 |
Kathmandu Monday March 05, 2001 Falgun 22, 2057.
|
Follow World Commission on Dams Guidelines: Prof.
Ramaswamy Iyer
Professor Ramaswamy R Iyer, former Water Resources Secretary of the
government of India, devoted all his life to India’s civil service. He is also
considered as the ‘spirit and man behind India’s Water Resources Policy’
introduced in 1987. He was also part of the high-level Hanumanta Rao Committee on Tehri
dam (in 1996-1997) and the Sardar Sarobar project (in 1993-1995).
Professor Iyer says he his a little bit worried about the idea of building
high dams in the Himalayas. "This area is earthquake prone and building a
quake-resistant dam could cost enormous," he says. And, on the Nepal-India relations,
he says every thing will be all right "if there is one example of good and successful
cooperation between the two neighbours. Professor Iyer was here last week to participate
in a water management meeting. Surendra Phuyal and Hari Thapa of The Kathmandu Post talked
on a wide range of issues pertaining to water resources and development with him.
Excerpts:
What do you think are the challenges of sharing of water between Nepal and
India?
Watersharing should not be a big problem between Nepal and India. There is a
problem, say, between India and Bangladesh. Because India is a big country it can use up a
lot of water. Then Bangladesh will not get enough. So we must reach some kind of
understanding, which we have done in the Ganges Treaty of 1996. As far as Nepal and India
are concerned, even if Nepal uses all the water that it wants to it won’t have a
significant effect on India. There still will be enough water.
Essentially, between Nepal and India what has been under discussion is
hydroelectric power, not so much water sharing. Even projects like Mahakali and
Pancheshwor and so on are essentially for producing power and selling power. So there are
not really any water sharing agreements, except Mahakali, which has one element of water
sharing. I don’t see it as a very difficult issue between Nepal and India.
Do you think India will remain supportive of Nepal’s endeavor to produce
and export hydro-electricity?
Definitely. India is very interested in all these projects—Saptakoshi,
Pancheshwor, and Karnali. There is already this Mahakali treaty of 1996. If Nepal wants to
generate power from its water resources, and sell it to India, India will buy it. It is
only a question of settling the details of tariffs and things like that. But within Nepal,
there seems to be another point of view: that Nepal should go in for smaller projects. And
there is another point: that this area is seismically active belt. So whenever anybody
wants to build a project obstacles start surfacing.
Do you agree with the popular belief here that proper utilization of water
resources can be the backbone of Nepal’s economy?
All I know is that in Nepal there are two views on this. This is the dominant
view. This is what the government feels: that water is to Nepal what oil was to the Middle
East, the major source of revenue. But I also know that others like Deepak Gyawali and
Ajay Dixit, they have different view. They feel we should go in for smaller projects to
meet local requirements.
Because when you undertake a big project, whether it is in India-Nepal
context or otherwise or even the purely Indian context, there are too many issues involved
in big projects. Our Tehri is now stalled. The Court has not yet given a decision. It is
being constructed, but has run into a serious trouble. I am sure that every one of these
projects will run into trouble.
How do you view the Koshi and Gandak water Accords reached between Nepal and
India in the 50s and 60s?
You see those were the agreements negotiated at that time by both
governments. No body forced any agreement on anyone. They were negotiated and signed. May
be they are not good agreements, may be they are not in either India’s interest or in
Nepal’s interest. Essentially, what has happened in those cases is that subsequently
they were amended to take some of Nepal’s concerns into account. Initially, they were
signed in a particular way. Both the Koshi agreement and the Gandak agreement were
revised.
Nevertheless that particular impression continued that Nepal’s interest
had not been taken into account. I don’t agree with the general belief in Nepal that
Nepal was cheated in those agreements. What has happened was that both these agreements
were inefficiently implemented. They did not produce the benefits they were intended to
produce, either for India or for Nepal. You go to Bihar and you can see it all. They were
unsuccessful projects.
Unfortunately, they cast a shadow on all subsequent development.
Do you think projects like Koshi high dam and the Pancheshwor high dam can be
accomplished, and will they have good impact?
Well, I am a little worried about all these big projects in the Himalayas.
Many people say that can be done, there is a strong body of union that it can be done, it
is quite safe. First, really I am a little worried about it. Because even Tehri has been
subjected to this kind of question. This area is earthquake prone, and quakes can occur
any time. Theoretically, you can build a dam to withstand any kind of
earthquake—eight in the Richter Scale Nine in the Richter scale. But it will be
enormously costly.
But does it mean that we should never attempt for bigger projects?
No the big projects can be done. Suppose you forget the earthquakes, look at
it from other points of view. The way out is to follow what the World Commission on Dams
says. They have given some procedures, some methods. They have talked about the rights and
restrictions of those whose rights are affected, who bears the risk. If you keep that into
account, bring them into the picture right from the beginning, that is the way to proceed.
So you build a project in a totally people-centered and participatory manner.
What is your reaction on the World Commission on Dams Guidelines? Are
countries like China, Nepal and India right in criticizing the report?
I don’t think so. I think it is unwise decision. If you want some of the
details can be changed. They have prescribed a certain procedure; you can make changes in
that procedure. But the principle of consultation, the principle of people being first,
the principle of rights and risks, you can’t question that.
Finally, what do you suggest Nepal’s politicians and policy makers who
are bent on going ahead with both big and small projects?
Well, it’s not for me to advise Nepal. All I know is that, if it were
India, if I were advising India, I am not saying don’t ever build big projects. All I
am saying is that these big projects have a number of major problems. Therefore, keep them
as the last resort, consider all the options and all the alternatives available, if you
still think that you need a big project, then built them very carefully and according to
the principles suggested by the World Commission of Dams. I think that would equally apply
for Nepal. That’s what I would say.
Other Stories
|
