M 4
U
a
Select Page
We're here for you. Train online, facilitator led, using the world's most advanced simulation game.

It's time to replace stress with confidence.

“It was fun but before I knew it, I was negotiating better.”  

 
Updated: 13 Nov 2020

Nepal-India Water Negotiations (Power Asymmetry)

Nepal-india Water Negotiations (Power Asymmetry)

Summary

Negotiations between India and Nepal on water resource projects are a good illustration of negotiation power asymmetry.

India is 40 times larger in land area than Nepal and India was hungry to meet its increasing electrical power needs. Nepal is one of the poorest nations in the world and is economically linked to India because of its geographic situation. However, Nepal’s water wealth is enormous. Several studies revealed that 89 sites within Nepal are potentially capable of producing 30 gigawatts of hydroelectric power to energy starved India. This case study provides a clear example of what happens when a negotiation team haven’t taken the best negotiation course to first attain internal alignment.

The multi billion capital investment required to develop these projects is well beyond Nepal’s capacity, and to a lesser extent, India’s as well. Previous negotiations on completed projects between the two countries in the mid 1960’s have resulted in India retaining control over the headwaters located in Nepal. Due to this imbalance of control, Nepal has deliberately forestalled the development of further major projects. Since then, four independent foreign studies of medium and large term hydroelectric projects were identified. At issue was the Karnali project which could produce a potential output of 10.8 GW.

The initial feasibility studies on the Karnali project failed to take into account the impact of this product on financial feasibility and its sociological impact on Nepal. Another issue of contention for Nepal was that during their negotiations, India denied or gave lip service to issues surrounding irrigation and flood control. Additionally, India demanded that they would only be prepared to pay for the cost of the energy and not for the cost of peaking power which meant most of the cost would be transferred to Nepal. Nepal demanded it wanted to link the cost of electricity to the cost of alternative thermal energy to enhance its profit.

Nepal politicians came under strong pressure to develop these water resources. Nepal’s stall tactics also came under the gun. In 1991, a newly elected government in Nepal proclaimed it had come to an “understanding” with India on a number of water resource issues. This understanding caused a great furore amongst the opposition parties and the general public. This resulted to a change In Nepal’s government which changed their absolute monarchy into a combined constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. The new government amended their constitution. The government passed a new order, Article 126(2) which stated that any sharing of water resources would require an approval of a 2/3’s majority in parliament.

On water resource projects, Nepal did hold one other major negotiation card in that Nepal had the right to veto a proposed hydroelectric water project. India was now placed in a weaker negotiating position because any proposals would now have to please not only the incumbent government but also the opposition parties, or a majority segment of the population. This forced India to restructure its negotiating framework.

Negotiations were ongoing throughout the early 1990’s. In February of 1996, the prime ministers signed a major treaty that addressed several sub projects. In Nepal, parliament voted on ratifying the treaty. The opposition party was split due to a number of unresolved negotiation issues. It was not until the fall of 1996 when the opposition party was able to iron out their differences that a two thirds majority was attained and the Mahakali Treaty was ratified on September 20, 1996.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 StarsRate this Article
4.7 out of 5 from 3 responses
Loading...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 
Our clients are reporting that their markets have become increasingly competitive. To just keep up demands sharpening your sales skills. Sales negotiation skills has the fastest and most easily measured payback. We can show you how to avoid being squeezed on price and losing deals from being 'commoditized'. Our unique Sales Negotiation Training turns the tide by allowing sales professionals to exceed targets, while strengthening key relationships. Read More
Investment per participant
$2,210USD
Total investment
$2,210USD
Delivery Method: Online
9 Feb, 12 Feb, 16 Feb, 19 Feb, 23 Feb, 26 Feb 2021 (Tuesday, Friday)
6 instructor-led half day sessions
11 am to 3:30 pm ET
8 am to 12:30 pm PST
Calum Coburn
855-980-0126
It's becoming increasingly difficult to achieve cost savings and add value. This training saves those on the buying side from losing money and choosing the wrong vendors. You will also be equipped to more confidently take control by negotiating internally with colleagues or stakeholders. Read More
Investment per participant
$2,210USD
Total investment
$2,210USD
Delivery Method: Online
9 Feb, 12 Feb, 16 Feb, 19 Feb, 23 Feb, 26 Feb 2021 (Tuesday, Friday)
11 am to 3:30 pm ET
8 am to 12:30 pm PST
Calum Coburn
855-980-0261
Whether you're aware of it or not, you've been negotiating your whole life. We negotiate with our colleagues, customers, suppliers, bosses, family and friends. We negotiate for business agreements, higher pay, a better job, our home or car. We only get to choose whether we negotiate better or worse than others. Read More
Investment per participant
$1,325USD
Total investment
$1,325USD
Delivery Method: Online
9 Feb, 12 Feb, 16 Feb, 19 Feb 2021 (Tuesday, Friday)
4 instructor-led half day sessions
11 am to 3:30 pm ET
8 am to 12:30 pm PST
Calum Coburn
855-980-0126
Sending