Water demand and ecosystem nexus in the transboundary river basin: a zero-sum game

Abstract

The water demand in the upstream and downstream of a transboundary river basin varies based on the water use by the irrigation projects, dam, hydroelectricity, ecosystem, livelihood practices and household activities of the people. The study considered the case of Teesta river basin and estimates the water demand of upstream, downstream region as well as entire Teesta river basin shared by India and Bangladesh. The water productivity method exercised in the study demonstrates that 2648 and 1971 cumec water is required to fulfill the irrigation demand of command and irrigable areas, respectively, of entire Teesta basin throughout the year against 198, 1472, 793 cumec water discharge in dry, monsoon and lean season. Although there is a substantial water demand for the hydropower projects in the upstream, it is appeared that water required only by the upstream irrigation project is beyond the water supply capacity of the Trans-Himalayan river Teesta during dry and lean season. This may underpin the shortage of water in the lower riparian country, which fuels the zero-sum game in the river basin, where one player is affected by the intervention of the another player. The result from this analysis with zero-sum game perspective may be useful for reviewing transboundary water policies, basin management and development, sustainable water resource management and water sharing mechanism among countries in the transboundary river basin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: Adopted from Waslekar et al. (2013)

Fig. 2

Source: Author’s estimation based on the data of BWDB

References

  1. Abdalla, I. (1971). The 1959 Nile waters agreement in Sudanese–Egyptian relations. Middle Eastern Studies, 7(3).

  2. 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). Dhaka: University Press Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alcamo, J., et al. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment (p. 245). Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-403-0.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arfanuzzaman, Md. (2015). Teesta Agreement: Facts, disputes and Bangladesh’s game plan. The Daily Star. http://www.the-dailystar.net/op-ed/facts-disputes-and-bangladeshs-game-plan-93133. Accessed 7 June 2015.

  5. Arfanuzzaman, Md. & Ahmad, Q. K. (2015a). Teestai Bangladesher Najjo Hissa. Daily Prothom-alo. http://www.prothom-alo.com/opinion/article/495799. Accessed 7 Apr 2015.

  6. Arfanuzzaman, Md., & Ahmad, Q. K. (2015b). Assessing the regional food insecurity in Bangladesh due to irrigation water shortage in the Teesta catchment area. Water Policy, 18(2), 304–317. doi:10.2166/wp.2015.072.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bagla, P. (2010). Along the Indus River, saber rattling over water security. Science, 328, 1226–1227.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bangladesh water development board (BWDB). (2015). Teesta Barrage Project annual report. Rangpur division, Ministry of Water Resources, GoB.

  9. Bari, E., & Haque, A. K. E. (2016). The economics of taming Teesta River: Limits the choice of agricultural crop diversification. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology, 9(4), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bedford, D. (1996). International Water Management in the Aral Sea Basin. Water International, 21, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Binmore, K. (2007). Playing for real: a text on game theory, chapters 1 & 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530057-4.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dombrowsky, I. (2009). Revisiting the potential for benefit sharing in the management of transboundary rivers. Water Policy, 11(2), 125–140p. doi:10.2166/wp.2009.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Islam, M. F., & Higano, Y. (2002). Equitable sharing of international waters: A proposal for optimal utilization of the Teesta river. Working paper, Institute of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, University of Taskuba, Japan.

  14. Karlin, S. (2014). Mathematical methods and theory in games, programming, and economics: Matrix games, programming, and mathematical economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  15. King, J., Brown, C., & Sabet, H. (2003). A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Research and Applications, 19, 619–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopez-Hoffman, L., Varady, R. G., Flessa, K. W., & Balvanera, P. (2010). Ecosystem services across borders: framework for transboundary conservation policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(2), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Malla, S. K., Shrestha, S. K., & Sainju, M. M. (2001). Nepal’s water vision and the GMB basin framework. In Q. K. Ahmed, A. K. Biswas, R. Rangachari, & M. M. Sainju (Eds.), Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Region: A framework for sustainable development (pp. 143–196). Dhaka: University Press Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Meek, T. H., & Meek, L. A. (2009). Increasing inequality is already making shortages worse. Nature, 459, 31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mekong River Commission (MRC). (2011). 1995 Mekong Agreement and Procedures. Office of the Secretariat, Lao PDR.

  20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2010). Environmental Impact Assessment of the Ting Ting Hydroelectricity Project, Sikkim, India. Prepared by RS Envirolink Technologies Ltd.

  22. Mullick, R. A., Babel, M. S & Perret, S. R. (2010). Flow characteristics and environmental flow requirements for the Teesta River, Bangladesh, Proceedings of International Conference on Environmental Aspects of Bangladesh (ICEAB10), Japan.

  23. Parthasarathy, T. L., & Raghavan, T. E. S. (1971). Some topics in two-person games. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Payne, A.I., Sinha, R., Singh, H.R., & Huq, S. (2003). A review of the Ganges Basin: its fish and fisheries. In The second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 11–14 February. http://www.lars2.org/.

  25. Raghavan, T. E. S. (1978). Completely mixed games and M-matrix. Journal of Linear Algebra And Applications, 21, 22–43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rahaman, M. M. (2012). Water wars in 21st century: speculation or reality? International Journal of Sustainable Society, 4(1/2), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shah, R. B. (2001). Ganges–Brahmaputra: The outlook for the twenty-first century. In A. K. Biswas & J. I. Uitto (Eds.), Sustainable development of the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basins (pp. 17–45). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tanzeema, S., & Faisal, I. M. (2001). Sharing the Ganges: A critical analysis of the water sharing treaties. Water Policy, 3, 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Trivedi, S., Kumar, A., Philip, D., & Singh, E. (2013). Rivers of peace: Restructuring India Bangladesh relations. Mumbai: Strategic Foresight Group.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Upteri, B. C. (1993). Politics of Himalayan river waters: An analysis of the river water issues of Nepal, India and Bangladesh. New Delhi: Nirala Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vorob’ev, N. H. (1977). Game theory: Lectures for economists and system scientists. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Waslekar, S., Futehally, I., Trivedi, S., Kumar, A., Philip, D., & Singh, E. (2013). Rivers for peace: Restructuring India Bangladesh relations. Mumbai: Strategic Foresight Group. ISBN 978-81-88262-19-9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wirsing, R. G., & Jasparro, C. (2007). River rivalry: Water disputes, resource insecurity and diplomatic deadlock in South Asia. Water Policy, 9, 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. World Bank. Environmental Flows. http://water.worldbank.org/topics/environmental-services/environmental-flows. Accessed 10 May 2016.

  35. World Wide Fund (WWF). (2011). Rivers for life: The case of conservation priorities in the face of water infrastructure development. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was carried out by the Himalayan Adaptation, Water and Resilience (HI-AWARE) consortium under the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA) with financial support from the UK Government’s Department for International Development and the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. The authors are grateful to Bangladesh Water Development Board for providing necessary data and information to carry out this study. Authors are also indebted to Mir Sajjad Hossain, Member, Joint Rivers Commission Bangladesh (JRCB) for providing intellectual support to prepare this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Arfanuzzaman.

Additional information

Disclaimer The views expressed in this work are those of the creators and do not necessarily represent those of the UK Government’s Department for International Development, the International Development Research Centre, Canada or its Board of Governors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arfanuzzaman, M., Abu Syed, M. Water demand and ecosystem nexus in the transboundary river basin: a zero-sum game. Environ Dev Sustain 20, 963–974 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9915-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Blue peace
  • Ecosystem service
  • Transboundary water
  • Teesta river
  • Water conflict
  • Water resource economics
  • Zero-sum game