Indus Water Treaty

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by pankajs »

agastya wrote:Indo-Pak relations touch a new high as Kishanganga project gets a green signal

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indop ... /1210281/1
The "final award" specifies that 9 cumecs of natural flow of water must be maintained in Kishenganga river at all times to maintain the environment downstream, said a statement from the Indian High Commission here.

This is much lower than the 100 cumecs of natural flow that Pakistan wanted to maintain, it said.
Kishanganga dam: court at The Hague seeks details of its environmental impact
The court rejected the minimum flow of 3.94 cubic metre per second (said to correspond to the lowest recorded flow over a 30-year period) which was established as a minimum flow in Jhelum river.
So India had offered 4 cumecs and Bakistan wanted 100 cumecs. The court awarded 9 cumecs.

Victory to Bakistan! and a tight slap to cowardly yindu bania India.
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by anupmisra »

agastya wrote:Paki's spreading the news that they have won the case
And, why not? If the mango pakis learn they have lost yet another case against India, there will be hell to pay for the paki hukumaraan. Heads will roll. Paksi also won the '65, '71, and '99 wars.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

The restriction on DDF has been decided in favour of Pakistan as it would be applicable in all future projects. That is a great negative. This overturns the Expert's award in baglihar project where it was allowed. All other contentions are more or less i India's favour. Yet to read fully the award.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by pankajs »

We need to check if bakis put any further argument against the LLO.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

The loss of DDF will probably require a design change of some sort.
9 cumecs is nothing. Quick calculation shows that it will guarantee about 8 TMC of water annually down stream. TSP had wanted 70 TMC downstream guaranteed.
LLG is allowed and can only be used in unforeseen circumstances.

Folks can declare victory all they want.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Let Bakis declare victory and show how great IWT mechanism is in its majestic working that it got everything in its favour. We can always question them when they talk about breach and possibility of fourth war over water. :D
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by pankajs »

Now the real push for joint watershed management will start from the bakis and their international backers.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

At the same time, the Court notes that after
undertaking such analysis, Pakistan made no effort to share the published, quality-assured datafor the Indus basin with India. In this respect, the Court is not satisfied with the suggestion thatIndia can, for a fee, consult the published data in Pakistan’s hydrologic yearbooks. :rotfl: The Courtcommends to the Parties the practice of undertaking quality assurance on hydrologic data
collected on tributaries of the Indus and of sharing such data (together with sufficientelaboration to explain variations from data exchanged under Article VI) through themechanisms of the Permanent Indus Commission.
4. The
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

As is shown by the passages in the Partial Award set out above (see paragraphs 81 to 84), the
Court has already decided that—although no Pakistani agricultural use has been established asof the time at which the KHEP crystallized and acquired priority—Pakistan’s Treaty rights inthis regard will remain relevant to the continuing operation of the KHEP in conformity withParagraph 15(iii). In now setting a fixed minimum flow, anticipated future agricultural useswould ordinarily feature in the Court’s determination. However, as Pakistan has not submittedeven an estimate of the likely scope of such development, much less evidence upon which theCourt could rely, the Court is unable to take account of such potential uses and has reached itsdetermination of the minimum flow on the basis of hydro-electric and environmental factorsalone. Having done so, the Court is nevertheless confident that the minimum flow it prescribesbelow on the basis of other factors will ensure sufficient water in the river so as not to curtailsignificantly agricultural development in the Neelum Valley. In this connection, the Courtrecognizes the flow contribution to the main river of tributaries that lie downstream from the
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

The Court accepts that there is no single “correct” approach to such environmental assessments.For any given river or project, the correct approach will depend upon the existing state of theriver, the magnitude of anticipated changes, the importance of the proposed project, and the

As set out in the preceding section, the effects of the KHEP on the environment and on powergeneration by Pakistan (including at the NJHEP) both suggest the need for a higher minimumflow than India proposes, though one markedly less than what Pakistan appears to espouse.Taking environmental considerations alone, in the appreciation of the Court, would appear tosuggest releasing a flow of some 12 cumecs downstream of the KHEP at all times. And if
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

the Court has decided that, on the basis of the evidence currently available, India
should have access to at least half of the average flow at the KHEP site during the driestmonths. In the Court’s view, it would not be in conformity with the Treaty to fix a minimumrelease above half the minimum monthly average flow for the purpose of avoiding adverse
effects on the NJHEP.

Preserving a
minimum flow of 9 cumecs would result in a monthly reduction in energy generation at the
KHEP of, on average, 19.5 GWh from October to March.164 Although such a reduction is quitesignificant—in perc
entage terms—during the driest month of January, over the dry season as awhole it would amount to a 19.2 percent average reduction in energy generation.165 On anannual basis, the average reduction in energy generation at the KHEP would be 5.7 percent.While India has not included an economic model for the KHEP in its submissions in theseproceedings, the evidence before the Court does not establish that a 5.7 percent reduction inannual energy generation would render the KHEP economically unviable.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

DECISIONHaving considered the Parties’ submissions, the Court of Arbitration unanimously decides:A. In the operation of the KHEP:(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, India shall release a minimum flow of 9 cumecs into theKishenganga/Neelum River below the KHEP at all times at which the daily average flowin the Kishenganga/Neelum River immediately upstream of the KHEP meets or exceeds9 cumecs.(2) At any time at which the daily average flow in the Kishenganga/Neelum Riverimmediately upstream of the KHEP is less than 9 cumecs, India shall release 100 percentof the daily average flow immediately upstream of the KHEP into theKishenganga/Neelum River below the KHEP.B. Beginning 7 years after the diversion of water from the Kishenganga/Neelum River for powergeneration by the KHEP, either Party may seek reconsideration of the minimum flow inparagraph (A) above through the Permanent Indus Commission and the mechanisms of theTreaty.C. This Final Award imposes no further restrictions on the operation of the KHEP, which remainssubject to the provisions of the Treaty as interpreted in this Final Award and in the Court’sPartial Award.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Kishenganga has been such a hot topic in the Paki press for many years now. But, surprisingly, there is no mention of the award or no discussion except for the odd reference to TSP victory by that stunted federal minister. Shell shocked perhaps.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

^^^ Not counting the Minister, the Kishanganga arbitration award has created a lot of confusion in Pakistan.

Take the articles appearing in just one Pakistani newspaper “The News”.

In an article dated December 22, the view was that Pakistan had narrowly lost:

India emerges close winner in Kishanganga case

In an article dated December 23, the view was transformed to Pakistan having suffered a “debacle”:
Pakistan to face yearly loss of $145 million : The Hague decision on Kishenganga

Monday, December 23, 2013
From Print Edition

ISLAMABAD: With the Kishenganga debacle in The Hague court, Pakistan is to brave loss of $145 million every year for the power lost in Neelum-Jhelum (N-J) project following massive reduction in water flows. ..............
In a article dated December 24,there was a further change in the view with the conclusion that Pakistan had narrowly won:

Marginal, not ‘big victory’ on Kishanganga
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

SSridhar wrote:Kishenganga has been such a hot topic in the Paki press for many years now. But, surprisingly, there is no mention of the award or no discussion except for the odd reference to TSP victory by that stunted federal minister. Shell shocked perhaps.
Silence of the Snakes and Susris.
I scaned every nook and corner of Paki hellhole but no mention of Paani any more. Not even the usual suspects on their TV.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

The problem is LLG stays though DDF is not allowed. That means if Pakis suspect indian Motive they can do zilch when India decides to use the orifice in unforeseen emergencies excluding sedimentation. War could be such. Terrorist infiltrating through Gurez sector could be another. Any way after KHEP that would be effectively closed. No further restrictions imposed on construction.

Water Diversion is accepted. Asked for 100 CUMSEC and got 9 CUMSEC. NJHEP would be affected.They are already struggling to find fund. After few years if they don't progress how can they ask for review?

Primacy of treaty established and no water wars then.

A Big bamboo up their's and they can't even cry Jihaard.
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8441
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Post by Peregrine »

The river of our discontent

No matter how hard we try to spin it, the International Court of Arbitration verdict on the Kishanganga hydroelectric project is a massive blow to Pakistan. We had asked the court to ensure that India maintain a minimum of 100 cubic metres per second of water in the Kishanganga-Neelum River but India has been allowed to maintain only nine cubic metres per second of water. Just how devastating this verdict is can be seen in the judgement itself, which declared that the minimum flow would be “somewhat severe in environmental terms” for Pakistan. Still, the decision went India’s way because, in the opinion of the court, the Indus Water Treaty gives India the right to divert water for hydroelectric projects from rivers that are otherwise reserved for Pakistan’s use, so long as the diversion doesn’t deny us a fair share of the water. Pakistan’s fault lies in not being able to convince the International Court of Arbitration that the Kishanganga project will severely threaten its water needs. Just how badly we botched our case is referred to in the report itself, saying “Pakistan has submitted no data on current or anticipated agricultural uses of water from the Kishanganga/Neelum.” How can we blame the court or claim any kind of victory when we ourselves failed to explain how much water we will need from the Kishanganga-Neelum River?

That this entire controversy arose in the first place is a sign of our failure to secure our water rights. Pakistan had planned the Neelum project long before India ever conceived the Kishanganga hydroelectric project. It is only because of inefficiency, government lethargy and corruption that the project wasn’t completed years ago. Had the Neelum project been presented in the court as a fait accompli, India would have been forced into continuing to provide us with the water needed to maintain it. Instead, now the project may never be completed. On top of that, the court claimed in its judgement that we were not able to show that we were using the water from the river for agricultural purposes before India embarked on the Kishanganga project. Essentially, it accused Pakistan of only pretending to need the water once India decided it wanted to divert some of it for the project. In legalistic terms, the verdict seems a just one. The problem is that the Indus Water Treaty itself has become an anachronism in a world where the rivers’ flow has decreased and the water needs of Pakistan and India have multiplied. Only a new, more just treaty will solve this vexing issue.

Cheers Image
sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6095
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by sanjaykumar »

Indeed India must force Pakistan into a new treaty. We all know how that will end....Pakistan gorment falls, coup and counter coup, jihadis attacking naval bases, another difa e Pakistan or dafa ho Pakistan, etc etc.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Peregrine wrote:The river of our discontent

Just how badly we botched our case is referred to in the report itself, saying “Pakistan has submitted no data on current or anticipated agricultural uses of water from the Kishanganga/Neelum.” How can we blame the court or claim any kind of victory when we ourselves failed to explain how much water we will need from the Kishanganga-Neelum River?
Why did not Pakistan present its data on existing agricultural use ? Because, there simply was none. We have been saying that here for a long time.
Only a new, more just treaty will solve this vexing issue.
The Pakistanis are banking their hope on the 'prior usage' allocation basis to get even more water in a proposed new treaty. They are day dreaming of a more generous (than the already very generous) treaty especially when Man Mohan Singh is just a few months away from the end of his career.
LakshO
BRFite
Posts: 210
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by LakshO »

Pakistan had planned the Neelum project long before India ever conceived the Kishanganga hydroelectric project. It is only because of inefficiency, government lethargy and corruption that the project wasn’t completed years ago. Had the Neelum project been presented in the court as a fait accompli, India would have been forced into continuing to provide us with the water needed to maintain it. Instead, now the project may never be completed.


Pakis planned the Neelum project long before India came up with KHEP? So, why did not these turds raise resources and take the project to completion?

Paki pigs take us to court of arbitration over IWT nearly on nearly every hydroproject in J&K, have they once reflected why they are unable to raise the resources? Has one paki ever felt if they would only stop spending money on trying to destroy India (through terrorism, nuclear weapons, ficn, etc), may be they can spend the same money on building something that would make their own lives better?
The problem is that the Indus Water Treaty itself has become an anachronism in a world where the rivers’ flow has decreased and the water needs of Pakistan and India have multiplied. Only a new, more just treaty will solve this vexing issue.

The nerve of these pigs to dream that they can get a deal from India that will be better than IWT?! The IWT was concluded between JLN & Ayub in 1960, brokered by WB, and seems to have stood the test of time, wars, paki terrorism etc. I don't think there is anybody in all of Nai Dilli who will meet the expectations of that pig sty on our NW borders. Even if paki-pasand govt (like MMS) wants to give more water, with an eye on nobull piss prize :P , all hell will break loose in Parliament. The opposition will go ballistic and the media will have field day :twisted:
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8441
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Peregrine »

LakshO wrote:
Pakistan had planned the Neelum project long before India ever conceived the Kishanganga hydroelectric project. It is only because of inefficiency, government lethargy and corruption that the project wasn’t completed years ago. Had the Neelum project been presented in the court as a fait accompli, India would have been forced into continuing to provide us with the water needed to maintain it. Instead, now the project may never be completed.
Pakis planned the Neelum project long before India came up with KHEP? So, why did not these turds raise resources and take the project to completion?
LakshO Ji :

Old Paki Disease : They got No Money for Infrastructure after allocations for Defence, Feudals and Terrorists. :((

Cheers Image
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7808
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Anujan »

What happened to the drawdown flushing appeal?
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Anujan, Disallowed
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by abhijitm »

^^ does anyone know how will that impact Kishanganga dam design or the electricity generation process?
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by abhijitm »

Here, this articles describes the problem but not the solution.
Kishanganga could have larger impact than expected
Upholding India's right to inter-tributary transfer of water within the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty notwithstanding, NHPC will have to wait for nearly a year to see if the 330-MW Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) would require any design change. Same is true with 969-MW NeelumJhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP) that Pakistan's Wapda is setting up.

The 'partial award' has banned the use of drawdown flushing in the upcoming KHEP and all other project that would be set up in future. It essentially means that all the new projects will either have to survive with shorter life or a new technology has to be evolved to mange the massive sedimentation load that kills power dams and reservoirs.

The use of reservoir depletion below Dead Storage Level (DSL) by India in any circumstances except an unforeseen emergency was the second piece of dispute that the ICA tackled in the partial award. The court ruled that the water sharing treaty does not permit reservoir reduction below DSL excepting in unforeseen emergencies.

"The accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant does not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit the depletion of the reservoir below DSL for drawdown flushing purposes," the court of arbitration ruled. "Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the KHEP to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below DSL."

While the court made it clear that the decision will neither impact the exiting projects nor those under implementation, but it essentially became precedence for the future projects. All the major rivers in J&K and their tributaries have massively silted flows and Chenab, the major power house of the state, has sediment load as a major crisis.

Pakistan has been apposing use of sluicing tooth and nail throughout. It was not available at the time of signing of the water sharing treaty in 1960 but evolved soon after. Later, when NHPC wanted to adopt the technology in 690-MW Salal project, Pakistan put its foot down and forced to abandon it.

"It created a situation that Salal dam is totally silted up and is reduced to mere run of the river project," a senior officer in the state power ministry said. "During winters when water level goes abysmally down, it does not generate much."

Even the 390-MW Dul Hasti project in Kishtwar, also is owned by NHPC, was also denied this facility. When J&K's Power Development Corporation was implementing the 450-MW Bagliahar, Pakistan strongly objected to the use of low-level sluice spillway. Finally the issue was sent to a neutral expert appointed by World Bank who permitted the use of the technology in the project, albeit with some changes at level.

But the court of arbitration has not accepted Baglihar as precedence. That is where the worry lies. Any dam or reservoir that lacks effective de-silting system would have less life span and huge recurring costs.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Prem »

SSridhar wrote:Anujan, Disallowed
Allowed in unseen circumstances like War,terrorist attack and the mood of Indian PM etc. Its like the Bofor Gun in pocket to be used onlee as demanded by the occasion.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Technologically Advanced Projects and Emerging Concerns - Ramaswami R Iyer, The Hindu
Last February, the Court of Arbitration set up under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), 1960, had given an interim award on the Kishenganga dispute, allowing the diversion of waters from one tributary of the Jhelum to another. It has now given the final award indicating the extent of permissible diversion. In order to understand this fully, it is necessary to go back to the Baglihar arbitration because some of the issues that arose in that case find a sequel in the present one.

(Before getting into the subject at hand, let me say that I have serious reservations about the so-called run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects. However, setting aside my own concerns, I am writing this article strictly from the perspective of the IWT.)

In the Baglihar Project, Pakistan had posed certain points of difference on design and engineering matters, and the Neutral Expert (NE) had given his findings on them. We need not go into those issues here but must take note of two points on which Pakistan felt acute concern. First, the NE had observed that the fact that the IWT was signed in 1960 did not freeze all future projects to 1960 technology, and that state-of-the-art technology can be adopted (that is a paraphrase, not an exact quotation). Secondly, he had stressed the importance of proper maintenance of the facilities built and advocated the periodical ‘drawdown’ flushing of the reservoir to get rid of sediment.

The first statement that the IWT did not preclude the use of post-IWT technological advances seemed eminently sensible and could not easily be questioned, but Pakistani experts and scholars felt (rightly) that on the same count it would also be justifiable to take into account other new and emerging concerns. On the second point, namely the advocacy of ‘drawdown flushing’ of the reservoir, Pakistan felt that this amounted to a major re-interpretation of the Indus Treaty and seriously compromised the protection against being flooding provided to Pakistan by the IWT.

They felt so strongly on this point that they referred it to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the Kishenganga project as a second issue along with the primary one of diversion of waters from one tributary of the Jhelum to another. The PCA accepted the Pakistani position on drawdown flushing; it observed that India must find other answers to the sediment problem. A request from India for a reconsideration or reinterpretation of that decision has now been rejected by the PCA.

On the issue of how much ‘minimum’ or ‘environmental’ flow should be maintained in the Kishenganga, both India and Pakistan had made detailed submissions to the PCA. India had proposed the maintenance of a minimum flow of 4.25 cumec (cubic metres per second). Pakistan had argued that 20 to 40 cumec would be needed. The PCA felt that the Indian analysis was inadequate and that Pakistan’s study was much fuller and more elaborate. It made its own calculations and tentatively arrived at a figure of 12 cumec. Finally, it has mandated a minimum flow of 9 cumec.

A detailed analysis of the decision by Himanshu Thakkar from SANDRP (South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People) faults the PCA for its flawed determination of the environmental flow (e-flow). That criticism is entirely valid, but it must be remembered that the PCA was not a body set up to determine environmental flows; it was an arbitral body set up under the 1960 treaty to adjudicate a dispute between India and Pakistan on the Kishenganga project in terms of the provisions of that IWT.

Its decision on the permissible extent of diversion of waters and the maintenance of a certain flow in the river was, therefore, not a scientific determination of environmental flows but an arbitral, dispute-settling decision: it accepts neither the Indian position nor the Pakistani one but mandates an intermediate position. In arriving at its compromise position, the PCA seems to have been influenced by the consideration that hydroelectric power was important; that the IWT permits run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects; and that the viability of the 330-MW Indian project should not be unduly disturbed.

A new variable

However, an interesting question arises here. Determining e-flows was not within the remit of the PCA as an arbitrator under the IWT or in terms of the treaty; the concept was unknown in 1960 and does not figure in it. What the IWT says is that if there is a diversion of waters from one tributary of the Jhelum to another, existing uses on the former tributary must be protected. Pakistan’s Neelum-Jhelum hydroeletric project could not be treated as ‘existing use’ because work on it started after India had commenced work on the Kishenganga project (as determined by the PCA). Pakistan could have argued for existing agricultural use but the PCA says that no data on this was submitted by Pakistan. Evidently, Pakistan was unwilling to talk too much about ‘existing use’ for fear of appearing to accept implicitly the inter-tributary diversion of waters. Instead, it argued for environmental flows as this idea is now widely accepted.

Indeed it is. No one will argue today against the proposition that a river must flow and that interventions in flows should be minimal. However, this issue cannot be argued on the basis of the 1960 treaty; it can only be argued on the basis of current concerns. The PCA was fully justified in taking note of those concerns, but this meant that it was going beyond the treaty and dealing with issues not explicitly recognised in it. But was this not precisely what the NE in the Baglihar arbitration was doing when he advocated (a) state-of-the-art technology and (b) drawdown flushing of the reservoir? (As a matter of fact, the IWT had qualified its prohibition of outlets below the dead storage level by allowing an exception where sediment control required this.) {That was what I exactly said in my post of July 28, 2013. Linked here} It was by using the door partly opened by the NE that Pakistan was able to bring in ideas of environmental flows, etc.

Now the wheel has come full circle. The NE’s recommendation of drawdown flushing has been overturned, but Pakistan’s argument for environmental flows has been accepted.

Reinterpretating IWT

Let me not be misunderstood. I am not questioning the need for e-flows. They should be maintained not only on the Kishenganga but on all rivers, including the eastern rivers that stand allocated to India. I am only pointing out that the NEs in both the Baglihar case and the PCA in the Kishenganga dispute were ‘reinterpreting’ the IWT, albeit in different ways.

The decisions of the PCA are final and binding and not appealable. The PCA has, however, provided for a review of the e-flow determination by the Permanent Indus Commission after 7 years.

What does this verdict mean for India and Pakistan? India can go ahead with the Kishenganga project with some modifications to accommodate a minimum flow of 9 cumec. Pakistan invoked the arbitration clause twice, but in neither case was India obliged to abandon the project (Baglihar, Kishenganga); it had to make only some minor changes. Pakistan might have been disappointed at that outcome. However, Pakistan’s concern about drawdown flushing has found an answer. Thus, both countries have reason to be satisfied.

Let me conclude by returning to my own concerns. Quite apart from Pakistani worries, may I ask as an Indian: how many such projects is India going to build on the Jhelum and the Chenab, and what will they do to those rivers and to the mountainous areas? That is perhaps a naïve question, as a much larger number of hydroelectric projects are being built or are proposed to be built on other rivers (the Sutlej, the Ganga, and the Brahmaputra system). Recent political developments clearly indicate that the government (I do not distinguish between the UPA and NDA here) shares the industry view that environmental concerns are a nuisance (I avoid the adjective that usually accompanies that noun). However, why should the government accept that nuisance and try to mitigate it by changing the Minister? The better answer would be to blaze a trail internationally by repealing the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

(The writer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.)
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Peace, not War, on the Indus - John Briscoe, The Hindu
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed by India and Pakistan in 1960, has recently been seen both as the one agreement that has worked between India and Pakistan and as an anachronism which should be dissolved or renegotiated. On December 20, 2013, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has issued a judgment which re-calibrates and modernises the IWT and, again makes it a critical and effective instrument in avoiding conflicts between India and Pakistan on use of the rivers of the Indus Basin.

It is first useful to reiterate the central elements of the treaty and the long-standing areas of contention. The IWT assigns use of the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) to India and use of the western rivers (Chenab, Jhelum and Indus) to Pakistan. The biggest sticking point in negotiating the treaty in the 1950s was the conditions under which India could use the hydro-electric potential of the Chenab and the Jhelum before the rivers reached Pakistan.

The principle incorporated into the IWT was that, indeed, India could develop this potential, but only under a set of well-defined limitations on the amount of manipulable storage which could be created by India in the process, thus assuring Pakistan that India would not have the ability to manipulate either the timing or the quantities of the flows reaching Pakistan.

In the 1990s, a difference arose about the Baglihar Dam being built by India on the Chenab. Pakistan claimed that low gates installed for flushing sediments violated the specifications of the treaty and endangered Pakistan’s water security because it gave India a capacity to manipulate the timing of flows into Pakistan.

Recipe for conflict

In 2005, a Neutral Expert was appointed to hear the case. His finding essentially said that new knowledge of sediment management technology meant that India had to be allowed to install low gates. His finding ignored the central balance — between India’s right to generate hydropower and Pakistan’s right to unmanipulated flows — in the IWT. Since India plans to build many other projects on the Chenab and Jhelum, if the Baglihar ruling established new ground rules, this would, essentially, give India a free hand to do whatever it liked, leaving Pakistan vulnerable in both perception and practice. This was a recipe for growing conflict and, eventually, even war over the Indus.

In 2010, Pakistan took a new case, that of the Kishenganga hydro-electric project on the Jhelum river, to the International Court of Arbitration. On December 20, 2013, the court issued its final judgment. The Kishenganga case comprised two elements — was India within its rights to build the project and was India able to insert low gates? On the first, limited and specific issue, the court interpreted the treaty literally and accurately and allowed India to proceed. This will somewhat limit the yield of a Pakistani hydropower project being built downstream, but it is not a systemic issue. The big and systemic issue was the second. Here, the court reinforced the hard constraints built into the IWT regarding the ability of India to embed manipulable storage into this and all future projects.

Convenience vs water security

The court pointed out that while it might be convenient for India to build low gates and practise sediment flushing, this was not the only way to manage sediments, and that convenience for India had to be balanced against the threat this would pose to Pakistan’s water security. The court explicitly stated that the Baglihar ruling did not constitute a precedent and implied that the Baglihar Neutral Expert had erred by not balancing engineering concerns with the diplomatic and security factors which were at the heart of the IWT.

The decision by the PCA means that India can, as laid out by the IWT, continue to develop much-needed hydropower projects on the Chenab and the Jhelum, but it must strictly respect the IWT-defined limits on manipulable storage, and must use methods other than the construction of low gates to flush silt. {This guy has not read the IWT}

The court also played close attention to an area which had been neglected in the original IWT, namely environmental flows (e-flows). {This has not been neglected in the IWT. It is what is called 'non-consumptive use'} The court mandated a small, constant release which was less than 10% of what Pakistan claimed to be necessary. Again, the court underlined the importance of balance. “Although the court considered this approach (to defining the e-flow) to be somewhat severe in environmental terms, the court concluded that [….] such an approach represents an appropriate balance between the needs of the environment and India’s right to power generation”. This principle of balance and reasonableness is particularly important because it is inevitable that Pakistan will ask that India release e-flows from the eastern rivers (especially the Ravi and the Sutlej) into areas of Pakistan which have suffered major environmental damage as India has diverted all flows to the east.

The bottom line is that the brilliant and balanced work of the PCA means a new dawn for water management in the Indus. Rumblings over “water wars on the Indus” should now dissipate, and, once again, relationships between India and Pakistan on the Indus should become stable and perhaps have a positive ripple effect on relatioins between the two countries.

(The writer has served as Senior Water Adviser for the World Bank in New Delhi)
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Lilo »

re: Ramaswamy iyer and John briscoe’ s artecals in Al-Hindu
Al-Hindu like other sham environmental crusaders (pun intended) seen in India, is eyeing a lot of potential rentseeking opportunities in mega projects like dams. They want to intermidiate on the public perception front - not as a neutral party but as one who gets “rent” for positive perception or witholding a projection of a negative one. So all these arranged gyrations for “environment’ sake ” in op-eds are its takleef at a huge business opportunity
Not too dissimilar to how world bank PCA is setting arbitrary e-flow criteria without any viable fixed formula (to be negotiated by IndoPak), similar is its ruling regarding drawdown flooding where some dam specific rule should have been fixed to guard against its arbitrary use by India, while allowing its use on predeclared dates during the lean season of the river’ s water regime.

Long term solutions should be found to reduce the role of turd parties like international courts or internationalistic newspapers.

Best course is for POK to be retaken atleast in bits and portions if not fully - wars need to be prosecuted and required modifications to IWT should be agreed to in a postwar bargaining.

For above to happen Pakis need to be crippled futher - more Islam is the failsafe way. In a future when SaudiBarbaria has run out of its Oil and our economy is three times the current level - with all the pure Islam swirling in their lands - pakis themselves will be clamouring for a war - then we can give them one.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

The tone of these articles is all wrong. low level flushing using the LLG is fully allowed under ALL circumstances. this is not allowed at Salal and the LLG was sealed permanentlly. This is what caused silt accumulationn. all options to clean were removed. the only thing not allowed is allowing the water to drop below the minimum sill? level. i.e. DDF. One can readily imagine a design change that allows silt agitation combined with opening of the LLG that slows the accumulation of silt to some manageable level. I have full confidence our engineers will find a solution to flush silt using the LLG without DDF. It is an unfortunate decision but still leaves India with many options…
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vipul »

Kishenganga: India may face 5 per cent power production shortfall annually.

India is likely to suffer a marginal shortfall in power production from the upcoming Kishenganga hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of the International Court of Arbitration's verdict to release fixed quantity of water to Pakistan.

The Hague-based Court had decided in December last year that India should release a minimum flow of nine cumecs (cubic metres per second) into Kishenganga river (known as Neelum river in Pakistan) for environmental reasons.

"This would affect power generation by five per cent annually," a source in the Ministry of Water Resources told PTI.

The project is designed to generate power by diverting water from a dam site on Kishenganga river to the Bonar Nallah, a tributary of Jhelum river, through a system of tunnels, with the water powering turbines having a capacity of 330 MW.

According to sources, releasing nine cumecs of water, as per orders, may come in the way of diverting water for generating power during the four "lean months", where water flow dips to a low.

While water flow is 1000 cumces during flood seasons and adequate from March to September, it falls to less than 30 cumces between November and February.

Water flow in these four months varies from 30 cumecs to four cumecs. With the court's direction, India cannot divert water for power production on days when the water flow drops to less than nine cumecs, the sources said.

In turn this would hit the production of 330 MW, with the losses estimated to be five per cent in a year.

In a major relief for India last year, the ICA rejected Pakistan's objections and upheld New Delhi's right to divert water from the Kishenganga river for power generation in Jammu and Kashmir.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

I am not too concerned about a small shortfall in production. I would rather not like KG to end up like Salal and Indian engineers have to soon find a practicable and reasonable sedimentation control method and implement it because that is going to be the way to do it in future projects too. At some point in time, in the future, we have to disguise the DSL issue in suitably couched reference terms and ask for a ruling from another ICA, just like how TSP did now.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Yes, we might need to do that some time in future. But LLG stays on KHEP. Only it will not be used for DDF.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by vic »

SSridhar wrote:I am not too concerned about a small shortfall in production. I would rather not like KG to end up like Salal and Indian engineers have to soon find a practicable and reasonable sedimentation control method and implement it because that is going to be the way to do it in future projects too. At some point in time, in the future, we have to disguise the DSL issue in suitably couched reference terms and ask for a ruling from another ICA, just like how TSP did now.
The decision went against us due to extremely suspicious and idiotic witness statement given by us, our own expert witness. In next round, we can present empirical- physical evidence that absence of draw down flushing is causing unforseen problems in operation of the dam and try to get decision reversed.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32286
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

vic wrote:
SSridhar wrote:I am not too concerned about a small shortfall in production. I would rather not like KG to end up like Salal and Indian engineers have to soon find a practicable and reasonable sedimentation control method and implement it because that is going to be the way to do it in future projects too. At some point in time, in the future, we have to disguise the DSL issue in suitably couched reference terms and ask for a ruling from another ICA, just like how TSP did now.
The decision went against us due to extremely suspicious and idiotic witness statement given by us, our own expert witness. In next round, we can present empirical- physical evidence that absence of draw down flushing is causing unforseen problems in operation of the dam and try to get decision reversed.
The pakis are capable of paying off any witnesses to cover their backsides.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by vic »

My feeling is that Munna permitted this concession indirectly
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Pakistani Seminar Reviews Kishenganga Award: Data on Hydroelectric Use and Agri Must to Establish Rightful Shares of Water Resources - DT

The conclusion seems to be that Pakistan had a decisive victory ! AoA.
Non-availability of national data complying international standards on usages of water resources was the most serious lacking on part of Pakistan while pursuing arbitration on the issues involved. {Data is not available because there is noagriculture going on in these areas using these waters, unless of course Pakistan fabricated data}

Pakistan could have secured better share of water in the final award in case of Kishanganga hydroelectric project (KHEP) if its plea was duly supported by required data of international standards, particularly vis-à-vis environment, hydro-electric usages and agriculture.

In that event, more than the awarded 9 cumecs (cubic meter per second) of flow could have been won by the country in its case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

This was a general consensus at a seminar at Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad, titled “Analyzing Kishanganga Award”, which was organised to critically review the recent verdict announced by Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project and its potential repercussions for Pakistan’s water security and interests.

The seminar was chaired by Mirza Hamid Hassan, member IPS-National Academic Council and former Secretary Water & Power. The speakers and panelists included Dr. Gregory L Morris, Pakistan’s technical expert in Kishanganga case, Ashfaq Mehmood, Former Federal Secretary, Water and Power, DG-IPS Khalid Rahman, Shamila Mahmood, Senior Consultant, Pakistan Trans-Boundary Water Organization, and Cdr. (R) Azhar Ahmad, Senior IPS Associate. It was attended by a number of experts, researchers, diplomats, journalists and concerned officials.

The experts were unanimous that as there was no further legal course available for next seven years – the period set by PCA when it can reconsider the Award on request of either Pakistan or India through Permanent Indus Commission and the mechanisms provided by the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) – the only way forward for the country was to build and plan water storage facilities on war footings and strengthen institutional capabilities, particularly in the field of world-class technical data collection on environment hydro-electric and agriculture usages, to establish its rightful share under the IWT.

Providing an historic overview of Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) case earlier, Shamila Mahmood, informed the participants that Pakistan acquired evidence of India’s plans to divert the Kishenganga/Neelum River for purpose of power generation in late 80s. Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Water (PCIW) requested that India provide information on the project on December 14 1988. Correspondence between the two Commissioners began and on May 12, 1989, the Indian Commissioner requested the Pakistani Commissioner to provide information on Pakistan’s agricultural and hydro-electric uses as Annexure E of the Treaty requires such storage works to be designed so as not to adversely affect the then existing agricultural or hydroelectric use. The Indian Commissioner also provided details of KHEP under Paragraph 12 of Annexure E to the Treaty on June 2, 1994.

She further told that the correspondence continued between the Commissioners and tours of inspection of the Neelum Valley were conducted in 1991 and 1996 the basis upon which the Indian Commissioner contended that Neelum-Jehlum Hydro-Electric Project was not an existing use as it was a proposed project only and there was little if any agricultural use in the valley. The matter was discussed at meetings of the Commission in 2004 and 2005 without settlement. On February 7, 2006, the PCIW informed the Indian Commissioner that in his view a dispute had arisen and provided a draft report to ICIW on March 26 2006 to be submitted to the respective governments. On April 20, 2006, the Indian Commissioner informed PCIW that KHEP had been re-configured as run-of-river plant falling under Article III(2)(d) and Annexure D and that proposal for reference of dispute would no longer be relevant. The PCIW informed ICIW of his objections to the reconfigured project which were rejected by the Indian Commissioner. Pakistan’s objections discussed in four meetings of the Commission from 2007 to June 2009 without agreement. Hence, on July 10, 2009, Pakistan invited India to resolve dispute by agreement. The arbitration proceedings commenced by Pakistan on May 17 2010.
The two main legal questions in the arbitration, according to speakers, were whether India’s proposed diversion of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another tributary, i.e. the Bonar-Madhmati Nallah, being one central element of the Kishenganga Plant, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the Treaty, as interpreted and applied in accordance with international law, including India’s obligations under Article III(2) (let flow all the waters of the Western Rivers and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV(6) (maintenance of natural channels); and whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river plant below dead storage level in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency.

The court’s analysis covered the territorial scope of the Treaty, the first dispute of the permissibility of delivering the waters of Kishanganga or Neelum River into another tributary through KHEP, and the second dispute of the permissibility of reservoir depletion under the Treaty.

Regarding the territorial issue, the seminar participants were informed that India had introduced the question of sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir contending that Pakistan had no right to invoke the Treaty for adverse impacts to power generation at the NJHEP as the project was not situated in Pakistan. The Court determined that the Treaty extended to uses of waters flowing through either Pakistan-administered or Indian-administered territory and Pakistan was entitled to invoke the Treaty to object to the KHEP.

The immediate benefit of this part of the judgment was that that earlier the international donor agencies were denying funding for projects in the disputed territory. This matter was taken up with the World Bank in the light of the Partial Award and the agency was now willing to extend funding for Diamer-Basha dam, which was previously refused.

On the first question, i.e. India’s planned diversion, the Court determined that “where a Plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural use or hydro-electric 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 hydro-electric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would not be adversely affected”.

Having taken into consideration a number of factors such as tenders, financing secured, government approvals, construction underway, etc, the Court found that India’s right to construct and operate the KHEP became vested during the period 2004-2006. Unfortunately, at that time Pakistan had no hydroelectric uses on the Neelum River. The Court also noted that India changed the design from a storage work under Annexure E to a run-of-river project under Annexure D on Pakistan’s objections.

On the second dispute, the judgment established that except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the Treaty does not permit reduction below dead storage level of the water level in the reservoirs of run-of- river plants on the Western Rivers. The accumulation of sediment in the reservoir of a run-of-river plant on the Western Rivers does not constitute an unforeseen emergency that would permit the depletion of the reservoir below Dead Storage Level for drawdown flushing purposes. Accordingly, India may not employ drawdown flushing at the reservoir of the Kishanganga Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP) to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level.

Highlighting the significance of the determination of the second dispute, the experts said that it sets aside the Neutral Experts (NE) decision in the Baglihar case which had, in effect, rewritten the Treaty without opening it up for renegotiation between the Parties. It may be mentioned that the NE’s decision allowed India control of flows by eliminating the live storage limitation set by the Treaty.

The judgment restores a tenet that was fundamental to Pakistan; without which Pakistan would not have agreed to the Treaty, i.e. India does not have control or the ability to manipulate flows that were to be received by Pakistan. Stringent design and operational restrictions were delineated in the Treaty to ensure against the decrease of flow or change in timing of the flow, critical for agriculture uses.

The experts appreciated the international arbitration and hoped that both India and Pakistan will continue to solve their bilateral approach through dialogues and mediation in relevant international fora.
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8441
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Post by Peregrine »

63% work completed on Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project

ISLAMABAD : Around 63 percent work has already been completed on the ongoing 969 MW Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project and all out efforts are being made to complete it before its schedule time 2016 as directed by the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Official sources told APP here that work on the project was being carried out in full swing and upon completion, Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project would contribute 5.15 billion units of cheap electricity to the national grid.

The annual benefits accruing from the project have been estimated at Rs.45 billion, they added.

Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHEP) is located in the vicinity Muzaffarabad.
It envisages the diversion of Neelum River water through a tunnel out-falling into Jhelum River. The intake Neelum-Jhelum is at Nauseri 41km east of Muzaffarabad and has installed capacity of 969 MW.

The sources said the project was an important project for generation of low-cost and the government was exploring all possible avenues to solve the energy crisis under the leadership of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.

The government is also focusing on optimum development of renewable sources of energy particularly hydel, coal, wind, solar and biomass. They said that the government was not only launching new projects in the hydropower sector but also taking steps to expedite the construction work on the ongoing projects.

The sources said that WAPDA was working on a three-pronged strategy to harness the hydropower potential in the country under the directions of the federal government.

They said that the country possessed an identified potential of more than 60,000 MW of hydropower generation, adding that the phased induction of this potential would even out the energy mix, lower power tariff and provide relief to the common man.

He said that the government wanted to start Diamer Basha Dam and Dasu Hydropower Project simultaneously and together with Bunji Hydropower Project, these projects would add a total of 15,000 MW of cheap and environment-friendly electricity to the national grid.

Cheers Image
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Climate change may lead India to war: UN report
Vishwa Mohan,TNN | Apr 1, 2014, 01.35 AM IST


IPCC warnings of Armed conflict due to climate change closely echoes dire warnings of water wars over India stealing water of Pakistani rivers and depriving poor Jeehardis of their due share. Shades of Fai inspired writing could be seen. The full IPCC report is here.. One thing is clear Paki idea of Water war is gaining credence in international fora and seen one of the many ways by which International intervention could be achieved in what essentially a bilateral issue. Adherence to IWT is simply not enough if the total divisible share of water reduces and population increases and per capita availability of water reduces. If countries in Indus basin becomes water stressed then there is need for water management to be carried out in scientific manner. It is well established that Pakistan is wasting about 40% of its water on poor agricultural practices and has failed to build dams for proper management of water. Instead of doing that it takes the easy way out of blaming India . Such reports lend credibility to romantic notion of Pakistan being at the receiving end of injustices perpetrated by its Powerful nation.
It also opens up that little gap through which US or its proxy UN can again indulge in mediation . Clearly this idea will lead to Joint watershed management of IWT. In past IPCC panel has been accused of making reports on fudged data to suit its preconceived conclusions, an academic crime. How far its data are reliable is a moot question notwithstanding that an Indian is heading the agency which might create the fog of neutrality. We have seen how intellectual Indians have been compromised by ISI inspired and funded FAI to seed the ideas which have its origin in Pakistan and its ill designs towards India. Therefore it is necessary that this report be studies by Indian scholars and debunked where it tries to predict regional conflict over water resources.

NEW DELHI: Asia is facing the brunt of climate change and will see severe stress on water resources and food-grain production in the future, increasing the risk of armed conflict among India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China, the latest report of a UN panel has warned.

UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its report assessing impacts of climate change on human health, settlements and natural resources released on Monday, carried a dire warning. "The worst is yet to come," it said, if no measures are taken to curb the ill-effects of global warming.

India, like other developing economies, may lose up to 1.7% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if the annual mean temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrialization level, hitting the poor the most.
...
....

Among other things, the report warns that climate change increases the risk of armed conflict around the world because it worsens poverty and economic shocks.


"Climate change is already becoming a determining factor in the national security policies of states", said a statement issued by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which has been working to arrive at a global climate deal by 2015 to fight the menace effectively through combined efforts of nations.

Though the report doesn't have country-specific predictions, its region-wise findings brought out many eye-opening conclusions for India.

Aromar Revi, lead author of one of the chapters of this report, said the impacts of climate change would be felt severely in Indo-Gangetic plains, affecting poor people in the entire region. "The areas which are facing frequent floods these days may face drought like situation in the distant or near future. We cannot ignore the changes which are taking place either in the Indus river basin or in Brahmputra river system over the longer period," said Revi, explaining the implications of the report in Delhi.

Another lead author, Surender Kumar, explained how climate change would affect the poorer nations. He said if mean temperatures increased beyond 1 degree C, it would knock 3% off the GDP of developing economies.
Key messages from IPCC report

* Coming years will see more extreme weather events (floods, cyclones, cloud bursts, unseasonal excessive rains and drought etc) in most parts of the globe

* Maldives, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will be among the most affected countries in Asia

* Severe stress on fresh water resources in South Asia and China (Himalayan river basins) may become a reason for armed conflict in the region by middle of the 21st century

* Climate change may be a determining factor in national security policies

* Coastal flooding will not only kill people and cause destruction, it will also affect tourism in India (like in Goa and Kerala)

* Decline in foodgrain production (wheat in India/Pakistan and wheat and maize in China)

* Big coastal cites like Mumbai and Kolkata will be affected by sea-level rise in 21st century

* Some fish and other marine animals will face extinction by 2050, affecting fishing community

* In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality

* Glaciers (including Himalayan) continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change, affecting run-off and water resources downstream

* Climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist.

An alternate view is found here

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science
Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8441
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Post by Peregrine »

SSridhar Ji :

This is the first Article from a Pakistani writer not blaming India for Pakistan’s Water Shortages – What gives?

From water scarcity to surplus

The issue of increasing water scarcity in the country is being raised frequently. With deficit irrigation in agriculture, urban water shortages and inadequate access to safe drinking water in rural areas, the challenges seem daunting and complex. These issues, however, are largely solvable. Many countries around the globe, such as Australia, Singapore and South Africa, have far less per capita freshwater availability than Pakistan. Yet, they have shown that water needs can be addressed through progressive policies, sound management and modern technologies.

In Pakistan, the water sector — once the proud custodian of engineering marvels of large dams and canals — needs an injection of new spirit and a sense of purpose. Currently, crop yields have stagnated, electricity production is inadequate and the Indus basin ecosystem and environment is stressed due to reduced water flows, overuse of nitrogenous fertilisers and toxic chemicals from industrial and urban waste.

The Indus river system should be viewed not simply as a lifeline in this largely arid country, but as a ladder for inclusive socioeconomic growth. Currently, water is a vastly underexploited and over-abused resource in the country — its full economic potential is largely untapped while it is stressed with pollution and unsustainable over-abstraction. A federal policy must lay out an enforceable and equitable legal framework. The 1991 interprovincial water accord must now be refined, including the possibility of interprovincial trading. This may allow for greater equity. For instance, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan (that are often unable to use their allocated water share due to lack of infrastructure) may benefit by selling their unused shares to the other provinces.

At the provincial level, authorities should boldly explore new possibilities that break free from historical legacies and harness their unique local geography and hydrology. Punjab, with its flat, fertile plains, has a natural advantage for establishing a large-scale, modern, efficient agricultural enterprise that feeds the nation and supplies industries with critical raw materials for manufacturing high-value exports.

Sindh — generously endowed with the Indus delta — hosts a large, untapped potential for fisheries and related processing industries. It can embark on an agenda to save water in its low-performing agriculture sector through efficient irrigation technologies and use the water savings from agriculture to supply and reinvigorate the dying delta. New life to the Indus delta, that creates productive estuarine fisheries, can transform the conditions of the local poor and impoverished.

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit-Baltistan — with high altitude topographies that make canal-based irrigation infeasible — are naturally endowed with forests (now severely threatened by uncontrolled logging). The authorities could consider using hydropower (and potentially interprovincial water trading) earnings to rejuvenate the forest lands and develop a well-managed timber industry and controlled eco-tourism in the alpine slopes.

At the municipal level, water shortages in piped networks should no longer be acceptable.
With over $100 billion cubic metres of fresh water coursing through the surface water channels of the country, urban residents should not be resigned to a fate of daily water scarcity. A new future of water security will take shape with courageous leadership, rule of law and in concert with policies of social welfare, economic development and scientific progress. With political commitment, efficient management and new technologies, Pakistan’s water balance can tilt from scarcity to surplus.

Cheers Image
Post Reply