Content uploaded by Ramesh Raj Pant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ramesh Raj Pant on Jan 30, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Water International
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rwin20
Transboundary water governance challenges in the
Mahakali River basin: a view from Nepal and way
forward
Keshari Tiwari, Ramesh Raj Pant & Deep Narayan Shah
To cite this article: Keshari Tiwari, Ramesh Raj Pant & Deep Narayan Shah (29 Jan 2025):
Transboundary water governance challenges in the Mahakali River basin: a view from Nepal
and way forward, Water International, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2024.2447655
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2024.2447655
Published online: 29 Jan 2025.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwin20
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Transboundary water governance challenges in the Mahakali
River basin: a view from Nepal and way forward
Keshari Tiwari , Ramesh Raj Pant and Deep Narayan Shah
Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
ABSTRACT
The Mahakali River, a key tributary of the Ganges, is shared by
Nepal and India. The 1996 Mahakali Treaty aimed to promote
cooperation, but after almost three decades, eective transbound-
ary governance has remained limited. This study examines gov-
ernance attributes like rule of law, transparency, accountability
and inclusiveness through interviews, legal reviews, and second-
ary sources. It identies inadequate implementation of these prin-
ciples, inuenced by politically driven, nation-centred approaches.
The study critiques the treaty’s inequities and proposes
a collaborative basin water policy framework. These ndings pro-
vide insights for improving water governance and sustaining the
Mahakali and other transboundary rivers.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 24 March 2021
Accepted 24 December 2024
KEYWORDS
Mahakali treaty; riparian
communities; decision-
makers; transboundary water
governance; India; Nepal
Introduction
The updated registry of transboundary water now includes 310 international river basins,
spanning territories in 150 nations, covering 47.1% of the global landmass. These basins
accommodate 52% of the global population and contribute to 60% of worldwide fresh-
water flows (McCracken & Wolf, 2019; UNECE & UNESCO, 2021). Transboundary
water cooperation is vital for sustainable development, addressing diverse challenges like
water scarcity and biodiversity conservation, and fostering economic growth and peace
(UN, 2023). It necessitates agreements for the collaborative management of shared water
resources across state boundaries. Global water cooperation agreements have seen
a steady increase, with over 3600 treaties signed over the past 1200 years (Eckstein,
2017). The regulations governing transboundary water resources have been codified in
key global instruments, including the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-
navigational Uses of International Watercourses and the 1992 Convention on the
Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Wouters
& Vinogradov, 2020). Despite these efforts, significant legal gaps persist in transboundary
water governance, as highlighted by the absence of agreements for many international
watercourses (Rieu-Clarke & Vercambre, 2009). However, it is worth noting that none of
the South Asian countries are signatories to these legal frameworks, including the UN
Convention (1997), which reflects the prevailing legal thinking and practices concerning
international watercourses.
CONTACT Deep Narayan Shah dnshah@cdes.edu.np
WATER INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2024.2447655
© 2025 International Water Resources Association
South Asia, including India and Nepal, faces severe water stress, with 74% of the
population affected (Kuzma et al., 2023). India annually experiences extreme water stress,
utilizing 80% of its renewable water for various purposes, while Nepal also grapples with
high water stress (Kuzma et al., 2023). Even short droughts could potentially exacerbate
the existing water-related challenges (Kuzma et al., 2023). Despite abundant water
resources, Nepal’s poor water management system fails to secure benefits. Similarly,
India, as one of the most populous countries, faces similar challenges. Given the mount-
ing stress on water resources due to population growth, climate change, pollution, and
other factors, effective transboundary water governance is crucial for both Nepal and
India (Kuzma et al., 2023; Swain & Karim, 2022).
All the rivers of Nepal flow into India, contributing to 70% of the Ganges River during
the dry season (Rai & Joshi, 2020). Karnali, Gandaki, Kosi, Mahakali, and Mechi are the
major transboundary rivers shared between Nepal and India and are principal tributaries
of the Ganges River. The history of water relations between Nepal and India dates back to
the British colonial era, with negotiations occurring between 1910 and 1920, when British
India sought to utilize the Sarada Barrage (Mahakali River) for irrigation in Uttar
Pradesh. Till now, Nepal and India have signed four bilateral treaties and one agreement
in transboundary rivers, including the Sarada treaty (1920), Kosi Project Agreement
(1954), Gandak Irrigation and Power Project Agreement (1959), Tanakpur Agreement
(1991) and Mahakali Treaty (1996). After signing of these agreements, Nepal has been
criticized domestically by Nepalese political leaders, water experts, civil society groups
and the general population for failing to secure equitable benefits in transboundary water
agreements, while India is seen as leveraging its stronger economy to dominate shared
rivers (Bagale, 2020; Rai & Joshi, 2020). The Mahakali Treaty, concluded in 1996,
incorporated elements from the 1920 Sarada agreement, as well as the 1991
Memorandum of Understanding and the 1992 Joint Communique for the Tanakpur
Barrage and Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project. Although the Mahakali Treaty was
anticipated to enhance benefit-sharing and establish a new era of cooperation compared
to previous agreements (Upadhyay, 2009), its effectiveness in this regard remains uncer-
tain. These agreements have fuelled mistrust, making Nepal cautious in its approach to
water issues with India (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999; Rai & Joshi, 2020). In contrast, while
other transboundary river basins, like those in the African region, reap the advantages of
multilateral cooperation in addressing water challenges with the innovative approach
(Tropp et al., 2023), the South Asian region, including Nepal and India, has not been able
to harness the potential of transboundary basins including Mahakali River basin.
However, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon as recent developments from the
fourth meeting of the India–Nepal team of experts in July 2023 reveal India’s willingness
to invest further in the Pancheswar Multipurpose Project (Shrestha, 2023). While the
government sector is proceeding with its implementation at a deliberate pace, the
proposed Pancheshwar Dam project has faced significant criticism as it is perceived as
unsustainable, unfair and economically unsound in both nations (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999;
Asher, 2018). This view is supported by the fact that the project fails to meet all seven of
the United Nations’ World Commission on Dams ‘strategic priorities’ that were estab-
lished to guide more sustainable and equitable water resource development (Everard &
Kataria, 2010). Nepali officials express doubt about the possibility of concluding the
Detailed Project Report within the current term of the Team of Experts, as both sides
2K. TIWARI ET AL.
grapple with challenges in reconciling differences in benefits calculation. The fate of the
Pancheshwar Project remains uncertain, as Nepal and India have yet to overcome these
obstacles (Shrestha, 2023). The development of the Pancheswar Multipurpose Project not
only raises concerns about the potential environmental and social impacts of the project
on Mahakali River basin, but it also questions India–Nepal hydro diplomacy.
Lack of water cooperation among countries sharing river basins can lead to substantial
costs for governments and various users. Although investing in cooperation may seem
expensive, the expense of not cooperating often surpasses it (Swain & Karim, 2022).
Nepal’s economic development hinges on cooperation with India for the utilization of its
water resources. Flexible handling of political issues can enable both nations to achieve
shared objectives beyond their individual capacities (Rai & Joshi, 2020).
The aim of this article is to investigate the governing situation of the Mahakali River
basin and recommend measures for its improvement. It examines key attributes of
transboundary water governance, such as the rule of law, transparency, accountability,
inclusiveness, and participation, through the various indicators, subindicators and indi-
cator questions and explores the reason to prove why holistic framework is needed how
these attributes are implemented. Additionally, it addresses the necessity of effective
transboundary water governance through holistic framework and outlines steps to
achieve it. Drawing on secondary sources and key informant interviews, the study
primarily reflects perspectives from Nepal, while acknowledging the importance of
both countries’ involvement in transboundary water governance. The article is structured
into five sections: an overview of water relationships between India and Nepal, the study’s
methodology, the status of transboundary water governance attributes with its different
indicators, and the way forward for sustainable management of the Mahakali River basin.
Emphasizing a holistic approach to ecosystem and sustainable development, it under-
scores the need for India and Nepal to prioritize sustainable development and inclusive-
ness in their water governance framework for the Mahakali River basin. Despite focusing
on basin-level discussions, it highlights the absence of joint activities at the basin level in
South Asia, advocating for a shift from a politics-centric and state-centric approach to
a basin-centric perspective.
Materials and methods
Study area
The Mahakali River forms the western boundary between Nepal and India for most of its
length before entering India at the Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh (Figure 1).
The origin of the Mahakali River is still a matter of controversy, with Nepal strongly
claiming that the longer tributary of the river originates at Limpiadhura and is therefore
the mainstream of the Mahakali, while India claims that the river originates from the
Lipulekh Glacier.
The Mahakali River basin has a total basin area of 15,260 km
2
up to the upper
Sharda Barrage, with about 34% of the total area lying in Nepal (WECS, 2005).
The total catchment area is 19,243 km
2
up to the lower Sharda Barrage. The
Nepal Portion Basin (NPB) covers 5548 km
2
of the total area, and the India
Portion Basin (IPB) covers 13,695 km
2
of the total area, with 10,871 km
2
in
WATER INTERNATIONAL 3
Uttarakhand State and the remaining 2824 km
2
lying in Uttar Pradesh State
(Figure 1).
On the Nepal side, the Mahakali River basin covers Darchula, Baitadi, Dadeldhura and
Kanchanpur districts of Sudurpaschim Province, while on the Indian side, it covers
Pithoragarh, Bageshwar, Champawat, and partially Almora, Nainital and Udham Singh
Nagar districts of Uttarakhand State, and its tail part covers Lakhimpur Kheri,
Shahjahanpur and Pilibhit districts of Uttar Pradesh (Figure 1). Recent census data
reveals significant population growth in urban areas within the Mahakali River basin.
On the Nepalese side, Kanchanpur district has experienced notable urban expansion,
while on the Indian side, similar trends are observed in the urban regions of Uttarakhand
and Uttar Pradesh states (National Statistics Office, 2021; Statistics Times, 2024).
This basin includes two famous national parks, the Shuklaphata National Park in
Nepal, and the Dudhwa National Park in India. Some of the large hydropower projects
that are currently in operation include the 280 MW Dhauliganga Hydro Electricity
Project, Tanakpur Hydropower Project and Khatima Hydropower Project in
Uttarakhand State, and the 30 MW Hydro Electricity Project on the Chameliya River
(a major tributary of the Mahakali River basin) on the Nepal side (LIFE, 2015). There are
no other hydropower developments on the mainstream of the Mahakali River upstream
of the proposed Pancheshwar Dam (WAPCOS, 2017).
Figure 1. Map of study area showing Mahakali River basin with India portion and Nepal portion.
4K. TIWARI ET AL.
According to detailed project report, the Pancheshwar project, a 315-m tall rockfill
dam on the Mahakali River along the India–Nepal border, aims to store monsoon
precipitation for use during dry seasons and divert it to water-scarce regions. It is
expected to irrigate 93,000 hectares in Nepal and 259,390 hectares in India and is a key
part of the Yamuna–Sarada link to transfer surplus water to deficit rivers. The project has
a projected electricity generation capacity of 5040 MW, with an annual output of 9116
GWh (WAPCOS, 2017).
Data collection and analysis
In the article, the information gathered from the different secondary sources regarding
the governance of the Mahakali River basin were verified and triangulated through the
information generated from primary data key informant interviews and field
observation.
Secondary data collection
The first part of the desk review aimed to understand the legal standing of Nepal and
India on transboundary rivers in the context of the Mahakali River basin. To achieve this,
bilateral agreements/treaties, and bilateral minutes of joint meetings (Indo-Nepal Joint
Commission on Water Resources and Joint Standing Technical Committee) were
reviewed. These can be accessed through the website of the Ministry of Water
Resource, Energy, and Irrigation of the Government of Nepal. The Mahakali Treaty
1996 (His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India concerning the
Integrated Development of the Mahakali River including Sarada Barrage, Tanakpur
Barrage and Pancheshwar Project) was given more priority. To understand its pros and
cons and provide suggestions, main legal frameworks on transboundary water govern-
ance, such as the UN Convention on Non-navigational uses of International
Watercourses 1997 (UN Convention, 1997), was reviewed intensively.
The second part of the desk review aimed to explore the governing status of the
Mahakali River and a way forward for good governance. To achieve this, papers related to
the status of water relationships between Nepal and India were collected through the
university library and internet searches using keywords such as water relationship
between India and Nepal, pros and cons of Mahakali River, and water governance of
the Mahakali River. Literature published on joint reports, international journal articles
and national journal articles discussing how we can achieve good transboundary water
governance were also examined. Search queries used on websites were: (i) good trans-
boundary water governance framework, (ii) Nepal India water relation, and (iii) attri-
butes of water governance.
Primary data collection
To assess the status of the Mahakali River basin from the ground level, a field visit was
conducted from 28 March to 17 April 2019 in the Darchula, Baitadi, Dadeldhura and
Kanchanpur districts of Nepal, which comprise the Nepal portion of the Mahakali River
basin. Additionally, a recent visit to the Mahakali River basin in Kanchanpur district in
2023 helped in validating and updating the information collected in 2019. Primary data
were collected through key informant interviews and direct field observations.
WATER INTERNATIONAL 5
A total of 22 key informant interviews were conducted during the study period. The
interviewees included individuals from government bodies, private sectors, non-
governmental organizations and international non-governmental organizations actively
engaged in transboundary river management, water resource management, and devel-
opment, all of whom have direct or indirect connections to the Mahakali River basin. Key
informants were the representatives from local to joint level institution such as
Pancheshwar Development Authority based on their ability to provide insights into
India–Nepal water and energy relations. The standard checklist was used to guide the
key informant interviews and extract information on: (i) Nepal–India water relations
concerning the Mahakali River from past to present, (ii) challenges in water governance
of Mahakali River basin, (iii) environmental issues related to the Mahakali River, and (iv)
approaches for improving transboundary water governance. The interviews were tran-
scribed and analysed thematically using a semantic approach to identify patterns, mean-
ings, and implications. Studies on transboundary water governance frequently employ
key informant interviews in qualitative research, as they provide a deeper understanding
of complex issues (Vasani, 2023). The findings from the key informant interviews were
integrated into the main section according to their thematic relevance.
Assessment framework for transboundary water governance in the Mahakali River
basin
The methodology for assessing transboundary water governance in the Mahakali River
basin is developed by integrating insights from Jimenez et al. (2020) and The Economist
Intelligence Unit (2019). Initially, these sources were reviewed to formulate
a comprehensive framework tailored to this study’s objectives. Attributes crucial to
water governance – rule of law, accountability, transparency, inclusiveness, and partici-
pation – were identified for evaluation. According to Jimenez et al. (2020), water
governance is defined as a combination of functions encompassing policy and strategy,
coordination, planning and preparedness, financing, management arrangement, mon-
itoring evaluation and learning, regulation, and capacity development which operates
with specific attributes including multi-level, participation, deliberation, inclusiveness,
accountability, transparency, evidence-based, efficiency, impartiality, and adaptiveness,
with the ultimate aim of achieving desired outcomes such as enabling conditions,
behavioural change, and alterations in social and environmental conditions, shaped by
the values and aspirations of those involved in the governance process. The Blue Peace
Index report by The Economist Intelligence Unit serves as a robust tool for assessing
countries’ and basins’ management of shared water resources, evaluating challenges and
opportunities for sustainable cooperation. The index scrutinizes 24 countries across five
transboundary river basins, using 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators across five
domains: Policy and Legal Frameworks, Institutions and Participation, Water
Management Instruments, Infrastructure and Financing, and Cooperation Context.
Two key domains explored in this study are Policy and Legal Frameworks and
Institutional Arrangements and Participation, focusing on the importance of basin-
level policies and institutional setups to foster cooperation and coordination among
stakeholders. The resulting assessment framework (Table 1), derived from Jimenez et al.
(2020) and The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019), comprises indicators and questions
6K. TIWARI ET AL.
aimed at evaluating rule of law, transparency, inclusiveness, participation, and account-
ability. For assessing the rule of law, intensive review of Mahakali treaty 1996 and
international water frameworks (UN Convention, 1997) was done. This framework
delves into various aspects, including the purpose and evolution of bilateral agreements,
implementation status, controversies, including transboundary water agreement align-
ment with international principles, joint management plan, water-sharing mechanisms,
sectoral approach, and dispute resolution mechanisms. It also examines institutional
capacity, data and information sharing, decision-making processes, and accountability
mechanisms. By adopting this methodology, the study seeks to offer understanding into
Table 1. Assessment framework for transboundary water governance of Mahakali River basin.
Attributes (Jimenez et al., 2020)Indicators and indicator questions (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019)
Rule of Law Indicator: Policy and legal frameworks
●What was the purpose of the bilateral agreement?
●How did the agreement evolve?
●Are there any controversies regarding the agreements?
Subindicator: Transboundary water agreement, joint management plan, water
sharing mechanisms, sectoral approach, dispute resolution mechanisms.
Assessing Holistic Nature of Agreement: Change Needed?
●Do the agreements align with the transboundary water agreement principles
outlined by the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses?
●Is there a joint institution body?
●Does the agreement plan outline methods of water sharing/water allocation?
●Is the agreement considering a sectoral approach, considering integrated
water resource management, environmental criteria as well?
●What was the motive behind signing the agreement basin-centric, state-
centric, or politically centred?
Transparency, Inclusiveness
and Participation
Indicator: Institutional capacity
●Does a joint institutional body, such as a river basin organization, exist
among riparian communities to guarantee transparency, inclusivity, and
participation in water-related decision-making processes or if not any formal
or informal institutions?
●Are there any collaborative capacity-building initiatives facilitated by this
operational joint body or by any other institutions?
Indicator: Data and Information-sharing
●Is there a shared database or platform established for basin states to
exchange data on environmental conditions, research activities, and the
application of best available techniques for monitoring data?
●If there is not any shared database, what alternative methods are utilized for
sharing data and information between countries and among local
communities?
●Do basin states conduct joint monitoring activities in the transboundary
basin?
Indicator: Decision-making process
●How is transparency upheld during the sharing of data and information, as
well as throughout the decision-making process?
●In what ways are various stakeholders, including riparian communities,
youth, women, and local institutions, incorporated into the decision-
making process to ensure their participation?
Accountability Indicators: Policy and legal frameworks, institutional capacity, data- and
information-sharing, transparency, inclusiveness and participation in
decision-making process
Main question: Who bears responsibility, answerability, and enforceability for the
current situation across these indicators and attributes?
●Is the ongoing water cooperation between Nepal and India regarding
Mahakali River is good enough?
●Which entity exhibits greater dominance or hegemony?
WATER INTERNATIONAL 7
the present state of water governance within the Mahakali River basin, pinpointing areas
requiring enhancement to promote sustainable management and cooperation. However,
it’s important to acknowledge a limitation of this framework, as it doesn’t delve deeply
into aspects like projects, infrastructure, financing, and investment, which are also
significant facets of water cooperation (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019; Tropp
et al., 2023).
Results and Discussion
Attributes of transboundary water governance in the Mahakali River basin
This section attempts to explore the gaps and issues in the Mahakali River basin with
respect to the attributes of transboundary water governance: rule of law, transparency,
accountability, inclusiveness, and participation and its associated indicators and subin-
dicators as mentioned in the assessment framework (Table 1).
Rule of law
The UN refers to the ‘Rule of law’ as a core principle of governance, where all
(including institutions, entities, the public, private sector, and the state) are accoun-
table to laws established that are consistent with international human rights norms
and standards. Thus, to evaluate the rule of law in the Mahakali River basin, this
section analyses the bilateral agreement, particularly the Mahakali Treaty, inked
between India and Nepal. It delves into its historical development, controversies,
and importantly, assesses the comprehensive aspects of the agreement while exploring
various indicators of the basin water policy framework. This includes evaluating
transboundary water agreement alignment with international principles, joint man-
agement plan, water-sharing mechanisms, sectoral approach, dispute resolution
mechanisms and delving into the motivations behind its signing, whether basin-
centric, state-centric, or politics-centric. In this study, ‘basin-centric’ denotes an
approach considering overall basin management, akin to a holistic perspective; ‘state-
centric’ prioritizes state interests in agreements; and ‘politics-centric’ prioritizes poli-
tical faith and agendas.
Evolution of the Mahakali Treaty
The water relations between India and Nepal on the Mahakali River began with the aim
of utilizing the river’s surplus water and preventing it from going to waste by signing the
agreement on the Sarada Irrigation Barrage between the British Government in the
United Province in India and the Rana Regime in 1920 (Dixit, 2009). However, in the
mid-1980s, Nepal raised concerns with India’s unilateral action regarding the Tanakpur
Barrage when India started survey works on the river course without consulting Nepal.
Nepal claimed its right on the river at the secretary-level meeting on
20–22 December 1987 after the construction activities of Tanakpur Barrage started to
submerge and erode Nepali territory (Upadhyay, 2009). In 1991, recognizing Nepal’s
need to tie the left afflux bund, the first Memorandum of Understanding was signed
between India and Nepal for the Tanakpur agreement, with the exchange of a certain
8K. TIWARI ET AL.
quantum of power and water for irrigation in the lieu of land to be made available. After
the Tanakpur debate in Nepal, both within the parliament and in the press and streets,
questions regarding both the substance and procedures for negotiating water treaties
with India were asked (Gyawali, 2009). However, nothing could be done and Tanakpur
became a fait accompli, and the Memorandum of Understanding remained in limbo
(Pun, 2009a). Thus, it proves that cooperation between Nepal and India can be viewed as
the consequence of hydro-hegemony rather than mutuality (Bagale & Adhikari, 2020).
After the formation of the Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist Leninist
(CPN-UML) in 1994, the Tanakpur issue again came under the government’s considera-
tion. Apparently, there were three different schools of thought regarding further negotia-
tion between India and Nepal on the Mahakali River. Some within the government
believed that negotiating the whole river would be too complex to handle and suggested
negotiating only on the Tanakpur Project, while others believed that this was the right
time to move forward and see what could be done to achieve mutual gain (Upadhyay,
2009). By giving more priority to the second school of thought, to solve the controversies
of the Tanakpur Agreement and take cooperation between India and Nepal on water to
a new era, a bilateral treaty on the integrated development of the Mahakali River was
signed in Nepal in February 1996 by India and Nepal, which came into force in June 1997
(Upadhyay, 2009). However, some experts outside the government who have different
schools of thought regarding negotiation were against the Mahakali Treaty and claimed
that the agreements were signed in haste and were lopsided in favour of India (Gyawali &
Dixit, 1999).
Controversies on the Mahakali Treaty
Controversy on the Mahakali Treaty started right after the conclusion of the treaty. This
controversy act as a grass root cause in poor implementation of the Mahakali Treaty
(Bagale & Adhikari, 2020). It was approved by a two-thirds majority in a chaotic session
of parliament of Nepal close to midnight on September 1996. Of 228 members present at
the joint session of the two houses, 220 members voted for the ratification of the treaty.
This overwhelming treaty ratification was possible due to following four strictures that
basically redefined treaty. They are (Pun, 2009b):
(1) Nepal’s electricity to be bought by India on the principle of avoided cost.
(2) Mahakali Commission to be constituted through agreement with the main oppo-
sition party and parties recognized as national parties.
(3) Equal entitlement in the use of Mahakali waters without prejudice to their
respective consumptive uses means equal rights to all the waters of Mahakali.
(4) Mahakali is a boundary river on major stretches between the two countries means
the same as ‘basically a border river’.
The instruments of ratification were exchanged between India and Nepal without these
four strictures on 4 June 1997 (Upadhyay, 2009), so India did not accept the strictures
while Nepali political parties have unanimously pledged themselves to it in front of the
Nepali people. Given the era of diminishing freshwater sources and the increasing
occurrences of droughts and floods due to climate change, the issues surrounding the
development of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project need to be addressed
WATER INTERNATIONAL 9
transparently, embodying the principles of equity, justice, and fair play (Pun, 2009b). If
six vital issues, such as the validity of Rastriya Sankalpas/national strictures, the recon-
stitution of the all-party Parliamentary Monitoring Joint Committee, the export of
energy and its pricing principle, the formation of the Mahakali River Commission, the
equal sharing of Mahakali Waters after the completion of the Pancheshwar Project, and
determining the origin of the Mahakali River, are not addressed in a good faith manner,
the development of the Pancheshwar Multipurose Project will be in doubt again (Pun,
2014).
Despite experts’ claims of inequality in the Indo-Nepal water agreement, this section
delves into why cooperation has faltered, examining necessary aspects for a basin water
policy framework by reviewing the Mahakali treaty 1996. It scrutinizes the reasons for the
deadlock and proposes a shift towards a holistic approach, emphasizing the importance
of good agreements to usher in a new era of cooperation. The focus is on abandoning past
approaches and embracing innovative ideas, particularly through a basin-wide holistic
lens, incorporating integrated water resources management concepts.
A holistic agreement entails moving away from short-term risks towards long-term
sustainability, evaluating policy, legal, and institutional frameworks for water manage-
ment, and fostering collaboration within basins and regions. According to the Blue Peace
Index 2019, a robust basin water policy framework includes elements like transboundary
water management agreements aligned with (UN Convention, 1997) principles, inclusive
participation of all basin countries, development of joint management plans by river
basin organizations, water allocation mechanisms, sectoral scope for transboundary
water management, and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
Transboundary water management agreement and transboundary water
governance principles
Key principles of transboundary water governance include equitable and reasonable
utilization, ecosystem protection, avoidance of significant harm, notification and
information exchange, and a general obligation to cooperate. These principles are
widely recognized and are incorporated into major legal framework such as the UN
Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses
of 1997. For instance, the principle of reasonable and equitable utilization is outlined
in Articles 5–6 of the UN Convention. Similarly, the duty to avoid significant harm is
addressed in Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the UN Convention. Cooperation and information
exchange are emphasized in Articles 8–11 of the UN Convention, while notification,
consultation, and negotiation are underscored in Articles 12–18 of the UN
Convention. Lastly, the peaceful settlement of disputes is highlighted in Article 33
of the UN Convention. Effective transboundary water governance is achieved when
these principles are clearly addressed and implemented by riparian countries (Orme
et al., 2015).
Mahakali Treaty 1996 is the formal agreement existing between India and Nepal
concerning the Mahakali River. According to Upadhyay (2009), the Mahakali Treaty is
viewed as a framework allowing negotiations for projects like the Pancheshwar based on
specific guidelines and transboundary water governance principles. The treaty, compris-
ing 12 articles, incorporates agreements such as the 1920 Sarada Agreement, the 1991
10 K. TIWARI ET AL.
memorandom of understanding, the 1992 Joint Communique for the Tanakpur Barrage
and endorsed the idea of constructing the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project.
While experts initially viewed the Mahakali Treaty as endorsing international princi-
ples, a closer analysis reveals its deficiency in clear provisions regarding equitable
utilization and the duty to avoid significant harm. Concerns arise due to the unequal
water demand for consumptive use between Nepal and India, potentially leading to
criticism of Article 3ʹs ambiguity. Despite India claiming a higher existing consumptive
use, the treaty stipulates equal entitlement to the Mahakali River’s waters, creating
confusion over water sharing (Pun, 2014).
Furthermore, Vasini in his paper discussed about the inadequate United Nations
Watercourses Convention principles and how it creates confusion regarding calculating
benefits stifle cooperation between India and Nepal with two major principles ‘equitable
and reasonable utilization of international watercourse’ and the ‘obligation of states not
to cause significant harm to co-riparians’. The transboundary water governance issues
between India and Nepal, as reflected in the (UN Convention, 1997) and the Mahakali
Treaty, revolve around benefit-sharing, equitable share determination, and territorial
disputes. Disagreements persist over the allocation of project costs based on accrued
benefits, with Nepal accusing India of underestimating its benefits to reduce its share of
expenses. Additionally, conflicting interpretations of basin geography and hydrology
complicate the equitable distribution of benefits, with India emphasizing its higher
costs due to displacement and resettlement. Disputes over prior use rights versus
equitable entitlement further exacerbate tensions, particularly regarding water utilization
from the lower Sarada barrage. While India asserts prior usage rights, Nepal advocates for
equitable allocation post-dam construction. Moreover, ambiguity surrounds the concept
of ‘equal entitlement’ to water, with Nepal questioning its feasibility given its limited
capacity for water utilization. These complexities underscore the need for comprehensive
agreements that address equitable benefit-sharing, territorial disputes, and sustainable
resource management to ensure effective transboundary water governance (Vasani,
2023).
Furthermore, the proposed Pancheshwar Dam project poses threats to nature con-
servation areas, downstream ecosystems, and livelihoods, raising questions about its
sustainability and fairness (Everard & Kataria, 2010). The rushed approval of the
Mahakali Treaty, without addressing doubts about the dam’s safety, further complicates
its implementation (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999). Critically, the Pancheshwar Dam project
fails to align with the UN’s strategic priorities for sustainable water resource development
(Everard & Kataria, 2010). Concerns over environmental impact and seismic risks
necessitate thorough risk assessment and consideration of alternatives (Gyawali, 2009).
Moreover, existing structures like the Sarada and Tanakpur barrages disrupt the river
ecosystem, emphasizing the need for environmental considerations in project imple-
mentation (Everard & Kataria, 2010). The environmental consequences of the
Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project extend beyond its immediate vicinity, affecting
downstream regions and habitats. International water management norms should prior-
itize ecosystem security to ensure environmental sustainability.
However, the unclear definitions in the Mahakali Treaty regarding terms like ‘no
harm’ and ‘adverse effect’ hinder its effective implementation (Salman & Uprety, 2002).
Despite mentioning principles of transboundary water governance (Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and
WATER INTERNATIONAL 11
11) and dispute resolution (Article 11), little progress has been made in implementing the
treaty, leaving it in a state of uncertainty.
Joint management plan
An additional crucial aspect is the development of a management plan or strategy by
a collaborative entity such as a river basin organization, with full membership from the
involved countries. Article 9 outlines the establishment of the Mahakali Commission to
uphold principles of equality, mutual benefit, and prevention of harm to either party.
However, the commission has yet to be formed. The delay in its formation exacerbates
conflicts and confusion among riparian states and communities, representing
a significant setback in terms of water cooperation. This issue is further examined in
the section on inclusiveness, transparency, and participation.
Water allocation mechanism
Another crucial consideration involves the formulation of an agreement management
plan delineating strategies for water sharing and allocation. However, the absence of
established joint bodies for the Mahakali River basin indicates a lack of opportunity to
develop such a management plan under the purview of river basin organizations.
A robust agreement should clearly outline methods or plans for water sharing and
allocation between riparian countries (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019).
However, in the case of the Mahakali Treaty, while it clearly delineates the benefits
Nepal can accrue from the project, it fails to mention India’s potential benefits (Table 2),
thereby leaving room for controversies related to hydro-hegemonic behaviour. This
section delves into the allocation of irrigation water to Nepal as stipulated by the
Mahakali treaty of 1996 and its current status.
Under the provisions of the Mahakali Treaty, Nepal’s total share of water for irrigation
during the wet season is 66.70 m
3
/s (2350 cusecs) and during the dry season is 22.75 m
3
/s
(800 cusecs; Table 2). This information regarding Articles 1, 2 and 4 which concern
irrigation was gathered from a key informant interview with a representative of the
Mahakali Irrigation Management Office in Mahendranagar, Kanchanpur:
Table 2. Share of the Mahakali River water for Nepal under the Mahakali Treaty 1996.
Water from
Amount of water received by Nepal (m
3
/s)
Provision in the
Mahakali Treaty (1996)
15 May–15 October (wet
season)
16 October–14 May (dry
season)
Sarada Barrage 28.35 m
3
/s (1000 cusecs) 4.25 m
3
/s (150 cusecs) Article 1, Paragraph 1
Tanakpur Barrage 28.35 m
3
/s 8.50 m
3
/s (300 cusecs) Article 2, Paragraph 2(a)
Sarada Canal to Chadani and
Dodhara
10.00 m
3
/s (350 cusecs) 10.00 m
3
/s (350 cusecs) Article 4
Total 66.70 m
3
/s (2350 cusecs) 22.75 m
3
/s (800 cusecs)
Downstream release from
Sarada barrage for
ecological maintenance
10.00 m
3
/s 10.00 m
3
/s Article 1, Paragraph 2
Above Pancheshwar Up to 5% of average annual flow at Pancheshwar can be
used by local communities of both sides
Article 7
Source: Mahakali Treaty, 1996.
12 K. TIWARI ET AL.
The first part of the treaty has already been enacted. Following 40 years since the Sarada
Agreement, with the assistance of the World Bank, the Mahakali Irrigation Project was
launched to fulfill the agreement’s provisions. The total command area for irrigation from
the Sarada Irrigation canal is 11,600 hectares, divided into two phases. The first phase covers
5100 hectares, including the Bhimdatta Municipality, Suda, and Daiji Villages. The second
phase encompasses 6500 hectares, covering areas such as Beldadi, Rampur, Bilashpur,
Sripur, Rautali, and Bichawa.
The irrigation status outlined in Article 2 has seen a notable change. Previously, before
the interview conducted in 2019, it was noted that ‘the second phase of the treaty has only
been partially enacted. While the committed energy is being supplied, the provision for
irrigation water, as outlined in Article 2, paragraph 2(a), is yet to be fulfilled’. However,
recent visits to the Mahakali basin and discussions with local institution representatives
confirmed that, after 26 years since the signing of the Mahakali Treaty, a third-phase
irrigation canal had finally been constructed, with testing completed in June 2022.
However, this accomplishment faced significant delays due to two primary reasons.
First, the canal necessary to supply water to Nepal had not been constructed. Second,
there was disagreement over fixing the sill level of the Tanakpur Barrage for such supply
(Upadhyay, 2009). Nepal eventually conceded to a revised sill level of 244.25 metres,
stepping back from its initial insistence on an equal sill level of 241.5 metres, after a 15-
year impasse (Bagale & Adhikari, 2020). Despite these setbacks, the completion of the
Mahakali Irrigation Project Stage III serves as a positive indicator of water cooperation.
Nonetheless, the prolonged period of non-cooperation led to farmers being deprived of
irrigation.
Article 4 of the treaty outlines a special provision for supplying water to the Dhodhara
and Chandani areas, which has yet to be put into action. While 10 m
3
/s of water is
designated for the Dodhara–Chandani area of Nepal as per Article 4, the specific
arrangements for water withdrawal have not been finalized. Initially, the Indian side
insisted on implementing Article 4 only after Article 3, which pertains to the
Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, was implemented. Despite some flexibility shown
later by agreeing to a joint survey and design of the structure enabling water release from
the Sarada main canal, progress has been lacking in surveying, designing, implementing,
and operating. This behaviour by India contradicts the spirit of the preamble, which aims
to foster friendship and cooperation in water resource development, as well as Article 5,
which prioritizes Nepal’s water requirements.
Transboundary water management sectoral scope
Another crucial consideration in transboundary water management is the agreement’s
sectoral scope, encompassing water, energy, and food nexus, ecological and environ-
mental criteria. Unlike other Indo-Nepal agreements, the Mahakali Treaty is somewhat
considered integrated due to the inclusion of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project,
which offers benefits across multiple sectors such as flood prevention, irrigation, and
electricity (Upadhyay, 2009). However, this integration is limited to the Pancheshwar
Multipurpose Project, and the treaty does not adopt a holistic approach. The politically
and state-centric approach to water issues in Nepal and India has hindered the imple-
mentation of integrated water resources management for the Mahakali River basin and
other shared transboundary basins. This approach has resulted in bilateral agreements
WATER INTERNATIONAL 13
that lack a holistic framework addressing the water–energy–food nexus and fail to
consider environmental and ecological criteria, prioritizing short-term economic and
political gains over sustainable, basin-wide management. Building on this, the study
examines the provisions related to the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, demonstrat-
ing the neglect of environmental and ecological criteria in bilateral agreements. It
emphasizes the urgent need for a shift towards inclusive and integrated approaches to
transboundary water management.
The Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, considered the centrepiece of the treaty,
promises multiple benefits, including electricity generation, flood prevention, and irriga-
tion for both countries. Paragraph 3 of the exchanged letters between the two parties
mandates the completion of the Detailed Project Report within six months of ratification.
The projecthas been a focal point in every meeting of the Joint Committee on Water
Resources and the Joint Standing Technical Committee. However, tangible progress was
absent for 13 years until India and Nepal signed an agreement to establish the
Pancheshwar Development Authority (Jha, 2013).
Based on Article 10 of the Treaty, the Joint Committee on Water Resources con-
ceptualized the Pancheshwar Development Authority during its third meeting. An inter-
view with representatives of the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project revealed that,
following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Nepal in August 2014, the
Terms of Reference were endorsed by both governments. The Pancheshwar
Development Authority office was established in Mahendranagar, Nepal, and the
Governing Body became active. During the second Governing Body meeting in
November 2014 in New Delhi, the water resources/energy secretaries of India and
Nepal decided to update the Detailed Project Report, incorporating additional field
investigations and studies by WAPCOS Limited.
1
This was to develop a mutually accep-
table technical solution, estimate project costs and benefits accurately, and ensure the
project’s economic and financial feasibility in line with the treaty’s principles.
Environmental impact assessment reports were prepared by both countries.
The final draft Detailed Project Report prepared by WAPCOS Limited in 2016
proposed that the Pancheshwar project’s capacity be 4800 MW, with a dam height of
311 metres and a re-regulating dam at Rupaligad with an installed capacity of 240 MW.
However, there has been no convergence between the two countries on this Detailed
Project Report. From the interview with the representative from Pancheshwar
Development Authority, it can be asserted that the successful implementation of the
Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project can provide substantial benefits in energy generation,
irrigation facilities and flood control.
The development of the Pancheswhar Multipurpose Project also highlights the lack of
consideration for environmental criteria and the integrated water resoures management
concept in the agreement. The proposed Pancheshwar Dam project poses significant
threats to high-priority nature conservation areas, the downstream river ecosystem and
the livelihoods of many people across the catchment. It degrades the ecosystem services
provided by the catchment and potentially affects millions of people (Everard & Kataria,
2010). According to Gyawali and Dixit (1999) in their paper ‘Mahakali Impasse and
Indo-Nepal Water Conflict’, the Mahakali Treaty was hastily signed and rushed through
the Nepali parliament, sidelining serious concerns about the dam, which is the highest
14 K. TIWARI ET AL.
rock-fill dam in the world located in the seismic Himalayas. This could explain the
widespread apathy towards its implementation.
The proposed Pancheshwar Dam project is criticized as unsustainable, unfair, and
economically unsound, failing all seven of the UN’s World Commission on Dams
‘strategic priorities’ for sustainable and equitable water resource development (Everard
& Kataria, 2010). Additionally, the 2013 Dhauliganga flood, which caused significant
property loss in riparian communities in both countries, underscores the potential
dangers. Although the flood was due to natural causes such as cloud bursts, the opening
of the Dhauliganga Dam (280 MW) gates in Dharchula, India, exacerbated the damage.
Experiences like the Tehri Dam project highlight the risks of large-scale dams in eco-
sensitive zones (Everard & Kataria, 2010). Critics advocate for alternative strategies, such
as smaller hydro projects, which can meet energy and water needs while minimizing
environmental harm and preserving local livelihoods (Everard & Kataria, 2010). Before
implementing the Pancheshwar Dam Project, it is essential to address several critical
questions, drawing from lessons learned from basin experiences and the environmental
consequences seen with the Tehri Dam in Uttarakhand. Gyawali (2009) raises important
questions for careful consideration before proceeding with large-scale infrastructure
projects like the Pancheswar Dam, including:
●‘What social and economic risks are we willing and able to bear, and which should
not be borne by us or future generations?
●What are the physical and environmental risks associated with the project, such as
seismicity in the tectonically active area, mass-wasting of Himalayan geology, cloud
bursts, and bishyaris? What will be the consequences of risk assessment on the
economy and the environment?
●Are there any alternatives to this project for sharing mutual benefits from the river?
Is a large project necessary, or could smaller microprojects suffice?’
Dispute resolution mechanism
Another crucial factor is the dispute resolution mechanism. As previously discussed, the
Mahakali Treaty includes Article 11, which outlines procedures for resolving differences
or disputes arising from the treaty. According to Siddiqui (2013), this treaty offers
relatively elaborate and advanced dispute resolution mechanisms that align with the
United Nations Watercourses Convention mechanisms specified under Article 33.
Additionally, Article 12 allows for amendments if necessary and states the treaty’s validity
for 75 years from its entry into force. It also mentions dispute settlement through Article
11 and provides for a treaty review every 10 years or whenever either party deems it
necessary, as per Article 12(3). Despite numerous issues requiring discussion and rene-
gotiation, there is no sign of this provision being implemented, leading to controversy
and confusion.
The advanced dispute resolution mechanisms (Article 11) have yet to resolve
ongoing disputes, and the treaty’s 75-year validity (Article 12) does not assure its
practical implementation. This situation underscores that the existing agreement is
insufficient for achieving mutual benefits and sustainable shared water resources
management. Brochmann (2012) notes that while river treaties are common among
countries sharing water resources, they do not always lead to increased cooperation
WATER INTERNATIONAL 15
as intended, as evidenced by the Mahakali River case. The numerous issues and
implementation delays have rendered the Mahakali Treaty a ‘paper tiger’ – a term
coined by Barrett (2003) to describe agreements that exist in name but have little
real impact on cooperation. Realist perspectives suggest that cooperation occurs
primarily when it aligns with states’ primary interests, limiting the practical impact
of treaties (Barrett, 2003). The true test of cooperation lies in the intention and
capacity to implement treaty provisions, a point emphasized by Zeitoun and
Mirumachi (2008). This insight is particularly relevant to the Mahakali River
Treaty between India and Nepal, where significant implementation challenges
persist.
Overall, to understand why these issues persist, it is crucial to consider the
motives behind signing the treaty, as they significantly influence water coopera-
tion. From the earlier section, namely, the evolution and controversy of the
Mahakali Treaty, it is evident that Nepal’s motive to sign the agreement was
heavily influenced by political agendas and faith. There was little prior prepara-
tion on Nepal’s side when signing water treaties with India. Like the Tanakpur
Agreement, the Mahakali Treaty was also signed hastily by Nepal, a detail dis-
cussed earlier, highlighting Nepal’s politically centred approach. In contrast, India
adopts a state-centric approach, prioritizing national interests over a holistic
approach. All agreements between Nepal and India have been initiated by India,
with Nepal following suit without prior study or consultation with sector experts.
These conventional methods of dealing with water issues should change, prioritiz-
ing a holistic approach for mutual benefits and sustainable water resources
management.
Transparency, inclusiveness and participation
Transparency, inclusiveness and participation are crucial for achieving good transbound-
ary water governance. Transparency means ‘openness and public access to information
so that citizens can understand the decision-making processes that affect them and are
knowledgeable about the standards to expect from public officials’ (UNDP-SIWI Water
Governance Facility, 2011). According to Jimenez et al. (2020), inclusiveness means ‘the
recognition of the rights of individuals and groups across different categories, needs, and
vulnerabilities without any discrimination based on race, color, age, gender affiliation,
ethnicity, language, disability, economic backgrounds, or any other conditions of origin’.
Similarly, participation means the meaningful and active involvement of a broad spec-
trum of stakeholders, including vulnerable or marginalized groups, in the decision-
making process (Jimenez et al., 2020). Gender, local community involvement and
stakeholder engagement in managing shared water resources are underexplored areas,
despite their critical role in conflict resolution and regional governance (Carmi et al.,
2018; von Lossow, 2023). In this section, various bilateral meeting minutes were reviewed
to determine the participants in negotiations concerning the proper utilization of water
in the Mahakali River basin. This review aims to assess stakeholder participation in
decision-making related to the utilization and management of Mahakali River resources.
Additionally, the transparency of data and information sharing is briefly discussed. The
institutional capacity is also examined to understand its role in bridging gaps, using
16 K. TIWARI ET AL.
information gathered from key informant interviews with experts from institutions
involved in water resources utilization and management in Nepal. This assessment
helps to determine whether the decisions and meetings were transparent and inclusive.
Central level involvement
Central-level involvement dominates the decision-making process concerning the utili-
zation and management of the Mahakali River. Central-level representatives such as
those from the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation, Department of
Water Resources and Irrigation, Department of Electricity Development, Joint Project
Office – Sapta-Kosi Sun-Kosi Investigation, Water and Energy Commission Secretariat,
and Nepal Electricity Authority only participate in meetings conducted by the Indo-
Nepal Joint Commission on Water Resources and the Joint Standing Technical
Committee from Nepal side. In contrast, the participation list from the Indian side
includes representatives from the central level as well as the Uttarakhand and Uttar
Pradesh Irrigation departments. When comparing the Joint Committee on Inundation
and Flood Management meeting to the Indo-Nepal Joint Commission on Water
Resources and the Joint Standing Technical Committee meetings, the former is more
transparent as it includes the participation of local level institutions such as the People
Embankment Programme in Kanchanpur and the Mahakali River Training Project in
Darchula, who participate as special invitees.
Similarly, data and information sharing about floods between Nepal and India is
centralized and bureaucratic (Gupta et al., 2021). The Joint Committee on Inundation
and Flood Management conducts annual site visits, providing crucial flood information
for border water management projects. A bilateral Committee on Flood Forecasting,
established in 2000, developed a Comprehensive Flood Forecasting Master Plan, leading
to the installation of meteorological and hydrometric stations across both countries to
improve flood forecasting (MoEWRI, 2000).
Data communication follows a lengthy process from Kathmandu to New Delhi, then
to province headquarters causing delays in community preparedness and response in
major transboundary rivers of Nepal, i.e., Koshi, Gandaki and Mahakali. Although early
warning systems are improving with better data and modelling, long-term prediction
accuracy remains an issue. Simplified data-sharing at the subnational level could enable
real-time exchange and faster local response. Effective community-level cooperation
between border villages has also been identified as crucial for flood risk reduction
(Molden et al., 2017).
Local level involvement
Public involvement is key to ensuring broad public support for plans and efficiency in
implementing their measures. In contrast to many transboundary basins globally, the
South Asian context lacks established joint institutional bodies and often overlooks the
involvement of local communities in basin management. For example, joint bodies such
as those in the Senegal River basin, Niger River basin, and Lake Chad basin are notable
for their significant roles in introducing innovative approaches in this sector (African
River Basins, 2022; Barchiesi et al., 2011; Tropp et al., 2023).
WATER INTERNATIONAL 17
To fully grasp the governance dynamics of the Mahakali River basin, it’s crucial to
consider the perspectives of local riparian communities. Key informant interviews with
local institution representatives shed light on how these communities benefit from
activities such as fishing, employment, irrigation, and cultural practices within the
Mahakali River basin. However, they also encounter numerous challenges, including
property damage, agricultural losses, insecurity due to natural disasters, poverty, and
limited capacity to address these issues. Moreover, they lack access to information about
flow regulation, hampering their ability to adapt to changing conditions.
The relationship between riparian communities and India is symbiotic, with inter-
twined business, family, neighbourly, and cultural connections. Nepal relies heavily on
India for daily livelihood necessities, and in some cases, Nepalese individuals must transit
through India to reach their homes in Nepal due to the transportation infrastructure.
Despite downstream communities utilizing water from the Sarada Canal for irrigation,
they possess minimal knowledge about the water agreements between India and Nepal.
They seek assurance of their water rights and aspire to have a say in decision-making
processes.
Furthermore, key informant interviews highlighted that women’s groups in the region
possess limited awareness of the water dynamics between India and Nepal. Additionally,
local communities have actively participated in campaigns advocating for equitable water
utilization and opposing the Tanakpur Barrage. These claims align with Rai and Joshi’s
(2020) research findings on the Tanakpur Agreement. Before Nepal’s transition to multi-
party democracy in 1990, decision-making was centralized, hindering public involve-
ment. Treaties like the Tanakpur Agreement were negotiated without transparency,
leaving citizens uninformed. However, the advent of democracy led to increased access
to information, raising awareness about national priorities such as hydroelectric projects.
The Tanakpur Agreement in 1991 triggered public dissent, as Nepalese citizens perceived
unequal benefits compared to India. To address public sentiments effectively, it’s impera-
tive to involve the public in decision-making processes beforehand. The current exclusive
water governance practices, which exclude stakeholders such as local governments, local
communities, and vulnerable groups from decision-making processes, must be replaced
by inclusive water governance practices. This shift is essential for the sustainable and
locally friendly utilization of water resources within the Mahakali River basin.
Insights from key informant interviews with local institutions emphasize how the
limited access to information has adversely affected the livelihoods of riparian commu-
nities in the Mahakali River basin and other transboundary basins shared by Nepal and
India. This lack of access has led to the propagation of myths, which in turn has fuelled
mistrust between communities and states. For instance, during the 2013 Mahakali flood
resulting from the Dhauliganga dam disaster and the Koshi flood in Bihar, these myths
exacerbated tensions and mistrust. According to Gupta et al. (2021), two major myths
exist about flood causes and management in Nepal and India. In India, there is a belief
that Nepal releases floodwater intentionally, while in Nepal, there is a perception that
Indian infrastructure exacerbates flooding, supported by media reports (Adhikari, 2017).
Another myth is that powerful rivers can be controlled by engineering methods, whereas
their dynamic nature requires an integrated river basin approach (Dixit, 2003; Iyer,
2008). Therefore, improved public access to information serves as a foundation for
a more extensive, fact-based discourse, ultimately facilitating enhanced basin
18 K. TIWARI ET AL.
management and fair resource allocation (Paisley & Henshaw, 2013). When forming any
agreement regarding the use of river water, the rights of riparian communities must be
prioritized. These communities are the primary beneficiaries of such projects but also the
most vulnerable to their impacts. Riparian rights include the right to fair compensation,
consultation and participation, sustainable water use, access to information, and legal
recourse. If the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project is to be constructed, it must honour
these riparian rights. Historical examples demonstrate the importance of this considera-
tion. For instance, the Tehri Dam project submerged an area of 51.7 km
2
, and promised
compensation has still not been provided to many affected individuals. Non-
governmental organizations report that the negative impacts on people extend far
beyond official estimates. The proposed Pancheshwar Dam is projected to inundate
134 km
2
, significantly more than Tehri (Everard & Kataria, 2010). Until and unless the
communities can ask who is accountable for the existing situation that happened to the
governments, mistrust will arise, and questions about its sustainability will be raised. So,
at first, the riparian communities should be aware of the water relationship. Community-
level awareness can be created with the help of different institutions at different levels. To
maintain checks and balances and bring the institutions into the common domain, a joint
commission must be formulated.
Institutional involvement
The roles and responsibilities of institutions in a river basin are crucial for bridging the
gap between the government and local communities. Kittikhoun and Schmeier (2021)
analyse various transboundary basins worldwide which varies in physical, geographical,
socioeconomic and hydrological conditions, including the Great Lakes, Columbia,
Colorado and Rio Grande rivers in North America; the Danube and Rhine Rivers in
Europe; the Aral Sea and Helmand River in Central and West Asia; the Mekong River in
Southeast Asia; the Congo, Niger, Nile and Senegal rivers in Africa; and the Jordan River
in the Middle East to know whether river basin organizations impact water diplomacy
and conflict management. The study reveals that effectiveness of river basin organiza-
tions in these areas depends on their legal and institutional development and the
influence of their technical and strategic mechanisms. These factors create a typology
of river basin organizations’ capacities and outcomes in water diplomacy, although
a river basin organization’s capacity for water diplomacy does not necessarily translate
to effective water management outcomes.
In the case of the Mahakali River basin, there is a critical lack of comprehensive river
basin organization. The Pancheshwor Development Authority, established in
Mahendranagar under Article 10 of the Mahakali Treaty, is a joint body focused on the
Pancheshwor Multipurpose Project. However, a broader joint institution to oversee the
overall management of the Mahakali River basin is missing. Article 9 of the treaty calls for
the formation of the Mahakali Commission to uphold principles of equality, mutual
benefit, and no harm to either party, but this commission has not yet been established.
The delay in forming the Mahakali River Commission exacerbates conflicts and confu-
sion among riparian states and communities, representing a significant loss from the
perspective of water cooperation.
WATER INTERNATIONAL 19
However, there are some national-level institutions as well as local-level institu-
tions in Nepal and India which are directly or indirectly involved in the management
of Mahakali River. In India, the Mahakali River (also known as the Sharda River)
flows through the states of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, with various government
and private institutional agencies within the jurisdiction of each state working in the
field of water resources management and development. Major agencies include the
Irrigation Department of both states, the Environment Protection and Pollution
Control Board, the Watershed Management Directorate of Uttarakhand State, and
the Directorate of Environment in Uttar Pradesh (Surie & Prasai, 2015). In the
context of Nepal, along with local level institutions like the District Water Resource
Committee, the Mahakali Irrigation Department, the People’s Embankment
Programme, and the Mahakali River Training Project, there are also several non-
governmental organizations, international non-governmental organizations and com-
munity-based organizations working actively in these sectors whose sole purpose is to
advocate for people’s right to Mahakali River water and to promote the living
standard of the riparian communities. Key informant interview at National
Environment and Equity Development Society Nepal reveals that Transboundary
Rivers of South Asia (TROSA) Project under Oxfam has implemented its second
phase after completing its first phase from 2017 to 2021. Along with coordination
with local governments and formal groups such as water users groups and forest users
groups, and informal groups like Indo-Nepal Joint Action Forum women’s groups
and youth groups, TROSA Partners are working in the Mahakali River basin in Nepal
at four different districts with its local implementing institutions such as Rural
Women’s Development and Unity Centre at Dadeldhura, and National
Environment and Equity Development Society Nepal at Kanchanpur.
TROSA partners often focus on advocating for the improvement of the early warning
system for flood mitigation, conducting joint meetings between the delegates of both
countries such as Mahakali Sambaad, promoting clean water and sanitation, water
quality monitoring, conducting workshops and capacity-building programmes at the
community level to enhance their coping capacities, advocating for the prevention of
excessive mining, and preparing mining guidelines to reduce the haphazard ways of
mining and to save the ecosystem. Mahakali Nadi Sarokar Samuha has been conducting
awareness campaigns and raising knowledge about the provisions mentioned in the
treaty and has even formed various community-based groups to build their capacity
and to raise their local level issues with the government (key informant interviews). The
key informants from the People’s Embankment Programme, Kanchanpur reveals that the
People’s Embankment Programme is more focused on building embankments, imple-
menting bioengineering concepts, forming different groups to conserve aquatic life and
enhance livelihoods. Although Stages I and II of the Mahakali Irrigation Project are
completed, the locals of Sripur are still deprived of irrigation services (key informant
interviews). According to the study done by FOLD Kanchanpur, in five districts – Kailali,
Kanchanpur, Dadeldhura, Baitadi, and Darchula – there is a need for 6994 cusecs of
water for 208,849 hectares of land. But only 2647 cusecs of water are available for
irrigation through the Mahakali River and its associated tributaries.
The previous paragraph emphasizes the crucial role of institutions in connecting
local communities and the government in water governance. However, it also
20 K. TIWARI ET AL.
highlights some challenges such as the lack of sustainability and coordination in
programmes launched by individual institutions, resulting in duplicated efforts due
to poor collaboration between international non-governmental organizations/ non-
governmental organizations and local government. To promote sustainable water
resource management and improve the livelihoods of marginalized riparian commu-
nities, It is evident that a dedicated river basin organization for the Mahakali River
basin is necessary. This river basin organization river basin organization should have
a robust legal and institutional frameworks to effectively manage and resolve water
disputes. It should also incorporate technical mechanisms such as data collection and
sharing, monitoring and assessment, modelling, and forecasting. Additionally, strate-
gic mechanisms like basin-wide plans, strategic water resource analyses, and invest-
ment plans should be developed to address challenges related to diverging interests or
competition over resources. Such a river basin organization would directly contribute
to water diplomacy by fostering cooperation, developing joint visions, and imple-
menting basin-wide projects and programmes. This approach would highlight the
benefits of cooperation, thus preventing, mitigating, or resolving conflicts (Kittikhoun
& Schmeier, 2021).
The commission should prioritize participation and inclusiveness attributes for better
governance and regular monitoring and evaluation to ensure its effectiveness. To achieve
these goals, it is crucial to enact laws that support the commission’s work and promote
accountability among all stakeholders. This would help ensure that the commission’s
efforts are sustainable and well-coordinated, ultimately benefiting the riparian commu-
nities and the environment. In summary, a Mahakali commission would be a vital step in
addressing the challenges facing water governance in the region. By promoting colla-
boration and inclusiveness among all stakeholders, it could help ensure the sustainable
management of water resources and uplift the livelihoods of marginalized communities.
Accountability
Accountability is crucial in managing transboundary water resources, especially in the
complex and contentious context of the Mahakali River basin between India and Nepal.
According to Schneider (1999), accountability is the central element of good governance.
Within the Mahakali River basin, accountability involves stakeholders who manage water
resources and services, ensuring they account for their actions and answer those they
serve. The Human Rights Framework outlines three essential principles for building
accountability: responsibility, answerability and enforceability (Jiménez et al., 2018). This
section delves into the accountability dimensions within the Mahakali River basin,
addressing the core question of who holds responsibility, answerability, and enforce-
ability for the existing state across various indicators such as policy and legal frameworks,
institutional arrangements, data and information sharing, transparency, inclusiveness,
and participation.
Responsibility in the context of the Mahakali River basin refers to the clear definition
of roles and responsibilities among the various stakeholders, including government
officials, local authorities, and international actors involved in water resources manage-
ment (UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF, 2015). The evolution and controver-
sies of the Mahakali Treaty section illustrates the complexity of defining these
WATER INTERNATIONAL 21
responsibilities. Initially, water relations were governed by the Sarada Irrigation Barrage
agreement in 1920, which later evolved into more contentious negotiations over the
Tanakpur Barrage and eventually the Mahakali Treaty in 1996. The fluctuating political
landscapes and varying national interests often led to ambiguous responsibilities, as seen
when Nepal raised concerns about India’s unilateral actions regarding the Tanakpur
Barrage (Upadhyay, 2009).
Water relations has been characterized as a ‘negative/dominative’ form of hydro-
hegemony, with India using containment and resource capture strategies in bilateral
treaties (Rai & Joshi, 2020). Here, the resource capture means could be carried out
through land acquisition, land annexation, or the construction of large-scale hydraulic
works. The containment strategy engages with competitors bilaterally or multilaterally
either to integrate the competitors or to contain them through the use of coercive,
utilitarian, normative, or hegemonic compliance-producing mechanisms (Zeitoun &
Warner, 2006). These treaties, favouring India, are marked by unilateral planning and
control, reflecting India’s reluctance to share the management of transboundary water
projects (Chaturvedy & Malone, 2011; Gyawali, 1999). For instance, the Sarada Treaty of
1920 involved a mutual land transfer where the precise location of the land received by
Nepal was unspecified, and the treaty allowed limited water withdrawal rights for Nepal
without specifying India’s usage from the Mahakali River (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999).
Similarly, the Tanakpur Agreement of 1991 was signed without including Nepalese
water resource experts in the negotiation process, and it was never formally ratified by
Nepal’s Parliament. Yet, physical work on the project advanced significantly, demon-
strating India’s unilateral decision-making and lack of democratic involvement (Gyawali
& Dixit, 1999). This perception can be additionally supported by an article by S. B. Pun in
2009, which highlights India’s modus operandi of constructing first and then wrangling
over the construction in a slow bureaucratic fashion to ultimately legalize it. As a result,
India’s unilaterally constructed Farraka barrage became a fait accompli for Bangladesh in
1975, while the unilaterally constructed Tanakpur barrage became a fait accompli for
Nepal in 1991. These actions are in violation of Articles 7, 8, and 9 of the UN
Watercourse Convention of 1997, which embody the principles of the obligation not to
cause significant harm, the obligation to cooperate, and the regular exchange of data and
information, respectively. Article 7 emphasizes the duty to prevent significant harm. If
such harm occurs, the responsible states must work with the affected state to mitigate it
and consider compensation if necessary, ensuring fairness and cooperation. Article
8 highlights the principle of cooperation, requiring watercourse states to work in good
faith, respecting sovereignty and mutual benefit to optimize the use and protection of
international watercourses. It encourages the creation of joint mechanisms or commis-
sions to facilitate effective collaboration. Article 9 requires the regular exchange of
available data and information on the watercourse as a whole, such as hydrological,
ecological and water quality data. India’s approach undermines the principles of inter-
national water law and challenges Nepal’s sovereignty over its water resources. The
Mahakali Treaty of 1996 further exemplifies this pattern, having been signed hastily
with insufficient preparation. The treaty outlined benefits for Nepal, such as a specified
water supply from the Sarada and Tanakpur Barrages, but did not clearly state India’s
potential benefits or consumptive uses. This omission left the distribution heavily skewed
22 K. TIWARI ET AL.
in favour of India (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999). This ambiguity in responsibility has often
resulted in implementation delays and mutual distrust.
Answerability entails informing, consulting, and including stakeholders at all
stages of service delivery, ensuring they have timely and accurate information
(UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF, 2015). This aspect has been notably
problematic in the Mahakali River basin context. For instance, the Mahakali
Treaty was ratified amid controversy and perceived haste, leading to public
dissatisfaction and ongoing disputes (Gyawali & Dixit, 1999). The lack of trans-
parent communication and inclusive decision-making processes has been
a recurring issue, as evidenced by the delay in the implementation of treaty
provisions such as formation of the Mahakali River Commission and the incom-
plete implementation of agreed-upon projects like the Pancheshwar Multipurpose
Project. In context of this project, the authorities who were responsible to do the
environment impact assessment should be accountable to provide the justification
to the environmental issues points raised by the study done by Everard and
Kataria in 2010 and Gyawali in 2009.
Moreover, these agreements often involved secrecy and control of information,
characterized by a lack of open diplomacy, which compromised the equitable sharing
of benefits and democratic processes in treaty negotiations (Malla, 2009). Data and
information sharing about floods between Nepal and India is centralized and bureau-
cratic, leading to delays in community preparedness and response. Simplified data-
sharing at the subnational level could enable real-time exchange and faster local response,
which is crucial for flood risk reduction (Molden et al., 2017). Public involvement in the
Mahakali River basin is crucial but often lacking. Institutional involvement plays
a significant role in bridging the gap between the government and local people.
However, the Mahakali River basin lacks a comprehensive river basin organization.
A broader joint institution, as envisaged in Article 9 of the Mahakali Treaty, is necessary
to uphold principles of equality, mutual benefit, and no harm. This institution should
have robust legal and institutional frameworks to manage and resolve water disputes
effectively.
Enforceability involves monitoring performance, supporting compliance, and estab-
lishing mechanisms for corrective actions (UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF,
2015). The Mahakali Treaty includes provisions for dispute resolution and amendment,
but these have often been inadequately enforced. Article 11 of the treaty outlines
procedures for settling disputes, yet significant disagreements remain unresolved.
Additionally, the delay in forming the Mahakali Commission has exacerbated conflicts
and hindered effective management of the river’s resources. The incomplete and con-
tentious implementation of projects like the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project, which
has faced significant delays and controversies over environmental and social impacts,
underscores the challenges in enforcing treaty provisions (Everard & Kataria, 2010).
The Mahakali Treaty provides a framework for cooperation but lacks comprehensive
enforcement mechanisms. The absence of clear, enforceable guidelines has led to dis-
putes and delays in project implementation. The delay in establishing the Mahakali
Commission highlights a critical gap in institutional arrangements, which impedes
coordinated management and accountability. Effective answerability requires robust
mechanisms for data and information sharing. The Mahakali River basin has suffered
WATER INTERNATIONAL 23
from a lack of transparency and timely information exchange, contributing to mutual
suspicion and mismanagement. The ratification of the Mahakali Treaty without adequate
stakeholder consultation and the absence of participatory mechanisms has undermined
transparency and inclusiveness. This has led to public discontent and lack of trust in the
treaty’s provisions. By addressing these accountability attributes comprehensively, India
and Nepal can transform the Mahakali River from a source of conflict to a model of
cooperation, ensuring mutual benefits and sustainable management of shared water
resources. This requires a shift from politicized, state-centric approaches to a basin-
wide, integrative framework that prioritizes the holistic management of water resources.
Why cooperation is needed and the way forward
Cooperation between Nepal and India in the Mahakali River basin is imperative due to
the significant interconnectedness of their geographical proximity and intertwined social,
cultural and economic ties. The collaboration is crucial for both countries: Nepal’s
cooperation is essential for addressing its energy crisis, enhancing agricultural irrigation,
and fostering economic growth, while India relies on Nepal to mitigate floods, meet its
energy needs, and alleviate urban water scarcity (Rai & Joshi, 2020). Without coopera-
tion, the costs are substantial. In South Asia, limited cooperation in the Ganges–
Brahmaputra–Meghna River basin incurs an estimated annual cost of US$14.2 billion
across sectors such as energy, food, environment and water, leading to altered river flow,
degraded water quality, diminished agricultural productivity, economic losses and envir-
onmental degradation (Swain & Karim, 2022). Enhancing cooperation offers numerous
benefits, including cost savings, improved human well-being, social welfare, collective
climate change adaptation and enhanced environmental sustainability.
Cooperation between riparian countries sharing international rivers, as highlighted by
Sadoff and Grey (2002), yields multiple benefits. These include improved water quality,
river flow, soil conservation, biodiversity, and overall sustainability. Enhanced water
resource management for hydropower and agriculture, flood–drought management,
navigation, environmental conservation, and recreational opportunities are also key
benefits. Moreover, cooperation leads to cost reductions, policy shifts towards develop-
ment, mitigation of disputes or conflicts, enhanced food security, and reduced military
expenditure. Regional integration of infrastructure, markets, and trade further exempli-
fies the advantages of cooperation beyond mere river management.
Way forward
Rule of law
To enhance water governance in the Mahakali River basin, it is crucial to conduct
a thorough assessment of the rule of law within the context of the Mahakali Treaty
between India and Nepal. This assessment should evaluate whether the treaty promotes
mutual benefits, fair water sharing, and sustainability principles, and if it aligns with
transboundary water governance principles, including equitable utilization and ecosys-
tem protection. Understanding the motivations behind the treaty’s signing, whether
basin-centric, state-centric, or politics-centric, offers insights into its effectiveness.
24 K. TIWARI ET AL.
Embracing a holistic approach to water governance, encompassing inclusive participa-
tion, transparent dispute resolution, and environmental consideration, is vital for long-
term sustainability and cooperation. By addressing these aspects comprehensively, sta-
keholders can foster effective water governance in the Mahakali River basin, ensuring
mutual benefit and regional cooperation between India and Nepal.
Based on secondary source analysis and key informant interviews, implementing
a comprehensive approach for better water governance in the Mahakali River basin is
imperative. This includes raising public awareness among riparian communities, devel-
oping a strong vision and plan before negotiating water-related agreements, incorporat-
ing public voices during decision-making processes, conducting detailed technical
studies to understand the impacts of various water management options, and promoting
regional cooperation. Establishing a joint committee to address water-related issues and
attract funding, adopting a basin-wise approach to water governance, prioritizing envir-
onmental security, and ensuring strong political determination, coordination, and coop-
eration between India and Nepal are critical steps forward.
The study identifies three approaches to addressing transboundary water governance.
The first approach, politics-centric, prioritizes political interests, while the second, state-
centric, prioritizes national interests. In contrast, the third approach, holistic, emphasizes
integrated water resource management, prioritizing sustainability and environmental
concerns, as outlined in the earlier sessions referred to as the basin water policy frame-
work (Blue Peace Index, 2019). Evaluating the existing practices of riparian countries
reveals that Nepal is highly affected by a politics-centric approach, while India is
influenced by a state-centric approach. Both countries lack evidence-based vision and
negotiation in bilateral agreements, proper management, and willingness to implement
projects. Breaching international law by constructing unilateral dams and failing to
implement treaty provisions is a significant issue. The lack of rule of law, inclusiveness,
participation, transparency, and accountability in water governance has resulted in
a deadlock in the Mahakali River basin.
To achieve effective transboundary water governance, a holistic framework is pro-
posed, incorporating the integrated water resource management concept and the five
principles outlined in the UN Convention (1997). These principles include equitable and
reasonable utilization, protection of ecosystems, the duty not to cause significant harm,
notification and information exchange, and a general obligation to cooperate.
Additionally, water governance attributes such as multi-level participation, deliberation,
inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, evidence-based decision-making, efficiency,
impartiality, and adaptiveness should be prioritized. This comprehensive approach,
rather than a state-centric or politics-centric focus, is necessary for effective transbound-
ary water governance in the Mahakali River basin.
Transparency, inclusiveness, and participatory approach
To enhance transparency, inclusiveness, and participation in managing shared water
resources in the Mahakali River basin, several key steps are essential. Transparency can
be improved by establishing clear data-sharing channels between Nepal and India for
flood forecasts and river flow regulation, simplifying subnational data-sharing processes,
WATER INTERNATIONAL 25
and enhancing early warning systems for real-time exchange and community
preparedness.
Promoting inclusivity requires broadening stakeholder participation to include
local communities, vulnerable groups, and representatives from both countries.
Creating joint committees with local institutions and riparian community members
ensures diverse perspectives in decision-making. Raising awareness among riparian
communities about their water rights and decision-making roles is crucial for empow-
ering marginalized groups. To enhance participation as well as to achieve effective
transboundary water governance, comprehensive river basin organizations with
robust legal and institutional frameworks as well as high technical and strategic
influence should be established (Kittikhoun & Schmeier, 2021). These river basin
organizations should incorporate data collection, sharing, and monitoring mechan-
isms and develop basin-wide plans and investment strategies. Regular monitoring and
evaluation ensure the effectiveness of river basin organizations efforts and promote
stakeholder accountability.
Drawing lessons from successful transboundary water management initiatives in other
basins can provide valuable insights. For example, the Organization for the Development
of the Senegal River includes advisory bodies like the Consultative Committee of
Development Partners, Basin Committee, and Permanent Water Commission, which
enable active engagement in managing water resources and decision-making processes
(African River Basins, 2022). Similarly, the Niger River basin has implemented numerous
stakeholder engagement initiatives that showcase progress in enhancing public partici-
pation (OECD, 2015). For data-sharing and information, we can learn from the
Okavango River basin, the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission
(OKACOM) has effectively addressed data availability disparities across the basin by
establishing its Decision Support System. This multi-component system integrates
experts from OKACOM Secretariat, member state institutions, and various Technical
Committees, along with monitoring networks, models, basin planning tools, software
applications, knowledge management software, and internet-based information-sharing
tools. This holistic approach enables member states to enhance hydrological monitoring
across the basin, benefiting from the sustainable integration of human, software and
hardware elements (OKACOM, 2024).
Legislative support is essential to sustain and coordinate river basin organization
initiatives. Enacting laws that mandate stakeholder involvement, promote transparency,
and hold decision-makers accountable helps institutionalize good governance practices
and prevent conflicts over water resources (UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility,
2011). Prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and participation will lead to comprehensive
water governance in the Mahakali River basin, benefiting all stakeholders and promoting
sustainable management of shared water resources.
Accountability
The way forward for better water governance in the Mahakali River basin also requires
improving accountability by holding officials and individuals involved in water resource
management or services accountable for their actions. The Mahakali Treaty should
clearly define existing consumptive use of water and ensure equitable and reasonable
26 K. TIWARI ET AL.
utilization, while considering the relevant factors listed in Article 6 of the UN
Convention. Environmental and sustainable development factors should also be consid-
ered during project implementation. Conducting a risk assessment of social, economic,
physical and environmental risks should be done before implementing the Pancheshwar
Dam project, and existing structures like the Sarada barrage and Tanakpur barrage
should be re-evaluated and improved to minimize their impacts on the river ecosystem.
These steps will lead to better water governance in the Mahakali River basin, benefiting
the livelihoods of people in the region and the ecosystem.
In overall, to achieve effective transboundary water governance in the Mahakali River
basin, a holistic framework, the basin water policy framework should be implemented which
encompass indicators such as agreement aligning with the principles of the (UN Convention,
1997), joint management plan facilitated by the formation of a river basin organization,
outline water allocation methods, sectoral scopes (including water, energy, food, integrated
water resource management concepts, and ecological criteria), and incorporate a robust
dispute resolution mechanism. This approach prioritizes attributes such as multi-level
participation, inclusiveness, transparency, and evidence-based decision-making, crucial for
sustainable water management. Improving transparency involves establishing data-sharing
channels and enhancing early warning systems, while broadening stakeholder participation
requires creating joint committees and raising awareness among riparian communities.
Comprehensive river basin organizations with robust legal frameworks are essential, drawing
lessons from successful initiatives in other basins and enacting supportive legislation.
Improving accountability involves clearly defining water usage and considering environ-
mental factors during project implementation. Addressing issues in the Mahakali River basin
and preventing similar situations in other transboundary rivers requires collaborative imple-
mentation of the integrated water resource management concept and basin-wide research,
with clear provisions for dispute resolution and strict regulation, evaluation, and monitoring
mechanisms. Ultimately, adopting a holistic approach is crucial for effective transboundary
water governance, ensuring sustainable management of shared water resources.
Conclusion
This article examines the challenges related to managing transboundary waters and
proposes a solution to enhance governance in the Mahakali River basin. It identifies
inadequate implementation of water governance principles, such as transparency, inclu-
sivity, accountability, and the rule of law, as a key barrier to achieving effective trans-
boundary water governance. The study concludes that Nepal’s politics-centred approach
and India’s state-centred approach are the main reasons for the deadlock situation
between the two countries. To progress, both nations must collaborate to establish
a comprehensive basin water policy framework. This framework should incorporate
a transboundary water agreement aligned with the principles outlined in the (UN
Convention, 1997). It should outline a joint management plan centred by forming
a river basin organization, detailing water allocation methods, sectoral scopes (such as
water, energy, food, integrated water resource management concepts and ecological
criteria), and include a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Emphasizing transparency
through stakeholder engagement and inclusiveness is also crucial within this framework.
The article also emphasizes the significance of regular monitoring and evaluation,
WATER INTERNATIONAL 27
effective dispute resolution mechanisms, and institutional arrangements to ensure the
durability of any framework and establish effective transboundary water governance.
Note
1. WAPCOS Limited, a public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government
of India, was entrusted with preparing the Detailed Project Report for the Pancheshwar
Multipurpose Project. The draft final Detailed Project Report was submitted to the Project
Development Authority in November 2016, and its finalization is currently underway, with
a team of experts from both countries working to resolve outstanding issues.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Ms. Sarina Maharjan for her support during and after the fieldwork,
Mr. Jagadish Bhatta for his guidance during the field visit, and Dr. Chiranjibi Bhattarai for critical
suggestions on the manuscript. RRP acknowledges his support through the University Grants
Commission, Nepal (Faculty Research Grant, No. FRG-75/76-S&T-10). Finally, the authors
appreciate the cooperation of all key informants for the valuable information.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research was funded by the Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan
University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
ORCID
Keshari Tiwari http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2574-5351
Ramesh Raj Pant http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-0188
Deep Narayan Shah http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8436-7560
Authors contribution
Conceptualization, K.T., R.R.P., D.N.S.; Methodology, K.T., D.N.S.; formal analysis, K.T., D.N.S.;
writing – original draft preparation, K.T, D.N.S.; writing – review & editing K.T., R.R.P. and D.N.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
References
Adhikari, J. (2017). Devastating Himalayan floods are made worse by international blame game.
The Conversation. Retrieved November 3, 2023, from https://theconversation.com/devastating-
himalayan-floods-aremade-worse-by-an-international-blame-game-83103
African River Basins. (2022). How the Senegal River Sets an Example of transboundary basin water
management. The Water Wheel, May/June 2022. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/ejc-
waterb-v21-n3-a5
28 K. TIWARI ET AL.
Asher, M. (2018). What lies behind the resistance to India’s highest dam? Dialogue Earth. https://
dialogue.earth/en/water/what-lies-behind-the-resistance-to-indias-highest-dam/
Bagale, D. R. (2020). Nepal–India water cooperation: Consequences of mutuality or hegemony?
Water Policy 22(6): 1098–1114. https://iwaponline.com/wp/article/22/6/1098/77973/Nepal-
India-water-cooperation-consequences-of
Bagale, D. R., & Adhikari, K. D. (2020). Mahakali Treaty: Delay in implementation and resulting
impacts from Nepal’s perspectives. Water Policy, 22 (4), 658–669. Retrieved July 23, 2021, from
https://iwaponline.com/wp/article/doi/10.2166/wp.2020.141/74734/
Barchiesi, S., Cartin, M., Welling, R., & Yawson, D. (2011). Water and Nature Initiative (WANI)
Case Study: Komadugu Yobe Basin, Upstream of Lake Chad, Nigeria. International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford
University Press.
Brochmann, M. (2012). Signing river treaties – Does it improve river cooperation? International
Interactions, 38(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2012.657575
Carmi, N., Alsayegh, M., & Zoubi, M. (2018). Empowering women in water diplomacy: A basic
mapping of the challenges in Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan. Journal of Hydrology, 569,
330–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.011
Chaturvedy, R. R., & Malone, D. M. (2011). Hydro-diplomacy: A neglected opportunity for Nepal
and India. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/hydrodiplo
macy-a-neglectedopportunity-for-nepal-and-india/article2139749.ece
Dixit, A. (2003). Floods and vulnerability: Need to rethink flood management, flood problem and
management in South Asia. (Mirza, M.M.Q. Dixit, A. Nishat, A.) (Eds.) Springer.
Dixit, A. (2009). Minimizing flood risks in the Ganga Plains: Need for a paradigm shift. In A. P.
Shrestha & P. Adhikari (Eds.), Mahakali Treaty: Pros and cons for Nepal (pp. 65–100). Sangam
Institute.
Eckstein, G. (2017). The international law of transboundary groundwater resources. Routledge.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2019). The Blue Peace Index 2019: Methodology note. The
Economist Group. https://impact.economist.com/projects/bluepeaceindex/pdf/Blue%20Peace
%20Index%202019_methodology%20note.pdf
Everard, M., & Kataria, G. (2010). The proposed Pancheshwar Dam, India/Nepal: A preliminary
ecosystem services assessment of likely outcomes. An IES research report.
Gupta, N., Dahal, S., Kumar, A., Kumar, C., Kumar, M., Maharjan, A., Mishra, D., Mohanty, A.,
Navaraj, A., Pandey, S., Prakash, A., Prasad, E., Shrestha, K., Singh Shrestha, M., Subedi, R.,
Subedi, T., Tiwary, R., Tuladhar, R., & Unni, A. (2021). Rich water, poor people: Potential for
transboundary flood management between Nepal and India. Current Research in Environmental
Sustainability, 3, 100031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100031
Gyawali, D. (1999). Himalayan waters: Between euphoric dreams and ground realities. Journal of
Economic and Political Weekly, 25(9).
Gyawali, D. (2009). Mahakali mess: Article 126 and the cumulative cost of the path not taken. In A.
P. Shrestha & P. Adhikari (Eds.), Mahakali Treaty: Pros and cons for Nepal (pp. 1–26). Sangam
Institute.
Gyawali, D., & Dixit, A. (1999). Mahakali impasse and Indo-Nepal water conflict. Economic and
Political Weekly, 34(9), 553–564. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4407709
Iyer, R. R. (2008). Floods, Himalayan Rivers, Nepal: Some Heresies. Economic and Political
Weekly, 43, 37–40.
Jha, B. H. (2013). Nepal India cooperation in river water management, strategic analysis.
Jiménez, A., Livsey, J., Åhlén, I., Scharp, C., & Takane, M. (2018). Global assessment of account-
ability in water and sanitation services using GLAAS data. Water Alternatives, 11, 238–259.
Jimenez, A., Saikia, P., Gine, R., Avello, P., Leten, J., Lymer, L. B., Schneider, K., & Ward, R. (2020)
Water International. Unpacking Water Governance: A framework for Practicioners. Stockholm
International Water Institute.
WATER INTERNATIONAL 29
Kittikhoun, A., & Schmeier, S. (Eds.), (2021). River basin organizations in water diplomacy.
Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/River-Basin-Organizations-in-Water-Diplomacy
/Kittikhoun-Schmeier/p/book/9780367627317
Kuzma, S., Saccoccia, L., & Chertock, M. (2023). 25 countries, housing one-quarter of the popula-
tion, face extremely high-water stress. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/
highest-water-stressed-countries
LIFE. (2015). Status and Implementation of transboundary river agreements on the Kosi and Sharda
Rivers in India. The Asia Foundation.
Malla, K. B. (2009). Hydro-climate legal management of the Hindu-Kush-Himalayas. Asia Pacific
Journal of Environmental Law, 12(1), 51–84. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.
131283210909163
McCracken, M., & Wolf, A. T. (2019). Updating the register of international river basins of the
world. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07900627.2019.1609217
MoEWRI. (2000). Minutes of first meeting of the Nepal–India joint committee on water resources.
1–3 October. http://www.moewri.gov.np/images/category/JCWR-I-Minute.pdf
Molden, D., Sharma, E., Shrestha, A. B., Chettri, N., Pradhan, N. S., & Kotru, R. (2017). Advancing
regional and transboundary cooperation in the conflict-prone Hindu Kush–Himalaya.
Mountain Research and Development, 37(4), 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-
JOURNAL-D-17-00108.1
National Statistics Office. (2021). National population and housing census 2021. Government of
Nepal, Office of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers. https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/
results
OECD. (2015). Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance. OECD studies on water.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264231122-en
OKACOM. (2024.). OKACOM Decision Support System (DSS). https://www.okacom.org/okacom-
decision-support-system-dss
Orme, M., Cuthbert, Z., Sindico, F., Gibson, J., & Bostic, R. (2015). Good transboundary water
governance in the 2015 sustainable development goals: A legal perspective. Water International,
40(7), 969–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1099083
Paisley, R. K., & Henshaw, T. W. (2013). “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”:
Transboundary waters, good governance, and data & information sharing & exchange.
Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 24(1), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.18060/
20963
Pun, S. B. (2009a). Tanakpur Barrage: Thirteen Year Saga of the Nepal Canal Sill Level. Hydro
Nepal, (5).
Pun, S. B. (2009b). The Mahakali Treaty: Whither the four structures/ Sankalpas of Nepali
Parliament? Mahakali treaty pros and cons for Nepal. The Sanagam Institute.
Pun, S. B. (2014). 6,480 MW Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project sx vital issues on Pancheshwar to
be addressed bfore Cashing Modi’s One Billion US Dollars. Hydro Nepal:Journal of Water,
Energy and Environment, 15, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.3126/hn.v15i0.11284
Rai, S. C., & Joshi, R. D. P. (2020). What has Nepal learned from unequal water treaties with India?
Journal of Human Security Studies, 9(3), 75–91.
Rieu-Clarke, A., & Vercambre, M. L. (2009). Everything you need to know about the UN
Watercourses Convention. WWF Publication. https://www.academia.edu/466597/Everything_
you_need_to_know_about_the_UN_Watercourses_Convention?uc-g-sw=15395597
Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2002). Beyond the river: The benefits of cooperation on international
rivers. Water Policy, 4(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00035-1
Salman, M. A. S., & Uprety, K. (2002). Conflict and cooperation on South Asia’s International
Rivers. The World Bank.
Schneider, H. (1999). Participatory governance for poverty reduction. Journal of International
Development, 11(4), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:4521::AID-
JID5993.0.CO;2-J
30 K. TIWARI ET AL.
Shrestha, P. M. (2023, October). India agrees to pump more money into Pancheshwar. The
Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/national/2023/07/23/india-agrees-to-pump-
more-money-into-pancheshwar
Siddiqui, S. (2013). Engaging with the Global: Prospects for the 1997 UN Watercourse Convention
being adopted in the Ganga Region. The Asia Foundation. Issue brief.
Statistics Times. (2024). Demographics of Indian states. https://statisticstimes.com/demographics/
india-statistics.php
Surie, M., & Prasai, S. (2015). Strengthening transparency and access to information on transbound-
ary rivers in South Asia. The Asia Foundation.
Swain, A., & Karim, S. (2022). Understanding the costs of non-cooperation in the Ganges–
Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) basin. Oxfam in Asia. Retrieved March 13, 2023 from https://
oifiles-cng-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/asia.oxfam.org/s3fspublic/file_attachments/Costs%20of%
20Noncooperation%20in%20the%20GBM%20Basins_TROSA.pdf
Tropp, H., Earle, A., Baloyi, X., & Tiwari, K. (2023). Water cooperation for accelerated Agenda
2030 implementation: Special focus on Africa. Water Cooperation Global Outlook initiative
working paper. Stockholm: International Centre for Water Cooperation and Stockholm
International Water Institute. https://siwi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/icwc-siwi_water-
cooperation-working-paper_v2.pdf
UN. (2023). Transboundary water management cooperation crucial for sustainable development,
peace, security, speakers stress at conference’s fourth interactive dialogue. Meetings coverage. 23
March 2023. https://press.un.org/en/2023/envdev2056.doc.htm
UN. (n d). United Nation What is the Rule of Law. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://www.
un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/
UN Convention. (1997). Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.
UNDP-SIWI Water Governance Facility. (2011). Training Manual on Water Integrity.
UNDP Water Governance Facility/UNICEF. (2015). Accountability in WASH: A reference guide
for programming, accountability for sustainability partnership: UNDP water governance facility
at SIWI and UNICEF. www.watergovernance.org/Accountability-for-Sustainability
UNECE & UNESCO. (2021). Progress on Transboundary Water Cooperation. Tracking SDG 6
series: Global status of SDG indicator 6.5.2 and acceleration needs. United Nations Publications.
Upadhyay, N. S. (2009). The Mahakali Treaty: View from the negotiating table. In A. P. Shrestha &
P. Adhikari (Eds.), Mahakali Treaty: Pros and cons for Nepal (pp. 101–144). Sangam Institute.
Vasani, H. (2023). International water law and hydropolitics: An enquiry into the water conflict
between India and Nepal. Water International, 48(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02508060.2023.2176595
von Lossow, T. (2023). In the shadows: Gender in transboundary water policies. In J. Sehring, R.
ter Horst, & M. Zwarteveen (Eds.), Gender dynamics in transboundary water governance
feminist perspectives on water conflict and cooperation (pp. 108–125). Routledge.
WAPCOS. (2017). Pancheshwar multipurpose project – detail project report, detail project report,
WECS. (2005). National water plan. Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS),
Government of Nepal, Singha Darbar. http://wecs.gov.np/pages/plan-and-policies
Wouters, P., & Vinogradov, S. (2020). Reframing the transboundary water discourse:
Contextualized international law in practice. Review of European, Comparative &
International Environmental Law, 385–394. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1111/reel.12361
Zeitoun, M., & Mirumachi, N. (2008). Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict
and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements, 8(4), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10784-008-9083-5
Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony – A framework for analysis of transboundary
water conflicts. Journal of Water Policy, 8(5), 435–460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054
WATER INTERNATIONAL 31
