Indus Water Treaty

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 06 Jul 2010 15:39

Mangla Dam upraising fails to boost reservoir

The Rs105 billion Mangla dam upraising project has not added to the storage capacity of the reservoir for the second year running despite its completion in 2008, mainly because of non-resolution of resettlement issue with the people displaced by the project.

The sources said that the filling of the dam had been affected by non-allocation by Irsa of about 614 cusecs of water from the reservoir for drinking, irrigation and fishery needs of Azad Kashmir because of opposition by some provincial governments.

The AJK government has opposed the filling till the federal government honours an agreement to meet its water needs.

The Irsa sources said that even if the filling of the additional capacity was started it would not be of much benefit to three smaller provinces because of three major canals being built in the Indus zone.

The only route for Mangla’s water to reach the Indus zone is through Punjnad, but this entailed water losses to the extent of 70 per cent.

A Sindh government official said that construction of 32 small dams in Punjab currently in different phases of implementation would also result in reduced Indus flows because their sources used to contribute to the Indus.

He said that in view of the unviable option of desilting the Tarbela reservoir, the storage on the Indus was on a decline and the government should move swiftly for the building of Diamer-Bhasha dam, instead of investing in small dams.

Over the past two years, Tarbela’s storage started touching the dead-level in June which was never experienced in the past. This is affecting cotton and rice crops.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Jul 2010 18:58

ajit_tr wrote:Kishanganga arbitration: a clarification

Kamal Majidulla, the prime minister’s Special Assistant on Water Resources and Agriculture, in a statement issued here said if a mutually agreed list of experts to resolve the issue cannot be agreed upon, the two countries will rely upon a single negotiator to reconcile differences with respect to a common list.

That is strange. A 'single negotiator' (probably meant arbitrator) means Neutral Expert in terms of the IWT. Why go back to a NE when already a CoA is being contemplated and vigorously pursued ? After all, the IWT has provisions to constitute a CoA if there is no agreement on mutually agreed list of experts.

Leave that as it may, the Kishenganga issue was eminently suitable for a NE and a NE only IMHO. What are the issues here ? These could be the ones:

Usual accusation of design specs violations like pondage, spillways, power intake etc. These now have a precedent in Baglihar. No need for a CoA here.
Whether waters can be diverted from a tributary of Jhelum to another. The Annexure F, Para 12 and Para 15 (iii) of Part 3 of Annexure D is clear about this too. This matter also falls eminently under a NE.
The issue of 'existing agricultural & hydroelectric use' on the Pakistani side. Per previous point, these also fall under a NE.
The Indian proposal of drawdown flushing for sediment control. IMHO, this does not need any further discussion. The NE for Baglihar has given guidelines. He has advised both countries to follow modern techniques which were not in vogue in the 50s when IWT was discussed and arrived at. In fact, the NE's verdict is final and binding.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 06 Jul 2010 20:00

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_ki ... hi_1405834

ISLAMABAD: A high-level Pakistani team will travel to New Delhi on Tuesday to finalise a court of arbitration (CoA) for adjudication of the Kishanganga hydropower plant being built by India on the Neelum river, allegedly in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Jul 2010 19:39

Pak to India: Name neutral umpires

Sparring between India and Pakistan over the 330 MW Kishanganga hydro-electric project in Jammu and Kashmir continues with Pakistan playing hardball over the constitution of a seven-member bench of International Court of Arbitration.

In an indication of it, Pakistan has sidelined India’s invitation to sit across the table in Delhi to finalise the names of three neutral umpires for the arbitration bench. Last Friday, it in turn asked India to first suggest the three names for the neutral umpires, evading direct response to India’s invitation for a meeting this week.

Last month, India had invited Pakistan for a meeting in Delhi to finalise the names of three neutral umpires for the bench, which include two arbitrators each already nominated by the two countries.

India, to its displeasure now, finds Pakistan’s request for three names for neutral umpires unreasonable as the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 clearly specifies that the Chairman of the Court of Arbitration should be finalised first among the three neutral umpires. Paragraph 8 of Annexure G, which deals with the constitution of the court of arbitration under the treaty, clearly specifies, “In selecting the umpires pursuant to Paragraph 7, the Chairman shall be selected first, unless the parties otherwise agree.”

5. The Parties shall endeavour to nominate and maintain a Standing Panel of umpires (hereinafter called the Panel) in the following manner :
(a) The Panel shall consist of four persons in each of the three categories specified in Paragraph 4(b) .
(b) The Panel will be selected, as soon as possible after the Effective Date, by agreement between the Parties
and with the consent of the persons whose names are included in the Panel .

7. The umpires shall be appointed as follows :
(a) If a Panel has been nominated in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 5, each umpire shall be selected as follows from the Panel, from his appropriate category, provided that the category has, at that time, at least three names on the Panel :
The Parties shall endeavour to agree to place the names of the persons in each category in the order in which they shall be invited to serve on the Court. If such agreement cannot be reached within 30 days of the date on which the proceeding is instituted, the Parties shall promptly establish such an order by drawing lots . If, in any category , the person whose name is placed first in the order so established, on receipt of an invitation to serve on the Court, declines to do so, the person whose name is next on the list shall be invited . The process shall be repeated until the invitation is accepted or all names in the category are exhausted.

(b) If a Panel has not been nominated in accordance with Paragraph 5, or if there should be less than three names on the Panel in any category or if n o person in a category accepts the invitation referred to in Paragraph 7(a), the umpires, or the remaining umpires or umpire, as the case may be, shall be appointed as follows :

(i) By agreement between the Parties .

(ii) Should the Parties be unable to agree on the selection of any or all of the three umpires, they shall agree on one or more persons to help them in making the necessary selection by agreement ; but if one or more umpires remain to be appointed 60 days after the date on which the proceeding is instituted,or 30 days after the completion of the process described in sub-paragraph (a) above, as the case may be, then the Parties shall determine by lot for each umpire remaining to be appointed, a person from the appropriate list set out in the Appendix to this Annexure, who shall then be requested to make the necessary selection.

8. In selecting umpires pursuant to Paragraph 7, the Chairman shall be selected first, unless the Parties otherwise agree.

9. Should either Party fail to participate in the drawing of lots as provided in Paragraphs 7 and 10, the other Party may request the President of the Bank to nominate a person to draw the lots, and the person so nominated shall do so after giving due notice to the Parties and inviting them to be represented at the drawing of the lots .

Well I think ,first of all, both the parties have to come to an agreement on four names for each categories of umpires( Para 5(a) of Ann G). That means 12 persons. Probably India had asked PK to discuss this issue and settle the matter of preparation of panel of standing umpires without much fuss. But it was too much to expect from PK. Now that PK has asked India to nominate three names, clearly the whole thing is heading towards Para 7(b). I can easily predict that para 7(b)(i) will not be possible as there can be no agreement between India and PK. PK has already shown its mind. So matter will move to the stage at para 7(b)(ii).
Most likely PK will not agree to get help from one or more persons to help them (by agreement, so ruled out) in making the necessary selection by agreement.So matter would drag on till 15th July/17th July. Thereafter, it would be a draw of lots to select the person from the list appended to annexure G. For each category one person would be selected to make the selection of three umpires.

In any of the process above , Chairman has to be selected first as per para 8.

Now if any of the parties fail to participate in draw of lots at any stage, the other party can request may request the President of the Bank to nominate a person to draw the lots. It will come to this sometime after July 15th.

India can not expect Pakistan to be reasonable and settle this matter by negotiation. India should not delay execution of the project and rather speed up the work, since funding may not be a problem in view of its strategic importance.India should endeavour to stop any interim order detrimental to the project.

This points to one important factor. India is perhaps ready to believe in faith and trust deposed in PK despite all actions of PK contrary to it but there is a trust deficit primarily on the side of PK, it can not believe any action taken by India. There is a proverb..."Chor ki Daddhi( beard) mein tinka" and it fits PK well.

PK should have learnt its lessons well long ago, Kishenganga is a fait accompli.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Jul 2010 22:19

Latest image from Hunza landslide

Its going to take much more time, going by the current rate of discharge through spillway. The composition of landslide material consists of large boulders , rock fragments. Water would continue to weaken the strength of the landslide dam. However if dam holds, KKH is goner for good unless pakis build a new road. That is going to cost lot more than they can afford, and China may be too eager to help.

If there is a slow discharge , it will bring lot of relief to people in the area, but KKH would need to be repaired within two years. timeframe. ( Best case scenario for PK)

If there is Dam burst, there would be lot of flooding all the way down. The water inflow may continue to increase during coming months till winter takes over. If dam holds then it will be "see you next year".

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Jul 2010 00:44

Not so directly elated to IWT but some info about PRC plan to divert water .
17 Earthshaking Facts About The Three Gorges Dam And China's Next Even Bigger Water Project

The project will use dams, pumping stations, tunnels, and canals to draw 45 billion cubic meters of water upstream 1,000 miles each year
The South-To-North Project was also Mao's idea. A 50-year construction plan was launched in 2002 and is already facing devastating delays
he project's western route draws water across five major fault lines, including the epicenter of the 2008 earthquake that killed over 70,000.
Already 70% of China's freshwater is polluted. The project could worsen pollution. Some cities have already rejected plans to obtain water via the diversion project as too polluted
Experts warn siphoning off a third of the Han River will decrease water quality and increase the risk of flash floods
Indians are worried by reports the project will significantly decrease the flow of the shared Brahmaputra (Yarlung Tsangpo) river and increase its salinity

http://www.businessinsider.com/three-go ... vitable-11

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 08 Jul 2010 16:21

Shahbaz toes a firm line on water issues

Speaking at Punjab Assembly, he said it was a dictator who sold the water of Pakistan’s rivers, adding he is now dead; but, Pakistan and Punjab had to suffer the loss on this count.

Many Pakistanis wrongly feel that Pakistan surrendered to India the waters of the three Eastern rivers in 1960. Their argument is along the following lines. On the basis of over fifty years' record the mean flow in Indus River System (IRS) totalled 175 MAF on the eve of Partition of Punjab in 1947. This comprised of 93 MAF including 27 of Kabul for Indus, 23 for Jhelum, 26 for Chenab, 6 for Ravi, 13 for Beas and 14 for Sutlej annually. Out of this 175 MAF, 167 flowed into Pakistan at the time the boundaries of partitioned Punjab were fixed according to the Radcliffe Award . This means that the Indian East Punjab drew only 8 MAF of a total of 33 MAF of water that annually flowed in three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. It is this 25 MAF that many Pakistanis feel should have been shared between the two countries.

The Pakistanis feel that those who negotiated the IWT on their behalf did not sufficiently press for the sharing of this quantum of water. There are several fallacies, as usual, in this argument. Firstly, leaving aside the claim on the quantum of waters, the arrangement entered into at Partition time was interim in nature until a final agreement could be reached and the provisions of such an interim arrangement were in no way binding on the parties concerned. Secondly, the Indus Agreement was eventually reached in 1960 and in the meanwhile, utilization of the waters of these rivers had grown enormously in the states of East Punjab, Rajasthan and Jammu & Kashmir. To claim the waters on the basis of the flow thirteen years before, when agriculture and economy had been dictated by different circumstances of a united India is patently unfair. In fact, the IWT itself treats water flows and usage based on the situation existing as on Apr. 1, 1960, the effective date of the Treaty. Thirdly, as a lower riparian state, all the unused river waters would naturally flow to Pakistan. This, by itself, cannot bestow any rights on that country and again, a quantum of 80 MAF of water was reaching the Arabian Sea unutilized out of the total flow of the Indus River systems in Pakistan. By the same logic of Pakistan, that quantum of water should also be shared with India then. Last, but not the least, the parts that eventually comprised Pakistan were part of India for millennia. The agricultural and irrigation patterns had been developed keeping in mind the whole. When those parts decided to secede all of a sudden, an argument could not be held against the rest of India that because of its usage of water it needed everything (even if almost half of it was going waste). India needed to develop afresh its command area due to loss of territory and fertile areas.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 08 Jul 2010 20:57

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_un ... es_1407069

New Delhi: With just a week left for expiry of deadline and both India and Pakistan unable to decide on the names of umpires for Kishenganga arbitration, the process seems to be heading for international intervention even as New Delhi has proposed to Pakistan July 12 as a date to settle the umpire issue bilaterally.
While both sides named two arbitrators each within the 30 days of initiation of the arbitration process on May 18, they have failed to decide so far on the three umpires, including a Chairman, for the court of arbitration to settle the Kishenganga water dispute. The final date for selecting these umpires is July 16.
[snip]
India also invited Pakistan government for consultations on July 5-6 regarding the appointment of three umpires, including a Chairman of the Court of Arbitration, by mutual agreement.

Though Pakistan did not come for the consultations, it proposed exchanging names of umpires, selected by both countries respectively, officials sources said.

However, after legal consultation, India insisted on holding discussion on the selection of the umpires instead of exchanging names, which had a possibility of being vetoed by either country, they said.

With the process appearing to head towards international intervention under which UN and World Bank will select the
names using draw of lots, India yesterday again invited Pakistan to hold bilateral consultations, with either an Indian team visiting Islamabad or their team coming here, on July 12 to resolve the issue, the sources said.

As per the provisions of the Treaty, if the two countries fail to appoint umpires within 30 days of appointment of arbitrators from both sides, then the two parties prepare a draw of lots and request a "person" mentioned in the Treaty to select the umpire.

While the chairman can be selected by either the secretary general of the United Nations or president of the World Bank, the engineer member umpire can be selected from a lot by president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Rector, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.

The Legal member umpire can be selected from a draw of lots by either the Chief Justice of the United States or Lord chief justice of England, as per the provisions of the Treaty.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jul 2010 07:36

Resolving Pak-India water dispute
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news- ... er-dispute

Pakistan first received reports about India’s Kishenganga project in 1988. Subsequent to Pakistan’s objections and also keeping in mind the submergence of the entire Gurez Valley because of the height (77 meters) of the dam coupled with environmental concerns, the Indian authorities reviewed the project and converted it to a run-of-river project with a height of 37 meters only. This change would ensure that the storage capacity would reduce drastically from about 174 million cubic meters to under eight million cubic meters, which is less than maximum pondage of 8.87 million cubic meters permissible under the IWT. However Pakistan’s concern is that despite changes in the design of this project, it is gross violation of IWT because the water will not be transferred to the same tributary i.e. Neelum, rather the diversion will flush Wullar Lake which is not allowed under the Treaty.
Article III of the IWT grants Pakistan the “exclusive right” over the western rivers and bars India from building any storage or undertaking any man-made obstruction on these rivers to the disadvantage of Pakistan. Annexure-D of the Treaty states: “Where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another Tributary but only to the extent existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.”
India, on its part, has claimed that the Neelum-Jhelum project came up much after it had first intimated Pakistan about its plans concerning the Kisheng-anga project in 1994. However, Pakistan has remained steadfast on its position claiming that India envisaged the project in late 1980s. Therefore, as per the principle of “prior appropriation”, Pakistan’s project should be accorded priority.
Pakistan should learn a lesson from the Baglihar issue. It must pursue the judicial remedies available under the IWT to resolve the Kishenganga imbroglio without any demur, so that the peace process could progress on all fronts. Pakistan should also adopt a comprehensive strategy to overcome the impending water crisis which can, to a large extent, be attributed to global warming and mismanagement in the utilisation of water resources

dada · Post by **dada** » 09 Jul 2010 15:55

# Prem,

India really needs to focus & maintain its focus on making full use of the IWT clauses & build as many dams as necessary on rivers allocated to pakistan. These dams taken together constitute a control system & an actionable capacity to permanently manage paki behaviour.

It seems that a slow but progressive & determined development of our capacity to store / stop / divert water supply to pakistan will help us tackle pakistanis most effectively !

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 09 Jul 2010 18:44

India should do a Hillary Clinton on Pakistan (Hillary Clinton on Pakistan's opposition to the Kerry Lugar Bill said: If Pakistan feels so strongly about the KLB, they should not accept that money. No one is forcing them to accept that money).

The result of this statement was the fastest down-hill ski by the pakistanis in recent history.

On the Indus water treaty, if the Pakistanis find it so cumbersome, and they claim that India 'steals' water and that their leaders sold their interests off, and that they should re-negotiate the treaty, then fine they should announce that the treaty is null and void. They will re-negotiate the treaty.

India can meanwhile go ahead fully unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by the treaty on design and water diversion, and announce and begin new hydroelectric projects, including the ones which divert water from J&K state, with the knowledge and confidence that any new negotiations and any future treaty will start from the ground situation prevailing on that future date. That is, India can then not be asked to roll back the projects that were underway when there was not treaty in place, and any future negotiations will then keep those in mind when deciding the water sharing.

Simple.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jul 2010 19:16

ignorant opinionated paki perpetuates misinformation on IWT

by Nauman Asghar

The recent press reports suggest that the Indus Water Commissioners of both India and Pakistan have amicably resolved their dispute over the Baglihar Dam in a three-day meeting held on May 30 and June 01 at New Delhi. The process of filling of the dam in 2008, not being in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, had adversely affected the flow of water in Chenab. It is also heartening to know that the two countries have for the first time settled the issues of Uri-II (Jehlum) and Chutak hydel power projects in Jammu and Kashmir, at the level of Permanent Indus Commission. But the differences on the design of Kishenganga and Nimoo Bazgoo hydel power plants remain unresolved and Pakistan has decided to approach the International Court of Arbitration in case of the former project.
There is no gainsaying the fact that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) has worked satisfactorily for a period of almost five decades, despite wars and prolonged standoffs. The first important issue that arose between India and Pakistan which was successfully resolved under the Treaty was the Indian project of Salal hydroelectric plant on the Chenab River. After protracted negotiations bet-ween the commissioners of the two countries, and also at the level of foreign secretaries, for about four years (December 1974 to April 1978), the matter was amicably resolved. India agreed to make changes in the project design and resul-tantly the Salal Agreement was signed in April 1978.
In contrast, the Wuller Barrage is the most controversial water project. According to the Indian government, the purpose of the barrage is to construct a control structure in order to improve the navigation in River Jehlum during winters for transportation of fruit and timber between Srinagar and Baramula. Pakistan argues that this project is a major breach of IWT and India may undertake its construction only after the design has been approved by it (Pakistan), as its storage capacity should not exceed 10,000 acre feet while the present capacity of Wullar Barrage is 300,000 acre feet. Although India has not abandoned the project, however, the work on the barrage is presently suspended.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jul 2010 19:20

Gagan wrote:India should do a Hillary Clinton on Pakistan (Hillary Clinton on Pakistan's opposition to the Kerry Lugar Bill said: If Pakistan feels so strongly about the KLB, they should not accept that money. No one is forcing them to accept that money).

The result of this statement was the fastest down-hill ski by the pakistanis in recent history.

On the Indus water treaty, if the Pakistanis find it so cumbersome, and they claim that India 'steals' water and that their leaders sold their interests off, and that they should re-negotiate the treaty, then fine they should announce that the treaty is null and void. They will re-negotiate the treaty.

India can meanwhile go ahead fully unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by the treaty on design and water diversion, and announce and begin new hydroelectric projects, including the ones which divert water from J&K state, with the knowledge and confidence that any new negotiations and any future treaty will start from the ground situation prevailing on that future date. That is, India can then not be asked to roll back the projects that were underway when there was not treaty in place, and any future negotiations will then keep those in mind when deciding the water sharing.

Simple.

Simply superb, though WT does not provide for it unfortunately.

I hope someone from kongrass makes this statement in public and we see the fun.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jul 2010 19:30

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/06/28/neel ... disas.html

London, June 28 (ANI): Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project is located near Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. It aims to dig a tunnel and divert water of Neelam River from Nauseri, about 41 KM East of Muzaffarabad.

A powerhouse will be constructed at Chatter Kalas, 22 Km South of Muzaffarabad; and after passing through the turbines the water will be released in Jhelum River, about four Km South of Chatter Kalas.

Once completed, the Neelam Jhelum Hydroelectric Project will produce 969 MW of electricity annually at the cost of US 2.16 billion dollars.

This hydroelectric project was formally announced by former Minister Omar Ayub on June 10, 2007. WAPDA selected MWH, a global provider of environmental engineering, strategic consulting and construction services, to provide engineering and construction management services for the Neelam-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project.

It is a joint venture led by MWH and consisting of MWH, Pakistani firms NESPAK, ACE and NDC, and Norwegian firm NORPLAN. The MWH will provide design, make construction drawing preparation and management construction services; and the project will be completed within eight years.

A concrete gravity dam 135 m long and 47 m high will be constructed on Neelam River at Nauseri. The dam is designed for over-topping. The dam will create a head pond of eight million cubic meters, which will allow a peaking reservoir of 2.08 million cubic meters to meet daily peaking of power for more than four hours.

A six gate tunnel intake structure of 280 cumec capacity will be connected with three conventional flushing surface basins installed at their end for taking sediment back into river.

The total length of head race tunnel is 28.5 Km. A 15.1 Km stretch of the tunnel from the Nauseri be constructed as a twin tunnel system each with cross section of 42 Sq.m. The remaining head race tunnel down to the surge chamber will be a single tunnel having cross section of 82 Sq.m. The tunnels are shotcrete lined with a concrete invert.

The tunnel crosses Jhelum River approximately 380 meters below its bed. The tunnel will be accessed by 7 Adits for removal of excavated spoil.

The surge chamber consist of 340 m high riser shaft and 820 m long surge tunnel, four steel lined Penstock tunnels 150 m long and having 3.8 m internal diameter will also be constructed.

The under ground power station will have four units with a total capacity of 969 MW. The power station will be connected with Rawat Grid station (in Pakistan) through 500KV double circuit transmission line.

Overall project cost is estimated at Rs. 130 billion (US 2.16 billion dollars) and Installed capacity 969 MW four units @ 242 MW each

The concrete gravity dam is expected to take eight years for completion. The construction contact was awarded, on July 7, 2007, to M/s CGGC-CMEC consortium China for implementation of the project at a cost of Rs. 90.90 billions.

Government of Pakistan has approved financial arrangement for the project and established Neelam Jhelum Hydropower Company for project implementation

Project envisages acquisition of approx, 2400 kanals of private and State land in the project Area in Muzaffarabad District. Like other projects conceived and completed by the WAPDA in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, this project is also designed to benefit Pakistan at the expense of the local people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir.

Although the work has already started on the project, but as yet there is no written agreement between WAPDA and government of Pakistani Administered Kashmir. This shows what kind of role or influence government of Pakistani Administered Kashmir has over this matter; or any matter related to development, welfare of people and environment.

Unlike WAPDA claims the project will not help the local people in any form or shape. The employment opportunities are for the people of Pakistan or foreign workers. So far only five jobs are given to the local people, which are: chefs, cleaners and watchmen.

Majority of population lives in rural areas and their existence and life largely depends upon forestry, livestock and agriculture.

River water and natural springs are main source for drinking and irrigation of land; and this diversion of river will have serious water shortage, which will make life miserable for the local people.

The project will have very serious impact on environment of the area, as it plays a key role in the configuration of Himalayan ecosystem. Environmental groups have expressed their concerns about prospective environmental hazards on local economy and biodiversity.

Ecologists say the project area has significant conservational importance due to abundant of forests, aquatics life and presence of many species of wild life, which have been declared endangered globally.

The project will also have serious impact on the habitat of various rare species considered on the verge of extinction.

I will also have negative impact on the natural habitat of wildlife. Beauty of this area is enhanced by this river; and this diversion will have serious affect on wild life, weather and beauty of the area.

The river and the beauty of the area attract tourists and provide clean water to the local people and citizens of Muzaffarabad; and this diversion of water will deprive the area of clean water and reduce the Neelam River to 'Nalah Lahi' in Rawalpindi which has dirty water and creates enormous problems for the citizens.

This project, once completed will benefit Pakistan, but local people will not benefit from it in any form or shape. There will be serious economic and environmental consequences for the local people; and their future generations will face very serious economic and environmental problems.nterestingly India also plans to build a dam on the Neelam River which is known as Kishen Ganga on the Indian side of the divide.

Indian plan is to divert water through a 21 KM long tunnel before it enters Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and release the water into Bonar Madumati Nullah - a tributary of the Jhelum River. The diverted water would be used for generating electricity and feeding the Wullar Lake in the process.(in another article he wrote that kishanganga project would benefit people of J&K)

In other words, after the completion of this project, the water of Neelam River or Kishen Ganga will join River Jhelum at Bandipore on the Indian side of LOC instead of its present convergence at Domel in Muzaffarabad, Pakistani Administered Kashmir.

Pakistan has serious objections to this project, as they feel this project will reduce flow of water in the Neelam River when it enters Pakistani Administered Kashmir; and it will have severe impact on their project: Neelam-Jhelum Hydro Electric Project.

The government of Pakistan wishes to resolve this issue bilaterally, but there is also talk of invoking the arbitration process enshrined in the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. By Dr Shabir Choudhry

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jul 2010 19:35

Why Rice is needed to feed people who want to meet their 72

Pakistan's 2010-2011 season rice crop is expected to drop by 14% versus the year earlier as India limits water supplies to Pakistan, a board member on Pakistan's Rice Exports Association told Reuters on Sunday.

Pakistan's Indus river basin is supplied by melting snow and glaciers from the Himalayas. Both India and Pakistan make use of the Indus, with the river managed under a 1960 water treaty.

Pakistan has lately begun accusing India of taking more than its fair share from the headwaters by building a number of dams and waging water war against its downstream neighbour. India denies this.

"In 2010-2011 we expect to face a drop of 14% in production because of limited water supplies because India is building dams and diverting water from the same river we share," Sham Khan told Reuters on the sidelines of an industry conference in Dubai.

"This water issue is a serious problem and Pakistan is currently in talks with India to try to resolve this issue as agriculture represents around 23.3 of our GDP."

During the 2009-2010 season, which starts in August and ends in February, Pakistan produced around 6.7 million tonnes of the water intensive crop due to good weather conditions, Khan said (my name is khan).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jul 2010 22:18

Pak invites India for talks on Kishanganga project issue on July 13

Islamabad, July 10 (ANI): Pakistan has invited India for a meeting to discuss the appointment of neutral experts (pakis are as usual confused or deliberately creating confusion. Its panel of umpires they need to fix and give priority for their appointment)for the controversial Kishanganga hydel power project.

The meeting is scheduled to take place on July 13 in Islamabad, The Daily Times reports.(what happened to New Delhi's invitation of talks on July 12th for the same purpose. piglets forget a thing or two on reciprocating invitational calls. intention is clear not to reach consensus.)

Both India and Pakistan have agreed on international arbitration over the controversial project in Bandipora District of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, if the two countries fail to reach a consensus during the talks, the experts will be decided by a draw of lots by the World Bank, the United Nations and other international institutions.

India showing magnanimity.Agrees to send its representatives to pigsty

Under the provisions of the treaty, the two countries have to appoint three umpires, including a chairman, before the court of arbitration is set up to decide an issue. India had invited Pakistan to hold consultations on July 5 and 6 to nominate the umpires bilaterally.

But Pakistan suggested that the names of the umpires should be exchanged between the missions of the two countries.

On Wednesday, India once again asked Pakistan for consultations over the issue, saying it was ready to send its representatives to Islamabad.

On Thursday, Pakistan invited India to hold consultations in Islamabad on July 13.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Jul 2010 18:10

Pakistan plans early completion of Neelum-Jhelum project

To complete the 969 megawatts (MW) Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project, the federal government has decided to import state-of-the-art equipment worth Rs 8 billion.

Talking to reporters on Sunday, Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervaiz Ashraf directed the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to expedite work on the Neelam-Jhelum project in order to complete it a year before the scheduled time.

The minister said in order to complete the project on fast track basis, modern equipment and tunnel boring machines worth Rs 8 billion had been imported. “Although the project will cost $2.16 billion, the government has sufficient funds to complete the project,” he added.

He said the government had already provided funds for the completion of the project, adding that it was being financed by the Kuwait Fund, the Saudi Fund, the Islamic Development Bank and the Abu Dhabi Funds.

Neelum-Jhelum Hydel Power Project Director Syed Ali Raza told reporters that round-the-clock work was underway on the project.

He said the project was initiated in 2008 and would be completed in October 2015, instead of 2016.

Raza said 3,400 acres of land were required for the project, adding that the government had already acquired 3,200 acres for the purpose.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Jul 2010 21:17

Pakistan is seeking to stall the Kishanganga-Wullar Barrage-Tulbul Navigation project, while it tries to complete the Neelum Jhelum tunnel.
That tunnel is being built by a chinese company, since Pakistan lacks the engineering skills to complete a project of such magnitude and that too with the speed required. This project will be an environmental disaster with the tunnels crossing seismic faultlines.
Most of Pakistan's big hydroelectric projects are poorly designed and conceived it seems. This project like others was designed several decades ago. Technology and understanding of the earth has grown significantly in 4 decades or so, but pakistan still pursues designs and ideas half a century old, and still can't complete them on time.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 13 Jul 2010 22:03

Pak claims Chinese support for PoK project

BEIJING: Pakistan claimed on Sunday that Chinese authorities have agreed to invest in the Neelum Jhelum river project in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which India has been opposing. But there was no confirmation in this respect from the Chinese government.

In fact, there were signs that Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari’s efforts to persuade China to invest in infrastructure project were hampered by rocket attacks on a hotel that endangered the lives of several Chinese engineers in Pakistan. The attacks took place at about the same time he was meeting Chinese leaders in Beijing on July 7.

The Pakistani media on Sunday quoted Zardari’s press secretary Farhatullah Babar as saying that Chinese president had promised “steady progress in cooperation with Pakistan in energy, telecom sectors, Neelum Jhelum project and Pakistan telecommunication satellite project”. But there was no mention of the Neelum project in the official Chinese media.

Babar also indicated that China had postponed plans to invest in upgrading the Karakoram highway and did not agree to laying a rail link at this juncture. He said “special committees” will be set up by the two countries in 2011 to deal with the issue of Karakorum highway upgradation and the establishing the National Trade Corridor.

He did not mention the rail link project although Zardari had raised it publicly on three occasions during his 5-day visit to China.

During the visit, Zardari is believed to have been questioned about the two tocket attacks that hit a hotel in Gwadar in which several Chinese engineers were staying. Though the engineers escaped unhurt, the issue made it difficult for Pakistani president to sell his theory that a rail link from China to Gwadar port in the Pakistani hinterland would do a world of good for Chinese exports.

The issue of security of Chinese personnel has apparently affected Chinese plans to provide Pakistan with two nuclear reactors. In his briefing, Babar mentioned what China said about the reactors before Zardari’s visit but he had nothing to show that the Chinese have finally agreed to the request for reactors.

The Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Babar as saying that China had promised to go ahead with the installation of the reactors “on the eve of President’s visit China”.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 15 Jul 2010 13:43

India building two projects on Indus with Pak consent

ISLAMABAD: The government extended the clearance certificate under Trans-boundary Environment Impact Assessment (TEIA) almost two years back to Nimoo Bazgo and Chutak hydropower projects being built on the country’s main lifeline of the River Indus. However, it is an unresolved mystery as to how authorities concerned either in the Ministry of Water and Power or Foreign Office cleared these two projects on 11th of August 2008 that would have an adverse impact on water inflows in the Indus.

It is also possible that India produces TEIA certificate to the United Nations for earning the carbon credit (CC) on the said two projects. However, the documents of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) exclusively available with The News shows that India has fulfilled the condition of conducting TEIA and managed the no objection certificate from Islamabad that the said projects will have not adverse environmental impact on the Pakistan side. The 42-meter-high Chutak Hydroelectric Project that is under construction is located on the River Suru, a tributary of the Indus in the Kargil district of the Indian-held Kashmir. Additionally, a 57-meter-high Nimoo-Bazgo Hydroelectric Project is also being developed in the Leh District on the Indus. Both hydropower projects were launched in Year 2005. Nimoo-Bazgo is scheduled to be completed in August 2010 while the Chutak Hydroelectric Project would be completed in January 2011. India had surprisingly already earned CC against these two projects from the UNFCCC after conducting the TEIA.

Meanwhile, amid the ongoing visit of Indian foreign minister to Islamabad, Arshad H Abbasi, an eminent water expert who has also been involved in Track-II diplomacy with India on strategic issues, including water issue, in his letter to the prime minister based on the UNFCCC documents has sought the immediate intervention of the top leadership into the shocking development and demanded to fix the responsible officials whose loyalties are no more with Pakistan.

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 15 Jul 2010 13:55

Who's 'turning off' river flows in Pakistani Punjab?
BBC at its best - showing Aksai Chin as undisputed.

The desert is swallowing up the plains of southern Punjab with alarming speed.
<SNIP>there is still water coming into Pakistan, but a lot of it feeds the canal system here. That means the authorities can decide which places get water and which don't.

In a large tent in the desert, we find a protest gathering of men, women and children from all over the area. They have all seen their water turned off, and their land turn to desert.

They don't blame India for their problems, but the politicians and feudal landlords who they think are helping themselves to Pakistan's water.

"One day, you will see, these quiet, poor people will rise up," says Jam Hazzor Baksh, a campaigner leading the protest.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Jul 2010 16:08

Water row key to India-Pakistan rivalry: AFP

“This year water supply is less than last year. Crop earnings decline every year and water shortages have affected 50 per cent of our agricultural business. The problems with India can only be resolved with war,” said Sarwar.

“Our yields have declined up to 50 per cent in the last two, three years. If things continue, agriculture will go down 75 per cent in the next 10 years,” he said.

Good Progress with the agricultural yield!

I would wish there was some Indian propaganda reaching these farmers in Pakjab, that the water crisis in Pakistan is of its own making.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jul 2010 19:48

Sindh furious over Irsa decision

KARACHI: Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah took exception to a ‘hurriedly called’ meeting of the Indus River System Authority on Wednesday and saw it as a move to ‘subvert’ the understanding he had reached with his Punjab counterpart a day earlier to defuse a controversy triggered by the reopening of the Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal.

Addressing a news conference, Mr Shah urged Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to take note of what he termed an interference in the decision taken at Tuesday’s meeting, presided over by the premier.

He said it was agreed on Tuesday that water distribution among the four provinces would be done in accordance with the 1991 accord and Irsa would perform its functions free from any political influence. Mr Shah said that Sindh be given its share of water as guaranteed in the 1991 accord.

Describing Tuesday’s meeting with the prime minister and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif as positive, Mr Shah expressed astonishment over the convening of the Irsa meeting only a day after and regretted that some elements had moved quickly to subvert the understanding.

He said the water issue had been politicised again and criticized Irsa chairman’s announcement on Wednesday that the CJ link canal would be reopened after three days.

The chief minister said canal reopening would have a grave impact on Sindh’s agriculture, which was already suffering from 40 per cent shortage of water.

Mr Shah said that reopening of the canal under an illegal order had brought about a shortage of water in Sindh, adding that if Sindh did not receive 135,000 cusecs water then it would not be in a position to meet its requirements nor could it release water to Balochistan.

Perhaps India can offer to help Sindh and Baluchistan by diverting water of Chenab ----> Beas---> Sutlej ---> IGC and then a link canal to Sukkur Barrage.That will make Sindh independent of Punjab's water perfidy and colossal wastage ensuring that adequate water flows to Sindh Baluchistan and to Sea as well.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Jul 2010 20:08

chaanakya wrote: Perhaps India can offer to help Sindh and Baluchistan by diverting water of Chenab ----> Beas---> Sutlej ---> IGC and then a link canal to Sukkur Barrage.That will make Sindh independent of Punjab's water perfidy and colossal wastage ensuring that adequate water flows to Sindh Baluchistan and to Sea as well.

Chaanakya garu,

That is one out-of-the-box idea. Excellent!

Perhaps Sindh/Baloch govt should ask for India's support to divert the waters thru Indian canal system to avoid silt, Pakjabi-pollution etc.,

As and when India's role increases in world bodies India must use UN environmental agency to recommend some of these thoughts and WB provide provincial loans for them

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Jul 2010 20:12

chaanakya wrote:Perhaps India can offer to help Sindh and Baluchistan by diverting water of Chenab ----> Beas---> Sutlej ---> IGC and then a link canal to Sukkur Barrage.That will make Sindh independent of Punjab's water perfidy and colossal wastage ensuring that adequate water flows to Sindh Baluchistan and to Sea as well.

Syed Qaim Ali Shah and the Sindhi farmers would be happy to hear such proposals. May be all the water from Indus, Jhelum and Chenab can be diverted to Pakistan through Sindh and Sindh can redistribute to Pakjab as they deem fit.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jul 2010 20:34

RamaY wrote:
Perhaps Sindh/Baloch govt should ask for India's support to divert the waters thru Indian canal system to avoid silt, Pakjabi-pollution etc.,

As and when India's role increases in world bodies India must use UN environmental agency to recommend some of these thoughts and WB provide provincial loans for them

Thanks RamyY Garu
I have names for those canals .Sindh Part can be called BBC ( Benazir Bhutto Canal) and Baluchistan part as ISI BC ( India Sindh Inter Baloch Canal).
We can certainly afford to spare some money and arrange much more from International organisations. Our Engineers are certainly capable of achieving this feat in quick time.

ps : no garu for me please. You are far too experienced in all this.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Jul 2010 20:39

If Sindh and Baluchistan are being so generous with IPI and providing us gas, then it is onlee proper that we provide them with water.

Another thought:
What I don't understand is, why should India pay transit charges for the gas, when Pakistan does not pay us transit costs for the water. Hehn?!?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Jul 2010 21:34

RajeshA wrote:If Sindh and Baluchistan are being so generous with IPI and providing us gas, then it is onlee proper that we provide them with water.

Another thought:
What I don't understand is, why should India pay transit charges for the gas, when Pakistan does not pay us transit costs for the water. Hehn?!?

Good question RajeshA . Perhaps our folks should raise this question in next IWT (just for fun

)

I think it would be effective for India to wait till it gets higher influence in certain world bodies to start these initiatives. For example a WB water-conservation/environmental program that provides a direct loan to Sindh/Baloch govt under Indian management (or something like that).

It is like WB giving a loan to state govt. of Assam for a Dam that would cater India as well as BD... This is how I read MMS's (chanikyan) statement on "making borders irrelevant

"

Chaankya (I think we all are in same age group) - why paying Indian money? We should spend our money to buy our way into these multi-lateral organizations and use janta money for this kind of projects. That is how elders play the game

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Jul 2010 21:49

I am a bit curious,

According to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are for the use of Pakistan, and its waters (mostly) are not to be diverted for India's use. Can India decide what should be the point of entry into Pakistan for the waters of the Western Rivers? Can India change the flow of the river, or technically speaking the flow of the water in those rivers, so that the waters do not go through PoK or Pakjab, but rather e.g. through Sindh?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 15 Jul 2010 22:03

India, Pak exchange experts' names for Kishenganga Arbitration.

With the deadline for appointment of neutral umpires ending tomorrow, India and Pakistan have exchanged the names of four experts each for the International Court of Arbitration to resolve the dispute over the 330-MW Kishenganga hydel project in Jammu and Kashmir.

If the two countries fail to settle on three names, including that of the chairman, by tomorrow, the matter will be decided by a 'draw of lots'.The treaty states that once the process of arbitration is initiated by any of the two countries, the umpires and the chairman have to be appointed within 60 days.

The draw of lots will involve the UN, the World Bank and some institutions of international repute as per the provisions of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.The names were exchanged during a meeting between representatives of both sides in Islamabad on Tuesday, sources in the government said.Both sides suggested two names each for the post of chairman and two names each for the other umpires.

Among the two names, India is learnt to have proposed the name of former justice of Australian high court Michael Kirby for the post of chairman.It also proposed UK-based Prof Asit K Biswas as the technical expert. Biswas is an expert on issues related to global water management.

The Indian side led by chairman, Central Water Commission AK Bajaj also recommended Prof Laurence Boisson de Chazournes of the Netherlands as the legal expert. De Chazournes is on the Board of Directors of an organisation, International Dispute Settlement.

Pakistan, on its part, is learnt to have suggested names of Jordanian national Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice and Edith Weiss Brown, ascholar on water management for the post of chairman.Pakistan has recommended names of one Dutch professor for technical expert and a UK national for the legal expert.

The two countries, which have agreed on international arbitration, had been having a dispute over how to finalise the three neutral umpires who will supervise the legal battle between the two sides in a court of arbitration.The two countries have already nominated two legal experts (arbitrators) each to contest their case over the power project being built in Jammu and Kashmir.

Accusing India of breaching the provisions of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty by diverting the water of the Jhelum tributary for its Kishenganga hydel power project, Pakistan sought international arbitration in May this year after the two countries failed to resolve the issue bilaterally for over two decades.

Under the provisions of the treaty, the two countries will have to appoint three umpires, including a chairman, before the court of arbitration is set up to decide on the issue.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jul 2010 22:23

The conflict can be exemplified in the terms for the resumption of water delivery to Pakistan from the Indian headworks, worked out at an Inter-Dominican conference held in Delhi on 3-4 May 1948. India agreed to the resumption of flow, but maintained that Pakistan could not claim any share of those waters as a matter of right (Caponera, 1987, p. 511). This position was reinforced by the Indian claim that, since Pakistan had agreed to pay for water under the Standstill Agreement of 1947, Pakistan had recognized India's water rights. Pakistan countered that they had the rights of prior appropriation, and that payments to India were only to cover operation and maintenance costs (Biswas, 1992, p. 204).

I think I find echos of RajeshA's idea in the genesis of the water conflict and IWT. We should certainly raise it, at least for the fun of it. But on a serious note this idea needs to be pushed through more seriously.

RamaY I was thinking more on two things

1. If paa'stan falls into the trap of the idea of making border irrelevant then there is a possiblity of diverting waters to various channel, existing and yet to the constructed/thought of and manage water more scientifically through future cooperation.
2.If under Article VII (1) (b) and (C) as well as VII(2) of IWT future cooperation takes place then there is provision for paying sums as may be requested by other paty for New drainage works.
3. Such engineering works are possible if Paa'stan cooperates .The water diverted from Chenab Formula will be delivered to Sindh Baluch without retaining it within India. Paa'stan may pay transit charges ( aka RajeshA's Idea) to ensure that we are in some way ethically bound not to harm water interest of Paas'tan.
4. I am sure IGC might need some rework as to its capacity to carry so much water and deliver it to Paa'stan at Sukkur. Such headworks are not a new concept and in fact waters were sent to Paa'stan through Headworks situated in India.Release at these places are also monitored in accordance with IWT.
5. The lie of the land is towards Paa'stan. So there should not be much difficulty in flow towards sukkur. In fact this was one of the grouse of Paa'stan against IGC. If it is breached water will flow towards Paa'stan side.
6. I have no objection to using Janta money ( I think you meant IMF.WB.ADB USAID Japanese ODA etc) and using our money to make inroads into them. I like the idea and infact is being practiced in some ways by India.However giving aid to Paa'stan ( I would like it to ask for our money, love to see the face of their FM) would have added advantage of H&D, money being great subverting factor, could cause divisions , the president is known as 10% , we can make as many more as possible 10% dependent on Indian money also in addition to USA( though as of now we can't match USA here). There may be a chance that our money would be used against us, but its same with USA, maoists in India, Kashmir and NE. MGREGA ( formerly NGREGA) funds often finds in hands of subversive elements. So not much to worry about.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Jul 2010 22:50

RajeshA wrote:I am a bit curious,

According to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are for the use of Pakistan, and its waters (mostly) are not to be diverted for India's use. Can India decide what should be the point of entry into Pakistan for the waters of the Western Rivers? Can India change the flow of the river, or technically speaking the flow of the water in those rivers, so that the waters do not go through PoK or Pakjab, but rather e.g. through Sindh?

IWT has underlying tone of conflict management and hence restrictions on new constructions, especially of storage works, hydroelectric work, ROR plants, river works channels etc in such a way not to cause material damage to the other party ( primarily Paa'stan). IWT annexure extensively cover these aspects. But point of entry of water is perhaps assumed to be in its natural course as otherwise it would be deemed to cause material damage.

IWT does not expressly prohibits new canal works . It is here " irrelevant borders" come into play. The trust deficit , that Paa'stan and India often talk about could also be bridged by proposing such a diversion which would benefit a large water starved population of Paa'stan primarily due to stealing of waters by Paa'stan's Punjab. Punjab almost wastes 30-40% of water due to various factors and less water becomes available to sindh and baluch. So if Paa'stan reposes its trust in India and allows this proposal to come through IWT does not prohibit it. But if Paa'stan says it would cause material damage to their interest then India might not propose such an idea. Theoretically , yes it is possible using recourse to Art VII of IWT.

But on second thought this idea can be worked out and put in Permanent Indus commission for deliberation and Paa'stan can be asked to bridge trust deficit by actually showing faith in Good Indian Intentions.Paa'stan must move forward and explore new avenues for cooperation, keep the good work done by lungimaster and SMK with their visits to Paa'stan, take the process forward in a demonstrable manner.

I would take SSridhar's word for it.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Jul 2010 01:34

^
As a first step India can make the offer.

Imagine a Indian representative saying"

"Since India possesses efficient water management expertise, it offers to deliver Pakistani share of waters with 30% loss instead of current 40% loss in pakjab at Sindh" at a UN Environmental Agency seminar on 'South-Asia: Water Wars?' or something like that.

Just say this and watch the tamashaaa

If/when it happens, make sure that this goes thru "Saraswathi" river-tracks.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jul 2010 05:15

From this week's Friday Times

Jamaat Ali Shah speaks India’s language

Reported in Nawa-e-Waqt a seminar held by Nawa-e-Waqt Group of newspapers decided that Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah was no longer speaking for Pakistan but was defending the Indian position on the stealing of river waters by India through 62 dams. Speakers including such illustrious men as Ambassador Javed Hussain who said that India was stealing one crore forty acre feet of water and that the Indus Water Treaty was only good for the 1960s but today India’s water aggression could lead to an Indo-Pak war that would soon turn into a nuclear world war.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jul 2010 09:10

RajeshA wrote:I am a bit curious,

According to Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are for the use of Pakistan, and its waters (mostly) are not to be diverted for India's use. Can India decide what should be the point of entry into Pakistan for the waters of the Western Rivers? Can India change the flow of the river, or technically speaking the flow of the water in those rivers, so that the waters do not go through PoK or Pakjab, but rather e.g. through Sindh?

No, India cannot unilaterally do that. India has no right to change the natural channels of flow, per IWT. The UN Convention on International Watercourses also prohibits such a course of action without proper consultation with all the involved States. India has always been a stickler for international conventions and bilateral treaties.

It may be also practically impossible to do or entail huge expenses that might dwarf a short, swift war. When one excuse that we repeatdly offer for not taking reprisals against Pakistan is that we must grow economically for another decade before thinking of doing that, how can we contemplate a project like diversion of two major rivers ? This will certainly lead to war by Pakistan which we will be unable to settle decisively because we would not have 'arrived at economically' for another decade.

Within Sind also, massive canal works would need to be built for handling this huge flow of waters and then to distribute them to North Sind etc. Storage dams may not be possible in Sind along the newly diverted path. There are also international repercussions to contend with. It is simply too infeasible.

On the question of transportation charges, there are many differences between natural flows of trans-border water and man-made structures erected for a specific purpose.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jul 2010 09:21

Water row key to Indo-Pak Rivalry

For Pakistani farmer Ghulam Sarwar, only war with India can overcome the water shortages parching his crops and drying up his profits.

His family owns 85 acres in northern Punjab, traditionally the breadbasket of Pakistan but where the country’s sizeable agriculture sector is finding it increasingly difficult to irrigate crops. “This year water supply is less than last year. Crop earnings decline every year and water shortages have affected 50 percent of our agricultural business. The problems with India can only be resolved with war,” said Sarwar. The 29-year-old says his family is forced to use costly motors to pump water in their village of Budhan Kay, 40 kilometres north of Lahore. “Our yields have declined up to 50 percent in the last two, three years. If things continue, agriculture will go down 75 percent in the next 10 years,” he said. When the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan sit down on Thursday for their first face-to-face talks since New Delhi called off a peace process after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, water will be one of the issues on the agenda. {But, it does not seem to have been. See this, for example. Everything else seems to have been discussed. Pakistani farmer Ghulam Sarwar might be displeased.}

Water availability in Pakistan has fallen from about 5,000 cubic metres per capita in the early 1950s to less than 1,500 cubic metres, said a 2008 report for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Growing population, rising demand, and snow and ice reductions in the Himalayas account for the shortages, which are compounded by inefficient irrigation, abysmal urban sanitation and unequal water rights, it said. But many in Pakistan have accused arch-rival India, the powerful neighbour to the east, of stealing water. Whipping up anger, terrorist groups even called for a new jihad, or holy war, over water — something few took seriously. “Only jihad can help get water released to Pakistan, so people should rise up,” said Jamaatud Dawa, a charity seen as a front for Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, blamed for the Mumbai attacks..

India denies that it is unfairly diverting water. Indian analysts accuse Pakistan of trying to divert attention from water mismanagement and a crippling energy crisis, saying Islamabad should better share out water within Pakistan. India and Pakistan say all issues are up for discussion on Thursday, but right-wing religious groups and farmers in Pakistan believe the dialogue will be useless unless Pakistan focuses on water and Kashmir. Unreliable rains mean that agriculture in Punjab depends heavily on river water. Agriculture accounts for about 20 percent of Pakistan’s gross domestic product and millions of jobs depend on farming.

Hamid Malhi, co-ordinator of the Punjab Water Council that represents farmers, said urgent talks were required to appease Pakistani fears that Indian hydroelectric stations could run Pakistan’s rivers dry. “If diversions like the Kishanganga project are not settled as it should be, then we have serious apprehensions that diversions from other rivers would also be made and precedents would be set,” he told AFP. “The only way is to sit down and talk.” Whatever happens, solutions will come only once India and Pakistan overcome their current hostility. “We’ll be thankful if the Pakistani government takes up the water issue with India,” said Mohammad Sharif, a small farmer in a run-down village near the Wahga border crossing with India. “There is no water. Seeds are costly. Fertilisers are beyond my means. Electricity bills are high and we can hardly meet our expenses,” he said. AFP

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jul 2010 12:11

So I think we are getting on similar wavelength on this issue.

Ssridhar wrote:No, India cannot unilaterally do that. India has no right to change the natural channels of flow, per IWT. The UN Convention on International Watercourses also prohibits such a course of action without proper consultation with all the involved States.

chaanakya wrote:If under Article VII (1) (b) and (C) as well as VII(2) of IWT future cooperation takes place then there is provision for paying sums as may be requested by other praty for New drainage works.

chaanakya wrote:But point of entry of water is perhaps assumed to be in its natural course as otherwise it would be deemed to cause material damage.

1. Natural course of water can be diverted with proper consultations, but not otherwise.
2. If Paa'stan agrees to cooperate IWT does provide for future cooperation , then natural course of rive could be diverted. People of the area have to be consulted which entails massive awareness campaign and need for this project. If done with cooperation of paa'stan ( may be I am daydreaming

) then war may not be needed. India can also use its quota from western rivers for our land.
3.If India provides ironclad guarantees then trust deficit may be bridged.
4. River diversions are not insignificant work. It entails massive expenditure needed to create huge infrastructure for such purposes. It has been done at several places in the world. So it may not be impoosible, difficult yes, , engineering may be challenging. Infeasible , No. Financial cost may be more but if proper DPR is worked out with chrges etc could be done. China has this massive plan for Yarlun Tsangpo diversion ( btw involving inter basin transfers) , they have yangtze diversion projects and both combined into a massive national project. We don't ave those geological , geographical challenges, especially when both countries are talking of making borders irrelevant. World bank and IMF would be too happy to fund if financial closure is achieved in 10 to 15 years.

Investments and work requiring employment of trained/untrained/skilled/semi-skilled/unskilled manpower would provide booster effect to Indian economy and also to flagging paa'stan's economy , also keeping poor folks busy for years in earth works. Great for rural people like k sahab so that they may not be interested in risky ventures

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 16 Jul 2010 13:18

Protest rallies in Sindh against water shortage

...On the occasion, they said that millions of acres of land had become barren due to the shortage of water in River Indus, canals and distributaries of Sindh.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jul 2010 19:25

**** self deleted ****
thanks

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 16 Jul 2010 20:46

Vipul wrote: Among the two names, India is learnt to have proposed the name of former justice of Australian high court Michael Kirby for the post of chairman.It also proposed UK-based Prof Asit K Biswas as the technical expert. Biswas is an expert on issues related to global water management.
The Indian side led by chairman, Central Water Commission AK Bajaj also recommended Prof Laurence Boisson de Chazournes of the Netherlands as the legal expert. De Chazournes is on the Board of Directors of an organisation, International Dispute Settlement.
Pakistan, on its part, is learnt to have suggested names of Jordanian national Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh of the International Court of Justice and Edith Weiss Brown, ascholar on water management for the post of chairman.Pakistan has recommended names of one Dutch professor for technical expert and a UK national for the legal expert( what are their names??).

Indian Nominees

Michael Kirby
http://michaelkirby.com.au

Michael Kirby was, until 2 February 2009, one of the seven Justices of Australia's highest constitutional and appellate court, the High Court of Australia. He served there from his appointment on 6 February 1996. At the end of that service he was Australia's longest serving judicial officer having been:
* A deputy president of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission 1975-1983;
* Inaugural chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission 1975-1984;
* A judge of the Federal Court of Australia 1983-1984;
* President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal 1984-1996;
* President of the Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands 1995-1996;
* A justice of the High Court of Australia 1996-2009.
In addition to these posts, Michael Kirby has served in many international and United Nations positions including two expert groups of the OECD, Paris, many bodies of the Commonwealth Secretariat, London and positions in the ILO, UNDP, UNESCO, UNODC, WHO Global Commission on AIDS, and UNAIDS. He was President of the International Commission of Jurists 1995-1998 and served as Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations for Human Rights in Cambodia 1993-1996. He has been a member of the governing body of three Australian universities, ultimately being elected as Chancellor of Macquarie University in Sydney 1984-1993. He holds honorary degrees of Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Laws and Doctor of the University from twelve Australian and foreign universities and various other appointments.
Michael Kirby is respected and experienced as a judge and lawyer. He is well known for his insight, warmth, intelligence and courage. The key question is: what next in the career of this remarkable Australian?

Prof Asit K Biswas

Prof. Asit K. Biswas is one of the world's leading authorities on water and environmental management. An advisor to six heads of the U.N. agencies and 18 governments, he received the 2006 Stockholm Water Prize, which is considered to be the equivalent of Nobel Prize in the field of water for his "outstanding contributions" to solve the world's water problems. An out-of-box thinker, he is the founder of the Third World Centre for Water Management in Mexico, and Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School for Public Policy, Singapore.
He has added new dimensions to the wise use of the global water resources.
As an advisor to the Secretary General of the U.N. Water Conference, Prof. Biswas was the first to propose the idea of an International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, subsequently approved unanimously by the UN General Assembly. This Decade ensured that hundreds of millions of people in the developing world had access to clean drinking water and sanitation. He chaired the Middle East Water Commission, which directly contributed to the signing of two treaties in this region. He is one of the founders of the International Water Resources Association and the World Water Council, and also helped with the establishment and programme development of the UN Environment Programme in Nairobi and the U.N. University in Tokyo.

Prof Laurence Boisson de Chazournes

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, a French citizen, is Professor and Director of the Department of Public International Law and International Organization, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva. She is also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies (Geneva, Switzerland), and at the University of Aix-Marseille (France). Her areas of specialization include International Law, Environmental Law and Water Law, International Organizations, International Humanitarian Law and International Economic Law.
She holds a Ph.D. in International Law from the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland), Bar exam (Lyon, France) and a Diploma in Political Science from the University of Lyon II (France).
She is a Consultant and a Member of Groups of Experts with various international organizations, including the World Bank, WHO, UNDP, ILO, UNEP, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and UNITAR. She also consulted for the Swiss Government, the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the UN Center for Human Rights.
Laurence Boisson de Chazournes was a Counsel for the Solomon Islands and Samoa in the Request by the World Health Organization and the UN to the International Court of Justice for Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1994-1995.
Her formely held positions include, Senior Counsel, Environment and International Law Unit, Legal Department, the World Bank (1995-1999); Lecturer in European and International Law, Graduate Institute of International Studies (1992-1995); Assistant Professor, Department of Public Inter-national Law and International Organization, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva (1983-1990).
She is member of the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law, member of the Executive Council of the Société française pour le droit international, member of the International Law Association (working group on sustainable development), member of the Société française pour le droit de l'environnement and member of the Commission on Environmental Law (CEL) of International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
She is also member of the editorial and advisory boards of a number of legal journals, such as The European Journal of International Law, The Leiden Journal of International Law, The Yearbook of International Environmental Law, The Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, and the Georgetown International Environmental Law Review.
She is the author of a large number of publications dealing with issues of general international law, international organizations, international economic law and international environmental law and natural resources law.

Paa'stan's Nominees
Judge Awn Shawkat Al-khasawneh

Judge Awn Shawkat Al-khasawneh was born in Amman, Jordan on February 22, 1950. He is Vice-President of the International Court of Justice.
Al-Khasawneh received his university education at Queens' College, Cambridge in England, where he attained an undergraduate degree in history and law, and a master’s degree in international law. From 1980 until 1990, he held senior legal posts in the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 1991 until 1994, he was Legal Adviser to the Jordanian delegation to the peace negotiations between Israel and Jordan.
In 1995, Al-Khasawneh became Adviser to the King of Jordan and Adviser of the State on International Law with the rank of Cabinet Minister. He was appointed Chief of the Royal Hashemite Court from 1996 to 1998. Al-Khasawneh has also been a member of numerous international law bodies during his career.
He has been a member of the International Court of Justice since February 6, 2000, and was elected vice-President of the Court in 2006.
Istiqlal Order, First Class (1993); Kawkab Order, First Class (1996); Nahda Order, First Class (1996) (Jordan). Légion d'Honneur, Grand Officier (1997) (France).vb

Edith Weiss Brown

Professor Brown Weiss is highly active in the areas of public international, environmental, and water resources law. In September 2002 she was appointed to the 3-member Inspection Panel of the World Bank and from 2003-2007 served as the President of the Inspection Panel, an appointment at the Vice-Presidential level. Her past professional experience includes positions as Associate General Counsel for International Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990-92, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and Politics at Princeton University, and Research Associate at Columbia University and the Brookings Institution. Her numerous professional activities in both international and environmental law have included positions as President of the American Society of International Law, April 1994-96, chair of the Committee for Research in Global Environmental Change of the Social Science Research Council, 1989-94, U.S. Special Legal Advisor to the North American Commission on the Environment 1996-2002, and elected member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Law Institute, and the Commission on Environmental Law of the IUCN, where she is a member of the Steering Committee. She has been a member of the National Academy of Science's Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, NAS Water Science and Technology Board, the NAS/Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Territories Panel on Sustainable Water Supplies in the Middle East, and the NAS Environmental Studies Board. She served on the Board of Directors of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, the Advisory Council of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Council of Advisors to the Cousteau Society, and on the Board of Trustees for the Center for International Environmental Law. Professor Brown Weiss is a member of the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law; Journal of International Economic Law; and International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics; and is the faculty adviser to the Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. She has published numerous articles in international and environmental law, and is the author of many books, including Fresh Water and International Economic Law (co-author, 2005), Reconciling Environment and Trade (co-author, 2001), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords (co-author, 1998), International Environmental Law and Policy (co-author 1998, 2007), and In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Inter generational Equity (1989), which received the Certificate of Merit Award in 1990 from the American Society of International Law, and has been published in French, Japanese, Spanish, and Chinese. In 2003, Professor Brown Weiss received the ABA Award for Distinguished Achievement in Environmental Law and Policy, in 1994 the Elizabeth Haub Prize for international environmental law given by the Free University of Brussels and the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL), and in 1996 the Prominent Women in International Law Award from the American Society of International Law.

Jordanian Judge on ICJ is junior in rank to Peter Tomka, Indian nominee for arbitrators. So he may not be agreed to. Mr Kirby has fair chance. India has a surprising nominee in him, being monarchist and homosexual. Others are quite distinguished in International water management and legal positions in inter state water laws/relations.
It is going to be interesting.