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.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

The Bursar project is located on a tributary of the river Chenab, Marusudar which is one of the major right bank tributary of river Chenab, not on the main Chenab river itself. Apparently, Bursar project is located a few Kms upstream of the Pakal-Dul (1000MW) project. From the IWT (Paragraph 7, Annexure E),

The aggregate storage capacity of all Single-purpose and Multi-purpose Reservoirs which may be constructed by India after the Effective Date on each of the River Systems specified in Column (2) of the following table shall not exceed, for each of the categories shown in Columns (3), (4) and (5), the quantities specified therein

Code: Select all

                                                           Conservation Storage Capacity

     River System                                General Storage     Power Storage      Flood Storage
                                                    Capacity (3)       Capacity (4)      Capacity (5)
                                                            (All figures in million-acre feet)

(a) The Indus                                           0.25             0.15               Nil
(b) The Jhelum (excluding the Jhelum Main)              0.50             0.25               0.75
(c) The Jhelum Main                                     Nil              Nil                As provided in    Paragraph 9
(d) The Chenab (excluding the Chenab Main)              0.50             0.60               Nil
(e) The Chenab Main                                     Nil              0.60               Nil

Provided that,

(i) the storage specified in Column (3) above may be used for any purpose whatever including the generation of electric energy;

(ii) the storage specified in Column (4) above may also be put to Non-Consumptive Use (other than flood protection or flood control) or to Domestic Use;

(iii) India shall have the option to increase the Power Storage Capacity specified against item (d) above by making a reduction by an equal amount in the Power Storage Capacity specified against items (b) or (e) above; and
Theoretically, this project can have a storage capacity of 1.1 million acre-feet though that would mean that India cannot build any other project on any other tributary of the Chenab. I do not think, therefore, that India would build such a capacity at Bursar.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

From here,
The Bursar Hydroelectric Project is a storage project in which the flow of water can be regulated not only to the benefit of this project but all downstream projects i.e. Pakal Dul, Dul Hasti, Rattle, Baglihar, Sawalkot and Salal Hydroelectric Projects, thereby enhancing the potential of all downstream schemes. The dam site is located near village Hanzal on river Marusudar which is one of the major right bank tributary of river Chenab. The storage provided is intented to be used for additional power generation during lean flow months and releasing regulated flow in the downstream.
This is thus a very important project for India. This will also benefit Pakistan just as Tulbul Navigation Lock project would do the same by regulating flows in lean months. Pakistan does not want to see benefits.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

saip wrote:There is rejoinder to Mr Zutshi letter that appeared in Dawn on July 11 from a so called 'technical expert'
Moreover, the treaty allows India to build run-of-the-river hydropower plants. How could it count a project with 840 feet high Bursar Dam as run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant?
Link

What is he talking about? I thought run-of-the-river meant we cant consume water but can use it for power generation. How else can we generate power without building a dam and does it make a difference if the height is 640' or 840'?
The Indian consul has given an accurate and befitting reply. I especially liked this: "The IWT is not a unilateral imposition . . ." This is how Pakistan thinks IWT should be interpreted today to the exclusive benefit of the lower riparian state. It simply thinks that the only duty of an upper riparian is to let all the waters flow without enjoying any rights whatsoever. This is the usual tendency of Pakistan, it inks a treaty but interprets it in a way completely violating the letter and spirit of the treaty. Like its claims of non-demarcation in Kargil in 1999 or its misrepresentation of the Karachi Agreement of 1949 regarding Siachen.

This 'technical expert' who wrote in DAWN must know that India, within certain limits, can also build a storage dam on the so-called Western Rivers, not only run-of-river hydroelectric projects. Pakistan can question India if the limits are exceeded or the provisions of the Treaty are violated. The Permanent Indus Commissioner of Pakistan visits India frequently and he can even demand access to the work site, if needed.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Pakistan: water on the boil again Ramaswamy Iyer, The Hindu
The ‘water issue' between India and Pakistan, which has been relatively quiescent for a while, is becoming prominent once again. A year ago, one could have said that there is no water issue because water-sharing on the Indus stands settled by the Indus Treaty 1960, but that argument does not work now. Water has become an ‘issue' because Pakistan has made it one. This article will not speculate on why and how this has come about. The important point is that water has the potential of becoming a new ‘core issue' of even greater prominence than Kashmir, and calls for urgent attention.

The points that are repeatedly made in Pakistan are the following:

(1) India is storing or diverting waters to the detriment of Pakistan. (In stronger language this becomes: “India is stealing Pakistan's water”.)

(2) The water scarcity in Pakistan is caused (or partly caused) by Indian action.

(3) The flows in the western rivers have diminished over the years, and India, as the upper riparian, must bear the responsibility for this.

(4) India is misusing the provisions of the Indus Treaty. Every Indian project on the western rivers is a violation of the Indus Treaty.

(5) The Neutral Expert in the Baglihar case misinterpreted the Treaty and weakened the protection that Pakistan had under the Treaty.

(6) As if this were not enough, India deliberately caused harm to Pakistan in the initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir by the timing of the filling and by failing to maintain the prescribed minimum flow at Merala.

(7) Even if each project conforms to the provisions of the Treaty, the cumulative impact of the large number of projects that India proposes to construct will be huge and will cause great harm to Pakistan.

(8) Environmental concerns did not figure at all in the Indus Treaty but must now be taken into account.

(9) A wholly new development is climate change and the impact that it will have on water. This needs to be discussed between the two countries.

It is easy enough to dismiss most of the points listed above, barring the last two, as errors or misperceptions. However, that kind of summary dismissal of Pakistani concerns is not enough; something more needs to be said on those points.

(i) Storage/Diversion : So far as one knows, India has not built any storage, not even the 3.6 MAF permitted by the Treaty, nor does it intend to cause harm to Pakistan by diverting Indus waters. In any case, there is such a thing as the Permanent Indus Commission. How can India store or divert waters to the detriment of Pakistan under the watchful eyes of the Indus Commissioner for Pakistan?

(ii) Water scarcity in Pakistan : It is clear enough from (i) above that India has nothing to do with this.

(iii) Reduced flows in the western rivers : Assuming that this is the case, it does not follow that the responsibility for it can be laid on India. What needs to be done is to institute a joint study by Pakistani and Indian experts to establish that there is a declining trend in flows and to ascertain the factors responsible.

(iv) Violations of the provisions of the Indus Treaty by India; every Indian project a violation of the Treaty: This is simply not true. The Treaty envisages and permits Indian projects on the western rivers, and so the projects in themselves cannot be violations of the Treaty. They can be violations of the Treaty if they deviate from certain restrictive provisions, but that will be questioned by the Indus Commissioner for Pakistan. The questions may be resolved within the Commission, or become differences and get referred to a Neutral Expert (as happened in the Baglihar case), or may be in the nature of disputes to be referred to a Court of Arbitration (as has now happened in the Kishenganga case). Where then is the question of violation of the Treaty?

(v) Misuse of the Treaty : A recent article in the Pakistani media is headed ‘Misusing the Indus Treaty.' India might argue that it is only using and not misusing the Treaty, and that it is Pakistan that is misusing the Treaty to block every Indian project on the western rivers. Leaving that aside, the point is that Pakistan is fundamentally unreconciled to the permissive provisions of the Treaty that enable India to construct hydroelectric projects on the western rivers. However, the Treaty exists and both India and Pakistan are signatories to it. Pakistan has accepted the permissive provisions and India has accepted the restrictive provisions.

(vi) Baglihar; Neutral Expert blamed : The NE is accused of ‘re-interpreting' the Treaty and weakening the protection to Pakistan. When Pakistan talks about ‘reinterpretation' it has three things in mind. First, the NE took the view that the 1960 Treaty does not bind India to 1960 technology and that India could use state-of-the-art technology; it is difficult to see how that view can be questioned. Secondly, he gave importance to techno-economic soundness and satisfactory operation; again, it is difficult to see how this can be objected to, and moreover, the Treaty itself repeatedly qualifies its conditions by the proviso “consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operation”; those words cannot be ignored. Thirdly, the NE stressed the importance of periodical flushing of the reservoir to get rid of sediment. This is what has caused the greatest anxiety to Pakistan because it seemed to weaken the protection against possible flooding. It is difficult to see how an expert engineer could have held that flushing was not necessary and that rapid silting-up must be accepted. However, there is no need to discuss this as the issue has been raised before the Court of Arbitration in the Kishenganga case.

(vii) Initial filling of the Baglihar reservoir : The myth that India deliberately filled the Baglihar reservoir in such a manner as to cause maximum harm to Pakistan refuses to die down despite repeated explanations. The filling was completed well within the prescribed period; there was no deviation in that respect. The shortfall with reference to the prescribed minimum flow at Merala (of which there are different estimates by India and Pakistan, and no jointly observed figure) was only for a few hours — less than a day — and could not possibly have caused serious harm. There was indeed a lapse but a minor one, and definitely not a planned one. However, this became a major issue, and even though it has been closed by the Indus Commissioners, it continues to figure in articles in the media.

(viii) Cumulative impact of many projects : Opinion is divided on the question whether the cumulative impact of a number of projects, each conforming to the provisions of the Treaty, could be greater than the sum of the impacts of individual projects. This is a concern that needs to be taken seriously and should be jointly studied.

(ix) Environmental concerns, Climate Change : These are post-Treaty developments and call for urgent inter-country consultations, not only at the governmental level but also at academic and expert levels.

The above analysis shows that while a number of misperceptions need to be dispelled, joint studies are needed on (a) the reported reduction of flows in the western rivers and the factors responsible, and (b) the cumulative impact of a large number of projects on the western rivers. Inter-country consultations and research are also called for on environmental concerns and on the impacts of climate change.

However, that is not enough. Right or wrong, certain misperceptions on water persist and are widespread in Pakistan. This has serious implications for India-Pakistan relations and for peace on the subcontinent. Persistent efforts are needed at both official and non-official levels to remove misperceptions and to reassure the people of Pakistan that their anxieties are uncalled for.
Theo_Fidel

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Theo_Fidel »

Meanwhile here is a picture of the Kishan Ganga TBM. Delivered to site May 2010. Already chewing through the earth at 20m-30m per day. Note India flag on face.

Image

http://www.tunneltalk.com/Company-News- ... ersary.php
Italian tunnelling specialist SELI has celebrated its 60th Anniversary by manufacturing a 400-ton, 6.18m diameter DSU TBM painted gold, for the Kishanganga tunnel project in India. The gilded machine was delivered to the main contractor HCC (Hindustan Construction Company) today during an official ceremony at the company’s factory in Aprilia. The DSU TBM will bore 700-1000m under the Himalayas, crossing critical geological conditions of localised poor and squeezing rock as well of fault zones.The TBM has been specially designed to cope with the ground conditions and improve them through extensive pre-treatment works.

The TBM, is equipped with 8 no. AC motors of 315 kW each, generating a total cutterhead power of 2520kW, controlled by a VFD system. Main and auxiliary thrust have also been over-specified.

The TBM will have high conicity, to cope with squeezing rock, and the shields are equipped with a special bentonite injection system to lubricate the shield in contact with the rock to reduce shield friction. Overboring and overcutting facilities will create further increases in the clearance around the shields in bad rock conditions under high cover.

The gripper shield is equipped with 26 holes for probe drilling/grouting the rock ahead of the face, while the tail shield is equipped with an additional 8 holes.

Convergence measurements will be performed continuously during excavation through specific holes in the front shield.
SDRE team in charge.

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

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Thanks Theo, its a beauty.I hope it causes enough heartburn in lurkers here.

It can be used to fruitfully employ RajeshA's various ideas regarding linking of western rivers and eastern rivers.,may be UG missile silos as well.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Here is some update on Hunza situation. Analysis by Prof Dave in his blog.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Can Attabad fail?

A number of commenters here have suggested that the structure of the dam is such that it cannot now fail due to the presence of the large boulders. So I thought I'd write a short post exploring whether this is actually the case. I believe that it can still fail, and indeed that eventually it probably will, but I have no idea as to the likely time-frame. The reasons that I believe that a failure is still highly possible are as follows:


1. This is a landscape littered with large landslide scars
In the Attabad area alone Shroder (1998) identified six previous very large landslides:

"Multiple overlapping rockslides have repeatedly thundered into the Hunza River near Atabad, several with serious and destructive consequences. The six slope failures of interest here are: (1) older Serat rockslide; (2) younger Seratrockslide; (3) Ghammessar slope failure and lake; (4) Ghammessar breakout flood and retrogressive slump failure; (5) 1962 Ghammessar rockslide and lake; and (6) 1991 Sulmanabad rockfall."

Both upstream and downstream this pattern is repeated - there are literally hundreds of large rockslide scars in this landscape, many of which will have blocked the valley in a similar way to Attabad.

So how many landslide dams are left? There are fragments and remains of them in many locations, but there are very few intact landslide dams. This suggests that most such valley blockages eventually fail, although not necessarily rapidly. There are no real grounds at this stage to assume that the dam at Attabad is exceptional.

2. We are still some way from peak flow
The data from David Archer that I presented in an earlier post suggests that we are probably three weeks or so from the peak flow, which may well be 30-50% greater than at present. Whilst there are grounds for optimism that the structure may survive such flows, it is far from certain that this will be the case.

3. Landslides into the lake are a real threat
Landslides continue to occur on the walls of the valley. A large slide still has the potential to create a wave that could trigger a rapid collapse. This threat has not diminished. We believe that this was the failure mode for the 1858 landslide dam just downstream at Salmanabad. There is a need for proper assessment of this threat before one could sound the all-clear. I hope that NDMA are on the case.

4. The dam is still losing volume
Images of the downstream area of the river show that the water is still carrying a substantial amount of sediment, as this Pamir Times image from a week or so ago shows
The loss of volume implies that the dam is weakening with time, but it is not clear how fast or where. Nonetheless, until this ceases the potential for failure remains.

5. This is a river with GLOFs
GLOFs are glacial lake outburst floods, which are flash floods created by the collapse of lakes dammed by glaciers or moraines high in the mountains. GLOFs create short duration, very large magnitude floods. The Hunza suffers GLOFs on a regular basis. Such an event would lead to a greatly increased flow rate over the spillway, threatening its stability.


6. Earthquakes
This is an area of high seismic hazard. A substantial earthquake would threaten the dam in a number of ways. First, the dam itself could undergo slope failure and collapse. Second, the earthquake could create a seiche (standing waves) in the lake that could overtop the dam, inducing failure. Third, an earthquake could trigger further slope failures into the lake, causing waves. The likelihood of an earthquake is low, but the consequences could be very serious.

Please do not believe that the boulders rule out the possibility of the release of the lake. This is not the case, despite their size. If the flow velocity and volume is sufficiently high then this dam can still fail. Unfortunately it is impossible to say when and how this might occur, or how rapidly such an event might develop. The chances of a very rapid failure are comparatively low, but are not negligible by any means
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Chinese firm signals interest in Diamar-Bhasha dam in POK
Officials from China's biggest State-run hydropower firm on Monday signalled interest in supporting the construction of a major $12 billion dam project in the Gilgit-Baltistan region in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), even as Pakistan called on China to step up support to hydropower and civilian nuclear energy projects in the country.

Officials from Sinohydro, a State-owned hydropower firm, discussed proposals for the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha dam in PoK with the visiting Pakistan Federal Minister for Water and Power, Syed Naveed Qamar, on Monday, according to a statement from the Pakistan Embassy in Beijing.

Mr. Qamar also invited Sinohydro's support for the construction of two other dams, the Gomal Zam and Darawat projects, in talks with the company's chairman Huang Baodong.

China's Gezhouba hydropower group has also signed a deal to work on the Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project, also in PoK.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Why Indian Newspapers are averse to cover proceedings of COA on Kishanganga Dispute? I can't fathom any reason.
Anyway, here is the news.

Stephen Myron Schwebel, an American jurist, recently became the first outsider in 64 years to cross the Line of Control (LoC
Schwebel headed an International Court of Arbitration (COA) team that the United Nations has appointed to settle a "dispute" between India and Pakistan over the 330MW Kishanganga hydro-power project, being built by India in its part of Kashmir over the Kishanganga River.
The visit to the Kishanganga project site by the COA was part of efforts to resolve the dispute amicably. Besides holding a detailed review meeting about the project, the team also inspected the power house, the head race tunnel, the storage facility, the ventilation tunnel and the pressure shaft of the project. The media was barred from covering the event. "The team had a packed four-day visit," said Manzoor Ahmad Lone, the deputy commissioner, Bandipora district. "Since their visit was exclusively inspective in nature, they did not interact with anyone here."

Meanwhile, in their efforts to outrace each other in project construction, both have speeded up work. Pakistan's efforts have been supplemented by Chinese help — their project is constructed by a Chinese consortium. On the Indian side, engineering firms from the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany are working overtime to complete the project.

By-Haroon Mirani, who is a writer based in Srinagar, India.


Here is the proceedings of Arbitration Court issued by PCA
THE HAGUE, June 22, 2011
A Court of Arbitration constituted pursuant to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 has completed a weeklong site visit of the Neelum-Jhelum and Kishenganga hydroelectric projects and surrounding areas located on the river Kishenganga/Neelum. Arriving first in Islamabad on June 15, from June 16-17, the Court visited the Neelum Valley by helicopter and inspected components of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (located some 40 kilometers east of Muzaffarabad). The Court then crossed the line of control at Chakothi/Aman Setu on June 17 and proceeded to Srinagar. From June 18-19, the Court inspected components of the Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project, located in the Gurez valley and the area near Bandipura north of Wular Lake. The Court then departed from India by way of New Delhi on June 20-21, 2011.
Photo of members visiting KG Site.
Image

Visit here for update
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

‘Controversial project: Indian version’
THIS refers to the letter ‘India and Indus Water Treaty’ by Bashir A. Malik, in response to the Indian High Commission’s Islamabad spokesperson Siddharth Zutshi’s letter ‘Controversial project: Indian version’.

Pakistan’s anxieties as the lower riparian are understandable; even with a ‘water-tight’ treaty in place, there will always be apprehensions that this treaty could be violated, but Mr Malik’s assertion that “scores of Indian dams” are already in “flagrant breach of the treaty” is incorrect. Pakistan’s apprehensions regarding shared waters should be addressed by all means but on the basis of fact and reason, not emotions and misconceptions.

It is important to note that all the dams currently built on the western rivers are run-of the river dams which India is permitted to build under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) and this fact was conceded to by Mr Malik himself at the end of his letter.

When there is a point of difference or dispute, it has followed the institutional framework stipulated in the IWT.

This was the case with the Baglihar Dam, the Wullar Barrage or Tulbul Navigational Lock and it is the case with the Kishanganga Dam.

Other dams also undergo a rigorous process of discussion between Indian and Pakistani officials in the Indus Water Commission. Not every project reaches the stage of ‘Dispute’ or ‘Arbitration’.

At times the problems are resolved within the Indus Commission itself.

The Indian government has not confirmed the design of the Bursar project and it has stated that it will give Pakistan six months notice before it starts construction as stipulated under the IWT.

Once it does, The Bursar Dam will no doubt undergo the same level of scrutiny from Indian, Pakistani and even international quarters if need be.

Low water supply in Pakistan is more a product of water conveyance losses, unequal distribution, salinization, pollution, poor demand management and climate change than it is a consequence of Indian damming — problems faced by many countries around the world, including India.

Water is actually one of the more manageable issues between India and Pakistan and can even be used as a stepping stone in the dialogue process, but incendiary rhetoric can set otherwise amicable discussions off-colour and can cause unnecessary animosity between the two neighbours.

It is not enough that the governments of Pakistan and India understand the facts about their shared water situation.

Popular opinion in both countries should also share a transparent and objective ‘water narrative’.

GITANJALI BAKSHI
Author, ‘Indus Equation’ &
Coordinator, South Asia
Security Unit Strategic
Foresight Group
Mumbai
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Can India and Pakistan overcome decades of mistrust to save the Indus Waters Treaty?
By Jonathan Mingle
Talib predicts that ongoing talks between India and Pakistan will ultimately result in "a kind of joint collaborative approach to the basin's management." This might take the form of a new successor agreement to the IWT, as some analysts call for. A more likely scenario than total renegotiation, according to Talib, would be India and Pakistan signing an "extension agreement." In this event, the countries would extend the IWT in a separate, complementary treaty to include joint planning and oversight in the early stages of infrastructure projects on the six rivers—even across Kashmir's militarized Line of Control.

This vision echoes a proposal Lilienthal floated sixty years ago. "The whole Indus system must be … designed, built and operated as a unit," Lilienthal argued, to benefit both India and Pakistan optimally. This objective, he insisted, "cannot be achieved by the countries working separately; the river pays no attention to partition."

Can the logic of enlightened self-interest—that is, a joint-management approach to the Indus waters—trump decades of mutual distrust?
A recurring theme with Western Anal-ysts. Joint Management of Indus Basin, probably with International oversight. The real problem is overlooked i.e. wasting water allotted to Pakistan and issues raised by Gitanjali above and well discussed here on BRF. Hold Pakistan responsible for efficient management of the water it receives or allow India to flow only as much water as Pakistan can use without wasting it. The treaty needs renegotiation to allow for equitable distribution of water in the Indus System. There is no case for pakistan to take 80% and waste 40% of it while seeking to deprive India of use of waters.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

The coming tide I -Saima Raza
The 1,800 mile Indus River basin, home to over 95 percent of the population and thereby the country’s lifeline, remains a source of contention between Pakistan and neighbouring India. The river is of fundamental strategic importance and is regulated by the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 whereby Pakistan has control of the western rivers and India has control of the eastern. The conflict-resources nexus has been widely discussed in academia and is gaining further prominence still. The availability of water is becoming uncertain, with climate change set to aggravate the issue; water is often addressed as ‘blue gold’ or the new oil and is now a commodity as opposed to a public good. Water has gained a strategic status where political rivalries and access to water have come to the fore of the debate. According to the website Global Policy, there are 300 potential conflicts over water, in some instances conflicts are already brewing. Pakistan can ill afford to be embroiled in a water dispute with a rival and upcoming international power; instead the country needs to focus its efforts on improving its internal socio-political infrastructure and implement proposals to sustain and conserve its ecosystem. The dams affiliated with the Indus facilitate crop production of necessities such as cotton and wheat. Furthermore, they are used to generate hydel electricity. Pakistan urgently needs to invest in diligent water management policies concerning the Indus, especially given that excess levels of pollution are increasingly being discovered in the river, which, in turn, will affect fresh water supplies leading to potentially perilous levels of scarcity. Water projects need to be managed vigilantly as more often than not they lead to the displacement of populations that must abandon their livelihoods and homes; this is not progressive development and will only exacerbate the social dilemmas Pakistan faces. Accusations of overdrawing and building dams that affect the equitable allocation of water flow abound. The Indus is a precious resource and indispensable to Pakistan’s functionality. It is by no means infinite and should not be treated as such.

(To be continued)
Anybody in Pakistan, will you listen to your own.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32286
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chetak »

Even the locals are getting tired of the constant poisonous rhetoric


Pak objections to Kishanganga projects fails to cut ice in J&K
Published: Monday, Aug 15, 2011, 18:26 IST
By Ishfaq-ul-Hassan | Place: Srinagar | Agency: DNA

Jammu and Kashmir government on Monday said Pakistani objection will not hamper the work on the 330 megawatt Kishanganga power project in Gurez area of Bandipora district in north Kashmir.

“We fail to understand what Pakistan is up to. Last month a team of Indian and Pakistani Indus water commission had visited along with the court of arbitration. They inspected the project thoroughly to prepare a report”, said Basharat Ahmad Dhar, power commissioner J&K.

The Rs. 3642.04 Crores project is scheduled to be completed by 2015. The work on this project had started in 1992 but due to financial problems it had to stop for some time. But now the work is going on this project without any hassles.

“Work is going-on on the project without any hassles. Pakistan had knocked at the doors of World Bank for Baghlar power project as well but it could not stop the work on the project”, said Dhar

Constructed by the National Hydel Power Corporation (NHPC) at Gurez, close to LoC, the 330 MW Kishanganga hydro electric project has remained dogged in controversies. Pakistan wanted it should not come up, the militancy added to the indecision of the authorities here and worst it was fiercely opposed by a unique tribe whose survival and that of their equally awesome sanctuary was at stake.

Located on river Kishanganga, a tributary of river Jhelum, the project according to NHPC, involves construction of a 37m high concrete faced rock fill dam and a underground powerhouse.

“A maximum gross head of 697 m is proposed to be utilized to generate 1350 Million units of energy, in a 90% dependable year with an installed capacity of 3x110 MW”, the NHPC postings on its website said.

Pakistan believes that the project would divert the water of the Jhelum River, which they say is violation of Indus Water Treaty.

Under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty, New Delhi has given up its claim about water usage of three western rivers - Jhelum, Chenab and Indus (all flowing from Jammu and Kashmir) to Pakistan in lieu of three eastern rivers - Satluj, Beas and Ravi. The treaty prevents the storage of the water otherwise owned by the state.

“The project does not violate any clause of the Indus Water Treaty. We are only using 10 per cent of the water for the Kishanganga project and it does not violate the treaty”, said a top official involved with the project construction
BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1587
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by BijuShet »

From The News (posting in full).
Pakistan moves CoA for stay on Kishenganga project
Khalid Mustafa
Monday, August 15, 2011
Islamabad

In a belated but a sane development, Pakistan has filed a petition in the Court of Arbitration (CoA) seeking an order to ask India to put on hold the ongoing construction on controversial Kishenganga project till the final decision of the court, top man of the Ministry of Water and Power told The News.

“To this effect, a seven-member Pakistan delegation headed by Mr Kamal Majidullah, Special Assistant to Prime Minister and comprising Mr Khalil Ahmad, Ambassador at large, Ms Shamila Mahmood legal consultant, Sheraz Jamil Memon, Commissioner of Pakistan’s Commission of Indus Water, and some officials of NesPak will attend the hearing of the CoA at Hague on August 25 where in Indian side would also turn up to defend the continuation of the construction work on Kishenganga project.”

Mr Kamal Majiullah will lead the delegation as Pakistan’s agent in the ongoing legal battle against India on the controversial project. Mr Khalil Ahmad, Ambassador at large is also the co-agent of Pakistan in the case.

However, the delegation will arrive at London first where it would hold consultations with the foreign lawyers on August 21-23, whom Pakistan has hired and then it would reach Hague on August 24. “Pakistan’s legal team would present its case seeking the stay on ongoing construction work on the controversial project till the final verdict of the court.”

All the members of Court of Arbitration have already visited in the month of June the Neelum-Jehlum project in Pakistan and Kishenganga project in India to assess as to how much construction work has been completed.
neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 372
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by neeraj »

Indian-spilled water sinks villages in Kasur
LAHORE/KASUR – A fresh flood warning has been sounded across Punjab province in the wake of possible massive deluge, as India spilled more than 70,000 cusecs of additional water into River Sutlej without prior information to Pakistani authorities, inundating dozens of villages in Ganda Singhwala area of Kasur district on Tuesday morning.
Water experts say that New Delhi, in sheer violation of the Indus Water Treaty, released more than 70,000 cusecs of water into River Sutlej at Pakistani side which mounted its level to an alarming level and washed away dozens of villages in Kasur after creating an emergency flood situation in the entire area....
....Agriculturists feared that the expected high flood of water could destroy the standing crops on a vast land comprising hundreds of hectares. Officials said that thousands of stranded people are lying under the open sky in most parts of Kasur district while they are yet to receive any emergency aid from the authorities concerned.
....The Pakistan-specific defence structures of India could also wash away drainage located at Shakargarh. Massive flooding is also possible in Basantar, Jhajri, Oojh and Khattar drainages and a water inflow of 100,000 cusec at Shahdara could cause massive destruction, if India resorted to divert floodwater towards Pakistan, the officials warned.
It is worth mentioning that during the Pak-India parleys held in March and May 2010, India had agreed to install telemetry system on the rivers in its territory to check real-time water flow. But later, New Delhi refused to respond to the issues raised by Islamabad.
In such an eventuality, the big question remains, how aggressively India is violating the Indus Water Teary (IWT-1960) by diverting the river courses. :((
“We have credible reports that India during this season is going to release about 200,000-cusec additional water in the River Ravi, Sutlej, Jhelum and Chenab. This high flow of water is bound to wash away thousands of villages in Punjab province, if efforts are not made to stop Indian hegemony on river waters,” experts said.
Water experts also revealed that Pakistani engineers are battling hard not only to nullify Indian hegemony over the river waters but also trying to avert possible massive deluge as India is likely to release over 100,000 cusecs of additional water in the River Ravi without prior information to the Pakistani authorities.
Experts say that on the one hand India is stealing Pakistani water by building dams on rivers flowing into Pakistan from Occupied Kashmir while during monsoon season New Delhi deflect river-courses to release floodwater towards Pakistani side. :((
It is important to mention here that India is constructing 40 dams on River Jhelum, out of which 4 big and 16 small dams have started functioning. India is constructing the third largest dam of the world in Kargil on River Indus, which will block 45 % flow of water to Pakistan..... :rotfl:
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by svinayak »

How to make it zero water flow
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Acharya wrote:How to make it zero water flow
We have to follow RajeshA's advice or plan. Let pakistan also agree to that.
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

Taken Question
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC

Question Taken at the August 17, 2011 Daily Press Briefing
August 18, 2011

Question: Is the United States supporting the building of a hydroelectric dam in Pakistan? Do we have any concerns about how it may impact India?

Answer: As part of a broader signature energy program announced in 2009, the United States has provided support to complete the final phases of two hydroelectric dams in Pakistan: the Satpara Dam in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Gomal Zam Dam in South Waziristan. We are considering doing more in the sector.

Pakistan has requested the international community’s support for development of the Diamer Basha Dam project. We recognize that such a hydroelectric project would help meet many of Pakistan’s long-term energy and water needs, as well as advance social and economic development.

We are considering how we can best support Pakistan’s request, as are other bilateral donors and multilateral financial institutions. No final decisions have been made. We continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to determine how best to use U.S. civilian assistance.

The United States has long supported development projects that enhance the daily lives of people throughout the region. In doing so, we always take into account a project’s potential regional impact.

PRN: 2011/1346

US State Dept
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by arun »

Study by a Pakistani think tank, SDPI, concedes that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan can claim no prior right via the Neelum-Jhelum project to prevent the construction of India’s Kishanganga project :

Kishanganga to cause Pakistan Rs12b annual loss

Reaction to the above news item by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan plus more by the author of the previous article:

Clarification
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by wig »

the daily excelsior published from jammu reports that Pak moves court on Kishenganga project. these rivers orignate in J&K, Himachal or thereabouts. as a riparian state the pakis seem to be more involved in employing delaying tactics rather than applying their minds. Paki objectives seem to be to delay the project by raising the issue in all possible forums - hoping that the rise in costs will lead to losses to us. nothing beyond this seems to have been the outcome of all the previous attempts from pak side.
Pakistan has moved the Court of Arbitration asking it to direct India to stop work at the 330-MW Kishenganga hydro power project in Jammu and Kashmir.

Even as the two countries are fighting a legal battle in a court of arbitration, Pakistan has filed a petition in the court seeking a direction to make India hold the project till the case is settled by the court, sources in the Government said.

The project is likely to be completed by 2015.

"It is a normal procedure adopted during such cases," a senior official said.
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

wig wrote:Paki objectives seem to be to delay the project by raising the issue in all possible forums - hoping that the rise in costs will lead to losses to us.
India learnt from the Uri fiasco. From Baglihar times, GoI does not slow down the projects because of TSP objections.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by wig »

Revised DPR indicates generation of 810 MW electricity-Work on Ratle project to begin before March next
In yet another step towards harnessing the huge potential for generating electricity in this otherwise power-starved State, G V K Power and Infrastructure Ltd is going to start work on Ratle Hydro Electric Project on River Chenab in Kishtwar district before March next year.

Sources told EXCELSIOR that G V K Power and Infrastructure, which was allotted the project in June last year, will award civil and hydro mechanical works of the project in the month of November this year when the global tendering process will come to an end as per the stipulated time-frame.

Since the project site is just on the Doda-Kishtwar National Highway 1B at Drabshala in Kishtwar district and machinery can be mobilized easily, the work on the project will begin before March, 2012 strictly as per the schedule finalized in the agreement reached between Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation and G V K Power and Infrastructure Ltd. The project is slated to be completed by 2017.

Disclosing that project will generate 810 Mega Watts of power during some months as against earlier planned generation of 690 Mega Watts throughout the year, they said that while revising the Detailed Project Report (DPR), a Switzerland based consultant, has suggested four units of 195 Mega Watts each and one unit of 30 Mega Watt as against three units proposed by the National Hydroelectric Projects Corporation (NHPC) in the earlier DPR.
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by wig »

an article in the tribune lays the blame for floods in our Punjab squarely on Pak.
officials tell CM Say neighbouring nation has blocked the natural flow of water at Suleman Ki head works -Against expected flow of 75,000 cusecs, only 45,000 cusecs flowing into Pakistan's territory.
The Sutlej enters Pakistan territory from near Mohar Jamsher village (in Fazilka). Official said Pakistan had blocked the natural flow of water at Suleman Ki headworks. Against the expected flow of 75,000 cusecs, only 45,000 cusecs was flowing into Pakistan's territory from the Indian side, which was resulting in the flooding of areas upstream the Sutlej.

Badal has been urged to take up the issue with the Centre asking it to tell the Pakistani authorities concerned not to block the natural flow of waters in its territory. Sources said Finance Minister Upinderjit Kaur urged Badal to release more water from Harike headworks to bring down the water level upstream of Beas that had led to the flooding of a vast area in Kapurthala's Sultanpur Lodhi subdivision. However, Irrigation Department officials told Badal that there was no scope to store more water at Harike headworks. From here, water is released into the canals in Rajasthan and certain parts of Punjab.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110823/punjab.htm#4
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

wig wrote:an article in the tribune lays the blame for floods in our Punjab squarely on Pak.
officials tell CM Say neighbouring nation has blocked the natural flow of water at Suleman Ki head works -Against expected flow of 75,000 cusecs, only 45,000 cusecs flowing into Pakistan's territory.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110823/punjab.htm#4
This is a violation of IWT that our PIC should take up immediately.
anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9203
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by anupmisra »

SSridhar wrote:India learnt from the Uri fiasco. From Baglihar times, GoI does not slow down the projects because of TSP objections.
As a matter of policy, they (GoI) should speed things up the moment they hear pakis object or threaten to take the issue to some court or the other.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by Vipul »

Kishanganga dam controversy: Top officials tussle may damage case for water rights.

While India has already started work on the controversial Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project (KHEP) in Indian Kashmir, a dispute between top government officials may seriously damage Pakistan’s case for securing priority rights over Neelum River.

The badly-timed tussle appears to have intensified right before the hearing of the case against the construction of the dam, due to take place at the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) in The Hague on August 25

The tensions between Indus Water Commissioner Sheraz Memon and the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Water Resources Kamal Majeedullah had reached such high levels of intensity that steps needed to be taken to alleviate the situation, sources told The Express Tribune.

This involved sending Memon on an ‘official course’, resulting in his exclusion from the delegation due to attend the ICA hearing from August 25-27. Earlier, at a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Water and Power, the commissioner had alleged that Majeedullah had caused a delay in the ICA case when he had hired a lawyer based on personal choice.

According to sources, the controversy also included Memon’s objections to the delegation’s inclusion of law ministry official Shumaila Tariq and Ambassador-at-Large Khalil Ahmad. When contacted, the commissioner confirmed that he was not going to attend the hearing at The Hague.

At the same time, he denied his absence from the hearing as being a result of any kind of pressure, adding that joining the course was routine official practice.

The first hearing was held at The Hague on January 14, 2011 when it was decided that Pakistan would submit its case to the ICA in May. At the upcoming hearing, Pakistan aims to obtain a stay order to put a halt to the KHEP, which it says will seriously hinder its own Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NHJEP). Memon had earlier said, “I had insisted during the first proceedings in the international court to obtain a stay order against the construction of the Kishanganga dam, but Kamal Majeedullah did not agree with this course of action.”

The waters of the Kishanganga River are to be diverted through a 24-kilometre-long tunnel for power production. The remaining water flow will join the Wullar Lake and ultimately run through Jhelum to Muzaffarabad. If successfully implemented by India, the KHEP, initiated in 2007, will result in a shortfall of about 21% of Neelum’s inflow for the NHJEP. This would reduce the project’s much needed energy generation by 10%. The KHEP’s completion would also significantly harm agriculture, fisheries, and the economy as a whole.

Bilateral negotiations on the KHEP were halted in April 2010, when India argued that the project had been initiated before the NHJEP. While the project was kept on a top priority list in Pakistan’s 2002 Power Policy and was scheduled to be completed within six years, the government awarded the NJHEP to the Chinese Gezhouba Group of Companies in 2008. By that point, India had already been working on the KHEP for a year.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

Water a key-issue in Indo-Pak relations - former water secretary Ramaswamy R Iyer
While the Indus Treaty of 1960 on water sharing between India and Pakistan is regarded as a largely successful instance of conflict resolution between two countries, a new and disturbing development is that water has started to loom large in Indo-Pak relations, Ramaswamy R. Iyer, former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India said on Tuesday.

In an address on “India's Water Relations with Her Neighbours” hosted by the Centre for Security Analysis (CSA), Mr. Iyer said water sharing in the Indus Basin is no longer a closed issue with Pakistan especially after the neighbour has invoked arbitration over Kishanganga project on the Chenab, accused India of misusing provisions of the Indus Treaty and launching projects that diverted the flow of the Western rivers.

“Even if tomorrow Kashmir is resolved, water will remain a core issue,” he said.{Even if the 'water issue' is resolved to the fullest satisfaction of Pakistan through some miracle, that country will quickly invent another reason to perpetuate the enduring hostility with us. The bottom line is Pakistan is permanently opposed to the idea of having a peaceful and normal relationship with us.}

While it could be argued that Pakistan is raising water sharing issues as a diversionary tactic for its inter-provincial conflicts or that water being an emotional issue for the people suits the Pakistan Army, a joint study by experts on both sides on whether there is indeed a reduced flow on the Western rivers could erase the perception that India has not been a fair and just upper riparian, Mr. Iyer said.

The expert also suggested as confidence-building measures studies on the impact of the 33 Indian projects on the Western rivers as the cumulative impact could be bigger than the sum of the individual projects.

According to Mr. Iyer, while India had a comfortable water sharing relationship with Bhutan, the same was not the case with other neighbours in the sub-continental mainland. While the problem with Nepal –the upper riparian – was not primarily over water but a dysfunctional relationship, the potential of disputes with Bangladesh – the lowest riparian – could not be discounted in spite of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty. Water which until recently did not figure prominently in Indo-China relations was now cause of concern especially pertaining to fears over the downstream effects of Chinese engineering engagements on the Brahmaputra, Mr. Iyer said.

Lt. Gen (Retd) V. R. Raghavan, CSA president also participated.
menon s
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 01 May 2010 09:51
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by menon s »

^^^ S Sridhar Sir, some good news homing in on Kishenganga.
Pakistan fails to get ICA stay against India's Kishanganga project construction
Islamabad, Sept 1(ANI): Pakistan has failed to get stay from the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) against India's construction of the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project (KHEP).
At the ICA hearing at The Hague, Pakistan aimed to obtain a stay order to put a halt to the KHEP, which it said would seriously hinder its own Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NHJEP).
However, it failed to get stay against India's KHEP construction, Dunya News reports.
According to sources, the arbitrary court judge asked India to submit a report on environmental effect caused by the construction of the dam.
The Indian delegation informed the court that it would submit the report on October 7.
However, the court asked India to submit the report of environmental effect caused by the construction of the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Power Project on September 7.
Pakistan has been objecting to the construction of the Kishanganga hydropower project on the Ganga River in Kashmir, which is called the Neelum upon entering Pakistan.
look out for geelani and folks now crying over the environmental problems because of the dam.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

menon s wrote:According to sources, the arbitrary court judge :) asked India to submit a report on environmental effect caused by the construction of the dam.
Menon, thanks for the link.
pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4163
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by pgbhat »

x-post.
Pakistan denied stay against Kishanganga project
ISLAMABAD: The writing had been on the wall for quite some time-thanks to the criminal incompetence of Pakistan’s water legal eagles headed by special assistant to prime minister Kamala Majidullah-but even then the blow came hard.

A seven-member bench of International Court of Arbitration (COA) threw out Pakistan’s inexplicably delayed request to grant a stay order against the construction of the controversial 330MW Kishanganga hydropower project, being built by India.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Both India and Pakistan has submitted additional information on Kishangana Dam as called for by COA by 7.9.2011.
As Pakistan failed to get any stay, anger in Pakistani circle is palpable. Most likely it would fall on the team nominated by Pakistan Govt ( supposedly at the behest of Jharudari 10 perceti) and many would become casualty of ongoing blame game.
It is anticipated in pakistani circle that COA would deliver verdict soon on interim measures and if it goes against Pakistan then of course we would see rising crescendo of noise for removal of persons responsible.Raising of power tariff by Pakistan , as a precondition for certain aids, would be only rubbing salt to the wound, that would arise only when decision goes in favour of India. In their anger they are mixing issues and putting all blame on the Ministry responsible for it.

htt p ://nation .com. pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/08-Sep-2011/Shameful-failure
The Water and Power Ministry showed to the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Water and Power that it was not only incompetent, but also it lacked any good news for the ordinary man. Not only did it concede, during the Additional Secretary’s testimony, that it had failed to obtain a stay order on India’s Kishen Ganga Dam project from the International Arbitration Tribunal, but the Secretary, talking to the press after his testimony, also said the Ministry had initiated a recommendation for a six percent increase in the electricity tariff. This would be over and above increases resulting from fuel price hike, though there again the Ministry skimmed over its responsibility for the circular-debt problem which has arisen. However, it supinely concedes to India the right to flagrantly violate the Indus Waters Treaty by its failure to prepare a convincing case for stopping the building of the Kishen Ganga project
htt p://www.pakistantoday. com. pk/2011/09/kishanganga-verdict-likely-within-a-month/?thick=off&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=540&width=962
An official source said that Pakistan has submitted additional information and comments to the Court of Arbitration (CoA), on September 7 on the Kishanganga Hydro Electric Project against arguments given by India. The CoA held hearings at the Hague, Netherlands, from August 25 to 27, on the controversial project. The hearings were on a request for interim measures filed by Pakistan. At the end of the hearing, the CoA had asked for additional information and comments from both parties by September 07. The CoA will consider the parties submissions and the additional information after which it will reach a decision on interim measures
However Indian side is quite and press is busy dealing with HC Blast on 7th. (Is there any message for us).
Suffice it to add that in totality of factual position and the advanced stage of Kishanganga Dam construction , stay is very unlikely.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Understanding Kishanganga Dam ‘legally’
In addition of the above discussion, there are certain other international norms that need fair consideration. The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers 1966, formulated by the International Law Association (ILA), and the second report on the Uses of International Watercourse 1986, drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC), prohibit co-riparian states (states through which or along a portion of a river flows) from altering the flow of an international watercourse in a way that can cause harm to another state.

Furthermore, the International Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses 1997 (ICLNUIW), also states that the riparian countries (states bordering the same transboundary waters) have the right to use their water resources in a way so as not to damage the other riparian states. This law has been approved by the United Nations General Assembly. Article V of the ICLNUIW talks about the “equitable” and “reasonable utilisation” of water keeping in mind the interests of other states, while Article VII places an obligation on states not to cause significant harm to other watercourse states.

Another area that needs consideration is the impact on environment. The Gurez Valley is rich in natural beauty. Its forests and meadows are home to a wide range of flora and wildlife. The project threatens to eradicate large known habitat areas and to destroy an entire valley with its forests and meadows. This deforestation can eventually and drastically affect the climate of the region causing a change in the weather patterns that can result in severe droughts, floods and widespread disruption of natural ecosystem. As part of the proceedings in the ICA, the court has also instructed the Indian delegation to submit a report on the environmental hazards to the ecosystem due to this project.

Further, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki’s Convention 1992) is another area that needs to be considered. It requires states to strengthen their national measures for the protection and ecologically sound management of transboundary surface waters and ground waters. Article II(2)(d) of the convention, in particular, obliges states to take all appropriate measures to ensure the conservation, protection and restoration of the ecosystem.

Although, Pakistan and India have not ratified the treaty, there is a responsibility on these states (as these norms are also part of customary international law that have a persuasive authority) to formulate effective measures to protect their respective ecosystems.

It is, however, evident from the above discussion that India's actions have become a serious cause of concern for the Government of Pakistan. Simply approaching the ICA to find a solution to the dispute will not suffice, rather what needs to be done is to form a team of experts, who have the requisite qualification for the job. I would suggest that a team of experts on international law, not international relations, is the need of the hour, which is led by a person, who would comprehend all the legal lacunas and would sensitise his peers with the possible outcomes and an expert on water laws. Unfortunately, what we do not realise is that the recent debacle at the ICA is purely due to the absence of an international law expert, which had a fatal brunt on the Pakistani water laws expert.

By Barrister Haaris Ramzan
The writer is a practicing barrister and an alumni of the International Visitor Leadership Programme (IVLP) organised by the US Department of State.
I have not quoted full article, but only those paras where questions of international laws and conventions are raised.

First point here is Helsinki Rules 1966
Article I
The general rules of international law as set forth in these chapters are applicable to the use of the waters of an international drainage basin except as may be provided otherwise by convention, agreement or binding custom among the basin States.
Indus Water treaty came into existence in 1960. Clearly any provision of Helsinki Rules would not be applicable in the context of Indus Basin between India and Pakistan. India or Pakistan could invoke this in the context of China.

However, if we examine another article we see that reasonable use can not be denied to a basin state. Kishenganga Dam is ROR and water rejoins Jhelum near Muzaffarabad. Between Kishenganga and Neelum Dams there is no pre-existing use which is adversely affected. Pakistan has not been able to show that there exist any agricultural usage or non agricultural or consumptive use which would be affected. In so far Neelum Dam is concerned , it is only on paper and another article of the same vaunted rules say
Article VII
A basin State may not be denied the present reasonable use of the waters of an international drainage basin to reserve for a co-basin State a future use of such waters.
Hence that is also precluded.

What is the provision about existing use.
Article VIII

2.(a) A use that is in fact operational is deemed to have been an existing use from the time of the initiation of construction directly related to the use or, where such construction is not required, the undertaking of comparable acts of actual implementation.
(
Let Pakistan clarify that Neelum Dam is an existing use. In fact it is Kishenganga Dam which qualifies on the basis of this article.

Therefore if Pakistan initiates construction of Neelum dam it is bound by the following article
3.A use will not be deemed an existing use if at the time of becoming operational it is incompatible with an
already existing reasonable use.
That is to say that Neelum Dam , under no circumstances , would be an existing use.
If disputes continue the final provisions under the Helsinki Rules provide for
Article XXXIV
It is recommended that the States concerned agree to submit their legal disputes to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal, to a permanent arbitral tribunal or to the International Court of Justice if:
So Mr Barrister, we are already with COA, what more do you need.


Now coming to second report on the Uses of International Watercourse 1986 as an annex to General Assembly resolution 51/229.
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instru ... 3_1997.pdf
Article 3
Watercourse agreements

1. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, nothing in the present Convention shall affect the rights or obligations of a watercourse State arising from agreements in force for it on the date on which it became a party to the present convention.

2.Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, parties to agreements referred to in paragraph 1 may, where necessary, consider harmonizing such agreements with the basic principles of the present Convention.

3.Watercourse States may enter into one or more agreements, hereinafter referred to as “watercourse agreements”, which apply and adjust the provisions of the present Convention to the characteristics and uses of a particular international watercourse or part thereof.

4.Where a watercourse agreement is concluded between two or more watercourse States, it shall define the waters to which it applies. Such an agreement may be entered into with respect to an entire international watercourse or any part thereof or a particular project, programme or use except insofar as the agreement adversely affects, to a significant extent, the use by one or more other watercourse States of the waters of the watercourse, without their express consent.

5.Where a watercourse State considers that adjustment and application of the provisions of the present Convention is required because of the characteristics and uses of a particular international watercourse, watercourse States shall consult with a view to negotiating in good faith for the purpose of concluding a watercourse agreement or agreements.

6.Where some but not all watercourse States to a particular international watercourse are parties to an agreement, nothing in such agreement shall affect the rights or obligations under the present Convention of watercourse States that are not parties to such an agreement
The first two articles are relevant. If there is an existing agreement then the convention is not relevant. However second article says the parties to any such agreement may consider harmonizing with basic principles of the convention. Has Pakistan , at any stage of the operation of IWT, either after Helsinki Rules or the Convention in 1997, indicate its intention to initiate the process with India. Oh I forgot, Pakistan is yet to ratify these international conventions. So I think they are not bound by it but want to bind India when it suits them.

The whole discussion on International treaty is nothing but red herring as IWT encompasses more stringent provisions and binding obligations and lays down strict procedures for dispute resolutions. It also has data sharing protocol which are extensive. Oc course Pakistan knows that it would lose the case and is creating this kind of diversion. It sure knows that these laws would not come to their rescue.

However the article quoted below would come to India's aid.
Kishenganga Dam is of urgent importance to India as Energy security is prime concern of India and important for Indian growth upon which public safety and health is contingent.

Article 19
Urgent implementation of planned measures
1. In the event that the implementation of planned measures is of the utmost urgency in order to protect public health, public safety or other equally important interests, the State planning the measures may, subject to articles 5 and 7, immediately proceed to implementation, notwithstanding the provisions of article 14 and paragraph 3 of article 17.
He is talking of Article V and VII which talks about equitable & reasonable use and not to cause significant harm to co basin state.
In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits therefrom, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.
It is on record that Pakistan wastes about 40% of IWT water delivered to it due to bad water management and no investment in such facilities. In fact it is unable to utilise water in an optimal and rational manner consistent with the articles quoted by Mr Barrister. The question would , in case India ever ratifies such conventions along with Pakistan , should we allow pakistan to continue to waste precious resources. In fact IWT protects Pakistan as it does not impose an obligation on Pakistan to utilise waters flowing into its territory in optimal manner.
Article 7
Obligation not to cause significant harm
1.Watercourse States shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States.

2.Where significant harm nevertheless is caused to another watercourse State, the States whose use causes such harm shall, in the absence of agreement to such use, take all appropriate measures, having due regard for the provisions of articles 5 and 6, in consultation with the affected State, to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.
Pakistan has not established that it Kishenganga Dam would cause significant damage to its interest except saying that reduction in flow of water to an extent of 13% and unsubstantiated claim of existing use. Future uses are certainly not covered under this article and reduction in power generation to an extent of 96Mwe is not at all significant given the fact that Pakistan's Transmission losses would be far more that the reduction in the capacity if power is transmitted from Neelum Dam to Pakistan, (Let us not forget that power would not be used by POK).

Lastly he has mentioned the Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki’s Convention 1992) which obliges national measures for the protection and ecologically sound management of transboundary surface waters and ground waters. I think Mr Barrister, do so by all means and if you need Indian help , you just have to ring the Man from Gah and he would be all the more happy to help you .

I forgot to mention that Mr Barrister knows that neither India nor Pakistan has ratified the conventions quoted by him.

Sorry for rambling post.
SureshP
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 10 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SureshP »

Chanakya,

A brief letter pointing out the salient points to the nutty nation MIGHT be a good idea. Chances of publication of course are remote. Facts are indigestable fare for the nutters at the nation
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25087
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by SSridhar »

I think the said Barrister wants himself to be appointed to the Pakistani panel arguing the case before the CoA so that he can have foreign junkets.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

SSridhar wrote:I think the said Barrister wants himself to be appointed to the Pakistani panel arguing the case before the CoA so that he can have foreign junkets.
That was my first thought. I think their team , whoever is on it, will be screwed. I also think that a defeat, real or perceived ( remember that India has made it ROR from Storage type by reducing height of dam), might also cause some terror strike in India to save paki echendee.
SureshP , I can't send reply to him due to some limitations. I think BRF is good for the issue.

I also think IWT is best bet for Pakistan rather than falling on international conventions due to many reasons not least of it providing a complete division of rivers in favour of Pakistan. International convention says equitable distribution of waters , not of rivers. Also 80:20 is not an equitable distribution by any logic. We need to sustain Green Revolution in the plains of Punjab and Haryana which was not so developed during partition as all irrigation was in erstwhile West Punjab. Hence if they don't concede India's position and try to open IWT they would be in for a nasty surprise.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/17/do-not-i ... wrath.html
People have encroached river beds, and not only cultivate there, but have made brick houses as well. Given the Indus Water Basin Treaty in Pakistan’s rivers like Ravi and Sutlej, there is hardly any water during the winter but that does not mean that they will be dry in monsoons as well. If India does not utilise most of monsoon water to fill its dams built on Ravi and Sutlej, most of central and western Punjab will be drowned by floods. India has no choice but to release water after its dams are filled. And, taking the worst scenario of evil Indian intentions that Pakistanis assume anyway, if instead of filling its dams it lets the excessive water flow, areas around Ravi and Sutlej will see a great human tragedy because of hurdles created in the river beds.
In Pakistan, instead of making better arrangements for excessive water discharge, human encroachments have blocked the old drainage systems. Pakistan‘s government, at all levels, should take sewerage disposal and water drainage its top development priority. Every locality, small villages or big cities, should be mandated to have drainage systems ready before next monsoon. The developers and constructors, whether building residential dwellings or making metal roads should have a legal binding and liability to first make safe drainage system before they do anything else. Communities should be made liable through legislation, if there is none already, to take collective responsibility for making arrangements of disposing of sewerage and rain water. A compulsory drainage disposal fee should be charged as part of land revenue or property taxes.
It gives and interesting idea to evil yindoos.It also indicates that Pakistan is not discharging its obligation under IWT and should be put on notice.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Well this is from Tehelka by Iftikhar Gilani , no wonder.

Kishanganga hydel power project threatens an ancient culture

The Dard Shin tribe of Gurez, speakers of the Shina language, are to be uprooted to Srinagar. But what is a pastoral hill community to do in the city, asks Iftikhar Gilani


Imagine the kind of uproar civil society and rights groups would have created had the Centre decided to shift the indigenous Jarawas from their native Andaman and Nicobar Islands to New Delhi. However, no such noise has been made so far even as the Dard-Shina tribe, said to be the last of the original Aryans living in the remote Gurez region is being robbed of its hearth and home. The tribal community will be relocated to Srinagar, making way for the 330-MW Kishanganga hydro-electric project in Kashmir. Away from the high-profile land acquisition cases of Bhatta Prasaul and Nandigram, this scenic place on the north-western tip of the Valley has hardly had anyone crying foul after the Centre announced relocation plans.
Incidentally, Gurez valley falls along the section of the ancient Silk Route, which connected Kashmir valley with Gilgit and Kashgar. Archaeological surveys in valleys north of Gurez along the Silk Route, particularly in Chilas, have uncovered hundreds of inscriptions recorded in stone. The Kishanganga project will also affect this route, which has traditionally been crucial for trade in Central Asia. One of the three villages that will also be affected by the project is Kanzalwan, which is believed to be an archaeological site of historic importance. The last council of Buddhism is said to have been held in this village, and further down the stream, the ruins of ancient Sharada University lie preserved along the Neelum.
notice the use of the name. obviously he is batting for his paymasters.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Post by chaanakya »

Forum demands review of Indus Waters Treaty
PTI | 06:09 PM,Sep 18,2011
Jaipur, Sep 18 (PTI) Demanding equitable distribution of river water, a forum here today asked for a review of Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan so that water scarcity in India's North-West region could be addressed. "Our government should initiate a move to review the 50-year-old treaty for equitable distribution and proper management of river waters," Raghu Yadav of "Forum for Power to the People" said at a press conference here. "The treaty should be rectified. India gets less quantity of water whereas Pakistan gets more than it needs. States like Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab on the other hand are fighting among themselves on the issue of water sharing," Yadav, who hails from Haryana, said. The surplus water in Pakistan should be diverted to India so that "we can ease the water scarcity and water distribution issues in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan", Yadav said.
Who are they , never heard of them? anyone?
Post Reply