. & Uitto, J.I. (Eds.) Sustainable Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basins, pp: 1-16 (United Nations University Press, Tokyo). 8. Huda, A.T.M.S. (2001) Constraints and opportunities for cooperation towards development of water resources in the Ganges basin, In: Biswas, A.K. & Uitto, J.I. (Eds.) Sustainable Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basins, pp: 46-57 (United Nations University Press, Tokyo). 9. Institute of Integrated Development Studies (1997) Regional Cooperation in Harnessing the Eastern Himalayan Rivers (Unpublished, Kathmandu) 10. Kilot, N., Shmueli, D. & Shamir, U. (2001) Institutions for management of transboundary water resources: their nature, characteristics and shortcomings, Water Policy, Vol. 3, pp: 229-255. 11. Malla, S.K., Shrestha, S.K. & Sainju, M.M. (2001) Nepal’s Water Vision and the GMB basin framework, in Ahmed, Q.K., Biswas, A.K., Rangachari, R. & Sainju, M.M. (Eds.) (2001) Ganges- Brahmaputra-Meghna Region: A Framework for Sustainable Development, pp: 143-196 (University Press Limited, Dhaka). 12. New Nation (2003) Ganges Flow Still Low, New Nation, Vol. 2, Number 830, Internet edition, February 24 (http://nation.ittefaq.com). 13. 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, pp: 100-121 (United Nations University Press, Tokyo).

14. Payne, A.I., Sinha, R., Singh, H.R., Huq, S. (2003) A review of the Ganges Basin: its fish and fisheries, The second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 11-14 February (http://www.lars2.org/). 15. Sadoff, C.W. & Grey, D. (2002) Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers, Water Policy, Vol. 4, pp: 389-403. 16. Shah, R.B. (2001) Ganges-Brahmaputra: The outlook for the twenty-first century, In: Biswas, A.K. & Uitto, J.I. (Eds.) Sustainable Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basins, pp: 17- 45 (United Nations University Press, Tokyo). 17. Shrestha, H.M. & Singh, M.L. (1996) The Ganges-Brahmaputra System: A Nepalese Perspective in the Context of Regional Cooperation, In: Biswas, A.K. and Hashimoto, T. (Eds.) Asian International Waters, From Ganges-Brahmaputra to Mekong, pp: 81-94 (Oxford University Press, New Delhi). 18. Tanzeema, S. & Faisal, I.M. (2001) Sharing the Ganges: A critical analysis of the water sharing treaties, Water Policy, Vol. 3, pp: 13-28 19. The Guardian (2003) India presses on with plan to divert major rivers, The Guardian, 24.07.03 (Guadian Newspaper Limited, UK) 20. Upteri, B.C. (1993) Politics of Himalayan River Waters: An Analysis of the River Water Issues of Nepal, India and Bangladesh (Nirala Publications, New Delhi). 21. Ahmed, S. H., and Singh, A. K. (1991). River Systems of Bihar: Scope Prospects, Potentialities and Conservation of Capture Fisheries. Fishing Chimes, Patna, November 1991. 51-56. 22. Bilgrami, K. S. and Dalta Munshi, J. S. (1985). Ecology of the River Ganges. Impact of Human Activities and Conservation of Aquatic Biota (Patna to Farukka). Final Technical Report. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, India. 104pp. 23. Chandra, R. (1994). Some Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare Miscellaneous Fishes of the Ganga River System: Hilsa ilisha and Setripinkia phasa. Cent. Inland Capture Fish. Res. Inst. Barrackpore, India, 7-11pp. 24. Chapman, G. P. (1995). The Ganges plains. In “Water and the Quest for Sustainable Development in the Ganges Valley”, Eds. Chapman, G.P. and Thompson, M., Mansfield Publishing, London. 113- 129 25. Chapman, G. P. (1995). The Ganges and Brahmaputra Basins. In “Water and the Quest for Sustainable Development in the Ganges Valley”. Eds. Chapman, G. P. and Thompson, M. London: Mansfield Publishing. pp 3-24 26. CNRS (1995). Community-based Fishing Management and Habitat Restoration Project:Annual Repor (July 1994-June 1995) 27. de Graaf, G., Born, B., Kemal Uddin, A. M., and Martin, F. (2001). Floods, Fish and Fishermen. The University Press Ltd., Dhaka. 110pp. 28. Hamilton, L. S. (1987). What are the Impacts of Himalayan Deforestation on the Ganges – Brahmaputra Lowlands and Delta? Assumptions and Facts. Mountain Research and Development 1: 256-263 29. Jha, P. K. (1992). Environment and Man in Nepal. Know Nepal series, No. 5. Craftsman Press, Bangkok, 110pp 30. Klun, H. A. and Kamal, M. Y. (1980). On a Collection of Fish from the Kosi (Bihar). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 76: 530-534 31. Messerli, B. and Hofer, T. (1995). Assessing the Impact of Anthropogenic Land Use Change in the Himalayas. In “Water and the Quest for Sustainable Development in the Ganges Valley”. Eds. Chapman, G. P. and Thompson, M. London: Mansell Publishing, London. pp. 64-89 32. Natarajan, A.V. (1989). Environmental impact of Ganga Basin development on the gene pool and fisheries of the Ganga River system. In Dodge, D. P. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Large Rivers Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106: 545-560 33. Smith, B. D. (1991). Status and Conservation of the Ganges River Dolphin, Platanista gangetica in the Karnali River, Nepal. Biological Conservation 66: 159-169. 34. Relief and Rehabilitation department, Government of Bihar; Daily Form –9 report for September 28 2002. 35. 2 Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Prativedan 1994-95, Karyakram 1995-96; p-45. Annual report of the Dept of Water Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, 1994-95. P-45. 36. Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Prativedan 1999-2000, Karyakram 2000-2001.p-45. 37. Report of Rashtriya Barh Ayog (1980) and Second Irrigation Commission of Bihar (1994). 38. Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Prativedan 2001-2002, Karyakram 2002- 2003. P.54. 39. Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag Prativedan1998-99, Karyakram 1999-2000, p.12. 40. Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag Prativedan 1999-2000, Karyakram 2000-2001, p. 18. 41. Bihar Sarkar, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag Prativedan 2001-2002, Karyakram 2002-2003, p. 54.

Figure 1a: Flood affected areas of Bihar

Figure 1b: Map of Bihar

Fig 2: Kosi Multipurpose Project (Drainage Layout)