India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakistan

[gokussj9]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

If this were true why go to court??

To prove to their Jahil awaam that India is behind all their problems.

 

[gokussj9]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Press release by COA

http://www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=2104

Court of Arbitration Issues Partial Award
in First Arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960
THE HAGUE, February 19, 2013.

The Court of Arbitration constituted in the matter of the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India) has rendered a Partial Award in respect of the dispute between Pakistan and India under the Indus Waters Treaty concerning (1) the legality of the construction and operation of an Indian hydro-electric project located in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir; and (2) the permissibility under the Treaty of the depletion of the reservoirs of certain Indian hydro-electric plants below "Dead Storage Level."
1

In its Partial Award, which is final with respect to the matters decided therein, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court of Arbitration unanimously decided:

1. that the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) constitutes a Run-of-River Plant under the Treaty, and India may accordingly divert water from the Kishenganga/Neelum River for power generation by the KHEP in the manner envisaged.

However, when operating the KHEP, India is under an obligation to maintain a minimum flow of water in the Kishenganga/Neelum River, at a rate to be determined by the Court in a Final Award.

2. Except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the Treaty does not permit India's reduction below "Dead Storage Level" of the water level in the reservoirs of Run-of-River Plants located on the rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty. This ruling does not apply to Plants already in operation or under construction (whose designs have been communicated by India and not objected to by Pakistan) The Court expects to be able to render its Final Award determining the minimum flow of water India would be required to release in the Kishenganga/Neelum River by the end of 2013.

* * *

The Indus Waters Treaty is an international agreement signed by India and Pakistan in 1960 that regulates the use by the two States of the waters of the Indus system of rivers. Pakistan instituted arbitral proceedings against India in 2010, requesting that a court of arbitration determine the permissibility under the Treaty of a hydro-electric project (the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project, or KHEP) currently under construction by India on the Kishenganga/Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum River. The KHEP is designed to generate power by diverting water from a dam site on the Kishenganga/Neelum (within the Gurez valley, an area of higher elevation) to the Bonar Nallah, another tributary of the Jhelum (lower in elevation and closely located to Wular Lake) through a system of tunnels, with the water powering turbines having a capacity of 330 megawatts.
1

As defined in the Treaty, "dead storage" is "that portion of storage which is not used for operational purposes."
PCA 87220

2

Pakistan challenges, in particular, the permissibility of the planned diversion by the KHEP of the waters of the kishenganga/Neelum into the Bonar Nallah, arguing that this inter-tributary transfer will adversely affect the operation of a hydro-electric project—the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro-Electric Project or NJHEP—being built by Pakistan on the Kishenganga/Neelum downstream of the KHEP (the "First Dispute"). The transfer of water contemplated by India may be represented graphically as in the attached diagram (Annex A). Pakistan has also requested that the Court determine whether the Treaty permits India to deplete or bring the reservoir level of "run-of-river" hydro-electric plants below a level identified as "Dead Storage Level" in the Treaty (the "Second Dispute"). Pakistan submits that
that such reservoir depletion would give India impermissibly broad control over the flow of the river waters allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty. For its part, India had stated its intent to use such reservoir depletion to flush sediment out of the KHEP's reservoir. India maintains that both the design and planned mode of operation of the KHEP are fully in conformity with the Treaty

In its analysis, the Court emphasized at the outset that its Partial Award, just as the Indus Waters Treaty itself, does not have any bearing on any territorial claims or rights of the Parties over Jammu and Kashmir. The Court's findings pertain solely to the Parties' rights and obligations with respect to the use of the waters of the Indus system of rivers, including with respect to the use of the waters of those portions of the rivers that flow through disputed territory.

THE FIRST DISPUTE

1. The Permissibility of Inter-Tributary Transfers under the Treaty In the First Dispute, the Court was called upon to determine whether India is permitted under the Treaty to deliver the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum River into the Bonar Nallah in the course of the operation of the KHEP.

As an initial matter, the Court observed that the Treaty expressly permits the transfer of water by India from one tributary of the Jhelum to another for the purpose of generating hydro-electric power, subject to certain conditions. The Court first found that this right is not circumscribed by the Treaty's restriction of Indian uses on the Western Rivers (which include the Kishenganga/Neelum as a tributary of the Jhelum) to the drainage basin of those rivers. This restriction relates to where water may be used, and is not violated by the use outside of the drainage basin of electricity generated from the water. The Court then examined the Treaty provision requiring the Parties to maintain the natural channels of the rivers and its effect on inter-tributary transfers. The Court found that this obligation
involves maintaining the river channels' physical capacity to carry water, and does not require maintaining the timing or volume of the flow in the river. Accordingly, this obligation does not limit India's right to transfer water for the purpose of generating hydro-electricity.

Having established that India's right to inter-tributary transfer is not prohibited by other provisions of the Treaty, the Court considered whether the KHEP meets the express conditions on such transfer.

The Court noted that for transfer to be permissible, the KHEP must (1) be a "Run-of-River Plant"; (2) be located on a tributary of the Jhelum; and (3) conform to Paragraph 15(iii) of the Treaty Annexure governing hydro-electric power generation. The Court observed that a "Run-of-River Plant" is a term of art defined by the Treaty and that the KHEP is a Run-of-River Plant within that definition. The Court further decided that on the facts of the case the KHEP should be regarded as located on the Kishenganga/Neelum notwithstanding that the KHEP's power house is situated at a distance of 23 kilometres from that river. The Court also found that, by releasing water into the Bonar Nallah after it has passed through the power house, the KHEP complies with the requirement that the "water released below the Plant" be delivered "into another Tributary." Finally, the Court found that the KHEP's inter-tributary transfer is "necessary," as required by the Treaty, for the generation of hydro-electric power, as power can be generated on the scale contemplated by India in this location only by using the 665 metre difference in elevation between the dam site on the Kishenganga/Neelum and the place where the water is released into the Bonar Nallah.

2 The Interpretation of the Treaty with Respect to "then existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use by Pakistan"

In addition to the requirements described above, the Court recognized that Paragraph 15(iii) requires that "then existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use by Pakistan" on the downstream reaches of the Kishenganga/Neelum not be adversely affected by the KHEP's inter-tributary transfer. Pakistan argued that "then existing" uses are to be determined on an ongoing basis, whenever water is transferred from one tributary to another. India, in contrast, argued that such uses must be determined at a fixed point during the design of its hydro-electric project.

In seeking to establish when a "then existing" agricultural or hydro-electric use is to be determined, the Court was guided in the interpretation of the Treaty by Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "[a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."

The Court first examined the text of Paragraph 15(iii), noting the provision's focus on the operation of hydro-electric plants and the implication that the determination of "then existing" uses should take place on an ongoing basis throughout the operational life of a plant. The Court then considered the context of Paragraph 15(iii) and noted that the provision falls within a continuum of design, construction and operation. The Court observed that the provisions of the Treaty must be interpreted in a mutually reinforcing fashion, as it would make little sense for the Treaty to permit a plant to be designed and built in a certain manner, but then to prohibit the operation of that plant in the very manner for which it was designed. Finally, the Court examined the object and purpose of the Treaty and found that the Treaty both gives Pakistan priority in the use of the waters of the Western Rivers (including the Kishenganga/Neelum) and India a right to generate hydro-electric power on the Western Rivers.

Turning to the application of the Treaty to the KHEP, the Court first considered the implications of the approaches advocated by the Parties. The Court observed that under the "ambulatory" approach advocated by Pakistan, a project's design could be cleared for construction as being consistent with the design specifications of the Treaty, but then be prevented from operating by new uses by Pakistan.

In the Court's view, the uncertainty created by this approach, and the potential for wastage, would have a chilling effect on the undertaking of any hydro-electric projects by India on the Western Rivers. With respect to the approach advocated by India, under which Pakistan's uses would be determined at the moment that India communicates a "firm intention" to proceed with a project, the Court observed that identifying a critical date will often be difficult, but that it may be possible to identify a "critical period" in which design, tenders, financing, public consultations, environmental assessments, governmental approvals and construction come together to indicate a firm intention to proceed with a project. Nevertheless, the Court noted that a solely "critical period" approach could result in a "race" in which each Party would seek to create uses that would freeze out future uses by the other, an outcome the Court rejected.

Having considered the approaches advocated by the Parties, the Court concluded that neither the ambulatory nor the critical period approach were fully satisfactory and that the proper interpretation of the Treaty combines elements of both. The Court considered that it must first establish for each of the KHEP and the NJHEP the critical period in which the Parties not only planned the projects, but took concrete steps toward their realization. Reviewing the evidence provided by the Parties, the Court concluded that the KHEP reached this period in 2004–2006. In contrast, the Court found that Pakistan demonstrated a comparable commitment to the NJHEP in 2007 and 2008. Given this timing,
the Court decided that India's right to divert the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum by the KHEP is protected by the Treaty.

However, the Court also decided that India's right to divert the Kishenganga/Neelum is not absolute—it is subject to the constraints specified in the Treaty and, in addition, by the relevant principles of customary international law. Paragraph 15(iii) gives rise to India's right to construct and operate hydro-electric projects involving inter-tributary transfers, but also obliges India to operate those projects in such a way as to avoid adversely affecting Pakistan's then existing agricultural and hydro-electric uses. Both Parties' entitlements under the Treaty must be made effective so far as possible. The Court therefore found that Pakistan retains the right to receive a minimum flow of water from India in the Kishenganga/Neelum riverbed at all times. The Court noted that this right also stems from customary international environmental law, and that it considered that the Treaty must be applied in light of contemporary international environmental law principles.

In this context, the Court recalled the commitment made by India's Agent in the course of the hearing that India would ensure a minimum environmental flow downstream of the KHEP at all times.

3. The Court's Request for Further Data

Having concluded that the Treaty requires the preservation of a minimum flow of water downstream of the KHEP, the Court determined that the data provided by the Parties are insufficient to allow it to decide the precise amount of flow to be preserved.

The Court therefore deferred its determination of the appropriate minimum flow to a Final Award, and requested the Parties to provide additional data concerning the impacts of a range of minimum flows at the KHEP dam on, (for India), (a) power generation at the KHEP; and (b) environmental concerns from the dam site at Gurez to the Line of Control; and, (for Pakistan), (a) power generation at the NJHEP; (b) agricultural uses of water downstream of the Line of Control to Nauseri; and (c) environmental concerns at and downstream of the Line of Control to Nauseri

THE SECOND DISPUTE

1. The Admissibility of the Dispute over the Depletion of Reservoirs below "Dead Storage Level"


Insofar as India had raised two objections to the admissibility of the Second Dispute, the Court considered, first,

whether Pakistan had followed the Treaty procedure for the submission of disputes to the Court; and second,

whether the Second Dispute, given its subject-matter, could properly be heard by the Court. With respect to the first question, the Court observed that the Treaty provides for disagreements between the Parties to be resolved either by a seven-member court of arbitration or by a single, highly-qualified engineer, acting as a neutral expert. The Court concluded that the neutral expert process is given priority only if one or the other Party has in fact requested the appointment of a neutral expert. In the present case, neither Party made such a request and the Court was therefore not precluded from hearing the Second Dispute.

With respect to the second question, the Court found that although the Treaty specifies the technical matters that may be referred to a neutral expert, it does not give the neutral expert exclusive competence over these listed matters. Once constituted, a court of arbitration is empowered to consider any question arising out of the Treaty, including technical questions. Having rejected both objections, the Court found that the Second Dispute is admissible.

2. The Permissibility of the Depletion of Reservoirs for Drawdown Flushing

In approaching the merits of the second dispute, the Court observed that the question of reservoir depletion is linked in the Parties' disagreement with the permissibility of controlling sediment through the procedure of drawing down the reservoir and flushing accumulated sediment downstream. The Court briefly reviewed the process of sedimentation in the reservoirs of hydro-electric plants and the various techniques available for sediment control, including drawdown flushing.

The Court then examined three aspects of the context of the Treaty with respect to drawdown flushing.

First, the Court observed that one of the primary objectives of the Treaty was to limit the storage of water by India on the Western Rivers and that the Treaty includes strict restrictions on the volume of storage permitted to India. The Court noted that in contrast, the volume of Dead Storage is not controlled, suggesting that such storage was not intended to be subject to manipulation.

Second, the Court noted that the Treaty includes design restrictions on the low-level outlets that would be required to deplete a reservoir and that these restrictions make sense only if depletion is also restricted.

Third, the Court recalled that the Treaty drafters intended for India to have the right to generate hydro-electric power on the Western Rivers, and noted that this right must be given effect by allowing India's hydro-electric development to be sustainable.

Reading the provisions of the Treaty in light of these contextual aspects, the Court concluded that the Treaty prohibits depletion below Dead Storage Level of the reservoirs of Run-of River Plants (and, correspondingly, drawdown flushing) through reference to a provision of the Treaty Annexure dedicated to storage works, which states that "the Dead Storage shall not be depleted except in an unforeseen emergency." The Court also noted that the Treaty includes restrictions on the permissible variation in the volume of flow in a river above and below a hydro-electric plant, and that these restrictions may also be incompatible with drawdown flushing in certain reservoirs and in certain flow conditions.

To complete its analysis, the Court examined whether the sustainable generation of hydro-electric power on the Western Rivers is possible without drawdown flushing. After reviewing the technical documentation submitted by the Parties and the testimony of the experts presented by them, the Court observed that drawdown flushing is only one means of sediment control and concluded that hydro-electricity may be generated without flushing.

Finally, insofar as certain hydro-electric plants are under construction or have been completed by India, the Court stated that its decision on the Second Dispute may not be so interpreted as to cast doubt retrospectively on any Run-of-River Plants already in operation on the Western Rivers, nor as to affect retrospectively any such Plant already under construction the design of which (having already been duly communicated by India under the relevant provisions of the Treaty) has not been objected to by Pakistan as provided for in the Treaty.

* * *

The seven-member Court of Arbitration is chaired by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (United States),
former President of the International Court of Justice. The other members of the Court are
Sir Franklin Berman KCMG QC (United Kingdom), Professor Howard S. Wheater FREng (United
Kingdom), Professor Lucius Caflisch (Switzerland), Professor Jan Paulsson (Sweden), Judge Bruno
Simma (Germany), and H.E. Judge Peter Tomka (Slovakia). The Permanent Court of Arbitration in
The Hague acts as Secretariat to the Court of Arbitration.

In June 2011, the Court of Arbitration conducted a site visit to the Neelum/Jhelum and Kishenganga
hydro-electric projects and surrounding areas located on the Kishenganga/Neelum river. In
February 2012, a delegation of the Court conducted a second site visit to the Neelum river valley. The
Parties have also submitted written pleadings. From August 20 to 31, 2012, the Court of Arbitration
conducted a two-week hearing on the merits of the dispute between the Parties

An experts?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

@saya

can you translate this

 

[pankaj nema]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

ISLAMABAD - With the award announced in the Kishanganga dispute by The Hague-based Court of Arbitration to divert only a minimum flow of water from the Neelum/Kishanganga River for power generation, the 969MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project would be badly affected and would have to be redesigned.

Background interviews and discussion with energy experts show that with the verdict of International Court of Arbitration, Pakistan would have to face around 150 billion annual loss as the designed capacity of 969MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project will be reduced by 150MW. The verdict has an ultimate impact on Pakistan as it will reduce water flow in the River Neelum, leaving very little water for Pakistan. They were of the view that the International Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of India on the diversion of Neelum (Kishanganga) water, setting aside objections by Pakistan that halted work on the 330MW Kishanganga Hydropower Project in Indian Held Kashmir. A detailed order in the shape of the fine print will be made public soon.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-n...2013/neelum-project-may-need-to-be-redesigned

 

[anoop_mig25]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

I have read that pakistan is constructing dam on same river in PoK. And there is some clause in IWT which states that nation which completes dam construction first on river has first exclusive rights on its resources (eg electricity generation) . am i right?

Was this whole drama was to delay construction of DAM on indian side

Pakistan had awarded dam construction project to some chinese company on same river but then they had to canceled it with that company because it was company failed to reach milestone on time ,so they awared it to another bigger chinese company and wanted it to be completed before India completes construction of DAM, I donot have link to prove it but i have read it their one of their forum

If this were true why go to court??

Ok here is the link and article . i donot know whether website is Indian or not.

International court sides with Indian hydroelectric plant developer in Neelum River dispute - HydroWorld

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has upheld India's right to divert water from a Neelum River tributary for its 330-MW Kishanganga hydropower project.

Indian's National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) started developing the Kishanganga plant in 2006, before awarding contracts for its construction to the HCC-Halcrow Consortium in 2009.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) has progressed in its plans to develop the 969-MW Neelum-Jhelum hydropower plant, which would also be located downstream from the Kishanganga on the same river system.

Fearing that India's Kishanganga might reduce the capacity of its Neelum-Jhelum plant by diverting water, Pakistan asked the neutral PCA to resolve the conflict under provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty in 2010.

The court -- located in The Hague -- ruled, however, that India was adhering to the treaty.

Treaty stipulates that the country which completes its project first will have priority rights to the river's waters, HydroWorld.com has previously reported.

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

a major war like 65 is expected Because of the water crisis

 

[Blackwater]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

a major war like 65 is expected Because of the water crisis

A major and catastrophic defeat is expected for you again like 65,71,kargil (recently exposed by ur generals)

 

[Daredevil]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Neelum project may need to be redesigned

ISLAMABAD - With the award announced in the Kishanganga dispute by The Hague-based Court of Arbitration to divert only a minimum flow of water from the Neelum/Kishanganga River for power generation, the 969MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project would be badly affected and would have to be redesigned.

Background interviews and discussion with energy experts show that with the verdict of International Court of Arbitration, Pakistan would have to face around 150 billion annual loss as the designed capacity of 969MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project will be reduced by 150MW. The verdict has an ultimate impact on Pakistan as it will reduce water flow in the River Neelum, leaving very little water for Pakistan. They were of the view that the International Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of India on the diversion of Neelum (Kishanganga) water, setting aside objections by Pakistan that halted work on the 330MW Kishanganga Hydropower Project in Indian Held Kashmir. A detailed order in the shape of the fine print will be made public soon.

They were of the view that the verdict is a clear green signal for the Kishanganga project because Indian spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin, announcing the decision on Monday late night, asked Indians to celebrate the coming Sunday as a celebration day.

Official sources, on the condition of anonymity, held Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Water Resources and Agriculture Kamal Majidullah responsible for the defeat in the legal battle over the Kishanganga hydropower project. Giving the reasons for this debacle, they said the team leader had no knowledge about trans-boundary water management. In addition, an undue delay was made by the government of Pakistan in the launch of Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Plant, which was approved in 1989 and was to begin in 2002. "This vital point gave an edge to India that started Kishanganga in June 2006, while in Pakistan, On July 7, 2007, the Chinese consortium, CGGC-CMEC (Gezhouba Group and China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation) were awarded the contract to construct the dam and a power station, said an official in the water and power ministry, on the condition of anonymity.

Arshad H Abbasi, a water expert, when contacted, made it clear that with the ICA verdict, Pakistan would have to redesign the 969MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project and it would also cause reduction in hydel power. He said due to the disputed Kishanganga Dam, work on the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project had already been badly affected. At present, Pakistan is facing financial hardship in implementing the Neelum-Jhelum project. The Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) is also facing internal problems in generating funds for the project and the Finance Ministry is reportedly not providing funds, he added.

In 1960, Pakistan and India hammered out the Indus Water Treaty, which governs the sharing of water on rivers heading downstream from India to Pakistan. However, India had been racing to complete the 330MW Kishanganga project which would divert the River Neelam to Wullar Lake, leaving very little water for the Pakistani project, which is just 70 kilometres downstream from Kishanganga, thus reducing the power generation capacity of the 969MW Neelum-Jhelum plant by about 11 percent. On May 17, 2010, Pakistan instituted arbitral proceedings against India under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 and approached the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) against the violation of the treaty.

The arbitration went through tumultuous phases after New Delhi and Islamabad failed to agree on the nomination of three neutral judges. Both sides invoked a provision in the treaty under which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had to nominate Stephen M Schwebel, a former president of the International Court of Justice, as the head of the seven-member arbitration bench. The bench for which the two countries nominated two members each visited both sides of the LoC before beginning a detailed hearing which concluded on August 31 last year.

The seven-member International Court of Arbitration (ICA) barred India from undertaking any permanent works above the riverbed level at the Gurez site of the Kishanganga hydel project dam. Due to the effect of the stay order, work remained suspended for more than one year.

An official of Wand Power Ministry told this scribe that Pakistan needs Rs2 billion on a monthly basis to continue work on the Neelum Jhelum project. Due to the undue delay in the proper commencement of the Neelum Jhelum project, the cost of the project has ballooned from 84.5 billion to a staggering Rs 274.8 billion, which might result in an exorbitant power generation cost of over Rs 10 per unit, against the existing hydroelectric generation cost of 16 paisa per unit.

The burden of the costs arising out of delays and inefficiency is also expected to be transferred to consumers, as the government has decided to arrange 40 per cent of the required funds through a levy on consumed energy imposed by the Government of Pakistan

It is a matter of deep concern that a permanent works above the riverbed is not allowed. But India went ahead with the construction of a powerhouse, tunnelling works, constructing cofferdams, temporary bypass tunnel and concretisation under the riverbed for the dam. And the controversy owes its genesis to India's plan to build a 330-megawatt hydropower plant in Held Kashmir across the Jhelum River.

The dam site is located 160 km upstream from Muzaffarabad and involves the diversion of Kishanganga River (called the Neelum River in Pakistan) to a tributary named Bunar Madumati Nullah of Jhelum near Bunkot. The diversion will change the course of the Neelum by about 100km, which will then join the Jhelum through Wullar Lake near the town of Bandipur in Baramula district. As a result of this diversion, the Neelum and Jhelum rivers which at present join each other near Muzaffarabad at Domail will meet in Indian Held Kashmir.

Neelum project may need to be redesigned | The Nation

 

[Daredevil]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Flawed strategy led to Pak defeat, say experts

ISLAMABAD: In what could be a colossal blow to Pakistan's water interests, India is claiming to have won the legal battle over the Kishenganga Hydropower Project in the international court of arbitration (CoA) at The Hague.

If so, it would be the second victory of India in a row, as New Delhi had earlier won the battle against Islamabad on Baglihar Hydropower Project in 2007. Jubilant Indians will celebrate victory on Sunday next.

But a Pakistani lawyer said Pakistan had not lost the case. In fact, Faisal Naqvi, a lawyer from Lahore who was part of the Pakistan team that fought the legal battle at The Hague, when contacted, brushed aside the impression that India had won the case.

He said this was totally wrong and asked this correspondent to wait for the detailed decision.

Naqvi said the CoA had made India bound to keen the ponds of all projects, including Baglihar and Kishenganga, full of water at all costs so that the water flow in the rivers destined to reach Pakistan was not cut.

He said India will not be able to stop the water of Neelum River as was being said and the Neelum-Jhelum project would be not be affected.

He said Kamal Majidullah was going to issue a statement telling that Pakistan had not lost the case rather it had won the case. Majidullah was contacted time and again but his cell phone was powered off.

If the Indian claims are right and the verdict is in India's favour, it will mean a green signal for the Kishanganga project.

India is building Kishenganga project on Ganga River in the Held Kashmir which is called Neelum River when it enters Pakistan.

General (R) Zubair Ahmad, CEO of Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Company, said if this was the decision of the Court of Arbitration as India was dubbing, the Kinshengnga project would affect the viability of the Rs270 billion Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project and reduce the 10 percent electricity generation capacity resulting in the loss of 141.3 million dollar annually.

However, with the decision, in winter season the water flows in Neelum River would reduce by 10 percent and 30 percent in summer season.

Kamal Majidulla, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Water Resources and Agriculture, was appointed as Pakistan's agent for Kishenganga project in The Hague.

Many experts question Pakistan's strategy in The Hague court and call it flawed. They say Kamal Majidulla was unknown to the international trans-boundary water issues. He has been a journalist and remained editor of an eveninger in Karachi. The only qualification he has is friendship with the top PPP leaders. He also successfully used his maneuvering skills to bag the job.

Circles close to Majidulla deny these charges and say he will soon explain the case and what Pakistan has gained or lost in The Hague.

Former adviser and special secretary to the Ministry of Water and Power Riaz Khan, who is a close relative to Prime Minister Raja Perviaz Ashraf, is also said to be responsible for massive delay in initiating the Neelum–Jhelum Hydropower Plant approved in 1989.

The massive delay has given edge to India in the court of arbitration. India started Kishanganga project in June 2006, Pakistan awarded the project to the Chinese consortium CGGC-CMEC (Gezhouba Group and China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation) on 7 July 2007 for construction of the dam and power station of Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project.

Islamabad took New Delhi to the court of arbitration in the summer of 2010, disrupting Indian plans to divert water from Kishenganga into Bona Madmati Nullah. Islamabad said the diversion violated provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1965, a claim that India refuted.

However, the arbitration went through many phases after New Delhi and Islamabad failed to agree on the nomination of three neutral judges.

Both sides invoked a provision in the treaty under which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had to nominate Stephen M Schwebel, a former president of the International Court of Justice, as the head of the seven-member arbitration bench.

The bench, on which the two countries nominated two members each, visited both sides of the LoC before beginning a detailed hearing which concluded on August 31 last year.

Flawed strategy led to Pak defeat, say experts - thenews.com.pk

 

[SLASH]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Certain forum is declaring it as a Pakistani victory. :sigh:

 

[Daredevil]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Certain forum is declaring it as a Pakistani victory. :sigh:

Don't you know about Pakistan's twisted sense of humor. They declare all their defeats as victories. They are supreme optimists.

 

[Daredevil]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Don't Muddy the Kishenganga Verditc

The verdict (Part I) of the Court of Arbitration (CoA) on the Kishenganga dispute raised by Pakistan has gone in favour of India on the primary count of whether or not the project ab initio violates the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). On a plain reading of the text of the Treaty, the project was clearly in order. Annexure D, Part 3, Section 15(iii) states, "Where a Plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural or hydroelectric use, the water released below the plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another tributary but only to the extent that the then existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would not be adversely affected."

The Kishenganga is a tributary of the Jhelum which takes the name Neelum on the Pakistan side of Kashmir. The project under construction by India on this stem was originally planned as a 900 MW storage project but was subsequently converted into a 330 MW run-of-the river scheme following environmental and displacement issues in the Indian catchment. The revised project would divert Kishenganga flows east, less ecological releases, through a tunnel to join the Madmati Nullah. This in turn flows into the Kashmir Valley to join the Wular Lake that is drained by the main Jhelum which flows into the Pakistani side of Kashmir where it is met by the Neelum river a little above Muzaffarabad.

The charge of illegality raised by Pakistan was thus clearly a red herring. The real issue was whether Pakistan would receive sufficient flows for its own 930 MW Neelum-Jhelum project with a vague and fluctuating irrigation component of up to 1,30,000 acres. India had agreed to let down some minimum releases and also argued that these flows would be augmented by other free flowing nullahs that join the river between the Indian and Pakistan dams.

The CoA, however, has ruled that India must maintain a minimum rate of flow below its Kishenganga dam and that it will determine this quantum in its final award to be announced by the year-end. While that award is awaited, what is not clear is whether the CoA satisfied itself about the nature and quantum of Pakistan's "then existing uses": when it first raised the issue with India. This a matter on which the Pakistan position has been dodgy from the very start, with varying claims but little to show by way of "then existing uses" on the ground. This issue needs to be clarified beyond doubt, else it will mean that while India is held to the letter and spirit of the Treaty, Pakistan is not and its water demand may be arbitrarily enhanced at will. The second ruling the CoA has given is on Pakistan's argument that the Neutral Expert's (NE) award on the Baglihar dispute is bad insofar as it permits India to deplete its dead storage in order to flush the reservoir of accumulating sediment. India earlier compromised on this issue in the case of the Sallal project, also on the Chenab. In the result the dam all but silted up within a single season, drastically reducing power production. The CoA has however stated the ruling would not apply to Indian projects currently under operation or construction whose designs have been communicated to Pakistan and have not been objected to by the latter.

The question now arises as to which view shall prevail on the issue of drawdown flushing in the case of future projects on silt-laded rivers, that of the NE or the CoA? Part 3, Section 8(d) of the Indus Treaty provides an answer. This states that "there shall be no outlets below the dead storage level unless necessary for sediment control or any other technical purpose; any such outlet shall be of minimum size and be located at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design and with satisfactory operation of the works."

If however the difference or dispute persists, the matter shall be decided by reference to a NE or CoA. This might well need to happen to obtain absolute clarity on the subject.

John Briscoe, a Harvard Professor formerly of the World Bank, has weighed in on this very matter (See: editorial page, The Hindu, "Winning the battle but losing the war," February 22, 2013). He pleads that the NE's verdict on drawdown flushing undermines the Treaty by eliminating the limits to live storage on the three western rivers by India as specified under the Treaty. There is nothing in the text of the IWT that sustains any such inference. Nor is it clear from where Briscoe conjures up the statistic that India already has 40 days of "cumulative storage" on the Chenab.

The fact is that against a total storage of 3.60 million acre feet to which India is entitled on the three western rivers, the current storage is pretty near zero. All its major projects are run-of-river schemes that have strictly determined "pondages." Section 2(g) of Annexure D, defines a "run-of-river" plant as "a hydroelectric plant that develops power without Live Storage as an integral part of the plant, except for pondage and surcharge storages." Pondage, in turn, means "Live Storage of only sufficient magnitude to meet the fluctuations in the discharge of the turbines arising from variations in the daily and weekly loads of the plants." The ponded water must be returned to the river within 24 hours, the system operating much like a circulating fountain.

I am not an engineer like my friend John Briscoe. But I believe he has inadvertently got it wrong. Few have read the text of the IWT and are easily confused by jargon and hence the need for clarity. The final CoA Award must now be awaited without further muddying the waters.

(B.G. Verghese is with the Centre for Policy Research. Visit: BG Verghese Writings and Commentaries - examining water issues, big dams, hydel power, hydro-electricity in India, Kasmir elections, separatist issues, Tibetan autonomy the Dalai Lama and Beijing, India's relationship with China and border disputes a)

'Don't muddy the Kishenganga verdict' - The Hindu

 

[Virendra]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

Good news then.
The Indus water treaty has held its own, barring the occasional Pakistani foul cries.
In a cross border river system, the lower Iperian being insecure is obvious. But Pakistani paranoia knows no limits.
Floods ? India released water
Droughts ? India stopped water.
Like India has nothing else to do
There will be more chatter on this in the days to come.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[ladder]

Re: India Wins Kishenganga hydro-electric project dispute with Pakista

India seeks clarification on Kishanganga order

India has moved the Court of Arbitration at The Hague for "clarification" or "interpretation" of the February order on its dispute with Pakistan over the 330-MW Kishanganga project under construction in North Kashmir.

In the order, the court does not permit New Delhi to use the modern "draw down" technique for removal of silt deposits in run-of-the-river dams on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960.

On the last day of the three-month period for India to seek "clarification," New Delhi said on Monday the order should be amended to make it "project-specific." In the case of the Baglihar dam — another run-of-the-river project — the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank had accepted this state-of-the-art technique for removing silt and sedimentation from the reservoir, India maintained.

The "draw down" technique requires depletion of reservoirs below the "dead storage level," on which Pakistan had reservations as, it said, it allowed India to regulate the waters.

In its II part of the order, the court held that "except in unforeseen emergency" the Treaty does not permit India's reduction below the "dead storage level" of the water in the reservoirs of run-of-the-river plants located on rivers allocated to Pakistan.

"The ruling does not apply to plants already in operation or under construction," the court chaired by Judge Stephen M. Schwebel said.

In its partial award delivered in February this year, the Arbitration Court, however, upheld the legality of India's right under the treaty to divert waters from the Kishanganga/Neelam river (a tributary of the Jhelum) to Bonar Nallah, also a tributary of the Jhelum for the Rs. 3,600-crore Kishanganga hydro-electric project in Baramullah district.

The court, however, held that India will have to maintain a minimum flow of waters in Kishanganga at a rate which will be determined by the court in its final award, expected by the end of the year.

India seeks clarification on Kishanganga order | The Hindu