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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17491
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 23 May 2018 21:26

arun wrote:^^^ IMO Brahma Chellaney is reading way too much into that particular sentence of what the World Bank said this time around and way too little in the subsequent paragraph where they say “As a signatory to the Treaty, the World Bank’s role is limited and procedural. In particular, the role in relation to “differences” and “disputes” is limited to the designation of people to fulfill certain roles when requested by either or both parties.”.

Then there is what the World Bank has said on this affair in the past. In the past the World Bank had clearly recognised that it cannot play a mediatory role when Senior Vice President and World Bank Group General Counsel Anne-Marie Leroy said we therefore urge both parties to agree to mediation that the World Bank Group can help arrange. See World Bank Press Release of November 10, 2016 (World Bank Urges Mediation for India, Pakistan over Indus)

Bottomline is that the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan has no option but to tuck tail between hind legs, down-hill ski and accept India’s magnanimous offer of arbitration by a technical expert. In any event it suits India just fine to let matters remain unresolved.


This is an insidious approach for third party mediation.

Today it is the WB and the IWT, tomorrow it may very well be cashmere and the US, under some pretext or the other.

India should cut short the role of the IWT and nip this nonsense of
we therefore urge both parties to agree to mediation that the World Bank Group can help arrange


The IWT has been done and dusted decades ago and at that time the WB did play a dubious role in "convincing" India into signing a very one sided and disproportionate division agreement of the waters. No other water treaty in the world has been more one sided, as short-sightedly generous and also more dismissive of the primacy of the upper riparian state and its legitimate interests. This was primarily because of the foolish "generosity" of our PM at the time. He was pressurised by the obvious powers that be, behind the WB facade and those were primarily the US and the UK, and also a few others, who convinced the senile guy about placating the pakis over cashmere by being "generous".

If, even after such a "generous" and placatory settlement in the IWT, the cashmere issue has continued to raise it's very ugly head, then one has no option but to think that a shady plan, with the full backing of the US and the UK, was already set in motion, at the time of signing the IWT, to wrest cashmere away from India at the opportune moment.

The IWT itself, once signed and delivered, envisaged no further role for the WB thereafter. So where from did the WB find leave to insert itself into the proceedings once again and that too, repeatedly??

Unwisely, India does not seem to be protesting at all and, encouraged by this, the pakis are constantly insisting on dragging the WB into every argument, as though it is the "court" of last resort.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10406
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 23 May 2018 21:53

venug wrote:https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/999251664916893697
Brahma Chellaney:
The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty grants the World Bank no role as a mediator. (It signed the pact mainly as a guarantor of the initial projects.) Yet the Bank insists on playing mediator. Its latest statement says it will "continue to work with both nations to resolve the issues..."

Brahma Chellaney, as is his style, is spreading FUD in his usual tone "Sky is falling". Does not surprise me one bit but one rarely gets such clear data to disprove claims of such eminent analyst like him.

http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.h ... 6439/Indus
Indus Waters Treaty

September 19, 1960

<snip>

ANNEXURE F-NEUTRAL EXPERT (Article IX (2))
Part l-Questions to be referred to a Neutral Expert

<snip>

4. A Neutral Expert shall be a highly qualified engineer, and, on the receipt of a request made in accordance with Paragraph 5, he shall be appointed, and the terms of his retainer shall be fixed, as follows :

(a) During the Transition Period, by the Bank.

(b) After the expiration of the Transition Period,

(i) jointly by the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, or

(ii) if no appointment is made in accordance with (i) above within one month after the date of the request, then by such person or body as may have been agreed upon between the two Governments in advance, on an annual basis, or, in the absence of such agreement, by the Bank.

Provided that every appointment made in accordance with (a) or (b) (ii) above shall be made after consultation with each of the Parties.

The Bank shall be notified of every appointment, except when the Bank is itself the appointing authority.


There it the Bank's role spelled out quite clearly on the GOI's own website with reference to the IWT. I don't know what he means by a "mediator" but "The Bank" clearly has a role in dispute resolution between the parties.

If the Bank does not "continue to work with both nations to resolve the issues..." then how will it play its role as noted in the IWT? Now Mr. Chellaney is free to call it "mediation" but the banks role is clear from even a casual read of the treaty text.
Last edited by pankajs on 23 May 2018 22:23, edited 1 time in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17491
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 23 May 2018 22:22

pankajs wrote:
venug wrote:https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/999251664916893697
Brahma Chellaney:

Brahma Chellaney, as is his style, is spreading FUD in his usual tone "Sky is falling". Does not surprise me one bit but one rarely gets such clear data to disprove claims of such eminent analyst like him.

http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.h ... 6439/Indus
Indus Waters Treaty

September 19, 1960

<snip>

ANNEXURE F-NEUTRAL EXPERT (Article IX (2))
Part l-Questions to be referred to a Neutral Expert

<snip>

4. A Neutral Expert shall be a highly qualified engineer, and, on the receipt of a request made in accordance with Paragraph 5, he shall be appointed, and the terms of his retainer shall be fixed, as follows :

(a) During the Transition Period, by the Bank.

(b) After the expiration of the Transition Period,

(i) jointly by the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, or

(ii) if no appointment is made in accordance with (i) above within one month after the date of the request, then by such person or body as may have been agreed upon between the two Governments in advance, on an annual basis, or, in the absence of such agreement, by the Bank.

Provided that every appointment made in accordance with (a) or (b) (ii) above shall be made after consultation with each of the Parties.

The Bank shall be notified of every appointment, except when the Bank is itself the appointing authority.


There it the Bank's role spelled out quite clearly on the GOI's own website with reference to the IWT. I don't know what he means by a "mediator" but "The Bank" clearly has a role in dispute resolution between the parties. If that role is branded mediation then the Bank is a mediator. If the role is branded facilitation then the Bank is the facilitator.


Thanks saar.

Didn't know this.

Much obliged.

Maybe someone could tweet and correct uncle Chellaney publicly.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10406
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 23 May 2018 22:36

Bakis knew the result even before they approached the WB this latest time. This last maneuver was for domestic consumption and to drive the narrative that it is all a yahood-u-hanood-u-yindu sazis to deny Bakistan when is rightfully theirs and deflect attention from their internal failures.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 24 May 2018 04:11

Kishenganga dispute

AS the country hurtles towards the chaotic flux of a fast approaching election, a critical dispute is set to be decided upon in an international forum.

Pakistan has just activated its request for arbitration in the case of the Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project, or KHEP, that India has just commissioned on the Neelum river.

India describes KHEP as a storage work for power generation purposes only, whereas Pakistan maintains that because its design actually diverts water from the Neelum river into the Bonar Madmati Nullah, it qualifies as a breach of Article III(2) of the Indus Waters Treaty under which all the flows in the Neelum river belong to Pakistan, as well as Article IV(6) of the IWT which safeguards the natural flows of all water channels under the treaty.

This is a particularly important dispute for Pakistan because this is a hydraulic society and irrigation water from the tributaries of the Indus river system plays a vital role in sustaining livelihoods, the economy, food security and overall social stability in this country.

The Court of Arbitration, to which the dispute was originally referred in 2010, found in its first interim order that the dam component of KHEP would “eventually enable India to exercise a certain degree of control over the volume of water that will reach Pakistan” and ordered a temporary halt to construction.

A second interim order in 2013 allowed construction to resume because entitlement to prevent such diversions was based on a demonstrated utilisation of the waters in Pakistan’s territory.

Since Pakistan’s own Neelum Jhelum Hydropower Project was conceived and initiated after KHEP, the Court of Arbitration found that Pakistan did not have any demonstrated requirements for utilisation of the water of the tributary at the time when the dispute began.

Today all that is left for Pakistan to object to is the level to which the dam can be drained, particularly for desilting purposes.

The scope of the objections has been narrowed, but the implications for Pakistan have not. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already threatened to use water as a weapon against Pakistan in 2016, even though his reference was carefully worded to refer only to the waters of the eastern rivers over which India retains full control under the treaty.

Nevertheless, the level of belligerence at the top levels of the Indian government in water politics, as well as the level of control that KHEP gives to India over Neelum river flows makes this a particularly important case for Pakistan.

The World Bank has, thus far, looked to postpone its involvement in the matter by referring it back for bilateral settlement. But that did not work.

The time has come for the bank to step up, and discharge its obligations under the IWT by taking Pakistan’s request for arbitration more seriously.

Cheers Image

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 24 May 2018 16:57

while i have not read IWT in full.. i heard in some program ( arshad abbasi ..a paki) that World Bank is gurantoor for only 2 clauses... he is often supporting indian stance in many programs... he said WB role is very very limited..only some moral authority... facilitator more than mediator. Mediator is needed if the parties decide to solve outside mechanism of IWT. India and Pakistan already have a mechanism of talks between IWT commissioners outside of NE and Arbitration and there is no mediator there. SO WB is no where as a mediator.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1026
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 24 May 2018 17:15

Heh Heh - Predictably Pakis claim Saazish of Indian lobby in World bank for not taking its side. :lol:

Pakistan's complaint to the World Bank about alleged Indian violations of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was frustrated by the South Asian department of the World Bank which is "under the influence of the Indian lobby", said Pakistani media outlet The Express Tribune today.

The country's media today also reported that the World Bank yesterday announced that two days of talks with a Pakistani delegation did not lead to an agreement on the way forward in Pakistan's water dispute with India. The dispute was regarding India commencing the 330-megawatt Kishanganga hydropower station in Jammu and Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the project on May 19.

"The disagreement serves a serious blow to Pakistan that remains unable to penetrate in the World Bank, which is under heavy influence of the Indian lobby working in Washington," wrote the Tribune. It further said that "over the years, successive governments (have) kept a blind eye over a growing Indian influence in international financial institutions.

Pakistan says India has violated the 1960 IWT with the World Bank with the Kishanganga project. New Delhi believes that IWT allows it to build 'run-of-river' hydel projects that do not change the course of the river and do not deplete the water level downstream. Islamabad argues that the Kishanganga project not only violates the course of the river but also depletes its water level.

The World Bank on Wednesday announced that two days of talks with the Pakistani delegation did not lead to an agreement on the way forward in Pakistan's water dispute with India, reported Dawn.

"Several procedural options for resolving the disagreement over the interpretation of the Treaty's provisions were discussed," the World Bank said.

Yet, it added that the IWT only gives it a "limited and procedural" role in resolving India-Pakistan water disputes, although the bank supervised the negotiations for the treaty and is recognised as an arbitrator by both countries.

India started work on the Kishanganga hydropower station in 2007. Three years later, Pakistan took the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which stayed the project for three years. In 2013, the court ruled that the Kishanganga project was “a run-of-river plant within the parameters of the IWT and that India may accordingly divert water from the Kishanganga (Neelum River) for power generation.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22935
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 24 May 2018 17:36

manjgu wrote:while i have not read IWT in full.. i heard in some program ( arshad abbasi ..a paki) that World Bank is gurantoor for only 2 clauses... he is often supporting indian stance in many programs... he said WB role is very very limited..only some moral authority... facilitator more than mediator. Mediator is needed if the parties decide to solve outside mechanism of IWT. India and Pakistan already have a mechanism of talks between IWT commissioners outside of NE and Arbitration and there is no mediator there. SO WB is no where as a mediator.

The IWT has clearly defined what is a difference and what is a dispute. The WB gets involved only in these two cases and that too to ensure that a NE or a CoA is duly constituted or payment for them is made. Rest of everything is only and directly between India and Terroristan. WB has no moral authority either. The WB has repeatedly said that they have no much role to play and it is Terroristan that sticks to this God-forsaken idea that they have at least a moral authority etc. Unfortunately now, Terroristan wants what is a(n) (imaginary) difference as a dispute and so WB had to pathetically announce both an NE and a CoA leading to an impasse (let's not forget that it initially took the Terroristani line in this issue). The Terroristani bluff has to be called if the WB is to extricate itself from this situation.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4620
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Neshant » 25 May 2018 12:39

You can be sure China does not bother with the sillyness of adhering to agreements of the distant past.
They simply do what serves their interests.
They certainly would not be letting a terrorist country walk all over them and hand them water to boot.

Declare all such treaties as irrelevant and begin the water diversion.
There is nothing WB or anyone else can do.
Times have changed and we need to put our interests first and foremost.

We'll keep a dam or two ready with flowing water and if behavior across the border turns bad, start the diversion immediately.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20875
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 25 May 2018 22:15


anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 27 May 2018 10:01

Damn you Yindoos!

Indian water terrorism: Delhi stops water of Chenab River

India, while committing water terrorism, has stopped flow of water of the Chenab River to Pakistan. :D
The flow of water from Head Punjnad turned zero.
The flow of water at Head Marala in Chenab River remained only 20,000 cusec. The flow of water was over 50,000 cusec in Chenab River during May 2017. If this situation persists, there will be a risk of reduction of water for Punjab and Sindh.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/321867 ... enab-river

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 27 May 2018 10:31

if this is true..which i think it is... it is evident that even with rudimentary storage capacity on the chenab we can screw paki happiness espicially during sowing season. this is the sowing season and we are able to control it..which is like music to my ears. my head spins with happiness on what will happen when all our dams are up and running...

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22935
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 27 May 2018 12:01

anupmisra wrote:
. . The flow of water from Head Punjnad turned zero. . . The flow of water at Head Marala in Chenab River remained only 20,000 cusec. The flow of water was over 50,000 cusec in Chenab River during May 2017. If this situation persists, there will be a risk of reduction of water for Punjab and Sindh.

A few factual errors & fudging.

First of all we don't know the truth. Even assuming that for a change a Pakistani newspaper reports the truth, this is a temporary phenomenon as building up the dead & live storages is a one-time affair. The suggested period for Chenab, as per IWT is ten days in August between June & August. If it is being done in May itself, it would have been done with the knowledge of the PIC of Pakistan.

About the flow in Marala, one is not sure if the flow rate refers to 'above Marala' or 'below Marala' (i.e incoming or outgoing). Obviously, India cannot 'manufacture' water in the Chenab if the flow is naturally less.

As for Panjanad, that headwork is well within Pakistan, ie. after the five rivers have merged together. The flow there is managed entirely by Pakistan.
Last edited by SSridhar on 27 May 2018 12:17, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Error corrected

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1569
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby manjgu » 27 May 2018 12:07

SSridhar .. if as per u we are building storage in the month of May/June and not August and Pakis have agreed looks not right..because this is sowing season? why would Pakis agree to filling during sowing season? maybe its due to general shortfall in river flows?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22935
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby SSridhar » 27 May 2018 12:13

manjgu wrote: . . . and Pakis have agreed looks not right..because this is sowing season? why would Pakis agree to filling during sowing season? maybe its due to general shortfall in river flows?


Two things, manjgu.

One, I prefaced by saying "If this is true . . ." because we have to assume that every Paki report is a lie.

Two, I said "with the knowledge of Paki PIC", not "concurrence of Paki PIG".

Hope it clarifies

PS: Corrected an error in my earlier post above.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17491
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 27 May 2018 12:42

anupmisra wrote:Damn you Yindoos!

Indian water terrorism: Delhi stops water of Chenab River

India, while committing water terrorism, has stopped flow of water of the Chenab River to Pakistan. :D
The flow of water from Head Punjnad turned zero.
The flow of water at Head Marala in Chenab River remained only 20,000 cusec. The flow of water was over 50,000 cusec in Chenab River during May 2017. If this situation persists, there will be a risk of reduction of water for Punjab and Sindh.


https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/321867 ... enab-river


This is the cornerstone of all paki dealings with the world, ever since they got their independence from the brits. This is what porki jinnah taught them and this is also sharia mandated.

chit bhi meri, pat bhi meri aur sikka mere baap ka

meaning,

heads I win, tails you lose and the coin belongs to my father. :mrgreen:

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 27 May 2018 21:35

Pakistan’s insecurity, India’s leverage, and the most generous Indus Waters Treaty - Ayush Khanna

The Indo-Pak relationship has become a byword and a cautionary tale in what nation states must not do when interacting with one another. Whether it is the complex Kashmir issue, cross-border terror, trade issues, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), or even the allegedly “low hanging” and easily resolvable issues of Siachen and Sir Creek, the two countries have been unable to come to terms.

In the backdrop of failed agreements, lost opportunities and active sabotage of attempted détentes, one instance of cooperation on a critical issue bucks this trend, and that is the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

The treaty was signed in 1960 and has withstood the test of time, including three major wars. According to the treaty, India gained full control of the eastern rivers of the Indus system and their tributaries, while Pakistan gained full control of the western rivers. Thus, while India could use the waters of its rivers in any way it liked and divert them, it could not divert the waters of the western rivers over which Pakistan had control.

According to the treaty, however, India can use the western rivers for constructing run-of-the-river dams to generate electricity. The treaty does not stipulate any limit on the number of such dams India can build, and consequently, especially in the last couple of decades, India has made use of this provision by building a number of dams on the western rivers. The pace with which India has built these dams has made Pakistan anxious and insecure of India’s intentions. Pakistan has raised an objection to several dams India has built or is in the process of building by questioning the technical details of the dams, since the IWT lays down guidelines India has to follow in this regard.

One such dam Pakistan has had an objection to is the 330 megawatt (MW) Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project that was inaugurated by Narendra Modi this month. The project was objected to by Pakistan because it diverted water from the Kishanganga River (called the Neelum River in Pakistan) to the Jhelum river, which it is a tributary of. Construction was halted in 2011 when Pakistan took the matter to the Hague Court of Permanent Arbitration, but resumed when the court declared India could divert the waters, provided it maintained a certain level of flow in the Kishanganga River for environmental purposes.

India was allowed to divert the flow because the Kishanganga is a tributary of the Jhelum and water was not being diverted out of the Jhelum’s flow. Meanwhile, Pakistan alleges that by diverting some of the flow of the Kishanganga to the Jhelum prematurely, India is affecting Pakistan’s 900MW Neelum-Jhelum Project on the same river downstream.

Pakistan’s growing insecurity with respect to India’s plans on the western rivers is understandable, and it is compounded by its adversarial relationship with India as well as its chronic water shortages. Its per capita water availability has reduced from 5,300 cubic metres in 1947 to less than 1,000 cubic metres today, making it among the world’s most water stressed countries. Pakistan has faced much criticism from its citizens for not doing enough to utilise its water resources adequately, as decades have passed by without adequate improvements in its storage capacity. Silting is depleting the capacity of existing dams, while other dams have been delayed for several reasons, worsening the per capita water availability. Thus, while it is clear why Pakistan is raising concerns regarding the Kishanganga project, the country also has to focus on taking active steps to improve its own water management, conservation and policy.

In India, on the other hand, the chances of viewing Pakistan’s concerns with empathy have reduced significantly with the rise of tensions that continue to spill over to other issues, including water. Indeed, recently Modi linked terror with water saying,

“Blood and water cannot flow together.”

This may have been the first time an Indian premier linked the two together so categorically, and there were fears India may even disregard the IWT. Even though those fears were premature and subsequently allayed, clearly the only enduring agreement between the two countries is also not as secure as it used to be. Linking terror and water in this manner goes to show the two countries have not built any bridges to foster trust and cooperation, and that India sees water as the only major leverage it possesses over Pakistan, since the two states have not invested in each other’s progress. Modi’s inauguration of the Kishanganga project despite Pakistan’s protests to the World Bank, and India barely taking cognisance of the protest, seems to suggest positions have hardened further.

What Pakistan will have to consider is that the treaty is the most generous water sharing treaty on earth. It allocates 80% of the Indus system’s waters to Pakistan. Despite Pakistan’s protests against dams built by India, neutral international courts have, by and large, sided with India’s position and have allowed construction of these dams, as they are within the purview of the treaty. With the treaty being as generous as it is, the voices in Pakistan that want to do away with it or alter it because it allows India to build these dams, may want to reconsider. Any revision may well allocate more water to India than the treaty presently does.

Despite wars and the recent rhetoric from the Indian premier no less, India has abided by the treaty for 58 years. With media attention largely on India’s alleged infractions of the treaty, chances are Pakistan may lose focus of its own measures and policies as far as water debates are concerned. For its part, India must see that while its concerns of cross-border terror pertain to the Pakistani state, water is a question that concerns all Pakistani people, and must therefore treat Pakistan’s concerns in a less cavalier manner.

Water is the most critical issue between the two countries and we have been fortunate that despite odds, a treaty has been in operation that has worked for the most part. But with the two countries facing new demand and supply challenges, such as rising populations and receding glaciers, it is essential to build trust and empathy to facilitate cooperation. In a better world, better relations and electricity agreements may have meant that the Kishanganga issue would have been a non-starter. In this world, we have to hope that hardened positions on both sides don’t lead to Kishanganga-like disputes continuing to sour an already sour relationship.

Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 28 May 2018 06:15

One of paki homeland defence strategy is to keep the various canal systems, which run parallel to the international border, full which will prevent Indian cavalry and mechanized infantry from crossing over ( :roll: ). Now that the rivers (and by extension, the canals) are running dry, pakhanistan' defense lays bare and exposed.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 31 May 2018 05:32

A gentlemen’s agreement?

Narendra Modi inaugurated the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) on May 19 amid criticism from Pakistan that the initiative was in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). The 330-megawatt project is designed to divert water from River Kishanganga to an Indian power plant in Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Since construction began on the project in 2007, Pakistan has held the view that the KHEP would disrupt its water supply and has maintained that the design of the project was in violation of the IWT. In response to the dam’s inauguration this week, a four-member delegation led by the attorney-general was sent to the World Bank (WB) headquarters in Washington. Despite a series of meetings with the top echelons of the institution, there was no agreement on the way forward.

In a statement issued by the spokesperson, the WB clarified that: “…the WB’s role is limited and procedural. In particular, the role in relation to ‘differences’ and ‘disputes’ is limited to the designation of people to fulfil certain roles when requested by either or both parties”.

The Pakistani delegation would have been aware of this reality as it went into the meetings. The delegation may have known the difficulties that it would face in garnering a favourable response from the WB, given the limited jurisdiction of the institution. In this regard, the target audience for these particular meetings was likely to be the millions of water-insecure Pakistanis back home rather than the WB officials in Washington.

However, this is not to say that Pakistan has failed to pursue the KHEP dispute internationally. The project was delayed for several years as Pakistan took India to the International Court of Arbitration in 2010. This was significant as it was the first time in the history of the IWT that a dispute had gone into arbitration – the very final route of mediation under the IWT. After lengthy deliberations, the court ultimately ruled in India’s favour in 2013.

To overturn the permanent award of the arbitration, which allowed India to proceed with the KHEP, Pakistan will need to raise a legal objection that wasn’t addressed during the arbitration. It does not appear that Pakistan will be able to do this. A brief history of the dispute illustrates this fact.

The design of the project is intended to divert water from River Kishanganga in Jammu and Kashmir to River Jhelum in Indian Occupied Kashmir, potentially reducing the power-generation capacity of the planned Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric project (NJHEP).

Following a request for arbitration by Pakistan in 2010, the dispute was referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. At this point, Pakistan raised two questions. The first issue was whether India’s proposed diversion of River Kishanganga into another tributary for a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project would breach India’s legal obligations under Article III(2) of the IWT, which states that “Pakistan shall have unrestricted use of all waters originating from sources other than the eastern rivers…and India shall not make use of these waters”. The second concern was whether the KHEP would reduce the power-generation capacity of the planned NJHEP in Azad Kashmir – a blatant violation of the treaty.

In September 2011, the court issued an order on interim measures prohibiting India from constructing any permanent work on the Kishanganga riverbed that may inhibit the restoration of the full flow of the river to its natural channel. Construction was halted till February 2013, when the court issued a partial award after it found that India was permitted under the treaty to divert water for the generation of electricity by the KHEP.

They argued that Pakistan’s water uses – of relevance here, the NJHEP – was preceded by the KHEP. As a result, the NJHEP was not considered an “existing use” under Article 9 of Annexure C in the IWT, which India was required to take into account at the time of planning the KHEP. The award also allows India to proceed with the construction of the KHEP provided that it ensures minimum downstream flow, which would be determined by the final award.

On December 20, 2013, the Permanent Court of Arbitration rendered its final award. It stated that to decide the rate in minimum flow, it was necessary to “mitigate [the] adverse effects to Pakistan’s agricultural and hydro-eclectic uses throughout the operation of the KHEP, while preserving India’s right to operate the KHEP and maintaining the priority it acquired from having crystallised prior to the NJHEP”.

Rule of law ensures order in the face of anarchy. And with India being the upper riparian of River Indus, Pakistan has rightfully felt nervous about possible state-induced famines and droughts or even a potential ‘water war’. This is why the spirit of the IWT is so important and must be preserved as it is the only major treaty that the two countries have signed in matters concerning water.

As with all forms of international law, the IWT is not binding on the parties and is customary in nature. In principle, states adhere to international law as it ensures predictability and order in international relations. This is especially important in Pakistan and India as their relationship is not commonly associated with order and predictability. But to its credit, the IWT has ensured this in the domain of transboundary water cooperation. Its success can be seen in its longevity and perseverance as it has withstood the broader issues of Kashmir, terrorism, cross-border skirmishes and two wars.

This is not to say that a host of tensions surround the IWT in contemporary times. Although this is nothing new, demands on River Indus keep growing due to burgeoning expectations for electricity and economic development. India’s upstream advantage – even in relation to run-of-the-river projects without consumptive use as barred by the IWT – gives India the potential capacity to control both the quantity and timing of water flows into downstream Pakistan. Also notable is the fact the IWT was negotiated between India and Pakistan in a manner that evaded mention of Kashmir’s disputed status.

Given these tensions, criticisms of the IWT – which call for possibly abrogating it – and warnings that its potential will be dire have recently come from Indian and Pakistani sources. There is no doubt that work can be done to improve the treaty. If there is no political capital and will on both sides of the border, there will be little or no possibility of revisions to the treaty.

Last week’s discourse on the KHEP dispute does not help ease the average Pakistani’s water woes. While it is unclear at the moment, the power-generation capacity of the NJHEP in Kashmir may well be reduced, giving credence to these concerns. But after three years of deliberation, the judges in the arbitration believe the law is clear on the matter. This is undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow for Pakistan. But unless new legal objections can be raised, Pakistan should accept the award and continue working on an amicable resolution with India on the matter.

And this brings us to the words of former president Ayub Khan. They were uttered when the IWT was formed more than half a century ago: “[W]e have been able to get the best that was possible…very often the best is the enemy of the good and in this case we have accepted the good after careful and realistic appreciation of our entire overall situation… [T]he basis of this agreement is realism and pragmatism”.

Cheers Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 01 Jun 2018 23:04

Neelum-Jhelum unit-1 no more functional :shock:

The Rs503 billion Neelum-Jhelum project of 969 MW has sustained another blow as its unit-1 of 242.25MW has also started leaking oil and the management has halted its operation on May 31. The unit-4 is already closed down after its rotor was damaged.
the unit-4 will take at least four months to come on stream, but officials at the site insisted claiming the unit-4 will take 8-9 months to start generating electricity as it has been dismantled by Chinese experts from Herbin city who will get it repaired
The oil was leaking for more than one week :(( , but the management decided to keep the unit-1 operational till May 31 to avoid the wrath from the top man of the PML-N government


Chini maal. Chini daam. Chini "hexperts". Chinis are now covering their tracks to prevent lawsuits. Hey!!! There's an idea!

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/324003 ... functional

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17491
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby chetak » 02 Jun 2018 17:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQoAJ7U1UM

Narendra Modi Has Every Right To Take Water From Indus Water Treaty - Pak Media



Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20875
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 03 Jun 2018 00:17

anupmisra wrote:Neelum-Jhelum unit-1 no more functional :shock:

The Rs503 billion Neelum-Jhelum project of 969 MW has sustained another blow as its unit-1 of 242.25MW has also started leaking oil and the management has halted its operation on May 31. The unit-4 is already closed down after its rotor was damaged.
te]
Chini maal. Chini daam. Chini "hexperts". Chinis are now covering their tracks to prevent lawsuits. Hey!!! There's an idea!


Supposedly Chinese made Thermal plants have life span of less than 4 years , Paki have to buy them thrice a decade with Chinese loan money with 17% guaranteed return only.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9998
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby arun » 04 Jun 2018 17:58

X Posted from the Terroristan thread.

Ovem lupo commitere ……………………

Punjabi origin Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar (Wiki Bio), to adjudicate on a case regards the construction of Kalabagh Dam which Punjab Province has long lusted after and Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have vehemently opposed as it would permit Punjab to thieve yet more water:


SC schedules hearing of Kalabagh dam case for June 9


Image

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jun 2018 15:45

To begin this news with .... :(( :(( :((

World Bank wants Pakistan to accept ‘neutral expert’ in dam dispute

The World Bank has asked Pakistan to stand down from pursuing its stand of referring the Kishanganga dam dispute to the International Court of Arbitration (ICA) and instead accept India’s offer of appointing a “neutral expert”.
World Bank president Jim Yong Kim advised the government to withdraw from its stand of taking the matter to the ICA
A source privy to the development told Dawn that Pakistan believed that acceding to India’s proposal of referring the dispute to neutral experts or withdrawing from its stand would mean closing the doors of arbitration and surrendering its right of raising disputes before international courts.
Pakistan believes that on the one hand the World Bank has tied its hands from raising the dispute at the ICA, and on the other, it has not blocked the Indian effort to complete the construction of the dam.
The World Bank did not even heed to Pakistan’s concern when provided with satellite images during a number meetings with the bank that India was constructing the dam. The bank even denied Pakistan the opportunity to stay the construction of the dam.
The World Bank even declined Pakistan’s forceful plea on May 22, 2018, asking it to express concern by stating that it had “noted the inauguration of the Kishanganga Dam by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi”, the source added.


Logic and clear thinking prevails. To end this news with more... :(( :(( :((

https://www.dawn.com/news/1412082/world ... am-dispute

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1026
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Vips » 05 Jun 2018 18:19

Heh Heh looking to see assorted 'anal' ysts going on full paki mode and crying Saazish on different talk shows hosted by Army/ISI bots :rotfl:

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10406
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 05 Jun 2018 19:41

anupmisra wrote:To begin this news with .... :(( :(( :((
The World Bank did not even heed to Pakistan’s concern when provided with satellite images during a number meetings with the bank that India was constructing the dam. The bank even denied Pakistan the opportunity to stay the construction of the dam.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1412082/world ... am-dispute

In what capacity the Bakis expect the WB to "stay the construction of the dam"?

Delusional is the only word that comes to mind! Bank has no role expect as a facilitator under certain circumstances. BTW, sample below the height of delusion!
At this, Mr Dar had lodged a strong protest with the World Bank telling it point-blank that Pakistan would not recognise the pause. He had asked the bank to play its due role in the matter.
Suar suar, don't recognize the pause but tell us what will you do then.

The Bakis have to give-in or else the process is deadlocked and India can continue building.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jun 2018 19:53

pankajs wrote:In what capacity the Bakis expect the WB to "stay the construction of the dam"?... India can continue building.


India should continue to look after its own interests first. Pakis in their lalaland believe that if and only if allah inshas, everything one fine day will fall in line and the world will finally recognize pakiland as the leader of the ummah. If allah does not insha, then the world owes it reparations (the financial kind, of course) for the missed opportunities.

It is also known as the "hurt-locker" syndrome. I am hurt, therefore (you) fill my locker.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7903
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby anupmisra » 05 Jun 2018 20:01

Paki media going :(( :(( :(( after the recent World Bank decision.




abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3073
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby abhijitm » 05 Jun 2018 20:14

These genius want WB to block Indian dams. Like WB has any authority over it. :rotfl: :rotfl:

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby kit » 05 Jun 2018 20:19

Prem wrote:
anupmisra wrote:Neelum-Jhelum unit-1 no more functional :shock:

te]
Chini maal. Chini daam. Chini "hexperts". Chinis are now covering their tracks to prevent lawsuits. Hey!!! There's an idea!


Supposedly Chinese made Thermal plants have life span of less than 4 years , Paki have to buy them thrice a decade with Chinese loan money with 17% guaranteed return only.


:(( :rotfl:

Now who said India needs to fight a war with the bakis :mrgreen: .. they have their tallel than mountains deepel than river ? friend to guide them to heavenly virgins :rotfl:

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2646
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby kit » 05 Jun 2018 20:23

anupmisra wrote:Paki media going :(( :(( :(( after the recent World Bank decision.



Do these geniuses even know what the "world bank" is .. maybe some bright spark thought they give money to India :((

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 06 Jun 2018 20:39

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

Pakistan’s numerous ‘water experts’

Invest in training human resources in water and stop listening to the jingo brigade

For the past week or so, I have been somewhat bemused by a flurry of Whatsapp messages and Twitter posts on Pakistan’s impending water doomsday. I have queried many people as to what this is. What did India do that has precipitated such hysteria? And hysteria is the word. There are cartoons making the rounds, with Narendra Modi squeezing the river waters away from Pakistan.

Yet another almost racist image shows African children drinking from a puddle, and promises that to be the fate of Lahore if the Kalabagh dam is not built. But no one would tell me what happened that is causing all of this excitement. To add to the mystery some friends have just responded that I should “wake up and smell the coffee”. Again, it doesn’t look like any major coffee making operation is underway on the Indus. So what is going on?

After some detective work, I have been able to surmise that this is about the Kishenganga project, which has been under construction for almost two decades. But then that again begs the question as to why people are freaking out about something that has been ongoing for 30 years. There is no way that that project affects the volumetric flows of water into Pakistan, being that the project simply transfers water for electricity generation from Neelum to Jehlum, which ends up in Pakistan anyway.

The project could have had an adverse effect on our own Neelum-Jehlum hydel project, which is under construction. But the Court of Arbitration in the Hague has already ruled in our favour. Indians have to modify their intake of water from Kishengana (called Neelum in Pakistan) so that it doesn’t negatively affect us. The Indians have modified their project in accordance with the ruling, to the best of my knowledge. So it’s not volumetric flows and it is not the fate of the Neelum-Jehlum. Then why the fuss?

As I was sitting with my mentor Jim Wescoat from the Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT) who taught me a thing or two I know about water, asked me: “If Pakistanis are so worried about water, why don’t they give resources to their Indus Commission (that negotiates with India) and Indus River System Authority (IRSA) (that regulates interprovincial water accord) to have world class researchers and human resources?” After all he argued, Pakistan needs to make the case for its water not just to the world but also to its feuding federating units.

Why not invest in knowledge? As is usual in my sittings with him, I came upon a revelation thinking about that question. Pakistan probably has the highest concentration of water experts, per capita in the world. Why invest in science and knowledge if you can crowd source it? Who needs armies of scientists, social scientists, geomorphologists and hydrologists if you can get water experts off the streets and TV screens for free? Besides, don’t we have civil engineers who by luck and fate found themselves in the irrigation departments or WAPDA and are now water experts by experience?

It is precisely because we have started crowd sourcing our water policy that we get into embarrassing imbroglios like the recent attempt at making a representation to the World Bank about Kishenganga. We have made representations in the past and our concerns have been addressed. Saying that India can’t do anything on the three western rivers is nonsense, especially when the Indus Waters Treaty is taken into account.

The treaty — which I remind we signed on — explicitly gives permission to India to undertake regional and local scope water and hydel development projects, subject to certain design qualifications. India has often suspended, and modified projects based on our objections as long as, they were in line with the IWT. The Kishenganga project after all of its whetting and modifications based upon Pakistan’s objections is consistent with the IWT. The only thing we do by sending attorney generals to represent cases, with no technical merit to World Bank is to embarrass ourselves, and lose credibility in the eyes of the world.

There is a way to avoid such embarrassments and false failures. Invest in training human resources in water and stop listening to the jingo brigade. Pakistani engineers and water professionals are as patriotic as any military or a media person.

There are laudable initiatives underway in Pakistan from the Centre for Water Informatics at LUMS to Centre for Advanced Studies at Mehran University to Hissar Foundation’s Think Tank on Rational Use of Water to its University Network for Water. These initiatives should be supported and encouraged. If we are going to have a reasoned debate on water and be responsible water citizens of the world, we can’t indulge in the practice of cutting the nose to spite the face..

Cheers Image

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20875
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Prem » 08 Jun 2018 02:50

Piddi Piscussing Paani


Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 08 Jun 2018 14:50

X Posted on the Terroritan Thread

Water crisis: Why is Pakistan running dry?

Image

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan could "run dry" by 2025 as its water shortage is reaching an alarming level. The authorities remain negligent about the crisis that's posing a serious threat to the country's stability, DW reports.

According to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Pakistan ranks third in the world among countries facing acute water shortage. Reports by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) also warn the authorities that the South Asian country will reach absolute water scarcity by 2025. "No person in Pakistan, whether from the north with its more than 5,000 glaciers, or from the south with its 'hyper deserts,' will be immune to this scarcity," said Neil Buhne, UN humanitarian coordinator for Pakistan.

Researchers predict that Pakistan is on its way to becoming the most water-stressed country in the region by the year 2040. It is not the first time that development and research organisations have alerted Pakistani authorities about an impending crisis, which some analysts say poses a bigger threat to the country than terrorism says DW in its report on water issue in Pakistan.

In 2016, PCRWR reported that Pakistan touched the "water stress line" in 1990 and crossed the "water scarcity line" in 2005. If this situation persists, Pakistan is likely to face an acute water shortage or a drought-like situation in the near future, according to PCRWR, which is affiliated with the South Asian country's Ministry of Science and Technology.

A water-intensive country

Pakistan has the world's fourth-highest rate of water use. Its water intensity rate — the amount of water, in cubic meters, used per unit of GDP — is the world's highest. This suggests that no country's economy is more water-intensive than Pakistan's.

According to the IMF, Pakistan's per capita annual water availability is 1,017 cubic metres — perilously close to the scarcity threshold of 1,000 cubic metres. Back in 2009, Pakistan's water availability was about 1,500 cubic metres.

The bulk of Pakistan's farmland is irrigated through a canal system, but the IMF says in a report that canal water is vastly under-priced, recovering only a quarter of annual operating and maintenance costs. Meanwhile, agriculture, which consumes almost all annual available surface water, is largely untaxed.

Experts say that population growth and urbanisation are the main reasons behind the crisis. The issue has also been exacerbated by climate change, poor water management and a lack of political will to deal with the crisis. "Pakistan is approaching the scarcity threshold for water. What is even more disturbing is that groundwater supplies — the last resort of water supply —are being rapidly depleted. And worst of all is that the authorities have given no indication that they plan to do anything about any of this," Michael Kugelman, South Asia expert at the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Centre, told DW in a 2015 interview.

Qazi Talhat, a secretary at the Ministry of Water Resources, told DW the situation is "scary" for Pakistan.

Water scarcity is also triggering security conflicts in the country. Experts say the economic impact of the water crisis is immense, and the people are fighting for resources.

Climate change

Water scarcity in Pakistan has been accompanied by rising temperatures. In May, at least 65 people died from heatstroke in the southern city of Karachi. In 2015, at least 1,200 people died during a spate of extremely hot weather. "Heat waves and droughts in Pakistan are a result of climate change," Mian Ahmed Naeem Salik, an environmental expert and research fellow at the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad, told DW.

"The monsoon season has become erratic in the past few years. The winter season has shrunk from four to two months in many parts of the country. On top of it, Pakistan cannot save floodwater due to a scarcity of dams," Salik said. "At the time of Pakistan's birth in 1947, forests accounted for about 5 percent of the nation's area, but they have now dropped to only 2 percent. Pakistan must invest in building water reservoirs and plant more trees," he added.

Water politics

The Tarbela and Mangla dams, the country's two major water reservoirs, reached their "dead" levels last week, according to media reports. The news sparked a debate on social media over the inaction of authorities in the face of this crisis. "We have only two big reservoirs and we can save water only for 30 days. India can store water for 190 days whereas the US can do it for 900 days," Muhammad Khalid Rana, a spokesman for the Indus River System Authority (IRSA), told DW.

"Pakistan receives around 145 million acre feet of water every year but can only save 13.7 million acre feet. Pakistan needs 40 million acre feet of water but 29 million acre feet of our floodwater is wasted because we have few dams. New Delhi raised this issue with international bodies, arguing that it should be allowed to use the western rivers because Pakistan can't use them properly," Rana said.

In 1960, the World Bank brokered the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) that gives Pakistan exclusive rights to use the region's western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab — while India has the authority over three eastern rivers.

The Pakistani government says New Delhi is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the IWT as it voices concerns over India's construction of new dams. New Delhi is building the Kishangaga hydroelectric plant in the north of Bandipore in India held Jammu and Kashmir region. In May, Islamabad approached the World Bank complaining that India violated the IWT by building the dam on a Jhelum River basin, which it lays claim on.

Kugelman says that the Pakistani authorities need to step up efforts to overcome the water crisis, which is partly man-made. "First of all, Pakistan's leaders and stakeholders need to take ownership of this challenge and declare their intention to tackle it. Simply blaming previous governments, or blaming India, for the crisis won't solve anything. Next, the government needs to institute a major paradigm shift that promotes more judicious use of water," Kugelman emphasized.

Wastage of water

Apart from the water storage issue, experts say that water wastage is also a big issue in the country. Abid Suleri, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development Policy Institute, says the mismanagement takes place at many levels.

As the water crisis worsens in Pakistan, foreign diplomats and activists have taken to social media, urging people to save water. "Using a bucket to save water while washing my car! #Pakistan ranks third amongst countries facing water shortage. One major reason is excessive use. 100 liters wasted washing a car with running tap water. Many ways to #SaveWater in our daily life! #SaveWaterforPak," Martin Kobler, German ambassador to Pakistan, wrote on Twitter.

In April, former PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi announced Pakistan's first National Water Policy, promising consolidated efforts to tackle the water crisis. But experts are skeptical about the authorities will to deal with the issue. The country will hold general elections on July 25 and there is an interim government currently in place. Water crisis is a priority neither for the caretaker government nor for the political parties contesting the polls.

Cheers Image

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 08 Jun 2018 18:04

Indus treaty in jeopardy

THE failure to resolve issues concerning the Kishenganga Hydro Electric Plant became apparent when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated KHEP on May 19, 2018, in India-held Kashmir. The move prompted Pakistani officials to rush to the World Bank headquarters in Washington to register their protest against India’s completion of the project without resolving technical issues pertaining to restrictions on low-level orifice spillways and plant operations.

The World Bank ‘paused’ the process for appointment of a chairman, court of arbitration, requested by Pakistan and a neutral expert requested by India in December 2016, ostensibly to “protect the [Indus Waters Treaty] in the interest of both countries” and to allow the parties an opportunity to resolve issues concerning the KHEP and the Ratle Hydro Electric Plant amicably. In the interim India, taking advantage of the gap in the process and the ensuing postponement in breaking the deadlock succeeded in completing the project without making changes in design, thus exacerbating the dispute.

The general misconception that the bank is guarantor of the treaty is erroneous as the bank has no treaty-related defined role except for the limited procedural function of appointing a neutral expert or for the bank president to appoint a chairman, court of arbitration in the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement. The debacle presented by the parties in their differing choices regarding the mechanism for dispute settlement is difficult to comprehend in light of the fact that this very question was discussed and settled by the court of arbitration in the Kishenganga Partial Award.

India’s position on the applicable mechanism on issues raised by Pakistan has been circuitous. It has ranged from refusing to accept that the technical issues fall under the competence of a neutral expert at the Permanent Indus Commission level as, according to India, KHEP was consistent with the parameters defined by the treaty, to stating that the question of drawdown flushing (a technique to manage sedimentation) is non-admissible before a court of arbitration as it comes under the technical questions to be determined by a neutral expert. In its partial award, the court states, “having consistently maintained in the Commission that no difference between the parties existed, India cannot now assert that the second dispute is, in fact, a difference after all...”

The parties’ adversarial relationship was taken into account when drafting the treaty, thus the preamble emphasises the need to make “provision for the settlement, in a cooperative spirit, of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon herein”. Towards this objective, the treaty provides a comprehensive framework for the resolution of disagreements, avoiding pathological clauses to ensure swiftness in process. Both dispute-settlement mechanisms are scrupulously discussed and the court finds no treaty bar for a court of arbitration to consider questions technical in nature. India’s request for the appointment of a neutral expert at such a late stage when the process of establishing a court of arbitration is nearly concluded can be construed as an attempt to disable that process by placing a procedural hurdle.

More importantly Article IX(1) of the treaty unambiguously provides that a duly constituted court of arbitration can consider any question “concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty or the existence of any fact which, if established, might constitute a breach of this treaty”. The World Bank may have been well meaning, but its conduct in this particular instance has certainly imperilled the process and the efficacy of the treaty. Moreover, there can be no justification or sagacity in maintaining the hiatus for almost 18 months without a commitment from India that it would stop work on the project until all issues were resolved.

KHEP involves the diversion of the waters of the Kishenganga/Neelum river through a 23.24-kilometre tunnel into another tributary and eventually into the Jhelum river. Pakistan will receive this water when it crosses the Line of Control at Chakotthi although the timing and quantity of flows may be affected by this and other Indian projects along the Jhelum. However, the main victims of the diversion are the environment and people of the Neelum valley. The economic well-being and development of the people of the valley is dependent on the river that will now be unable to support sustainable economic development. Degradation of this natural resource will lead to widening inequality, undermine poverty alleviation and create conflict. From news reports it appears that there is similar apprehension and dissatisfaction on the other side of the LoC as 88 per cent of the power generated will go to the national grid.

Although not considered to be economically viable by Indian experts, KHEP is of strategic importance to India as it is an assertion by India over the territory and resources of Jammu and Kashmir. Whatever the motive and irrespective of how ethical and moral it may be India is obligated under international law to design and operate its plants in a manner so as not to damage or cause injury to Pakistan.

Pakistan may be responsible for not taking timely action, but cannot be accused of overreacting as India’s dams on the western rivers impound significantly large volumes of water. The overarching territorial dispute is intricately enmeshed in the bilateral relationship, obstructing comprehensive agreement on treaty issues, therefore, it becomes imperative for external stakeholders to make a genuine effort to steer the two countries towards cooperation. Never before has there been a greater need for both parties to demonstrate a firm commitment to the goals set out in the treaty’s preamble. Extreme weather events and water shortages threaten livelihoods and the social and economic development of the peoples of the two countries. The forces of nature are now intervening to compel the two neighbours to consider peace as they will need to work together if they are to avert the catastrophe presented by climate change.

The bank may well be perceived to be partisan; ranked seventh by voting power in World Bank institutions, India wields political influence in policy and decision-making with the US that ranks as number one. The bank must look beyond the personal associations of its staff, political alignments and its broader business interests to identify a solution to end the predicament lest it be remembered for this uncomfortable legacy.

Cheers Image

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10406
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby pankajs » 09 Jun 2018 00:33

Peregrine wrote:Indus treaty in jeopardy

THE failure to resolve issues concerning the Kishenganga Hydro Electric Plant became apparent when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated KHEP on May 19, 2018, in India-held Kashmir. The move prompted Pakistani officials to rush to the World Bank headquarters in Washington to register their protest against India’s completion of the project without resolving technical issues pertaining to restrictions on low-level orifice spillways and plant operations.

Bakis read carefully what your own paper has written. Let me lay it out for you folks.

1. There is a technical issue that is the bone of contention.
2. Technical issues are resolved by a Neutral expert as India has agreed to appoint.
3. Bakistan does not want a NE and that has stalled the appointment.
4. No NE means no resolution. India is under no obligation to stop its project just because of objections. So it continues to merrily build.

In effect Bakis, your are responsible for no resolution so don't crib now.

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 10 Jun 2018 02:25

X Posted on the Terroristani Thread

Water woes: time to act now

Once a water-affluent country, Pakistan is now in the midst of a severe water crisis. Between 1990 and 2015, water availability almost halved from 2,172 cubic metres per citizen to 1,306 cubic metres per citizen. The Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) has warned that unless the government takes action, the country may run dry by 2025. The imminent water crisis has received some media attention recently, however, the dialogue remains narrowly focused on public investment for reservoirs and moral appeals to save water. There is a dire need to change the fundamental workings of water governance in the country. Between 1995 and 2015 the Pakistani Population must have nearly Doubled just as the Population in of 42.8 million in 1961 INCREASED TO 83.783 million in 1981

This article focuses on governance issues in the water sector. However, there are many other challenges relating to international and provincial water distribution, water storage, impact of excessive water extraction from natural resources on climate change, water-associated disasters, deforestation and recharge of aquifer which need a separate discussion.

With water scarcity becoming an increasing constraint, the pricing mechanism for water-use by all sectors requires reappraisal. Pricing must recover at least operational and maintenance costs. Even the elite of the country pays a meagre amount for massive use of water at home, industry and vast agricultural farms; only a tiny fraction of the population pays for metered use of water. For households, water charges are based on the size of the plot. Any common resource, when consumed on the basis of fixed rather than marginal cost, is bound to be overly exploited. For agriculture, there are no charges for pumping water from the ground and canal irrigation charges are also minimal, both of which have led to flood irrigation and wastage of water.

Research shows that appropriate pricing of water along with clearly defined and legally enforceable water regulations are the key underlying factors that motivate water conservation. Moral appeals are not enough! Politicians don’t want to hold dialogue about improving water pricing in order to avoid resentment by the constituencies. They fail to acknowledge that inefficient use of available water supplies is playing a major role to exacerbate the impending water crisis. Indeed, even most lower income families would be willing to pay for efficient water provision services, given that they are already paying a high proportion of their incomes either in the form of excessive charges imposed by water vendors (case in point: Karachi), or in time lost due to collecting water from far-flung sources. A survey of residents of Lahore in 2011 found that people were willing to pay $7.50-$9 per month for clean, piped drinking water, which is comparable to the monthly expenditures on in-house water treatment and is about three to four times the average monthly water bill being paid.

Second, there is a need to enhance participation and partnerships in the water sector. Water, being a collective resource available to society, needs a collective response. The public sector must realise that without mobilising and involving all the stakeholders, the crisis will remain unresolved. Communities residing in small cities, towns, slums and villages need to be mobilised to participate in water financing and maintenance. A home-grown model named ‘Changa Pani’ (Clean Water) in Bhalwal has proved that it is possible for communities to work with the government to construct and maintain water supply systems. Other cities, social entrepreneurs and community groups have much to learn from such community participation models and may benefit by customising the approach according to their own circumstances. For big cities the complexity of governance requires public-private partnerships (PPPs) for water availability, quality and distribution. All provinces have already developed PPP frameworks and are pursuing projects in many sectors. However, PPPs in the water sector are almost non-existent. Karachi and other coastal cities need desalination plants to supply drinking water. Almost every city needs water-filtration and treatment plants. But it would be hard to finance and operate them under the public sector. Sindh water commission formed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, for example, found that all water-purifying systems in Sindh are either dysfunctional or redundant. The public sector is agile to build new schemes, but it lacks capacity to maintain filtration plants and distribution system. This is where communities and the private sector can play their part. The recently announced national water policy has specifically emphasised to foster partnerships and participations, but provinces would carefully have to plan appropriate execution of these partnerships at the local level. We have recently started a research initiative with the US-Pakistan Centre for Advanced Studies in Water at the Mehran University of Engineering and Technology (MUET) to assess the possibilities of such partnerships and collective action in Sindh. We hope that this research will provide valuable insights to improve drinking-water governance.

Third, the regulatory regime for water pumping, distribution and usage needs special attention. There is a need to introduce radical measures to regulate the use of water starting from our homes to agricultural fields. Overall regulatory quality is weak in Pakistan but in the context of social and environmental aspects of the society, regulation is generally non-existent. The most wasteful practices are observed in the agriculture sector, where farmers continue to rely on surface rather than drip irrigation, the latter using substantially less water than traditional surface irrigation systems. Other than areas plagued with salinity, drip irrigation is a more efficient and sustainable option. The effective use of water in the agriculture sector is imperative given that it consumes around 90% of water resources in the country.

Fourth, a wave of entrepreneurship and technology development can be witnessed across Pakistan. Many of the entrepreneurs and technologists are working on water issues, starting from water filtration to distribution to irrigation and treatment. The public sector needs to give some space and funding to such startups to further develop and refine their technologies and solutions. We recently met a few experts and faculty members at the Lahore University of Management Sciences who have formed the Centre for Water Informatics and Technology that is leading research on a range of water-related issues. There is an urgent need to engage such water centres at LUMS and MUET to not only provide technological and governance solutions but also to carry out independent monitoring of water management in the country. Such research and engagement of academia can directly feed into policy and regulatory decisions.

Fifth, there is only marginal improvement in the understanding of the importance of clean drinking water in Pakistan. Public investment is still deficient and communities are also unaware about the impact of clean water. Some international research studies have found that poor quality of water is indeed a bigger factor leading to childhood stunting as compared to poverty. There is a need to organise a mass campaign to highlight the importance of water quality and conservation. The purpose of such awareness should be how society at large can act to address water woes faced by the country.

Cheers Image

Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10738
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby Falijee » 25 Jun 2018 01:14

X posted from Terroristan Thread !

Paki Water Crisis : Nightmare Scenario For Pakiland ! India Will Abrogate The Indus Water Treaty :twisted:

Understanding the Indus Water Treaty: Can India Really Block Pakistan’s Rivers?

Posted 2 years ago by Aadil Shadman ( more relevant today than TWO years ago !)

India has remained fairly "lenient" towards Pakiland as water is concerned . And India has not yet asserted all of its rights under the Treaty . But under Modi-ji's Govt , things are changing slowly and surely . And Pakiland is now "alarmed" to say the least :twisted:

Peregrine
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Indus Water Treaty

Postby Peregrine » 28 Jun 2018 00:51

X Posted on the Terroristan Thread

The Verdict - Why Kalabagh Dam is not the answer to our water woes

A few days back, my views on the futility of Kalabagh Dam published in a national daily evoked a very strong and hostile reaction from many people. I had posed a simple and pertinent question:

“If, as is evident, Pakistan will have very little water in future, what will we fill Kalabagh Dam with?”

Some people said Pakistan will have enough water forever, while others called me an enemy agent. Before delving deeper into why the dam should not be constructed, I would like to share my own experience of water consumption.

Up until 10 years back, I had no idea how much water my family was using, nor was I bothered when I saw it being wasted. This was because the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) charges domestic consumers a fixed amount every month, irrespective of consumption, based upon the floor area of each house. So a large house owner has to pay much more than a small apartment owner, even if only two people live in the large house and the small house has 10 occupants.

However, when I moved into my present apartment (where a meter records water consumption), I found that on an average, each member of my family was consuming 50 gallons daily (including water used for bathing and washing clothes and dishes). During the hot summer months, my water bill shoots up to Rs15,000 a month. This is because water is either obtained from tankers or from a reverse-osmosis plant set up near my apartment block to supply water to 720 apartments.

So, when I read about Pakistan running out of water in the next few years due to receding glaciers and highly reduced rain due to global warming, as well as the diversion of our water by India, I thought it would be good if our people could be compelled to save water. One way of doing that would of course be to make people pay for actual consumption, rather than recover a fixed amount based on the space occupied by their houses. Of course, most of the water of our rivers is consumed for agriculture, so it is essential to train farmers to reduce wastage of water.

A lot of people argue that Kalabagh Dam is the answer to all our water-related problems. My arguments against building it stem from many statistics and examples available to me. It has been known for a long time that huge dams cause great environmental damage, besides being very expensive and construction requiring a very long time. For example, even though the foundation stone of the $11 billion Diamer Bhasha Dam was laid in 2011, but construction has not yet started.

Besides contributing to global warming, dams have resulted in the decimation of fish species, displacement of people, desertification of areas near the coast, and changing the ecology of the planet by trapping sediment which is needed by deltas to support vegetation. The intrusion of the sea and destruction of agricultural land in lower Sindh is a direct result of dams and hydropower projects upstream.

According to International Rivers:

“The livelihoods of many millions of people also suffer because of the downstream effects of dams: the loss of fisheries, contaminated water, decreased amounts of water and a reduction in the fertility of farmlands and forests due to the loss of natural fertilisers and irrigation in seasonal floods. Dams also spread waterborne diseases such as malaria, leishmaniasis and schistosomiasis. Opponents also believe that the benefits of dams have frequently been deliberately exaggerated and that the services they provide could be provided by other more efficient and sustainable means.”

It should be obvious that another huge dam upstream would deal a death blow to Sindh.

One argument in favour of large dams is that hydropower is much cheaper than other conventional options available. But I’d like to argue that the cost of electricity from solar cells has reduced considerably in recent years and is expected to be lower in future and this could be used instead. Moreover, even though hydropower is very cheap, the opportunity cost of it is a lot higher.

“Hydropower should not be considered as clean power because of the destruction of river ecosystems and its many social impacts. Internationally, private investors in power projects are largely avoiding large dams and prefer to invest in cheaper and less risky gas-fired power plants.”

In fact, about 1,000 dams are being dismantled in the US to restore rivers to their original pristine condition.

Gradually, electricity from solar panels is becoming popular. In future, most houses, farms and factories will be able to produce virtually free electricity.

Instead of building the dam (which would alienate the people of three provinces and leave our children and grandchildren to pay the loan of billions plus interest), we should look at the wastage of water by our farmers. Worldwide, rice requires 2,500 litres of water to produce one kilogram, but in Pakistan, we use twice that amount of water. As for sugar, our farmers use 7,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of sugar, whereas in other countries only 1,500 litres of water is used to grow the same amount of sugar!

Not only is this a criminal wastage of water, sugar is one commodity which we should learn to use economically. It’s bad for health, it requires an immense amount of storage, and it is highly subsidised. It therefore has a negative impact on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP); it actually makes the country poorer.

Instead of providing so much subsidy and other benefits for sugar production, the government should provide the same facilities for growth of valuable crops like canola, sunflower and other edible crops. Unfortunately, this seems to be a lost cause as a lot of politics is involved here. Most of our filthy rich politicians are sugar mill owners, who get bank loans written off and pay very little tax. They are, of course, able to do this because they are in the Parliament and they decide how much tax we should pay (while paying negligible amount of taxes themselves).

Moreover, our farmers should take up drip irrigation, which can raise production significantly using the same quantity of water. Israel is the pioneer in this field, and in India,it has been adopted successfully in many states, resulting in saving water for more irrigation.

Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries rely completely on sea water desalination plants for providing water for drinking and agriculture. Why not try this in Pakistan? Initially, sufficient water for Karachi and coastal areas can be produced by setting up large desalination plants. Later, such plants can be built to provide water for agriculture. The face of Sindh and Balochistan will be changed forever, providing livelihood and food for the poor and impoverished people.

Hence, those who are insisting on making Kalabagh Dam should consider that besides measures to reduce water wastage, there are cheaper alternatives available worldwide to produce electricity and water. The Kalabagh Dam will only leave a huge debt for future generations, besides doing irreversible damage to the environment.

Cheers Image

CalvinH
BRFite
Posts: 510
Joined: 15 Jul 2007 04:14

Re: Indus Water Treaty

Postby CalvinH » 04 Jul 2018 05:22

Pakis can't blame India for their water woes.

Just watched a documentary about Telangana Kaleshwaram project. The lift irrigation system project will create more water storage capacity than what whole pakistan has. Pakistan has 14 MAF (60 TMC) storage capacity vs Kaleshwaram LFI storing 180 TMC of water. Even Pakis projected capacity of 28 MAF wont be able to beat storage created by single state India system. At peak the system will move 2 TMC per day for storage.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: g.sarkar and 22 guests