Pakistan misleading people on Indus Water Treaty

[Rebelkid]

GUyz..as long as they say India did it, RAW did it, U.S did it, MOSSAD did it...they will never cure their problems and this will only increase the problems their facing .. ONly if u acknowledge and accept ur mistakes can u rectify them

 

[Singh]

Gas on water​

[/B


A disinformation campaign of sorts has been unleashed by some in Pakistan and their fellow travellers in the West, especially in the United States, on the issue of river water sharing between India and Pakistan. Disputes between riparian states on river water sharing are frequent and routine, and nothing sinister need be read into them. There have been more inter-state arguments within India on river water sharing than there have been between India and its neighbours.

Further, the fact remains that India and Pakistan have had a remarkably dispute-free implementation of their bilateral accord, the Indus Waters Treaty. Whenever disputes became intractable both countries found a way of resolving them. Recall, for example, the manner in which President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh resolved the dispute over the Baglihar Dam project on river Chenab. A neutral expert was appointed and his verdict was accepted by both sides.
What is important to note is that the neutral expert's view was not very different from India's. Having lost the argument on Baglihar, a new one has been manufactured on Kishenganga and many self-appointed western experts have filled columns of newspapers with their criticism of India. It was, therefore, brave of Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to remind all concerned that wastage of water within Pakistan was as important an issue as its concern about Indian pilferage. In considering Pakistan's charges two facts must be kept in mind. First, under the Indus Water Treaty Pakistan gets 80 per cent of the waters flowing down the river. There is no evidence, apart from sporadic occurrences, of the actual flow being less than the agreed share. Second, while all the water due to Pakistan enters its territory, very little trickles out into the Arabian Sea. The rivers run dry when they leave the Punjab province of Pakistan and enter the Sind province, contributing to the latter's desertification.

The real problem is that Pakistan's water management system is in utter disarray. Its reservoirs are filled up with sediments and the extensive canal system, built mostly in the pre-Independence era, is aging and requires renovation and repairs. As for the hydro-electric project on river Kishenganga (known as Neelum in Pakistan), Pakistan's objections were addressed by India years ago when the project was reconfigured and its engineering designs changed. In its present form, it is virtually a run-of-the-river project, as permitted by the terms of the treaty. Critics of the project overlook the provisions of the Indus waters treaty which allow India to build water storages aggregating to 3.6 million acre feet (MAF) on the three west-flowing rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) in Jammu and Kashmir, apart from 0.75 MAF of storage for flood moderation and 1.25 MAF for non-consumptive uses, including hydel power production. Much of this entitlement is unutilised so far.

The Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan has set the record straight in a public lecture in Karachi last week. This should set at rest avoidable fears in Pakistan of a 'water war'. Needless to add, having been generous at the time of drafting the Indus Treaty, India can ill afford any further sacrifice of her entitlement to these waters, especially when the real beneficiaries will be the people of Kashmir.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/gaswater/391547/

 

[Singh]

Pakistan: Punjab Irrigation Department accuses Pak Army and Rangers of stealing Water​

The Punjab irrigation department has accused the army and Rangers of being involved in water theft. The possibility that state institutions may be engaged in the theft of water makes a bad situation worse as Pakistan is facing an acute water crisis.



The government's job of preventing small farmers and ordinary citizens from stealing water becomes all the more difficult when elements of the establishment themselves are allegedly involved in the practice. Several factors need to be addressed while the conservation of water must become part of national policy if the crisis is not to be aggravated. Firstly, whoever is stealing water must be punished as per the law.



Secondly, the dispute over water with India must be resolved amicably and judiciously, so that Pakistan is not deprived of its fair share of water as per the Indus Waters Treaty. India is currently seen to be violating the treaty and it is widely believed that schemes such as the Kishanganga hydroelectric power project across the border will result in the drying up of waters flowing into Pakistan.

On the domestic front, greater coordination and a sense of sacrifice must prevail amongst the provinces in order to best utilise the shrinking water flows of the Indus and its tributaries. Inter-provincial water disputes regularly crop up, pitting Punjab against Sindh. Recently, a dispute over the Chashma-Jhelum canal was resolved in the spirit of accommodation. It is hoped that in future if such disagreements emerge they are similarly resolved, with due weight given to both Punjab's water requirements and the rights of lower riparians.



The lining of watercourses should also help reduce water wastage. Equally important is the need to inculcate the value of conserving water in the citizens of this country. Pakistanis are not in the habit of conserving — be it electricity, gas or water. This attitude must change. Both the state and its citizens must realise that the water scarcity is projected to get worse and — clichéd as it may sound — if we do not conserve today, we shall regret it tomorrow. The government and civil society should actively promote the conservation of water.


http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...wspaper/editorial/19-water-scarcity-840-hh-08

 

[ajtr]

Link to Briscoe's article, "War or peace on the Indus?", appearing in the News, Pakistan


Here is the Rebuttal.

Battle of Paani-pat​

Where is the need for such magnanimity?

Prof. Briscoe contends the following with regard to what he believes is an issue of perception (emphasis added):

http://filtercoffee.nationalinterest.in/2010/04/16/battle-of-paani-pat/

Seems article by John Briscoe has caught the eyes of many in india.There are lot of rebuttals to it by indians by presenting proper technical data.And pakistan always avoid technical data.it just create hysteria about water stealing.The point is John Briscoe's article is just devoid of any data to support his argument.What he is spreading is mis-information like any other pakistani reporter who write without any technical data.

 

[Singh]

Going 'down the drain'​

Water is the pre-eminent political issue in Pakistan. Nothing else compares in complexity. It affects life, society, politics, the economy, food security, our foreign policy, and even has security repercussions. Yet, most of the time you speak to someone about it, the debate is littered with non-sequiturs. India, apparently, is "stealing" water and the water table in Lahore is falling rapidly. There needs to be clarity, forgive the pun, in our analysis of water.

Pakistan's water resource, the Indus Basin, consists primarily of glacial melt and, a far, far, second, rainwater. Over 90 per cent of our water resource is employed in irrigation. Less than five per cent is employed for domestic purposes--that is, drinking and sanitation. Even less is employed in industrial processes.

Before Partition, the governments of Sindh (then Sind) and Punjab agreed to share the waters of the Indus and the rivers of Punjab. This is known as the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement of 1945. In a sentence (so please forgive any inaccuracy), the agreement set out that the waters of the Indus were to be used, primarily, by Sindh and that the waters of the rivers of Punjab would be used, primarily, by Punjab.

At Partition, the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement seems to have fallen by the wayside, presumably because Partition was the basis of a fresh new history. And if it wasn't for that reason, then the effect that Partition had on the Indus Basin – it made India the upper riparian – must have been enough of a distraction to water managers in Pakistan. It's interesting how few have commented on the arbitrary nature of the political line Cyril Radcliffe drew through the middle of one of the oldest fluvial civilisations on the planet.

The problems of managing the waters of the Indus Basin were settled in 1960 when the World Bank got India and Pakistan to sign the Indus Water Treaty. Basically, the treaty states that India will have control over the waters of the three eastern rivers of the Indus Basin (the Ravi, the Sutlej and the Beas) and that Pakistan will have control over the waters of the three western rivers (the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum). However, the treaty does stipulate that India may use the waters of the western rivers for, domestic consumption, non-consumptive purposes, limited agricultural and for hydroelectric purposes.

Because of the treaty, the Government of Pakistan augmented the irrigation network in Punjab in order to compensate for the loss of water from the eastern rivers. A vast network of dams, barrages and irrigation canals were built to provide the waters of the eastern rivers to the areas where the western rivers used to irrigate the fertile land of Punjab. The augmentation of the irrigation network under the Indus Water Treaty was also against the terms of the Sind-Punjab Water Agreement.

The treaty was executed when Ayub Khan's One Unit experiment was in place. There was no province of Sindh at the time and no voice representing the people of that province. Sindhis have good reason to dislike the Indus Water Treaty. Why were we not consulted, they say, about the unilateral decision to divert the waters of the Indus to the fields of Punjab. It's interesting that few have commented on this inherent tension on the Pakistani side of the Indus Water Treaty.

The Indus Water Treaty sets up the office of the Permanent Indus Commission. India and Pakistan both have the permanent post of Commissioner of Indus Waters, whose job it is to be "the representative of his Government for all matters arising out of this Treaty, and will serve as the regular channel of communication on all matters relating to the implementation of the Treaty. . . ." This includes furnishing and exchanging information or data relating to the flow of the rivers.

What is interesting is that, other than the 10 days India took the waters of the Chenab to fill the reservoir for the Baglihar Dam, Pakistan's Permanent Commissioner of Indus Waters has never said that India has consumed the waters of the western rivers in a manner that violates the Indus Water Treaty. Also, historical data of flows of the western rivers will show anyone that, other than seasonal and other naturally occurring variations, the Indus Water Treaty and India's exercise of rights under it have not affected the amount of water Pakistan gets.

At the same time, we are also told that Pakistan's water resources are falling fast. This is true (we've gone from 5,000 cubic feet of water per person per year to less than 1,500, and it is expected that we will fall to "water-scarce" levels in the near future), but it has to be seen in context. The water resource is not falling because of the Indus Water Treaty. It's falling because of our phenomenal population growth. If you double the people of Pakistan, you're halving the per-capita water resource. So the water scarcity issue has more to do with the way we breed than with India or the Indus Water Treaty.

The real story of water scarcity in Pakistan actually comes from how we deal with and manage our water resources. The apportionment of our water resource is determined by the Apportionment Accord signed by the four provinces in 1991 and by the Indus River System Authority (IRSA) set up to implement the Accord. Each province also has an irrigation department to manage the irrigation network in place.

Over and above seepage of water because of un-lined canals and evaporation, water resources are simply "stolen." Rumour is that some 40 per cent of the water used in irrigation goes to waste or is stolen. The question then is: How come, if there's a water shortage, no one is asking questions of IRSA or the irrigation departments as to what exactly is happening to the water resource in Pakistan? How come no one is asking questions about the water-intensive flood-irrigation techniques used so prevalently? How come no one is asking questions about the manner in which water is priced in Pakistan?

Which brings us to domestic consumption (drinking water and water for sanitation purposes). Many areas fed by canal water use this water for their domestic needs. Some urban areas (like Lahore) use their groundwater resources. Some urban areas (like Islamabad) rely on man-made water reservoirs. But the state of urban water resources is alarming: Karachiites haven't had adequate water resources for years, and the city is now under the control of various water-tanker mafias; Islamabad, because of rampant and unplanned urbanisation, has turned its water reservoirs into poison by using them for sewage and sanitation disposal; Quetta is out of water (will it go the way of Fatehpur Sikri?); Faisalabad's groundwater is turning brackish; and Lahore's water table has fallen to over 700 feet and scarcity is looming around the corner; in Kasur, the tanneries have poisoned the water table and water-related physical deformities (and other ailments) are rampant. In other words, most of our major urban areas are suffering from, or are beginning to suffer from, water-scarcity and water-quality issues.

In these circumstances, how come no one is asking questions of the urban elite who continue to maintain large lawns or who continue to have their fleet of automobiles washed in precious drinking water? How come no one is asking questions of the many tens of thousands of mosques where drinking water is used, religiously and untrammelled, five times a day for the purposes of wuzu (ablution)? How come there are no water-use legislations?

The pre-eminent political issue of water seems to be more about our own habits and our abuse and disregard of an existential and rapidly depleting resource. Yesterday, a newspaper reported that the irrigation department of the Government of Punjab has accused the Rangers and the army of theft of water from the canals in the Bahawlapur and Lahore Zones. How come no one is asking questions and how come, given these circumstances, there are people openly accusing India of being responsible for our water-related issues?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=233358

 

[ajtr]

Water: a pre-eminent political issue



Urban/urbane

By Ahmad Rafay Alam
The word "riparian" has been appearing in the media far too frequently for my liking. It's usually preceded by the adjective "lower" and usually followed by an irrational rant about how the "upper riparian" is taking advantage. This is unsettling because, as one knows, when the word "riparian" becomes part of one's day-to-day vocabulary, it means water has become a major issue. And it should be. As has been foretold, water is becoming, if not already is, the mother of all political issues.

At Partition, we are told that Pakistan had water resources in the region of 5,000 cubic meters per person. Now, we are told this resource has fallen to close to 1,200 cubic meters per person, a figure the UN warns is close to when a country is said to be "water scarce". That may sound alarming but, as someone once said, there are lies, damn, lies and then there are statistics

Nevertheless, the fact is that Pakistan's water resources are fast dwindling. But before someone panics, they need to understand that, more than other things, we are becoming water scarce because of the remarkable job we've done at breeding: it's the increasing population that's one of the reasons our per capita water resource statistics are falling.

There are other reasons why Pakistan's water resources are falling. There is, for example, the remarkably outdated and inefficient irrigation system we currently have in operation. Over 90 per cent of Pakistan's water resources are used in irrigation (with somewhere near 3 to 5 per cent servicing drinking water requirements and the remainders servicing specific industrial purposes), and over 40 per cent of irrigation water is said to be "lost" because of evaporation and theft. Then there's the world famous Pakistani work ethic: in today's day and age, farming is a science and economical yields simply can't be achieved if sowing and harvest dates are left subservient to the whims of lazy farmers (with due apologies to the many hard-working members of the agricultural sector).

Pakistan's water resources aren't just threatened by inefficient irrigation and farming techniques. There is also the spectre of climate change. Almost all of Pakistan's water resources originate from glacial melt off of Himalayan glaciers. Increases in global temperatures resulting from climate change are expected to affect the rate of glacial melt: At first there will be widespread flooding and then, as the glaciers melt away, there will be no water resource. This is expected to happen within the next century.

The 2003 Government of Pakistan Initial Communication on Climate Change indicates that global warming will affect every one of Pakistan's cash crops. This will affect our agriculture -- the current backbone of the national economy -- and rural livelihood. As things stand, poverty in Pakistan -- and nearly 30 per cent of the population hovers near the poverty line -- is a rural phenomenon. The economic effects of a shortage of water will affect rural livelihood and only exacerbate the conditions of poverty that increasing numbers of children will be forced to experience.

Water shortages have affected inter-provincial relations. The waters of the Indus Basin are regulated within Pakistan by the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), which itself was created by the inter-provincial Water Accord of 1991. Sindh regularly accuses Punjab of not providing it with its share of water. Punjab, on the other hand, claims nothing more than its rightful share of water under the Water Accord. With crop productivity affected in both provinces due to water shortages, IRSA hasn't been much successful in resolving the increasingly antagonistic positions being taken by these opposing provinces. This has the potential to affect inter-provincial harmony and, by extension, the balance of power in government.

If these factors don't qualify water to be a pre-eminent political issue in this country, then surely the international repercussions of water will.

Just as the lower riparian Sindhi is a vicious critic of the upper riparian Punjabi, the lower riparian Pakistani holds a deep amount of scepticism of his upper riparian Indian. The flow of water in the Indus Basin is regulated by an agreement between the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan: the Indus Basin Treaty, 1960. Under the treaty, the rights over the water of the three Eastern rivers (Sutlej, Bias and Ravi) are given to India and the use of the waters of the three western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) is given to Pakistan. Recently, and there has been further proof that water is an pre-eminent political issue of our time--India has been accused of "stealing" Pakistan's share of water. Even if Pakistan had the latest means to accurately measure the flows of water--and thereby substantiate its claims--this accusation cleverly hides the fact that, on account of climate change, there are circumstances of drought along the Indian side of the western rivers under Pakistan's control.

Pakistan and India need to sit down to examine the issue of the management of their shared resource of the Indus Basin. Pakistan can only do this if it has a strong opening bargaining position vis-à-vis India, else it stands to lose even the precarious ground it holds under the Indus Water Treaty. This is a point that the proponents of "revisiting" the treaty on the grounds that it does not envision the impact of climate change must keep in mind.

Water also has security repercussions. It is my understanding (and I stand to be corrected here) that one of the reasons the Pakistan Army maintains the troop levels it does on the eastern border (when the fighting is so obviously along the western border) is because water is considered a security issue. If India gains control of the western rivers of the Indus Basin, it will have the advantage to literally shut off Pakistan's water resources. In addition, since the canal irrigation system also provides security against a ground attack, Pakistan's ability to charge these canals will determine some of its defence capabilities. Unlike other political issues in Pakistan, water is not just one- or two-dimensional. Water is multi-dimensional. No other political issue affects the Pakistani economy and society, creates internal migration, is directly linked to climate change, places stress on inter-provincial relations, has security repercussions and involves negotiations with India all at the same time.

At the moment, the types of voices that are filling the debate are unsettling. Over and above the clichéd upper and lower riparian antagonism, the debate is often fuelled by anti-Indian sentiment. One senior journalist has gone as far as offering himself as a human bomb against Indian dams. For once, I wish he would carry out his threat to prove to others who share his worldview: This is not how things are resolved.

In water, the mother of all political issues, Pakistani politics faces a great challenge. For better or worse, the full attention of the Pakistani people is soon going to focus on water-related issues. This is the time for forward and out-of-the box thinking on never-before- encountered problems. Solutions to water-related issues are hot topics globally and all eyes are fixed on how a democratic Pakistan is dealing with the issues water is throwing at it. We must not let the debate and our actions on water be hijacked by unproductive jingoism. In today's world, Pakistan must constructively deal with its problems. If this can be done, water can be an issue on which Pakistan can be an example to the world.

 

[ahmedsid]

WOW! That was one enlightening Article Singhji! Thank you very much for posting it. Maybe our Pakistani members can shed some light as to why the very people accusing us of Water Theft and WAR are the ones diverting water??

 

[ajtr]

WOW! That was one enlightening Article Singhji! Thank you very much for posting it. Maybe our Pakistani members can shed some light as to why the very people accusing us of Water Theft and WAR are the ones diverting water??

There are 2 reasons for it:
1. pakistan has built defence canals running parallel to indo-pak border in order to stop/delay indian armoured advance.Ichogil Canal is one such defence canal built for the defence of Lahore.Now to fill in these canals obviously water has to be diverted from the indus river there by reducing the waters for the other civil purpose.IIRC in 2002, after India mobilized its forces as part of Operation Parakram , Pakistan diverted waters to these "defence canals" accentuating the then already severe water shortage of 50% to over 70%.

2. other one is canal in Bahawlapur and Lahore Zones from which Army rangers are accused of stealing water.Now the purpose of these canals was to divert waters towards south punjab.Now this is the area where Pakistani generals are allotted farm lands after their retirements.And army being holy cow in pakistan no one can challenge the water thievery by them. which ultimately get blamed on to india.

 

[ajtr]

1. The project is sponsored by Ministry of Water and Power of the Federal Government of Pakistan at cost of Rs.30.5 billions.

2.The execution agency is WAPDA having over 90% of its officers from the Punjab.

3.The beneficiary is Government of Punjab and no other province. The sponsorship by the Federal Government means use of common funds of the Federation for one province only.

4.Completion date is 30.06.2008.

5.It cannot be completed by that date as thus for only 2 to 3% work has been done so far up to 30.06.2003.

6.Annual recurring expenditure is Rs.142 millions. It is not known whether this amount will come from Federal or Punjab Governments funds, as responsibility of operation and maintenance of this canal will be that of the Government of the Punjab.

7.The districts covered by the project are, Bhakker, Layyah, Khusbab and Jhung all in the Punjab.

8.This project is not different from Greater Thal Canal already rejected by ECNEC in 1975 only the point of water intake has been changed.

9.The canal will take off from head regulator at Addhikot of Chashma Jehlum Link Canal where regulator has been constructed.

10.Cashma-Jehlum link is to flow only during flood season, but they run it year around. It inter-provincial canals but Punjab is monopolising it and using it to its own advantages without, regards for lower riparian.

11.Gross command area of the Project is 1.9 million acres and Cultural Command area is 1.53 million acres.

12.Project feasibility has not been worked out under PC-II and in PC-I it has been assumed without studies and details.

13.There is no provision for Greater Thal Canal in the 1991 Accord and it has been metamorphosed in the new name "Thal Flood Water Canal".

14.Water has to come from share of the Punjab and also from the floods in June to September.

15.It is assumed that 2,600 to 3,800 cusecs of water would come from the floods between June and September and 4,700 to 5,800 cusecs from the share of the Punjab, as per share settled in the 1991 Accord and withdrawals will vary every 10 days from June to September.

16.Flood season is assumed as June to September, which is not correct. The past eight years data will show that there is no flood water in the river Indus flowing down stream of Kotri in June or September? In some years flood water flows down stream of Kotri Barrage in July and August but not even in all 31 days of these two months.

17.The Punjab had been pressing for Greater Thal Canal since beginning of last century but in 1923 and again in 1934. Governor General of India rejected on the ground that:

18.It was wasteland and will not produce economic crops.

19.It will also hit economic interests of the lower riparian i.e., Sindh.

20.Actually it is a desert having more than 90% sand in most of its area.

21.The project of Greater Thal Canal was again put up to ECNEC in 1975 and ECNEC rejected it on 19.08.1975. It formed part of Kala Bagh Dam and allied irrigation schemes, namely Kala Bagh Right Bank Canal, Kala Bagh Left Bank Canal, CRVC, C.J. Link Canal. All were to be executed after Kala Bagh Dam. The ECNEC rejected the project once for all and then attempts have continued to construct Kala Bagh Dam, which all small provinces have opposed and have been shelved.

22.Since Kala Bagh Dam has been rejected any new projects for same area in other names are being floated but will have the same purpose as Kala Bagh Dam and Greater Thal Canal from it.

23.The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) has given no objection certificate and by use of majority passed it but Sindh member gave note of dissent. In IRASA decisions have to be taken by consensus rather than majority.

24.The Baluchistan voted for the proposal on the plea that Kachhi Canal will be built to irrigate Sibi-Kachhi area but canal will have its along distance run in the Punjab, which will utilise its waters first. How much will reach Baluchistan is any body's guess work looking to the past history.

25.The Punjab Government is continuously violating 1991 Accord in the past 11 years and it is not only breach of Accord, but breach of the constitution.

26.The 1991 Accord envisages availability of 117 MAF million acre feet of water which figure was prepared before signing the Accord and all papers from Sindh Secretariat, Ministry of Water and Power have been destroyed as the actual figures for early 80s was 105 MAF. They have distributed 12 MAF which do not exist. The Punjab has all along said that they are taking water from their share, which does not exist.

27.In brief this means annual short fall of water by about 8.97% or say 9% by assuming wrong figures of water availability.

28.2000/01 data showed that shortfall for Kharif were 57% and for Rabi 29%. These include exaggerated figures of 9%.

29.The Punjab insists on the above shares and wants Sindh to share, while taking 9% extra water from the total pool.

30.The PC-I for the Project does not provide data on floods for four months from which Punjab intends to get. Actually no water flows to the sea in June or September, expect once in 10 years when it may flow in the last week of June or first week of September.

31.The 1991 Accord includes requirement of water to be allowed to flow to the sea and Sindh's stand to get 10 MAF for flow to the sea. Accord in principle accepts the water flow to the sea but quantum needs to be worked out by further studies. The study has not been undertaken for 12 years. It is a binding on all Provincial and Federal Governments to carry out the study and reserve that water rather than to carry out works based on flood. UNDP provided funds for this study; it was not under taken as IRSA considered it not necessary over-ruling member from Sindh.

32.In 1959 in the negotiations with by the World Bank between India and Pakistan, the latter's team had argued that at least 3,000 cusecs will flow to the sea in all months of years in addition to flood waters in the inundation season. This is a commitment and this quantity of water is not been discharged into the sea through out the year. In the World Bank negotiations, Sindh's case for 3,000 cusecs below Kotri was minimum in any month.

33.Riverain area in Sindh consists of 2.112 million acres. It is entitled to Rabi crop on preserved moisture as 4,000 years historical right. Since no floods take place now the area is to be irrigated by means of tube-wells from ground water storage. To irrigate the whole area of about 1.5 million acres (including 0.5 million acres of forest land) 4.5 million acres feet of water must be allowed to recharge ground water annually. This area has now been converted into desert and most of forests have either disappeared or dwindled. This 4.5 MAF is not part of system losses but has to be out-side this and is to be provided extra.

34.The legal position is that Ministry of Water and Power should have got feasibility prepared first before preparation of PC-I for the Scheme. This was not done and Central Development Working Party (CDWP) took the project to ECNEC. The whole procedure of presenting to the case to CDWP or ECNEC is illegal and violation of constitution.

35.The project was started one year before approval of ECNEC, which also is totally illegal.

36.Sindh Government received the letter on Saturday the 24th February 2002 during late hours to attend meeting of ECNEC on Monday February the 26th. The agenda was circulated before the start of meeting and Sindh just representatives had no time to study the papers.

37.The Sindh Government sent their objection on 7th March 2002 i.e., 9 days after the meeting, the minutes of which were received on 01.03.2002 i.e., took only 6 days to file their objections and lodge a protest.

38.Sindh also protested that if this canal was built, no water will flow to the sea causing socio-economic, environment problems, destruction of mangroves and losses of prawns, lobster and other crustaceans.

39.The canal will take off from Chasma-Jehlum (C-J) Link canal which was built only to divert flood waters, but the Punjab is running it all year around in most years.

40.Sindh feels that since this link canal has been running year around Thal Canal will also be made to run year around.

41.Construction was started a year before even preparation of PC-I and approval of ECNEC which in it-self is illegal and unconstitutional.

42.Supposing flood water becomes available, by miracle, all provinces have to share the benefits, especially Sindh's demand of 10 MAF below Kotri barrage and the Punjab alone cannot ask for its monopoly on waters, which pass through its territory.

43.With regards to Kala Bagh, the Punjab like the present project wanted full benefit of water for it self, ignoring 4.5 MAF needed for the riverain area of Sindh and 10 MAF out flow the sea for protecting environments along the coast. This quantity of 10 MAF has provisionally been agreed and is subject to further studies and is also recorded in the 1991 Accord. UNDP provided funds for this study but Indus River System Authority did not allow it be taken up, in spite of protests from Sindh.

44.There is disagreement over two canals the Chashma-Jehlum link (21,000 cusecs) and Taunsa Punjnad link (12,000 cusecs), which are kept open through out the year for the many past years, a flagrant violation of Inter Provincial Agreement by the Punjab. The two have to flow only after all water requirements of Sindh are met.

45.WAPDA which has 90% of its officers from the Punjab and is biased in favour of the Punjab and has always exaggerated the availability of water in the system and has shown reduced losses en-route and omitted and neglected the out flows to the sea.

46.The consequence of all the above discussed projects is permanent friction between Sindh and Punjab. It is harmful for the Federation of Pakistan.

 

[ajtr]

Dangerous portents

A short excerpt from this newspaper of April 6. "Accusing the army and Rangers of being involved in 'blatant water theft', the Punjab irrigation department has urged the chief minister to 'immediately take up the matter at appropriate level'.

"Water theft has become a serious issue over the past two decades and is seriously affecting canal operations and equitable distribution of water. Theft by influential people at the head-reaches results in water shortage and deprives the poor farmers at the tail of these channels. Against this backdrop, water theft by state agencies robs the department of any moral authority to go after small farmers."

The summary goes on to cite specific cases and has named the formations/units involved, alleging that in Bahawalpur Zone alone, 356 cusecs of water is being stolen every day. Detailing instances of water theft in other divisions, the summary states that Okara and Sheikhupura are also affected with this theft going on there too.

It also gives details of an incident in which army soldiers first abused and then "took away" for a time a sub divisional officer, when a party of police and irrigation department officials came to close an unauthorised outlet in Bahawalpur. The summary points out that the stolen water irrigates encroached lands, and that because more land is encroached upon every year, more water is required resulting in a still higher incidence of water theft.

First, the secretary of the irrigation department of the Punjab should be congratulated, not only for authoring as clear a summary as this one, he should also be appreciated for having the plain guts to call a spade a spade.

Second, the case must be dealt with in the manner that any case is dealt with by the canal magistrate who should impose exact same penalties on the so-called contractors as he would on an ordinary farmer. I have farmed too and remember well how unthinkable it was to lay pipes and steal canal water!

Next, the army formations/units/Rangers involved should immediately desist from such commercial activity. It should be realised that the army particularly has earned itself a very bad name indeed due to other such 'non-martial' pursuits such as baking bread and pastries, and selling tikka-kababs out of officer's messes, case in point: the artillery mess in Rawalpindi.

 

[ajtr]

Case of Baglihar Dam Under Indus water Treaty

What is so unique about Baglihar?

Baglihar is built on river Chenab and is a hydroelectric project with a potential for irrigation. The latter is a potential only and not a reality as the geography of the area is difficult and will not easily yield to any irrigation scheme. In addition any irrigation project will be a contravention of IWT, hence is not part of the current thinking process in India.

Chenab river originates in Indian province of Himachal Pradesh. It begins its 700 Km journey as two small rivers, Chandra and Bhaga from Baralaha Pass in Lahul Spiti district. They rejoin about 70 Km later and become Chanderbhaga. This river crosses another district of Himachal Pradesh i.e. Chamba through the Pangi Valley region and enters Kashmir at its eastern end. In its 150 Km journey above, the river gathers more water and becomes a full-fledged river. Before it reaches Kashmir it has already collected 60% of its total water flow and dropped in elevation from about 13000 feet to about 9,000 feet. In Kashmir, this river in its another 220 Km journey collects the remaining 40% water and drops another 7,000 feet elevation before it enters Sialkote area of Pakistan near Akhnur.

The above elevation drop, which the river undergoes in Kashmir, is of greatest importance to India. This together with volume of water is a huge energy reserve, which needs to be tapped. Hence India has planned no less than twenty small and large projects of which Baglihar, Dul Hasti, Salal etc. are the big one. Most of these projects are in the middle of construction or nearing completion. With the completion of the above projects, Kashmir will be significantly ahead in meeting its current and future energy needs.

What is Pakistans Objection to Baglihar?

Pakistan has a claim over the waters of three western rivers including Chenab under the Indus water Treaty, except that India is allowed to;

Harness the Hydro electric potential of the river

Develop water sport

And use the water, if it could be tamed for the general welfare of the local people including domestic use.

India is using all the above stipulations in the Treaty to its advantage. The project today, is a hydroelectric project. It is also for the welfare of the local people. The potential for sports like white water rafting is under development. Soon it will become a major tourist attraction rivaling Srinagar.

Pakistans objections are not for the construction of the dam. Their objections relate to the design parameters and future possibilities with its construction.

Pakistanis believe that the height of the dam at 470 feet is excessive and will create a reservoir in excess of the power generation needs. The new reservoir potentially could block the flow of the river for a period of 26-28 days during the low season (January-February). They also contend that a drop of 7,000 cubic foot per second per day in rivers flow to Pakistan will take place during this period.

Indian argument is very sound. According to Government of India, reduction in dams height (as Pakistan suggest) will cut the power generation capacity from 450MW to 50 MW and render the project worthless. India also argues that the statistics provided by Pakistan on river water flow decrease are faulty. Moreover, no stipulation exists in the Treaty, which limits India from fully utilizing the energy potential of the river.

Indias advantages

India is legally correct in building this project. It has to tap all the energy sources for the welfare of the people of J&K. Also construction of Baglihar and other projects will give India a strategic advantage. The Baglihar dam together with Dul Hasti and other dams can simply reduce the flow of Chenab during the critical Rabi crop-sowing season (January and February). This stoppage can very well be timed to any war mongering or nuclear saber rattling by Pakistan. The dried crop could spell a disaster to Pakistans agricultural economy.

There is also potential to release all this water (16,000 Acre Feet) downstream, should a conflict ever reach a shooting war. Pakistani defenses, including Upper Chenab and Lower Chenab canals in the Sialkote region and all the way to Panchnad in the south could be destroyed. Hence, India has slowly acquired a vital strategic card in its current and future disputes with Pakistan.

Scarred of the arising strategic advantages for India, Pakistan has commenced construction on Mangla Head Marla canal to link the Mangla Resorvoir (on river Jhelum) to Silakote area with the intent to feed river Jhelum water to the Chenab irrigation system. This scheme is already meeting a huge resistance from the Sindh Province of Pakistan, who use Indus and Jhelum water for irrigation in the south. In this scenario, potential of internal Pakistani conflict are much greater.

Objection to Baglihar are also proving the Pakistans sincerity or lack of it, to the people of Kashmir. With all its objections, Pakistan has proven that Kashmiri interest, although main plank of their foreign policy is subservient to Pakistani interest. This point has divided the pro-Pakistani politicians in Kashmir.

All in all, a carefully designed exploitation of resources in Kashmir has given India a strategic advantage. Other Possibilities with Baglihar and Other Projects

Baglihar is located on the western side of the Seoj Dhar Mountain Range. The city of Jammu and its agricultural plains are located on the southeastern side of the same range. A tunnel through this range can take away water from Chenab to Jammu, leaving Pakistani Sialkote completely dry. India has a full right to undertake this as one of the provisions of the IWT states that water could be used for the welfare of people of J & K. By punching a tunnel, India is simply acting for the interest of people of J&K.

All in all India does not have to undertake this venture. But a possibility like this has to be kept on the cards to knock some sense in the Pakistani mindset. Loss of Chenab water cannot be replaced by diverting the Jhelum river water from the Mangla reservoir without upsetting the Sindhi interests.

Balances and Counterbalances may ultimately bring out Uneasy Peace.

The possibilities of this strategic equation have never been discussed in the open before. Thanks to the twin issues of Baglihar Dam and Iran India gas pipeline, that this subject of balances and counterbalances is being discussed. If peace is maintained between India and Pakistan then Pakistan is in a win, win situation. In addition Pakistan could use this huge infusion of capital to reduce its dependency on US aid.

Time Required to Implement All these Plans

Baglihar project is almost complete. Plans to block Chenab are hypothetical. But these possibilities are to be kept in mind, should a situation arise. India should stick to all the provisions of the IWT. But in international matters where two neighbors cannot get along well, checks and balances have to be built. The above-mentioned balances and counter balances are key to the future peace. It will be 5 years before any gas could be delivered to India from Iran via the proposed pipeline. That is the time India needs to complete all Chenab projects. In the sprit of co-operation and making huge cash grab with gas shipment, Pakistan should withdraw objections to Baglihar.

Balancing each others interest is an ideal way to deal, between neighbors who are unlikely to be friendly for a very long time.

 

[ajtr]

Kashmir and Water: Conflict and Cooperation

Water, Wars, and Kashmir
Conflicts over water—a precious resource, the supply of which is growing sparser and the demand for which is ever mounting—have been much talked about by experts. Growing populations and extending development would render conflicts between water-rich and water-scarce nations inevitable. Upstream states that control the flow of water to downstream states would use this valuable resource as a key diplomatic and strategic tool to coerce the downstream nations into submitting to its demands. According to the 2002 United Nations World Water Development Report, there were 507 conflictive events over water during the previous fifty years. Thirty-seven among these involved violence, of which 21 consisted of military acts (18 between Israel and its neighbors)."Some of the most vociferous enemies around the world have negotiated water agreements [concerning international rivers] or are in the process of doing so," says the report. Global warming would act as a catalyst to water-conflict scenarios, with decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation in some areas that have made the regular climate patterns erratic.Intermittent phases of flooding and droughts causing massive human suffering would pressure governments into turning off the taps to its neighbors.The Indus River, whose basin cradled one of the oldest civilizations of the world, sustains Pakistan today. Both India and Pakistan depend on snow-fed rivers that rise in the Himalayas. Pakistan depends on the Indus for its survival and sustenance. The Indus,moreover, passes through Jammu and Kashmir, which is in dispute between the two countries. The history of water sharing between India and Pakistan has been marked by exceptional cooperation and intermittent conflicts over the interpretation of the water sharing treaty that forms the basis for this cooperation. The Tulbul Navigation Project and the Baglihar, Kishanganga, and Salal hydroelectric power projects are a few contentious issues between the two countries revolving around the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The incongruities in interpretations of the IWT have been attributed to political motives, rather than differences over technical and engineering aspects of water management.

The Indus Waters Treaty: Emergence of an Effective Conflict Management Tool
The IWT brokered by the World Bank (WB) provided for the division of the rivers between India and Pakistan. The eastern rivers—Sutlej, Beas and Ravi—were allocated to India. The western rivers—Jhelum, Chenab and Indus—were allotted to Pakistan (barring their use by India under specified conditions in Jammu and Kashmir), with limited consumptive rights over these to India. How did the IWT come into being?

In April 1948, the lack of a water-sharing agreement led India to curtail the flow of west flowing tributaries to Pakistan. This brought to the fore the imperative of negotiations for an equitable distribution of the Indus River and its tributaries between the two riparian states, and for developing a coherent plan for integrated development of the water basin. The hurried partition of the Indian subcontinent through the India Independence Act by British Parliament in 1947, under the duress of increasing communal violence, resulted in the creation of two new independent states, India and Pakistan. The two countries, however, were beleaguered by problems related to delineation of their international boundaries; accession of a number of princely states, especially that of Jammu and Kashmir; as well as the decisions about their complex river systems, the Indus (shared by India with West Pakistan) and Ganges and Brahmaputra (shared by India with East Pakistan). Of these three rivers, the Indus basin—typified by thousands of kilometers of man-made irrigation canals and headworks that regulated the flow of its waters—proved to be the most complicated. What exacerbated the problem was the fact that the Indus originated from the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the legal status of which both countries became involved in war soon after independence in 1947. However, the waters irrigated most of the fertile lands of Punjab, divided into East and West Punjab.The existing water turn systems were frozen by a "Standstill Agreement" in December 1947 at the two headworks of Madhopur (on the Ravi) and Ferozepur (on the Sutlej) until March 31, 1948. Upon expiry of this agreement on April 1, 1948 and in the absence of a new agreement, India discontinued the delivery of water to the Dipalpur Canal and the main branches of the Upper Bari Daab Canal from these headworks.The Arbitral Tribunal (AT) that was set up by the Indian Independence Act to look into differences over matters of division of assets between the two countries also expired on the same day.In April 1948, the Engineers of the two divided Punjab States met in Simla and signed two Standstill Agreements regarding continuous flow from two other canals, Depalpur and Central Bari, until October 1948. As per this agreement the West Punjab provincial government would pay seigniorage charges and proportionate maintenance costs,and interest on a proportionate amount of capital.In July 1950, Pakistan stopped seigniorage payments to India, which continued to supply water as per the agreement. Due to ongoing hostilities between the two neighbors on account of Kashmir, no further talks were held.David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and a former Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission, USA visited the two countries in 1951 and proposed that India and
Pakistan work out a program jointly to develop and operate the Indus Basin river system. Inspired by this idea, Eugene R. Black, then President of the World Bank, visited the two countries and proposed a Working Party of Indian, Pakistani, and World Bank engineers to tackle the functional aspects of water sharing. The two countries accepted this mediation and the World Bank stepped in with its own draft proposals for resolution in February 1954, distributing the three Eastern Rivers to India and the three Western rivers to Pakistan. Protracted talks were held amid mounting tensions, and finally the Indus Waters Treaty was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of India; Field Marshal Ayub Khan,then President of Pakistan; and W.A.B. Illif, then President of the World Bank, in Karachi in September 1960.The IWT provided for one of the most comprehensive dispute resolution mechanisms. Under the IWT, India can undertake projects on the western rivers for general conservation, flood control, irrigation and hydropower generation, and duly inform Pakistan of the same. Pakistan's objection would render it a matter of dispute to be settled either by negotiations or by a neutral expert, or by arbitration. Three members, one from India, one from Pakistan and the third member by mutual agreement or an International Court of Justice appointee in lieu would be the arbitrators. Any unresolved "question" between the two parties through the Permanent Indus Commission becomes a "difference" to be referred to a neutral expert, who is appointed by the two countries, and failing that, the World Bank. If the neutral expert's recommendations are unacceptable to either of the parties, the matter would be treated as a "dispute" and it would be referred to a Court of Arbitration established by the World Bank,along with other institutions such as the secretary general of the United Nations.

Water Conflict: Key Issues of Contention
Water sharing between the two neighbors has been characterized by intermittent conflict and long sustained cooperation. However, recent issues have
brought the sustainability of the IWT under serious scrutiny. Twenty-seven projects undertaken by India in the Indus basin in Jammu and Kashmir have been questioned by Pakistan. This has resulted in delays in implementation, prohibitive increases in costs, and
stalling of development in J&K. Three of the most contentious issues—the Baglihar Hydel Power Project (BHP), Tulbul Navigation Project (TNP), and Kishenganga Project—are discussed below.
Baglihar : The 900 megawatt (MW) BHP on the Chenab River in Doda district in Jammu stands out as a key issue between India and Pakistan. It was also the first ever to be referred for international arbitration through the dispute resolution mechanism under Article IX of the IWT. Pakistan feared that the BHP would divert considerable downstream flows and could also be used to cause floods in the riparian areas.Similar objections were raised by Pakistan over Salal, a 480 MW hydropower project on the Chenab in 1978, that storage could be used for drying up flows as well as for flooding the lower riparian states.However, any attempt to flood Pakistan would inundate the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) first. Such action would also run counter to the rules of war and against the Geneva Conventions, inviting international condemnation. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that India would indulge in such an act and such fears are thus unfounded. India's agreement to make design changes in the Salal dam has resulted
in severe siltage problems and India was wary of a repetition of the same.In response to Pakistan's objections over the BHP, India contended that as it was a run of the river project, the water utilized for power generation would be released back into the river stream
and therefore there would be no difference in the quantum of water release. Both India and Pakistan tried to resolve the issue through bilateral talks.Pakistan's demand to shelve construction work until the issue gets resolved was not heeded by India, as the latter did not want a repetition of the TNP, which has been shelved since 1987. Since no breakthrough was achieved, Pakistan sought arbitration of a neutral expert under the ambit of the IWT to look into the matter. The report by the neutral expert, Raymond Laffitte, vindicated the Indian position that the BHP was not in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty.Design changes, including reductions in freeboard and pondage and increase in the height of the power intakes, were recommended. The neutral expert overruled Pakistan's objections over the use of gated spillways,as it is one of the most important techniques to handle the problem of sedimentation. The verdict on the BHP case will hopefully establish momentum for building such projects in the conflict-ridden state, to augment developmental work there.
Tulbul : The Tulbul navigation project, called Wullar barrage in Pakistan, is part of the composite dialogue within the framework of the peace process underway between India and Pakistan (unlike the BHP,which was referred for international arbitration). The TNP originally envisaged the construction of a 439-feet long and 40-feet wide barrage by India in 1984 on the River Jhelum, at the mouth of Wullar Lake, near Sopore in Kashmir. With a maximum storage capacity of 0.30 million acre feet (MAF), it was intended to maximize the utilization of water at India's largest fresh water lake, making the Jhelum navigable by regulating water storage in the Wullar through enhancing currents in the Jhelum during the lean months from November to February. Pakistan claims the TNP is in violation of the IWT, believing it could be used by India to control the river's flow as a geo-strategic weapon.The Indian stance is that the purpose of the barrage is to make the river navigable in summer and not to affect the outflows into Pakistan. The barrage,
according to Pakistan, would impede flows into their Upper Chenab Canal and the Lower Bari Doab Canals. The case was referred to the Indus Waters Commission in 1986, but failed to be resolved.Before Pakistan could move to the International Arbitral Court, India stopped construction and the project has been shelved ever since 1987.The most recent talks in August 2007 in the fourth round of composite dialogue ended inconclusively.In 1991, a draft agreement was prepared, which allowed the construction of the barrage with certain technical stipulations—such as leaving 6.2 meters of barrage ungated, reducing general storage capacity by 30,000 acre feet—with due monitoring by the Indus Water Commissioners. However, the draft agreement was not signed, since Pakistan linked its resolution to the 390 MW Kishenganga hydroelectric project, another unresolved issue between the countries, and demanded that India should forego its construction. The 1991 draft could be used as a basis for resolution as it asserted that the issue would be resolved within the scope of the IWT. Each contentious issue has to be resolved separately for giving resolution a real chance. The tremendous potential of waterways in J&K needs to be utilized and reaching a consensus over such projects is imperative.
Kishenganga : The Kishenganga Project entails a 75 meter high concrete dam at Gurez at about 8,000 feet to store 140,000 MAF of water and divert some flows through a 22 km tunnel bored into the mountain into the Madmati Nala, which empties into the
Wullar Lake. Kishenganga, called Neelum on the other side of the LoC, is a tributary that flows into the Jhelum near Nowshera (close to Muzaffarabad).Inter-tributary transfer is allowed under the IWT.Pakistan's objection is that the water is not transferred into the same tributary Neelum, although it finally gets into the Jhelum. It also fears that the project would flush the Wullar Lake. India informed Pakistan about the project in 1994, while Pakistan contends that the construction of a dam on the Neelum near Nowshera had been underway for irrigation purposes and that 133,000 hectares was already being irrigated at that time. Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) does not show this as one of its projects, and there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. According to India, the work on the Kishenganga Project commenced well before the Neelum project, while Pakistan insists to the contrary. Determination of the "existing use" of water that will get affected and the date that is to be taken into account for the same are the major issues of the dispute, among others.

Areas for Cooperation: Revising the Indus Waters Treaty
The Indus is the lifeline of Pakistan and water sharing is therefore a very emotive issue in Pakistan as well as in Kashmir. The Kashmiris, however, feel that the IWT is unfair to them, as India relinquished consumptive rights over the west flowing rivers, which pass through the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). To meet the energy requirements of the state,harnessing these rivers is essential. The benefits that would have accrued to the state were surrendered by the Indian government without due consultation
with the local government. Several power projects in the state have been held up due to disputes with Pakistan over the IWT. Having a hydroelectric power potential of over 20,000 MW, J&K is in need of the critical infrastructure to harness its abundant
resources. So far, hardly 1,500 MW of this potential has been exploited, both under state and Indian Central Government schemes. Against its requirement of over 1,600 MW, the state generates only about 450 MW. The state has an annual expenditure of Rs 2000 crore (approximately $500 million) on purchasing power from outside to meet its demands. The ongoing peace process in Kashmir needs to be complemented by an augmented pace of development.Addressing the current power situation holds the key to the development question in the region and would provide enormous employment opportunities.Speedy resolution of the pending disputes is vital and the IWT, which has been honored even during wartime, needs to be the basis for resolution.Article VII of the IWT envisages future cooperation,pointing to the "common interest in the optimum development of the rivers" and calling upon both sides "to cooperate, by mutual consent,to the fullest extent in undertaking engineering works in the rivers." Both India and Pakistan are also poor managers of water and have an inter-provincial problem of water sharing. Joint mechanisms under the IWT for harnessing and management of water should be part of the portfolio of confidence building measures between the two countries. The IWT-2
that is discussed in some policy circles would be a take off from the IWT, which is instructive on the purposes of cooperation and dispute resolution and also provides ample scope for revision. With climate change threatening to impact rainfall patterns and water supply, both India and Pakistan need to think seriously of such a joint mechanism. Achieving the goals of more storage structures and better distribution channels requires joint deliberation. Laffitte stressed the use of modern technology in the BHP report, and cooperation on such technology for better water management would be extremely pertinent.It would significantly help in integrating the region economically. Political determination on both sides is absolutely necessary to make resolution and initiation of such joint management of the Indus basin possible. Politicizing this emotive issue of water,as has occurred in the past, cannot be allowed to overshadow the process of such emerging cooperation.Solutions to water sharing issues are vital for the development of Jammu and Kashmir, and cooperation would represent a significant confidence building measure that would favorably impact the livelihoods of millions of people on both sides of the LoC.

 

[ajtr]

The particular phrase of "fair distribution of water" in news item below caught my eyes.

Saarc countries urged to ensure fair water distribution ​

According to a message received here, he warned that the perceived water shortage due to global climate change might lead to war between many countries in the world, including South Asia, if proactive measures were not taken for conservation and fair distribution of water.

http://www.brecorder.com/index.php?id=1048916&currPageNo=1&query=&search=&term=&supDate=

Lets see What is fair distribution of water according to The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers adopted by UNO are:

The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers

Adopted by the International Law Association at the fifty-second conference,
held at Helsinki in August 1966. Report of the Committee on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers
(London, International Law Association, 1967)

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL

Article I

The general rules of international law as set forth in these chapters are applicable to the use of the waters of an international drainage basin except as may be provided otherwise by convention, agreement or binding custom among the basin States.

Article II

An international drainage basin is a geographical area extending over two or more States determined by the watershed limits of the system of waters, including surface and underground waters, flowing into a common terminus.

Article III

A "basin State" is a State the territory of which includes a portion of an international drainage basin.

CHAPTER 2. EQUITABLE UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS OF AN INTERNATIONAL DRAINAGE BASIN

Article IV

Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin.

Article V

I. What is a reasonable and equitable share within the meaning of article IV to be determined in the light of all the relevant factors in each particular case.

II. Relevant factors which are to be considered include, but are not limited to:

1. The geography of the basin, including in particular the extent of the drainage area in the territory of each basin State;

2.The hydrology of the basin, including in particular the contribution of water by each basin State;

3.The climate affecting the basin;

4.The past utilization of the waters of the basin, including in particular existing utilization;

5.The economic and social needs of each basin State;

6.The population dependent on the waters of the basin in each basin State;

7.The comparative costs of alternative means of satisfying the economic and social needs of each basin State;

8.The availability of other resources;

9.The avoidance of unnecessary waste in the utilization of waters of the basin;

10.The practicability of compensation to one or more of the co-basin States as a means of adjusting conflicts among uses; and

11.The degree to which the needs of a basin State may be satisfied, without causing substantial injury to a co-basin State.

III. The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined by its importance in comparison with that of other relevant factors. In determining what is reasonable and equitable share, all relevant factors are to be considered together and a conclusion reached on the basis of the whole.

Article VI

A use or category of uses is not entitled to any inherent preference over any other use or category of uses.

Article VII

A basin State may not be denied the present reasonable use of the waters of an international drainage basin to reserve for a co-basin State a future use of such waters.

Article VIII

1. An existing reasonable use may continue in operation unless the factors justifying its continuance are outweighed by other factors leading to the conclusion that it be modified or terminated so as to accommodate a competing incompatible use.

2.

(a) A use that is in fact operational is deemed to have been an existing use from the time of the initiation of construction directly related to the use or, where such construction is not required, the undertaking of comparable acts of actual implementation.

(b) Such a use continues to be an existing use until such time as it is discontinued with the intention that it be abandoned.

3. A use will not be deemed an existing use if at the time of becoming operational it is incompatible with an already existing reasonable use.

CHAPTER 3. POLLUTION

Article IX

As used in this chapter, the term "water pollution" refers to any detrimental change resulting from human conduct in the natural composition, content, or quality of the waters of an international drainage basin.

Article X

1. Consistent with the principle of equitable utilization of the waters of an international drainage basin, a State:

(a) Must prevent any new form of water pollution or any increase in the degree of existing water pollution in an international drainage basin which would cause substantial injury in the territory of a co-basin State;

(b) Should take all reasonable measures to abate existing water pollution in an international drainage basin to such an extent that no substantial damage is caused in the territory of a co-basin State.

2. The rule stated in paragraph 1 of this article applies to water pollution originating:

(a) Within a territory of the State, or

(b) Outside the territory of the State, if it is caused by the State's conduct.

Article XI

1. In the case of a violation of the rule stated in paragraph 1 (a) of article X of this chapter, the State responsible shall be required to cease the wrongful conduct and compensate the injured co-basin State for the injury that has been caused to it.

2. In a case falling under the rule stated in paragraph 1 (b) of article X, if a State fails to take reasonable measures, it shall be required promptly to enter into negotiations with the injured State with a view towards reaching a settlement equitable under the circumstances.

CHAPTER 4 . NAVIGATION (Articles XII-XX)

CHAPTER 5. TIMBER FLOATING (Articles XXI-XXV)

CHAPTER 6. PROCEDURES FOR THE PREVENTION AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article XXVI

This chapter relates to procedures for the prevention and settlement of international disputes as to the legal rights or other interests of basin States and of other States in the waters of an international drainage basin.

Article XXVII

Consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, States are under an obligation to settle international disputes as to their legal rights or other interests by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

It is recommended that States resort progressively to the means of prevention and settlement of disputes stipulated in articles XXIX to XXXIV of this chapter.

Article XXVIII

1. States are under a primary obligation to resort to means of prevention and settlement of disputes stipulated in the applicable treaties binding upon them.

2. States are limited to the means of prevention and settlement of disputes stipulated in treaties binding upon them only to the extent provided by the applicable treaties.

Article XXIX

1. With a view to preventing disputes from arising between basin States as to their legal rights or other interest, it is recommended that each basin State furnish relevant and reasonably available information to the other basin States concerning the waters of a drainage basin within its territory and its use of, and activities with respect to, such waters.

2. A State, regardless of its location in a drainage basin, should in particular furnish to any other basin State, the interests of which may be substantially affected, notice of any proposed construction or installation which would alter the regime of the basin in a way which might give rise to a dispute as defined in article XXVI. The notice should include such essential facts as will permit the recipient to make an assessment of the probable effect of the proposed alteration.

3. A State providing the notice referred to in paragraph 2 of this article should afford the recipient a reasonable period of time to make an assessment of the probable effect of the proposed construction or installation and to submit its views thereon to the State furnishing the notice.

4. If a State has failed to give the notice referred to in paragraph 2 of this article, the alteration by the State in the regime of the drainage basin shall not be given the weight normally accorded to temporal priority in use in the event of a determination of what is a reasonable and equitable share of the waters of the basin.
Article XXX

In case of a dispute between States as to their legal rights or other interests, as defined in article XXVI, they should seek a solution by negotiation.

Article XXXI

1. If a question or dispute arises which relates to the present or future utilization of the waters of an international drainage basin, it is recommended that the basin States refer the question or dispute to a joint agency and that they request the agency to survey the international drainage basin and to formulate plans or recommendations for the fullest and most efficient use thereof in the interests of all such States.

2. It is recommended that the joint agency be instructed to submit reports on all matters within its competence to the appropriate authorities of the member States concerned.

3. It is recommended that the member States of the joint agency in appropriate cases invite non-basin States which by treaty enjoy a right in the use of the waters of an international drainage basin to associate themselves with the work of the joint agency or that they be permitted to appear before the agency.
Article XXXII

If a question or a dispute is one which is considered by the States concerned to be incapable of resolution in the manner set forth in article XXXI, it is recommended that they seek the good offices, or jointly request the mediation of a third State, of a qualified international organization or of a qualified person.

Article XXXIII

1. If the States concerned have not been able to resolve their dispute through negotiation or have been unable to agree on the measures described in articles XXXI and XXXII, it is recommended that they form a commission of inquiry or an ad hoc conciliation commission, which shall endeavor to find a solution, likely to be accepted by the States concerned, of any dispute as to their legal rights.

2. It is recommended that the conciliation commission be constituted in the manner set forth in the annex.

Article XXXIV

It is recommended that the States concerned agree to submit their legal disputes to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal, to a permanent arbitral tribunal or to the International Court of Justice if:

(a) A commission has not been formed as provided in article XXXIII, or

(b) The commission has not been able to find a solution to be recommended, or

(c) A solution recommendedhas not been accepted by the States concerned, and

(d) An agreement has not been otherwise arrived at.

Article XXXV

It is recommended that in the event of arbitration the States concerned have recourse to the Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure prepared by the International Law Commission of the United Nations at its tenth session b/in 1958.

Article XXXVI

Recourse to arbitration implies the undertaking by the States concerned to consider the award to be given as final and to submit in good faith to its execution.

Article XXXVII

The means of settlement referred to in the preceding articles of this chapter are without prejudice to the utilization of means of settlement recommended to, or required of, members of regional arrangements or agencies and of other international organizations.

The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers calls for equitable distribution of waters from rivers shared by nation states.Now if we look at IWT pakistan gets almost 75% of indus basin water i.e. 142 MAF incomparison IWT only gives 25% ie 33 MAF to india from eastern rivers.. If Pakistan wants to re-negotiate IWT then india will be more than happy coz present IWT is loaded heavily in favour of pakistan and The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers calls for equitable sharing of river waters.

 

[ajtr]

Indus water: India's version ​

Saturday, 24 Apr, 2010

This is apropos of Ahmer Bilal Soofi's article 'Indus treaty: Pakistan's options'(April 18). The article is not based on a careful reading of the Indus water treaty.

The treaty does not specify the number of hydroelectric or water storage projects that can be built by India on the western rivers.

However, Annexure 'D' gives detailed technical specifications of hydroelectric projects India can build to safeguard the interests of both the sides and to ensure that Pakistan is not deprived of its share of water from these rivers, despite the construction of such projects and the number thereof.

Similarly, Annexure 'E' of the treaty allows India storage capacity on western rivers to the maximum extent of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the treaty.

Since this limit is laid down by the treaty, the number of projects that may be constructed to achieve the above storage capacity is of no consequence.

Construction of hydroelectric or storage projects on western rivers by India flows from India's development needs and its entitlement.

The writer wrongly claims that India's decisions in this regard fall 'outside the treaty' and are based on 'political and strategic considerations'.

India has so far exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to it on the western rivers under the treaty. The treaty requires us to provide certain technical specifications to Pakistan two to six months in advance of the construction of river works. We have provided information in respect of 33 projects.

Further, as against our storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, we have built no storage so far.

Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation by India from the western rivers, we are currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres.

The writer states that Pakistan has "lost cases before neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan."

In the 50 years of the treaty, only once an issue ( Baglihar)was referred to a neutral expert. Therefore, reference to 'lost cases' before 'neutral experts' does not square up with the reality.

India has all along adhered to the provisions of this treaty and will continue to do so.

Moreover, the permanent Indus commission, constituted under the treaty, is the best forum to resolve all such matters.

However, for any issue that cannot be resolved in the commission, Article IX of the treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes.

SIDHARTH ZUTSHI
First Secretary, Press & Information, High Commission of India
Islamabad




Now here is the article in question in above response of india.

Indus treaty: Pakistan's options
By Ahmer Bilal Soofi
Sunday, 18 Apr, 2010

IT is believed that if India starts the construction of any dam or reservoir on the rivers flowing into Pakistan, the only remedy Pakistan has is to resort to dispute-resolution mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Actually, Pakistan has the right to protest outside the IWT whenever it feels that the construction of a dam or reservoir by India will threaten its strategic interests.

The IWT consists of only 12 articles and eight annexes. There is no provision in the treaty which expressly 'authorises' India to construct a certain number of dams. Neither is there one that prohibits India from making dams beyond a certain number. Clearly, therefore, the number of dams that India wishes to construct on the western rivers is an issue outside the scope of the treaty.

This means that the decision of how many dams India will construct is a one taken by India unilaterally, outside the treaty, on the basis of political and strategic considerations, without consulting Pakistan. Once the decision to construct a dam or reservoir has been taken by India, the matter enters the framework of the treaty, which only provides technical specifications for building such a dam or reservoir.

The treaty is a regulatory framework giving technical specifications. It is confined to these technicalities and does not address the substantive decision of the number of dams that the Indian government may wish to construct.

Therefore, Pakistan is free to contest such a political decision of India without entering into the dispute-resolution mechanism of the treaty. Pakistan is entitled to launch a diplomatic offensive outside the treaty if it feels threatened due to the excessive construction of dams, reservoirs etc.

Pakistan is well within its rights to argue before the international community that the construction of too many reservoirs and dams on the western rivers by India constitutes the misuse of the treaty's regulatory framework. Pakistan can raise this issue before any forum in the UN and take this issue to friends such as the US and the European Union. The IWT does not usurp or curtail the right of Pakistan to protest against the construction of too many dams by India.

So far, whenever Pakistan has tried to raise this issue outside the treaty, it has been advised to resort to the mechanism of the treaty. This puts Pakistan on the back foot because the mechanism does not offer the redressal that Pakistan seeks since the neutral expert has no legal competence to stop construction or direct the dismantling of the constructed work.

Whenever India starts construction on the western rivers, Pakistan, instead of protesting diplomatically, invokes the jurisdiction of the neutral expert. After months of neutral experts taking cognisance of the matter, no positive outcome is registered for Pakistan during which time the construction is completed. Pakistan in that sense has 'lost' cases before the neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan.

In other words, Pakistani officials have been invoking the wrong forum. There was no need to resort to the dispute resolution mechanism under the treaty since the decision being contested — the construction of a dam — was taken outside the treaty mechanism itself. Only when Pakistan has reservations on the technical aspects of a dam's construction should it invoke the IWT's dispute-resolution mechanisms.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and president of the Research Society of International Law.

[email protected]

 

[ajtr]

Indus water: India's version ​

Saturday, 24 Apr, 2010

This is apropos of Ahmer Bilal Soofi's article 'Indus treaty: Pakistan's options'(April 18). The article is not based on a careful reading of the Indus water treaty.

The treaty does not specify the number of hydroelectric or water storage projects that can be built by India on the western rivers.

However, Annexure 'D' gives detailed technical specifications of hydroelectric projects India can build to safeguard the interests of both the sides and to ensure that Pakistan is not deprived of its share of water from these rivers, despite the construction of such projects and the number thereof.

Similarly, Annexure 'E' of the treaty allows India storage capacity on western rivers to the maximum extent of 3.6 MAF, in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the treaty.

Since this limit is laid down by the treaty, the number of projects that may be constructed to achieve the above storage capacity is of no consequence.

Construction of hydroelectric or storage projects on western rivers by India flows from India's development needs and its entitlement.

The writer wrongly claims that India's decisions in this regard fall 'outside the treaty' and are based on 'political and strategic considerations'.

India has so far exploited only a fraction of the hydroelectric potential available to it on the western rivers under the treaty. The treaty requires us to provide certain technical specifications to Pakistan two to six months in advance of the construction of river works. We have provided information in respect of 33 projects.

Further, as against our storage entitlement of 3.6 MAF, we have built no storage so far.

Out of the area of 1.34 million acres, permitted for irrigation by India from the western rivers, we are currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres.

The writer states that Pakistan has "lost cases before neutral experts, whereas the fact is that neutral experts never had the legal competence to grant victory to Pakistan."

In the 50 years of the treaty, only once an issue ( Baglihar)was referred to a neutral expert. Therefore, reference to 'lost cases' before 'neutral experts' does not square up with the reality.

India has all along adhered to the provisions of this treaty and will continue to do so.

Moreover, the permanent Indus commission, constituted under the treaty, is the best forum to resolve all such matters.

However, for any issue that cannot be resolved in the commission, Article IX of the treaty provides a mechanism for settlement of differences and disputes.

SIDHARTH ZUTSHI
First Secretary, Press & Information, High Commission of India
Islamabad

He forgot to mention flood storage on Jhelum main and Off channels of jhelum as per para 9(d) of Ann E. That is not clearly quantified except for design restrictions but forms additional storage beyond 3.6 MAF.The point to remember also that Ranbir & Pratap Canals are not completely used by India and they remain under general neglect & disuse.

The Ranbir Canal, built in 1870, was intended to feed the areas of Miran Sahib, Vijaypur and Madhopur. Poor maintenance has ensured that it can now carry just 300 cubic feet per second of water, rather than the 1,000 cusecs it was designed for when originally built. The Pratap Canal, meant to meet the needs of the Akhnoor-Sunderbani belt, has also silted up. These canals off take from Chenab between Salal and Marala headworks. These two canals need urgent repair work to restore their earlier capacities. Under the treaty, India is allowed to take out a fixed quantity of water for these channels.

 

[ajtr]

I wonder how long it will be that pakistan start blaming india for electricity shortages too by linking that with water issue.Main thing to understand is that since 1947 pakistan population has grown by 6 times from 30 million to 180 million as of today and 200 million by 2020.But the water flowing down the indus is same or reduced due to various factors.Now as of 1947 per capita water availability was 5000 cubic meter and today its 1500 cubic meter due to populaton explosion and will reduce to below 1000 cubic meter by 2020 thats simple maths pakistanis have to understand.


Over the top: Down the drain

Sunday, April 25, 2010
Masood Hasan

At Mr Jaswant Singh's book launch the other day, during the Q&A session, a gentleman at the back stood up and said, 'Mr Singh you have been here a few days and you can see how we are suffering from load-shedding – even here a generator is working. Can you please give us our water back so that we can produce some electricity?' The question was greeted with clapping and laughter and although Mr Singh could not help us, the questioner had made his point. For a nation that has more than its share of bad luck and insurmountable problems, the crippling electricity crisis has us in a deathly thrall, with some areas lucking out and others bearing the brunt. Now a two-day national deliberation has taken place in Islamabad to chalk out measures to meet this nightmare that haunts us.

It is true that Musharraf and his merry men did damn all in nine years to resolve this problem – and most people realise this and accept it, but they cannot forgive an elected government with a 100 ministers on board to have wasted two long years and more and achieved nothing. Instead, all energies have been diverted to many other pantomimes at which Islamabad is so good. In 1983 Skipper A.H. Kardar and his Group 1983 in a seminar warned of the impending electricity disaster. Everyone laughed at the nutters. Who's laughing now or as the man said, 'how now brown cow?' A whole range of good, sensible measures are planned as conservation is regarded as the best policy but mere conservation is not going to save us and none of us at heart is a conservationist.

The answers are somewhere else but if we are going to spend all our energies on that silly operation that has changed NWFP to Khyber-Pakhtoonawa or whatever it is that they call it, then nothing is going to change. Incidentally the 'change' in NWFP is going to cost Rs4b – yes Rs4b as tons of stationery, files, boards and what have you are going to be redone. If this is not madness, what is? And does this look like a nation that's going to save power? Banish the thought. We are not savers. We are wasters. The Hindus are savers, not us. And while all measures being taken up are without doubt, good, sensible measures, who is going to ensure they are implemented and the violators punished? We all know the answer to that.

Each and every one of us is not prepared to go the extra foot – forget the extra mile, to make an effort, lend support and change things. We have less and less water because we are criminally wasting it. In the 1950s water availability per capita here was 5,000 cubic metre. Today it is down to 1500 cubic metre. Pakistan will be 'water scarce' or below 1,000 cubic metre by 2035 – some say it may happen by 2020 – just a decade away. We are losing millions of gallons because of wastage, seepage, inefficient systems, absence of laws and worse, no enforcing when these are broken and a public indifference to the issue. There is a gross lack of awareness and from children to adults, widespread misuse of water. Everyone believes water will never end but how wrong they all are. It will, sooner than most think.

In Lahore alone, to cater to the fetish of washing cars daily, service stations are pumping up 48,000 gallons daily using high-pressure jets to clean cars which five minutes later are dusty and dirty again. Stand at any service station and watch the show. It is criminal and yet we are all party to it and that other urban insanity – hosing and washing down our drives. Thousands of gallons literally down the drain. But none of us will stop drivers and servants or even ourselves from wasting precious water on washing vehicles. In terms of overall water losses, this may not amount to a serious figure now but its unchecked practice and absence of rules and enforcing of laws is going to change these very cities well before their time. In Sydney which has a serious water shortage, washing cars is banned. Fines for breaking water saving rules – like not watering gardens between 10am and 5pm, the hottest times of the day, can fetch you a $220 fine – more importantly, implemented. Businessmen breaking rules, $550 fine and water theft slaps you with a $2200 fine. I doubt anyone in any city in Pakistan has ever been fined.

While we all wait for the government to show us the way – it could be a long wait, there are many things we can do ourselves. In almost all homes and establishments, there are leaking faucets and yet none of us will turn them off or ever fix them. We, who are blessed with WCs, think nothing of flushing good, clean water every time we use it for even taking a leak. We leave water running as we wash faces, shave or bathe. We spend hours in bathrooms using up hundreds of gallons, just carrying out daily routine things, yet we never pause and think what we are doing. Our attitude to electricity conservation is the same. Most of us, educated as we are, think nothing of leaving lights and fans on and in many homes, air conditioners on. The equation between a switch and what it means is one that has yet to register with us. Appliances are left on standby all the time and the notion that this too is wasting power, has not registered yet. Using water criminally is not a serious issue at all. A power chief on a visit to Sweden asked his counterpart there how they prevented electricity theft. The Swede thought for a long time and in a perplexed tone asked him, 'But how do you steal electricity?'

While the government is likely to come up with some good regulations, all these will eventually fail because they will not be implemented. It's like traffic. The rules are there but the absence of enforcing these makes a mockery of the rules. The same drivers who break all the rules with impunity in the cities are meek as lambs on the motorways. When the traffic police began to implement rules just a couple of years back, no one would dare tread on the zebra crossing. In a few months, the cops forgot and so did the public. Using mobiles while driving is challenged in Karachi and Islamabad but not in Lahore! So when you see a vehicle going 20km in the fast lane, you can be sure the driver is on his mobile. People have handsets but they don't use them. Personally speaking, we should not wait for effective legislation but start enforcing conservation in our lives.

We should begin with children; teach them, make them aware about the necessity of saving rather than wasting resources. It is too much to hope that their books will have chapters on such things as conservation, but what is stopping us from doing it at homes and workplaces? When most of us will be unable to pass a light switch without putting it off, stop or fix a leaking tap or a leaking gas connection, use lights, fans whatever only when needed, we could make a huge difference. The question is how do you mobilise public opinion when the majority of us believe that whatever we say or do has the least impact and mostly no impact on anything? That's our catch-22 and one we have to face up to because it's not going to go away.

 

[ajtr]

cross-posting

Pak threatens to move WB over Kishenganga project

Pakistan has issued a fresh threat to move the World Bank for arbitration over Kishenganga power project in Jammu and Kashmir, which it alleges violates the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.

Under the Treaty, World Bank is an arbitrator in disputes between India and Pakistan over sharing of river water and it can be invoked by either country.

Pakistan has been opposing construction of the power project on Kishenganga, claiming it violates the Indus Water Treaty, a contention rejected by India.

Work on the 330-MW project, capacity of which can be raised to 990 MW, started in 1994 and Pakistan immediately protested, prompting talks between the two countries to resolve it.

Pakistan has been alleging the diversion of flow will adversely affect its agriculture and hydroelectric project on river Neelam -- as Jhelum is known across the border.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Pak-t...r-Kishenganga-project/H1-Article1-535454.aspx

The kishenganga river which is also called as neelum on pakistani side is tributary of Jhelum.As the news report mentioned that india planned this project way back in 1994 since then pakistan has been raising objections to it.now the reason for pakistan taking this project to World Bank for arbitration just like baglihar project is to just delay it coz pakistan has also plan to construct neelum-Jhelum project also known as Diamer Basha dam on its side of kashmir. India has done well by starting the project, even for namesake, in 1994 and then calling Pakistan for talks after it objected. That would nail Pakistan completely because as per IWT, the country which starts the work first enjoys the rights in this particular case. The minutes of the meeting exchanged between the two Indus Commissioners in 1994 should be handy when this case finally goes for arbitration. It will surely go to World Bank, no doubt,but India is not obligated to stop the work if and when arbitration proceeding starts.some points to ponder about kishenganga are:

Current Status

The project parameters were revised a few years back to prevent submergence of the Gurez valley. Accordingly, the height of the reservoir and consequently the live storage etc were considerably revised down without impacting the power generation capacity of the project. The following is the status early 2009.

Kishanganga H.E. Project ( 330 MW), Jammu & Kashmir

Ø Project was cleared by CCEA in July 2007. CCEA clearance for revised Cost Estimate of Rs 3,642.04 crores with scheduled completion in 84 months (i.e. by January 2016) has been received vide letter dated 14.1.2009.
Ø The Project is proposed to be completed by January 2016.
Ø Letter of acceptance for award of the project has been issued on 22.1.2009 in favour of M/s Kishanganga Consortium (HCC-Halcrow) for turnkey execution.
Ø Mobilization and survey work has been started at site by contractor.
Ø 208m of Diversion tunnel stands excavated departmentally.

Q2. What is the definition of 'work started'

The IWT states in Paragraph 2, Article VII, entitled "Future Cooperation", the following:

(2) If either Party plans to construct any engineering work which would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers and which, in its opinion, would affect the other Party materially, it shall notify the other Party of its plans and shall supply such data relating to the work as may be available and as would enable the other Party to inform itself of the nature, magnitude and effect of the work. If a work would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers but would not, in the opinion of the Party planning it, affect the other Party materially, nevertheless the Party planning the work shall, on request, supply the other Party with such data: regarding the nature, magnitude and effect, if any, of the work as may be available.

The above is very important. It is the intention to start the project as conveyed with whatever data is available at that time that is important, IMO. In the case of Kishenganga, it was conveyed in the 1990s to Pakistan. That was why Pakistan demanded that if it were to allow the Tulbul Navigation Lock project (aka Wullar barrage in Pakistan), India must not execute the Kishenganga project. That objection was raised by Pakistan in february 1992 after the Tulbul Navigation project was agreed upon by both governments in 1991. Soon after that, Pakistan decided to develop its Neelum-Jhelum project and expected to complete it during 1994-1997. Obviously, without the Kishenganga project, the Tulbul Navigation project is a non-starter. Anyway, it means that Pakistan was aware of the Kishenganga project a long time back. Besides, it has regularly brought up the issue of the project in every PIC meeting.

Item d of Paragraph 2 of Article III vests India with the rights to generate hydroelectric power according to Annexure D.

Item 3 of Paragraph 15 of Part 3 of Annexure D entitled 'New Run-of-River Plants' states

where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another Tributary but only to the extent existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.


Note that there is no *existing* hydroelectric use on this tributary. Pakistan may have an intent to build a plant in 2020, but that does not count according to the above. The *existing* agricultural use will be more than covered by the discharge from the plant anyway as such use is meagre according to the joint PIC survey already made. While completion of hydroelectric or agricultural projects is a must for Pakistan to claim relief according to IWT, it is not so for India. Otherwise it will be a contradiction of the IWT as Pakistan can simply stall any Indian project that India makes in good faith.

regarding agriculture usage by pakistan from kishenganga this is what India's Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz verified:

Indian cabinet okays Kishanganga project

India's Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz said a team of India-Pakistan Indus Commission had verified the agricultural usage across the border in August 2008.

"We verified their agricultural usages. They had claimed that over 0.1 million hectares of land was in agricultural use but the team found just a fraction of maize-growing land there which will not be affected by the diversion of Neelum," he said. {This is important because the IWT mandates India that its project should be without prejudice to existing agricultural use on the Pakistani side}

Except for some orchards and some maize & rice just upstream of Muzzafarabad (where Kishenganga/Neelum meets Jhelum), there is no agriculture. Also, the Indian diversion of water is through Wullar into Jhelum and so beyond Muzzafarabad, Pakistan will have the full flow of water. Pakistan itself is planning to tap Kishenganga/Neelum about 30 Kms upstream from Muzzaffarabad and tunnel the waters to get a good head up to Domel, which means that the rice and maize lands just above Muzzafarabad will be affected anyway. Besides, the Kishenganga is not going to dry out the flow beyond the storage point. Even Pakistan has claimed that there will be 21% reduction in water and its main objection is that the reduced water flow will affect its power production and might make the already very costly project unviable.



Q3. Funding issue

Pakistan will still implement its Neelum-Jhelum project but only thing would be reduced power generation and conseqently the price per unit to the customer would be on the higher side. Pakistan will have to then subsidize the consumers and incur a loss. It won't be a dead investment especially in a completely power-starved Pakistan. Besides, KSA's investment is meagre, USD 80 million only and we also don't know how much of it will come through eventually. Recently, Saudi Arab has not been giving cash directly to Pakistan (like the rest of the donors) and wants to fund only on project-basis and after a green signal from the IMF.


Last not the least

India, Pakistan race to finish hydel projects ----->This was last year

Saturday, September 19, 2009
* First project to be commissioned will receive top priority

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan are racing to complete the 330MW Kishanganga and the 960MW Neelam-Jhelum power projects, respectively, as the Indus Water Treaty does not permit for both projects to operate simultaneously.

The plans made available to Daily Times reveal the Indian project would divert the River Neelam to Wullar Lake, leaving very little water for the Pakistani project, which is a mere 70 kilometres downstream from the Indian Kishanganga project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the project commissioned first would be accorded top priority. In the case of Pakistan, this would likely mean that the Neelam-Jhelum project would have to be abandoned, as the Kishanganga project would leave very little water for Pakistan to use.

Currently, India's state-owned National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) has set 2016 as its deadline for the project, while Pakistan plans to complete its project in 2017. "We will complete our project by 2016 at an estimated cost of Rs 36.42 billion," Indian-held Kashmir junior Power Minister Shabir Ahmed Dar told journalists. He said the NHPC had been directed to expedite its project and commission it before Pakistan had a chance to complete the Neelam-Jhelum project. Pakistan had protested the construction of the Kishanganga project earlier this year, arguing it would adversely affect 133,209 hectares of agricultural land in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan and India race to complete dams in Kashmir ------->This update was last month .

Web posted at: 3/28/2010 1:42:21
Source ::: INTERNEWS
MUZAFARABAD: To complete the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project in the Himalayan state of Kashmir before Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project being built by India, Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) has decided to use tunnel boring machine that will reduce the construction time by two years, official sources said here yesterday.

"It is vital for Pakistan to complete the 969 MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydro Electric Project (NJHEP) before India completes a similar project on the same rivers, so that Pakistan can claim its right to water use," a spokesman in Wapda, the state water and power giant said.

He said though India has seized the right of Pakistan on Neelum water by planning to divert it for the run of river 348 MW Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project, its completion before the NJHEP would give India the right to use the water for electricity generation.

Wapda officials said that the Kishanganga project would reduce the hydroelectric potential of the Neelum Jhelum Hydro Project. Originally Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project located in India-administered part of Kashmir and Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project being built in Pakistan-administered Kashmir were to be completed in 2016, the issue of right to use water has pitched both the countries in a race for the river.

Excavation of tunnelling network through tunnel boring machine (TBM) will reduce implementation period of the NJHEP by about two years, which would establish Pakistan's right over Neelum water and India would not be able to divert it for use in Kishanganga project.

Wapda sources said the completion of NJHEP earlier than the schedule is vital for Pakistan not only to cope with the increasing demand of electricity in the country but also to establish priority rights of water uses over the river Neelum against India.

The use of TBM has remained limited in the past due fear of impact of drilling on weak geological formations. However, in the past decade tremendous improvements in tunnelling technology have been achieved, removing the fears associated with use of TB.

 

[ajtr]

This is the crux of the situation .Punjab is constructing canals to divert/steal sindh and other provinces share of water which ulitimately get blamed on india by punjabi pak army/jehadi/politicians.All are punjabi.

'Thal Canal to cause decline in Sindh agri output'

By Shahid Shah

KARACHI: The province of Sindh would face more shortage of water and decline in production of major crops after construction of Greater Thal Canal (GTC), experts say.

Currently, GTC is not drawing water, but once it starts drawing around 8,500 cusecs (cubic foot per second) of water from Chashma Jhelum link canal there would be more shortage of water in Sindh for early Kharif crops, Idrees Rajput, water expert and former secretary irrigation Sindh told The News.

The history of Thal Project goes back to over 130 years. It was in 1873 that the project was first conceived for the whole of Thal Doab. The proposal to irrigate this area was repeatedly brought up for discussion in 1919, 1921, 1924, 1925, 1936, and in 1949. But the British colonial masters repeatedly shelved the project on the pretext that it will severely hurt the water availability to lower riparian.

The project proposal once again came under discussion in 1975 in a controversial way when Executive Committee of National Economic Council (ECNEC) refused to endorse the project. Finally, on August 16, 2001, General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, then Chief Executive of Pakistan, inaugurated the 30-billion rupee Greater Thal Canal (GTC) project.

In the Indus system, water availability is around 124 MAF (million acre-feet) for four out of five years and 133 MAF for three out of five years. The Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) requires 155.3 MAF. This includes the Water Accord 1991 allocation of 117.35 MAF of water amongst the four provinces, 10 MAF to sea below Kotri, the supplies of about 4 MAF above rim stations for irrigation and for measuring sites, and a contribution of about 8.71 MAF from Ravi and Sutlej pending full utilisation by India.

The water required for Left Bank Outfall Drainage (LBOD) is 2.2 MAF, to raise Mangla capacity is 3.0 MAF and the average water loss in the system (1948-98) is 12.9 MAF. The annual average availability of water is 138 MAF.

"Hence, the system is short of 16.58 MAF. Thus, an additional water of 5.0 MAF required for Greater Thal, Katchi and Rani Canal project is not available. And such project would further aggravate the water system," said a research report of Sungi, a research organization.

According to the report the repeated cross-reference of availability of water for Greater Thal Canal by the president, WAPDA and federal ministers as well IRSA's certification of February 20, 1998 shows water flowing down to the Kotri as waste and hence surplus water to the extent of 38.5 MAF is available for future projects. "This has been found to be a sheer misconception and distortion of facts," said the report.

Looking at the historical data, the total water availability as well as the seasonal and annual river flows in the Indus river system has been highly variable.

Since the completion of Tarbela, annual average rim station inflows are about 131.19 MAF (IRSA). The highest annual flow was 187.66 MAF in 1959-60 and 91.22 MAF in the year 2001-2002.

Sindh government has time and again opposed any construction of canals and barrages in Punjab against water accord of 1991. But, no heed has been given towards Sindh's reservations.

Sindh Assembly unanimously passed two resolutions and demanded that federal government must abandon the project, as it would seriously hurt the interests of lower riparian Sindh.

The amount of water flows below Kotri has been reduced from 80 MAF in 1947 to 2.142 MAF in 2002-2003. As the water stopped flowing downstream, sea water started flowing upstream and according to an estimate, the saline seawater has intruded some 100 kilometers upstream inundating 2.2 million acres of land.

According to IUCN, Indus requires 27 MAF water to check the sea intrusion and to keep the Indus delta alive. The Kotri downstream water should be ensured to save human, environmental and biological life.

Idrees Rajput said GTC would draw extra water and besides degradation of Indus Delta the whole irrigation system would suffer its repercussions.

 

[ajtr]

Water, War and Peace



Dispelling myths (Part-I)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010
By Khalid Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) is in jeopardy. Pakistan has officially notified to India through a "note verbale" issued by the Foreign Office on April 09 that it is seeking neutral arbitration on the Kishanganga hydroelectric project that India is developing.

Talking to The News, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamat Ali Shah stressed that Pakistan wants solutions not only within but also "beyond the ambit of the treaty." Pakistan had to declare its formal intention to seek neutral arbitration, "because India has been breaching provisions of the IWT," said Syed Jamat Ali Shah.

"The Indus Waters Treaty allows India to build dams following treaty specifications. Unfortunately, India is flouting these conditions. Pakistan's right to raise objections to Indian projects under the Treaty becomes redundant if only information is supplied but no action is taken. The treaty," he added, "must be followed in letter and spirit."Having issued the note verbale, Pakistan can approach the World Bank to begin the process of appointing a neutral expert (NE) on the Kishanganga project. The NE must also be acceptable to India.

If Pakistan follows through on neutral arbitration for Kishanganga, it will be only the second time that the arbitration mechanism under Article IX of the IWT is being invoked in the 50 years since the treaty came into force retrospectively on April 01, 1960. The first time related to the Baglihar dispute, arbitrated by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert on February 12, 2007. Then too, Pakistan had sought arbitration.

The present move follows an evolving set of recent contentions between India and Pakistan over India's plans to construct several projects on the Chenab River. "Pakistan would be paying a very high price for India's move to block Pakistan's water supply from the Chenab River," President Zardari asserted in 2008 while speaking before the UN General Assembly in New York. He warned India "not to trade important regional objectives for short-term domestic goals." His statement raised alarm bells around global capitals and renewed focus on the trans-boundary water issues between India and Pakistan.

Washington plans to engage Pakistan and India to help improve their brewing tensions over water, revealed US Under-Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, Maria Otero in a recent statement.

US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley later told reporters that the US is "broadening and deepening" its relationship with both New Delhi and Islamabad and would keep encouraging them "to increase their dialogue".

While this illustrates that nothing between India and Pakistan is straightforward or simple, two myths need to be dispelled that introduce a lot of unnecessary emotive anxiety discussing water issues between India and Pakistan.

The first pertains to fears of a nuclear war between the two countries over water. The other is that Pakistan is becoming water-stressed.

The reality is that while nuclear bombs have a tremendous capacity to destroy, large dams are actually worse. Indian Bofors guns or Air force using traditional bombs can target and destroy Pakistan's two large dams on the rivers Indus and Jhelum. Of course Pakistan can do the same to large dams in India — if destruction on an unimaginable scale is what leaders in the two countries ever go for in a moment of madness.

However, nuclear bombs destroy only one city or area at a time. Billions of cubic metres of water from a burst dam will raze to the ground all that comes in their way till the killer water waves reach the sea. There is actually not much to choose from between the destructive potential of nuclear bombs and bursting dams in these two countries that are among the most thickly populated in the world.

More than nuclear technology, it is the continuity of enmity between Pakistan and India that is the biggest threat to the south Asian sub-continent. The bogey of a nuclear war between the two countries must not come in the way of a sensible understanding of the way forward over our shared water woes. It may not suit the global defence industry and business but we need to have that understanding for an improved water future in India and Pakistan.

The second myth pertains to increasing scarcity of water in Pakistan. Water is a constant in the environment. There is hard data to show that discharges in our rivers continue to follow historic trends. The Indus basin has some of the world's best data recording and sharing systems in place going back to the 19th century. Daily, weekly, monthly and yearly data sets, undisputed to date, are available to both countries for their planning purposes. In Pakistan, two sources for such data are the (Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) and the Indus Rivers System Authority (Irsa).

The notion of scarcity arises when population increases are linked to limited water availability. Indian and foreign commentators often refer to the Falkenmark Water Stress Indicators (in use since the mid-1990s) that establish the linkage of these two factors (water and population) during the ongoing crises in Pakistan and India's trans-boundary water issues governed by the Indus Waters Treaty.

This is not the space to challenge the basis of Prof Falkenmark's work or the general advantages it affords to the rich western countries in multilateral interactions on water with the developing world. The simple fact of the matter is that Pakistan still uses 93 per cent of its river waters for agriculture and only three percent for direct human consumption, as Dr Manzoor Malik, Director of the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) explains.

Since water is allocated against irrigated land that has not changed in tandem with population statistics, the notion of water stress in the case of Pakistan remains unfounded.

It is, however, imperative that the contentions be urgently addressed for the sake of lasting peace between India and Pakistan.

Water, War and Peace Sustained, open communication is essential​

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Part-II

By Khalid Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The ongoing water contentions between India and Pakistan in the context of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) place before us four different yet inter-connected realities. One is the perception present in news coverage and analysis by the mass media in both the countries. The other exists between the two Indus Water Commissioners (IWCs) that jointly make up the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) charged with implementing the IWT in letter and spirit. Third there are the ever-dominant bilateral security concerns that now stand compounded with ongoing international involvement in our regional geo-politics. And

finally, the environmental and ecological reality that we all live with across South Asia connects us to the rest of the world fighting climate change.

Let us address these perceptions one by one for a holistic perspective on water contentions between India and Pakistan. The media version is flawed because of a limited capacity to understand the complex hydrological regimes of the Indus Rivers System that both countries manage independently in their respective territories following the IWT. The almost secretive working of the IWCs in both countries further compounds the situation. The media in Pakistan, while projecting unfounded allegations of water theft and the 'water war' India is waging, tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the IWT - an instrument that has ensured water peace between the neighbours even during war times.

To these allegations, senior Pakistani statesman and a water expert in his own right, Dr Mubashir Hasan responds: "If India has stolen our water, then tell me how have they done it? Where have they taken it?"

"New Delhi has no 'storage and diversion canals network' to withhold Pakistan's share of water," explained India's High Commissioner to Pakistan Sarat Sabharwal in his recent speech at the Karachi Council for Foreign Affairs.

Basically, there is a general tendency to oversimplify the IWT, especially in Pakistan. Most coverage simply goes with the notion that India has no rights over the Western Rivers (Chenab, Jhelum and the Indus). The reality is not that simple. Indian has water rights for domestic uses including drinking, washing, bathing and sanitation. The non-consumptive uses allowed to India cover uses including navigation, flood control and fishing.

India also has the right to draw water from the Western Rivers to irrigate a maximum permissible irrigated crop area of 1.34 million acres. It can also use water from these rivers for run-of-the river hydroelectric projects. Hydroelectric projects incorporated in storage works are also allowed albeit to the tune of only 3.6 million acre feet (MAF). Of this storage, 0.4 MAF is allowed on the Indus, 1.5 MAF on the Jhelum and 1.7 MAF on the Chenab.

This is in addition to the storage that existed on these rivers before the Treaty came into force. However, storage is strictly regulated for India, with a total of only 1.25 MAF allowed as general storage. The remaining quantity is split between 1.6 MAF for generating hydroelectricity and 0.75 MAF for flood control.

The media is key to ensure a fair coverage of the issues involved. The current water scarcity that is feeding emotions across the borders of the IWT is not permanent. It is making water 'hot' at the moment but as soon as supplies are replenished in the river system, the issue will move to the backburner as always.

This is why sustained open communication is so essential, as underscored at 'Talking Peace', the editors' and anchors' conference organised in Karachi recently by Aman ki Aasha, a joint initiative for peace by the Jang Group and Geo TV in Pakistan and the Times of India group in India. Editors agreed on the need for more cross-border information and on the need to focus on facts rather than emotions when writing about each other's countries.

Concerted joint efforts are essential to cover the range of issues involved in an objective and fair manner on both sides. This is imperative to counter tensions between the two countries. This brings us to the latest unresolved contention between the two Indus Water Commissioners (IWCs) that jointly make up the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) charged with implementing the IWT in letter and spirit.

As reported earlier (Part I of this series), Pakistan has already notified India of its intention to seek arbitration on the Kishanganga Hydroelectric project. The News has learnt that Pakistan will hire the services of its arbitrator in the Baglihar Dam case, Prof. James Crawford, Head of the Law, Cambridge University, once again. The News has learnt that a senior water expert from Pakistan paid a quiet visit to England in the last week of March this year to confirm his acceptance.

Water, War and Peace -III​

Indus Water Treaty under threat

Friday, April 30, 2010
By Khalid Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) that settled the sharing of the Indus waters was signed by Pakistan President Ayub Khan and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on September 19, 1960, and came into force retrospectively on April Foolís Day in 1960. On the positive side, both India and Pakistan have continued to follow the IWT even during times of war. This is why the IWT is considered the most successfully water treaty of the world, ensuring conflict resolution despite expressed acrimony.

The decision on Feb. 12, 2007 by the Neutral Expert (NE) appointed by the World Bank, however, created new potential threats to the survival of the IWT. The NEís decision on Baglihar shot down Pakistan's critical concerns on Indiaís construction of gated spillways. Pakistan held these were in violation of the treatyís specifications. The NE did not agree and allowed India to design projects according to the state-of-art in hydrological engineering.

This decision is likely to influence all future interpretations of the Indus Waters Treaty. The rights and obligations of the parties under the Treaty must now be read in the light of new technical norms and new standards prevalent in the world.

Given how very sensitive the water issue is, and its potential to arouse passions, the implications for the IWTís future are many. It is noteworthy that this was the first time in nearly 50 years that World Bank was called upon to ensure independent adjudication of a water dispute under the IWT.

India can now go ahead and install the Gated Spillways deemed essential for silt control in all its projects, taking the cue from the NE's decision to interpret the Treaty reflecting state-of-the-art in engineering future dams on the Western rivers. Pakistan can also demand trans-boundary Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the Indian projects on the Western Indus System rivers. This takes the contentions to an arena not covered by the IWT that had hardwired design criteria to safeguard the interests of the lower riparian, Pakistan.

Pakistan has in fact already asked India to share its EIA studies on the Kishenganga dam. ìWe have also asked India to undertake a trans-boundary EIA,î Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner, Syed Jamat Ali Shah, told The News.

ìIt is Pakistan's right to demand proper trans-boundary studies in the light of the NE's judgement citing International Commission On Large Dams' (ICOLD) references,î contends Arshad H. Abbasi, Adviser on Water to the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) and Research Fellow with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad.

However, there are many older contentions that continue to contribute to the increasingly frequent conflicts within the matrix of the IWT. The Indus Waters Treaty requires India to provide design information to Pakistan at least six months before starting construction of any large projects. This is to enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design of a plant conforms to the provisions of the Treaty.

ìIf Pakistan raises any objection, it has to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty,î Indian High Commissioner Sarat Sabarwal said in Karachi, addressing a meeting of the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations and Pakistan-India Citizens Friendship Forum.

He also asserted that India ìhas been meeting its obligation to provide the specified information as necessaryî. Pakistan's Indus Commissioner Jamat Ali Shah disagrees, alleging that Indiaís interpretation of the relevant IWT clauses under Annexure D is a serious breach of the IWT.

ìThe provisions of the Treaty imply that any objections must be resolved. If India goes on constructing and we go on objecting without resolution in a time bound manner, then both the letter and spirit of the treaty are negatedî, he contends, talking to The News. ìThe Permanent Indus Water Commission must have a mandate to decide. It is pointless to have discussions if we are not here to decideî.

Experts like India's former Federal Secretary for Water and Power Ramaswamy R. Iyer differ, arguing that this would be tantamount to giving Pakistan a veto over all Indiaís projects. ìPakistan would of course be happy if there were no Indian projects at all on the western rivers; but that is not what the Treaty says,î commented Iyer in a recent OpEd in The Hindu.

The media on both sides highlighted the most recent case articulating this contention, during the last meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) in Lahore last month wherein the Nimo-Bazgo and Chutak Hydroelectric projects were at issue. Construction on the two projects began in 2005, and both are due to join the Indian electricity grid early next year.

The Indian Indus Water Commissioner Mr. G. Aranga Nathan has handed over to his Pakistani counterpart revised design documents for the Nimo-Bazgo project. For all intents and purposes, the two projects are a done deal for India, about which Pakistan cannot do anything at this point.

Baglihar also continues to haunt the IWT despite having been arbitrated by the NE to the satisfaction of both parties. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA), Pakistan's water distribution body, claimed to have received only 19,351 cusecs on Oct 9, 2009 and 10,739 cusecs on Oct 11, 2009 from the Chenab River. Under the IWT, India must ensure a minimum discharge of 55,000 cusecs.

High Commissioner Sabarwal explained to his Karachi audience that the shortage was due to reduction of inflows upstream However, Jamat Ali Shah says that the contention was not based just on whether or not there were reduced inflows in the system but on the Indian refusal to accept Pakistani data. ìIf they do not accept our data and continue to cast aspersions, what options are we left with in Pakistan?î he asks. ìWe have to seek third party monitoring and insist on using telemetric devices.î Water contentions between India and Pakistan take a new dimension with the introduction of a third part to mediate differences under the IWT.

(to be continued)

PART-IV: Water, War and Peace:'Children of the monsoons'​

Sunday, May 02, 2010
By Khalid Hussain

ISLAMABAD: "We want to retain the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). It is India that wants to circumvent the provisions," alleges Syed Jamat Ali Shah, Pakistan's Indus Water Commissioner, talking to The News from his office in Lahore. "We have no option but to go for neutral arbitration," he adds referring to the disputed Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

This development and Pakistan's earlier wishes to bring water on to the agenda for future talks with New Delhi add another geopolitical angle to the contention.

Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir handed over a brief paper on the Kishenganga dispute to his Indian coupterpart during the secretary level talks at New Delhi in February.

The two countries have been discussing the agenda issues, seeking resumption of their stalled peace process. Some in India, like the respected analyst Siddharth Varadarjan, saw this as a "carrier of concord with Pakistan" but others, like India's former Federal Secretary for Water and Power Ramaswamy R. Iyer hold a different perspective closer to the established view there.

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao insisted it was "important to abide by the provisions of the treaty".

India has reportedly refused to include water on the agenda for the 'composite dialogue' alongside terrorism and Balochistan, whenever it may formally take place (although some observers contend that the beginning of formal talks at the secretary level means that the fifth round of Composite Dialogue has started for all intents and purposes).

While the foreign secretary talks in New Delhi and later discussions in the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) in Lahore were inconclusive, Pakistan's formal notification to India seeking neutral arbitration to resolve the dispute indicates that water will continue to top the bilateral agendas for some time.

Following the last round of foreign secretary level talks in New Delhi, Jamat Ali Shah was quoted in the media saying, "Pakistan must look beyond the Indus Waters Treaty."

Elaborating to The News, he added, "Pakistan has a principled stance on the issue of river water sharing with India. We want to work within the ambit of the treaty. But we want transparency, as the Indian track record is not good. India is in breach of the treaty. They do not listen to our objections. This is a breach of the treaty."

The Kishanganga Hydropower Project on the Ganga River -- called Neelum upon entering Pakistan -- in Kashmir is disputed because Pakistan holds that diversion of the waters is not allowed under the IWT. Pakistan is also constructing the 1.6 billion dollars 969 megawatt Neelum-Jehlum Hydropower Project downstream that is expected to face a 27 per cent water deficit if the Indian project gets completed.

Pakistan has reportedly awarded the contract for the Neelum-Jhelum project to a Chinese firm. Work on this project is underway on a hectic schedule. Pakistan cites the right of "prior appropriation" under the IWT as the reason behind this high-altitude development race. Not everyone is convinced.

India's Federal Minister of Power Jairam Ramesh has termed the Kishenganga project as "an issue with geostrategic and foreign policy implications". He added, "Even I am not competent to speak about it".

Dr Robert G. Wirsing, a member of the faculty of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii and an expert on South Asian affairs, recently said in a lecture in Islamabad that the Treaty had inherent weaknesses.

"The solution to water disputes is heavily tied with the fate of Jammu and Kashmir," he said.

Besides such sensitive issues, there are overarching ecological concerns that impel both countries to work in a spirit of harmony to stave off future threats. This is the fourth dimension to the water contentions between India and Pakistan. Jeopardising the IWT cannot help either of the traditional rivals.

According to the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Himalayan glaciers -- a major source of water for India and Pakistan -- are melting at an alarming pace due to global warming.

The International Centre for Mountain Area Development (ICIMOD) has produced similar findings after extensive research.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has also sounded serious warnings over the air-borne chemical clouds over the Himalayan glaciers and Kashmir.

"Pakistan needs to prioritise water and power development," says Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Director of the Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources (PCRWR).

"The cost of hydroelectric generation is only Rs. 1.03 per unit," notes PCRWR Chairman Dr. Muhammad Alam Tahir, stressing the need to develop indigenous renewable energy resources.

"India has generated 8,296 MW electricity working within the 1.2 MAF limits imposed for the water India can store on the Chenab River under the IWT," Adviser to the Centre for Research on Security Studies and Research Fellow with the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Arshad H. Abbasi points out.

"We have no limit on how much water to store on the Chenab, yet all we are able to generate is only 13 MW!"

"The more urgent problem is watershed management in the catchment areas of the Indus River System.

"We must ensure the natural ecosystems are not disturbed," says seasoned development expert Syed Ayub Qutub, urging cooperation "for we are all the children of the monsoons".

Dr Shahid Ahmad of the Pakistan Agriculural Research Council wants urgent action to "manage the shared underground water resources in the Indus Basin sustainably." He is also for joint watershed management in the upper catchment areas of the western rivers. The IWT does not provide for any of this.

However, the issue is not simply one of resource consumption. Nearly, 1.25 billion people in India and Pakistan are directly and indirectly affected by these mysterious happenings around the IWT, notes Dr Mubashir Hasan urging all to respect the treaty. Most independent experts in Pakistan agree.

They include Shamsul Mulk, a known expert on water resources, who hopes in the coming years when both Pakistan and India are faced with greater pressures, India's conduct will not negate the spirit of understanding reached in signing the treaty.

"The important thing about water treaties is the conduct of the upper riparian, which determines the treaty's success and failure," he notes.

In Pakistan, this is likely to continue being seen as the prevalent bottomline, our own weaknesses and lack of monitoring notwithstanding. It is clear, however, that water will continue to top the bilateral agendas for some time.

NOTE: This concludes a four-part series of reports under Aman ki Asha's 'Water is Life' campaign initiated to discuss and debate the 'water issue' between India and Pakistan in an open, non-emotional manner.

 

[ajtr]

Speaking of hijacking the issue...this is perfect example.

Mumbai terrorist group threaten Indian 'water jihad'

Pakistani terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks have threatened to launch a fresh jihad against India over disputed water rights.

The Indian and Pakistani prime ministers are due to meet on Wednesday amid escalating tensions over limited water resources.
Pakistan has repeatedly accused India of breaching the terms of a 1960 treaty governing the use of shared river systems, complaining that irrigation channels on its side of the border have emptied. The issue has now been adopted by militants in Jamaat-ud-Dawah, widely regarded as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Jihadi group fighting Indian troops in Kashmir and responsible for the November 2008 wave of gun and bomb attacks that killed at least 170 people in Mumbai.
Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashka-e-Taibi and head of Jamaat-ud-Dawah, threatened a water war with India during a recent TV interview.
"Look at India's attitude, especially after the 9/11 attacks. It has taken advantage of Pakistan's weaknesses and made dams and stopped our water.
Pakistan, for its defence, will have to fight a war at all costs with India if it is not prepared for talks on Kashmir and water," Saeed said in an interview with Frontline, a private TV channel.
His comments followed earlier statements claiming that control of water resources was being used as a weapon to weaken Pakistan.
"India is trying to hatch a deep conspiracy of making Pakistan's agricultural lands barren and economically annihilating us," said one.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars since partition in 1947 and remain deeply divided over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
Delhi broke off talks with Islamabad after the Mumbai attacks, which a senior Pakistan official later admitted had partly been planned in his country.
They resumed briefly in February but India insisted full negotiations would require Pakistan to prosecute those responsible for the Mumbai killings.
Manmohan Singh, of India, and Yousuf Raza Gilani, of Pakistan are expected to meet today on the sidelines of a summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation.
Officials said the question of water was likely to top the agenda.
The countries divvied up rivers originating in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, and flowing into Pakistan, according to the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty.
Pakistani campaigners believe the accord has broken down because India is taking too great a share to feed new hydropower plants and irrigate farmland.
Talks last month in Lahore failed to make progress with Indian officials arguing that better management would conserve Pakistan's water supplies.
Farmers in Punjab province have staged angry demonstrations in recent weeks.
Hamid Malhi, coordinator of the Punjab Water Council, which represents farmers, said he believed the dispute could be resolved without conflict by amending the original treaty.
"What we fear is that if they fill all the dams and barrages they are constructing, they have the ability to squeeze us any time they like," he said.