By Suryanath Upadhyaya

A number of views and perceptions have come up on water resource development. The differences between the views and perceptions have not simply remained as the professional discourse but led to heat up the politics, streets and the parliament and demonstrations obstructing the construction of projects. Struggles have crossed the national boundary to occupy the debates in regional and international stages. Such a situation is not just the case in Nepal but general characteristics seen around the world. So, while studying Nepal’s water resources, it is essential to keep watch on international aspects, beyond national attachment.

There have been several declarations made at international forums feeling the immediate need for long term development and conservation of the water resources. The Rio and Dublin declarations are examples. Right to clean drinking water is accepted as human rights. Despite that if a country makes use of the rivers running through several countries and such use bounces negative impacts on other country, extend and limit of such use generally link to the principle of national sovereignty.

The international laws generally define a country’s boundary of sovereignty and freedom. In that way, the international laws in one hand explain and protect a country’s sovereignty and on the other determine the limitations. Practically, the discrimination and tussle between the limitations and sovereign rights give rise to disputes. Development of water resources has incorporated this trend.

Last years of the 19th century gave birth to the theory of regional sovereignty and the first quarter of 20th century produced the theory of regional integrity. The theory of ‘justifiable use and rights’ propounded by the end of 20th century merging these two contrasting views has not been fully accepted by all nation states. They have explicitly reflected these two divergent views (in their policies).

Result of the situation is the failure to implement the treaty relating to non-transportable use of water resources (like drinking water, irrigation, hydropower, entertainment, fishery and such others) prepared by International Law Commission consuming 20 years.

That reasoned to seek support of the customary international laws like verdicts of the courts, states’ behaviours, initiatives taken at governmental and non-governmental levels, established theories of international laws, views of the experts, etc. rather than explaining the concerned Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve disputes relating to development of water resources.

The national aspect of the water resource development is attached with issues such as declared and undeclared rights of the local residents, indigenous groups, women, rights whose limitations are not determined, ecology protection and water, forest and land that is intimately related to alternatives of water resources and is influenced by the concept of sustainable development.

Thus, the issue of water resource development is webbed into the viscous of multiple views. In fact, it seems we have been trapped or in the way to be trapped in such mesh that water resource development for us in reality is becoming a fruit beyond our reach. The issue will be further complicated owning to the new and stubborn support for federalism dominated by regional, gender, ethnic and linguistics concepts.

While dividing these concepts and perceptions in broader categories, the first group includes those concepts and perceptions which are inclusive to an extent. This will help to identify the characteristics of various issues, either having relations within them or with other subject matters but cannot give out a concrete solution. It just says that there should be all round development. The issue ends with views like development should take consideration of origin, development, culture and lifestyle of the human being which is hardly definable.

Whatever decision is taken, one-sided efforts are continuously made to unfurl its alternative aspect or the opposite side. These concepts and perceptions have led to indirect resistance to various projects designed in Nepal. This view does not consider country’s situation and its limitations. This view stresses not to construct a project with reservoir or concept that human being’s development must dilute with the characteristics of the water resource.

Producing power from water resources helps business of one section of people while its alternative helps the other section’s business. The network of this interest has been able to accomplish its pursuit since it has developed itself into a profession. Nepal is the example of this situation where interests of the traders or professionals are determined at the time of finalizing the project.

The third category of concepts includes those who had been viewing water resource development as complete profession and kept more details on its use. Their only interests would be to prepare infrastructure relating to water resource development and make multiple use of water. Until recently, preservation of water resources had not been incorporated into any views. Though aspects like preservation and people’s participation were incorporated into these views, these aspects have not received a good position yet. Our government agencies are influenced by this view.

The fourth category includes practical views and it does not restrict the water resources development as just the subjects of discussion but stresses on its practical implementation. The first category of views takes this as rival to sustainable development. Thinkers under the first category feel the initiatives of those from fourth category could not do an optimum management of the water resources.

Further, those who do not subscribe this view feel that human beings must not interfere into the natural state of water but have to adopt with it. For them, construction of dam, construction of big projects and exports of power from country like Nepal is a big blunder.

This section seems to be stronger because it has no accountability beyond organizing debates but the practical viewers have accountability to make people benefit from the use of hydropower and such benefits must be generated within a specified boundary. Otherwise, thoughts without boundary may not give any fruitful results.

Development of water resources in our country has been bewildered within these diversities of views. If any theory does not have its direct relation with the people and does not define its limitations and prospects in a specific time or circumstance, it gives no utility to people. Nepal’s water resources have limitations and these limitations are either geographical or manmade.

There is need to identify these limitations. Looking at the geographical limitations and availability and necessity of water resources, there is necessity of human interference in water resource development debates. Now, what would be the area for interference? There is need for next phase of discussion to define the type of interference and outline its concepts and characters.

To look at the national scenario, it is transparent that some think it is their ethics to oppose the construction of hydropower plant with reservoir or any hydropower plants or big plants – the category of size they themselves define. Not only is the case of Arun III, but construction of Kaligandaki, West Seti and Upper Karnali projects has been opposed.

It is not less challenging for water resource development in Nepal in midst of these views and perceptions and opposition groups who rely on these thoughts to indirectly protests the construction of hydropower plants. There is no dispute that Nepal’s necessity for hydropower should be the first priority. Power must not be exported without meeting national needs. This is right but to say that Nepal must not export power to India if it could not consume within the country and should not produce power beyond the actual need of the country is a fallacy.

Nepal has all kinds of projects: large, small or medium. The potentiality of the projects is determined by their characteristics. Nepal’s capital market is very small and has not developed its potentials for investment. This cannot be done overnight, it takes years and it needs practical view. Secondly, no one wish to invest in hydropower projects without first knowing who will be the purchaser. Thirdly, it is impossible to stop transmission of power once it is done.
There is not alternative to increase the price of electricity and number of consumers until we develop competitive energy market like in Europe. Thus, it cannot be like other goods which can be sold and resold as we wish. That’s the reason we need to be practical and give attention to all kinds of projects – big, small or medium.

It should be kept in mind that neighbouring country India is directly or indirectly linked to water resource development in Nepal. As such, we cannot abstain from mutual exchange business. To ignore the losses by floods or economic and political impacts caused by avoiding the use of water resources which could be beneficial to both the countries, might not be in the interest of Nepal. This does not mean to surrender our interest but to adopt a practical strategy for its protection.

Such practical strategies ascertain our priority and help to table our rights clearly with India to find their solution through talks. It also helps to clarify things rather than debating on it if matter is not in the national interest. If the views and perceptions developed at the national and international circles are not turned to be practical considering the above mentioned situation, it will bring internal and external disputes making water resource development in Nepal to be impossible.

(Note: The opinion has been translated  from Upadhyaya’s write-up published earlier in the HN and the Gorkhapatra for wider circulation)