The Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS, in the matter of Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India issued its Award in respect of the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two sates on 7 July 2014. The tribunal unanimously decided that it had jurisdiction to identify the land boundary terminus and to delimit the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf between the parties within and beyond 200 nautical miles in areas where the claims of the parties overlap. The Tribunal was also unanimous in identifying the location of the land boundary terminus between Bangladesh and India and in determining the course of maritime boundary in the territorial sea.  By a majority of four votes to one, the Tribunal determined the course of the maritime boundary line between Bangladesh and India in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles. The parties in initial reaction termed this as win-win verdict for both.

U.N. tribunal  has awarded Bangladesh nearly four-fifths of an area sprawling over 25,000 sq km (9,700 sq miles) in the Bay of Bengal, ending a dispute over a sea border with India that has ruffled ties between the neighbors for more than three decades. India got about 6000Sq km of the disputed territory including the region where once Talpatty Island was visible. The verdict, binding on both countries, opens the way for Bangladesh to explore for oil and gas in the Bay of Bengal, the site of important energy reserves.

Some Indian media and some so called Bangladeshi Opposition party linked bloggers started propaganda in social media that Bangladesh lost the most important Talpatty Island terming it having a huge potential reserve of Natural Gas and Oil. This write up will attempt to address the matter from technical point of view.

Location of South Talpatti

The disputed island, now submerged below sea-level, was originally situated in the coastal, shallow Bay of Bengal, approximately 3.5 km south from the mouth of the Hariabhanga River (21.37. 00N, 89.12.00E) 

The Hariabhanga River, which serves as the disputed Indo-Bangladesh maritime border (21.37.00N, 89.08.30E), flows between Satkhira district of Bangladesh and the South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, India. 

The river mouth debouches into the Bay of Bengal, which lies at the mouth of the Bengal Delta. 

Deep water hydrocarbon reservoirs in the Bay of Bengal

Although the average depth area around the island is 3 - 5.5 m, the average depth of continental shelf surrounding the Bay of Bengal can stretch up to 10 km to form the deep oceanic creek approximately 43 km south of the island. The Bay of Bengal has long believed to be rich in deep-water deposits of oil and natural gas. 

India has recently discovered roughly 100 trillion cubic feet of hydrocarbon deposit in the deep oceanic creek, which was followed by Myanmar's discovery of another 7 trillion cubic feet of hydrocarbon deposit. These recent discoveries of large natural gas deposits have further escalated the significance of the delimitation of maritime borders 

India and Bangladesh's growing demand for energy has led to offshore operation and allocation of maritime blocks for further exploitation of resources. This has also generated further tension as Bangladesh filed a complaint against India's exploitation in 2006 while India counter-opposed Bangladesh in 2008. There were also two military tensions in 2008 and 2009 between Bangladesh and Myanmar over the disputed maritime boundary. 

Although the average depth area around the island is 3 - 5.5 m, the average depth of continental shelf surrounding the Bay of Bengal can stretch up to 10 km to form the deep oceanic creek approximately 43 km south of the island. The Bay of Bengal has long believed to be rich in deep-water deposits of oil and natural gas. 

India has recently discovered roughly 100 trillion cubic feet of hydrocarbon deposit in the deep oceanic creek, which was followed by Myanmar's discovery of another 7 trillion cubic feet of hydrocarbon deposit. These recent discoveries of large natural gas deposits have further escalated the significance of the delimitation of maritime borders 

India and Bangladesh's growing demand for energy has led to offshore operation and allocation of maritime blocks for further exploitation of resources. This has also generated further tension as Bangladesh filed a complaint against India's exploitation in 2006 while India counter-opposed Bangladesh in 2008. There were also two military tensions in 2008 and 2009 between Bangladesh and Myanmar over the disputed maritime boundary. 

What Happened To South Talpatti?

In March 2010, a small island in the Bay of Bengal disappeared under water. Many speculate the cause of disappearance to be several climate change-induced factors. The island first emerged in 1971 at the mouth of Hariabhanga River, because the river separated India and Bangladesh, the incidence of the island was strategically valuable, and both Bangladesh and India immediately claimed sovereignty of the island. The dispute over the small island quickly reignited and escalated a long running tension between two nations over the maritime delimitation of territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (EEZ), both are crucial for access to marine resources of the Bay of Bengal. 

India and Bangladesh are closely attached in both historical and geographical contexts. Naturally, the presence of either as a neighbor has significantly affected diplomatic relations on both sides. Geologically, India and Bangladesh co-occupy approximately 180 km of maritime borderline. However, due to constantly changing river courses from soil erosion and frequent floods, both nations have claimed overlapping maritime boundary. 

During the aftermath of the Bhola Cyclone in 1971, a small island unexpectedly emerged in the Ganges Delta region of the Bay of Bengal. Because the island emerged approximately 3.5 km from the mouth of the Hariabhanga River, which serves as the river border between Bangladesh and India, its geological location prompted both nations to claim the island under their jurisdiction. Soon, the concern regarding sovereignty of the island reignited and escalated the long neglected border dispute between the two nations, which is today known as the Indo-Bangladesh maritime boundary dispute. The disputed island was named 'New Moore' by India, and 'South Talpatti' by Bangladesh. 

To delimit their maritime boundary, India applies the equidistance principle and Bangladesh claimed one based on equity principle. This has resulted in overlapping maritime boundary between the two nations and highlights the fact that concept of maritime boundary demarcation refers not only to the settling of the outer limit of maritime zones, but also overlapping maritime zones with opposite or adjacent nations.

How The Arbitration Tribunal Resolved The Dispute?

The tribunal determined that the midstream of the main channel of the Haribhanga River must be located as it was in 1947, the date of Radcliff Award. It also observed that the Radcliffe award referred to Haribhanga River alone and cannot be combined with waters of the Haribhanga and Raimanagal as they meet the Bay of Bengal. The Tribunal used the map of Annexure B to the Radcliffe Award to identify the proper coordinates of the land boundary terminus which was then transposed to a modern chart. The position of the land boundary terminus as established is 21˚ 38’ 40.2”, 89˚ 09’ 20.0 “(WGS-84).

The tribunal also decided not to rely on base points located on low tide elevation in constructing a provisional median/equidistance line.  The tribunal noted that, the land boundary terminus, determined by reference to Radcliffe Award, is not at a point on the median/ equidistant line. The Tribunal considered this to constitute a special circumstance and decided that the boundary should take the form of a 12 nautical mile long geodetic line continuing from the land boundary terminus in a generally southerly direction to meet the median line at 21˚ 26’43.6”N ; 89˚ 10’59.2”E.

The tribunal in the award considered that the “equidistant / relevant circumstances” method as preferable unless, as the International Court of Justice noted in another matter, there are “factors which make the application of the equidistance method inappropriate.” The tribunal did not consider the instability of the coast of the Bay of Bengal to be a relevant circumstance that would justify adjustment of the provisional equidistant line. The tribunal emphasized that what matters is the coast line at the time of delimitation and the future changes in the coast line cannot alter the maritime boundary. The tribunal considered the concavity of the Bay of Bengal as a relevant circumstance and also recognized that as a result of concavity, the provisional equidistance line produced a cut-off effect on the seaward projections of the coast of Bangladesh. The tribunal considered that the cut-off required an adjustment to the provisional equidistance line in order to produce an equitable result.

Consistent with the concept of a singular continental shelf, the Tribunal decided on the adjustment of the provisional equidistant line with 200 nautical miles together with the delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles.

Acknowledging the concavity of the Bay of Bengal requiring the adjustment of equidistance line both with in and beyond 200 nautical miles, the Tribunal proceeded to identify the adjustment necessary for achieving an equitable result.  In efforts to ameliorate excessive negative consequences the provisional equidistance line would have for Bangladesh, the tribunal considered it prudent not to adjust the line in a way that would unreasonably encroach on India’s entitlement in the area.

The Tribunal decided that the equidistance line should be adjusted beginning at Delimitation point 3, which the Tribunal considered to be the point at which the cut-off effect on the coast of Bangladesh began. From that point, the Tribunal decided that the boundary would be a geodetic line with an initial azimuth of 177 o 30’ 00” until this line meets with the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

What Happened from Tribunal Award?

Bangladesh got nearly four-fifths of an area of sprawling over 25,000 sq km (9,700 sq miles) in the Bay of Bengal. India got about 6000Sq km of the disputed territory including the region where once Talpatty Island was visible. Bangladesh got an area almost the size of the country from the resolution of maritime boundary dispute with Myanmar and India. It has established Bangladesh sovereign rights over extensive maritime territory for exploring and exploiting maritime resources including Petroleum and mineral resources .Petrobangla earlier announced 24 blocks in the offshore area in its territorial water and within its maritime boundary of which India registered dispute over 10 blocks (5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24 &25). Of these India claimed 6 blocks (5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 19 & 24) as exclusively their own. The Arbitral Verdict has only awarded an insignificant portion of 6 blocks (1, 5, 9, 14, 19 & 24) about 10% of the area to India.  

The dispute existed over three decades impeding Bangladesh endeavors of accessing maritime resources in the Bay of Bengal as every time Bangladesh initiated off shore bidding rounds India or Myanmar objected and even successfully persuaded leading IOCs from participation in the bid. Now Bangladesh can go ahead freely without any legal interference. It is definitely a huge achievement which must be acknowledged. 

Estimating and assessing extent of Petroleum resources require extensive geological surveys, exploration and testing. Only qualified Petroleum / Reservoir Engineers after works done can come up with qualified statement. In absence of those making wide guess about 100 Tcf gas reserve at the location where South Talpatty was once visible is unrealistic and misleading.

When parties fail to resolve their disputes and sought relief through arbitration parties have to have stomach to digest Win-Win solution. It is unfair to think of Win-lose situation emerging from arbitration verdict. We believe that the award is Win-Win for both Bangladesh and India.

BDST: 1150 HRS, JUL 16, 2014