Indus Water Treaty

[SSridhar]

Kashmir & Indo-Pak peace - Edit in DT
Excerpts relating to IWT

He {Omar Abdullah} said: “Both countries should revise the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) for the sake of Kashmir’s development. The treaty was signed a long time ago and both the countries need to re-visit its provisions and work out a formula under which Jammu & Kashmir can benefit by utilising the waters of its own rivers”. He was referring to a problem in Indian-occupied Jammu & Kashmir — relating to power production and irrigation — that is expected to gain the support of all Kashmiris across the divisions in the Muslim Conference and the more rebellious Hurriyat Conference.

Now something else is coming up at the regional level which should spur India and Pakistan not to create mischief for each other. They are both threatened by the region’s changing ecology; and Kashmir could be the axial factor in their solution of it. Climate change has decreased the water discharge from the catchment areas located in Kashmir. Ground-water levels down-river in Pakistan are declining at an alarming speed. “Separatist” provincial passions in Pakistan are raising their ugly head based on water. In Sindh, sub-nationalism is also based on the annulment of the Indus Waters Treaty.

An “independent” Kashmir too is bound to reject the Treaty, refusing to inherit it as a successor state. Pakistan should also keep in mind that an “independent Jammu & Kashmir” may include Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Those who look closely at the changing voices behind the “Kashmir cause” in Pakistan should have noticed the new emphasis on “waters” as the cause of next war between Pakistan and India. All lower riparians look with suspicion at the upper riparians and the hawks in Pakistan are threatening war — even a nuclear one — over them. International law actually accepts stoppage of water by the upper riparian as casus belli.

Therefore India and Pakistan need to normalise their bilateral equation in the near future and take another look at the problems that are already making Kashmir more complex than it was in the past. It is no longer the either/or handover of the territory to the wrangling states. New Delhi and Islamabad have to agree on a comprehensive programme against the changing climatic patterns and on the future energy map of the region which will be realistic only if the two states decide to become interdependent.

[sanjaykumar]

I don't get it ......and India's problem with the IWT is...?

[Shalav]

...That it is unfair to India!

Pakistan gets 75% of the water from the treaty, while India has about 80% of the population.

I think it was a give away at the time under WB pressure. We should renegotiate the treaty so that Indus water rights are more fairly divided, and India is not deprived of its due share.

[Ben Thomas]

We should renegotiate the treaty so that Indus water rights are more fairly divided, and India is not deprived of its due share

What are the chances of Pakistan negotiating a new treaty when the current one is so much in their favour?
Don't see it happening!

[chetak]

' Pak raises 'India's water conspiracy' with Holbrooke ’

The Pakistan government is reported to have raised the issue of its agrarian lands drying up due to India's water conspiracy with visiting United States Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke [ Images ].

Though Holbrooke told officials in Islamabad [ Images ] that American experts will soon be in town to help the country resolve its energy crisis, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] will make a further announcement on energy needs during her scheduled visit in October, the latter highlighted the fact that India has reduced the country's agro-based economy to tatters by building the Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum River

[Guddu]

Could someone elucidate the implications of the Bhasha dam that the pukes are constructing...

[SSridhar]

Could someone elucidate the implications of the Bhasha dam that the pukes are constructing...

AFAIC, Bhasha Dam is being built in Indian territory. That is the implication for India.

[Guddu]

Could someone elucidate the implications of the Bhasha dam that the pukes are constructing...

AFAIC, Bhasha Dam is being built in Indian territory. That is the implication for India.

So why is GOI not objecting ?....this project was discussed for decades, but never approved, what has changed ?. Does this mean that the LOC is the new border and that GOI has given up all claims to POK..

[SSridhar]

China to help TSP build dams in Northern Areas

Pakistan and China on Saturday signed a memorandum of understanding for construction of Bunji dam in Northern Areas.

Later, Chairman Wapda Shakeel Durrani said Chinese companies were already working on a number of hydel projects in Pakistan, including Neelum-Jhelum, Gomal Zam and Mangla raising.

[SSridhar]

From 8 ways India can hurt TSP's economy

India must seek control of the river Jhelum and subtly increase the quantum of water from the western rivers while adhering to the spirit of the 1960 Treaty. The farmers of Jammu & Kashmir want water and power to irrigate their lands, don't they?

The 1961 Indus Water Treaty allows India unfettered right over use of waters of the rivers Sutlej, Ravi and Beas. Pakistan is allowed unrestricted use of waters of Indus, Chenab and Jhelum.

India can use Chenab and Jhelum only for: Domestic use, non-consumptive use, agricultural use (with conditions), generation of hydroelectric power (with conditions).

According to Business Standard, 'The state (J&K) possesses a hydropower production potential of 15,000 MW. If the west-flowing rivers -- Indus, Jhelum and Chenab -- assigned to Pakistan under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960, are left untapped, a sizeable chunk of this potential will remain untapped.'

'The treaty allows India to generate as much as 8,769 MW of power at 60 per cent load factor from the three western rivers. So far, projects having an installed capacity of only around 1,348 MW have been put up on these rivers. Against the permissible irrigation command area of 132,389 acres in the Chenab basin, the actual potential created is only 115,619 acres.'

[SSridhar]

Cassandra's forebodings

The ancient Trojan princess, Cassandra, was blessed with a gift of prophecy but also burdened by the curse that prevented anyone from ever believing her, although she would be as right as rain predicting from weather to the outcome of wars, without crystal balls or any of the other hocus pocus. It Just shows how capricious those old Greek gods were, in handing out favours with their right hand and taking them away with the left; and perhaps all for the sheer sport of it.

The officials of Ministry of Water and Power are not exactly in the same league as Cassandra, for she was mythical and they humans, but have nonetheless done a sterling job warning us of the water shortage catastrophe awaiting us, unless the country takes immediate and bold initiatives, but only if the ‘kings of ancient Greece would listen.

Students in most Business Schools in the west are encouraged to visit Easter Island, a Polynesian Island first inhabited in 300-400 AD, in South Eastern Pacifica Ocean, about 2200 miles west of Chile. The Island has many mysteries, but the one with which the students of economics are seized with for a case study, is how, its denizens, the Rapa Nui civiliation, brought death and extinction onto themselves when they were not careful with their resource management.

The ministry of water and power has not been alone in crying hoarse from the rooftop. In 2005, Mr John Briscoe, a senior advisor to the World Bank, warned the government of Pakistan that — the survival of a modern and growing Pakistan is threatened by (lack of) water. Pakistan has to invest and invest soon, in costly and contentious new large dams.

“Pakistan has very little water storage capacity. The United States and Australia have over 5,000 cubic meters of storage capacity per inhabitant and China has 2,200 cubic meters, while Pakistan has only 150 cubic meters of storage capacity per capita.

“Pakistan can barely store 30 days of water in the Indus basin. If something goes wrong with the hydraulic regime of the basin, Pakistan has no alternative to feed its agriculture. There is no latitude for error—.” The warning was indeed dire. According to IRSA, water storage in Pakistan has been reduced to half of what is needed.

In 2007, the World Bank again published a new study (Pakistan Infrastructure Implementation Capacity). According to the study, Pakistan is now one of the most water-stressed countries in the world. For perspective, this would appear as marginal and precarious as a few weeks Forex for imports or POL reserves for energy, with the only difference that the Indus Water Basin hydraulic regime, though severely under stress, has not snapped, not yet at least.

In 1997, while standing in the vicinity of a barbed fence on the Syrian-Israeli border on the outskirts of Quneitra, the Syrian Army Colonel briefing our visiting NDC group about the Israeli surveillance paraphernalia, atop Mount Avital on the Golan Heights, suddenly pointed northward towards Mount Hermon and shook us out of our wits by saying something which left a mark on everyone.

He said that the real reason why Syria will fight Israel for ever is the whiteness on the top there (a reference to the snow-peaked ridges) and the not the rocks below the whiteness. It is that source of water, he said, which supports the organised agricultural activity across the fence and the lack of which is causing all the bareness on the Syrian side.

Little wonder, then, that one aspect of the Syrian-Israeli dispute on the Golan Heights involves the existence, prior to 1967, of three different lines separating Syria from Israel (or, prior to 1948, from the British Mandate of Palestine, at least one of which—i.e., the 1923 boundary between the British Mandate of Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria—was drawn with considerations of water resources in mind).

To relate the above experience to our own region, the real danger is that the population of Pakistan is likely to exceed 220 million by the year 2020 and unless there is improvement in the water management strategy, the water storage capacity ratio, already at a low 150 cubic meters per inhabitant, will aggravate further. In the absence of any new dams, there would not be enough water to meet its basic needs.

The load shedding and power outages situation, governmental pronouncements to the contrary notwithstanding, is unlikely to improve unless there is cheaper hydro electricity. Government revenues could plummet due to precipitous declines in agricultural and industrial production. Food prices could go through the roof and there could be insufficient funds to pay for imports. Vast areas could start to become depopulated, creating social unrest. The population below the poverty line will swell with consequential adverse effects on law and order.

There is no consolation in the thought that this ratio is more or less the same in the case of two of our neighbours, India and Afganistan. This, if anything, could further accentuate the threat of future instability in this region as mouths to feed exceed the croplands which support the population.

It should not be difficult for anyone with interest in military history to comprehend the full implications of the situation. It is worth mentioning that at one stage Britain seriously considered surrendering in 1943 when German U-boats in the western approaches critically disrupted her food imports. Since then, it has drained marshes and cut down fruit orchards and forests to raise crops and achieve self-sufficiency in food production.

Rainfalls, another source of water, have unfortunately been the cause of much havoc in our cities and countryside all too often. Studies at the Stockholm Environment Institute have categorisd rain water as Green (65 percent) and Blue (35 percent). The Green water represents the fraction of rainfall that generates soil moisture and supports terrestrial ecosystem. It is not returned to the ground water and rivers, but eventually evaporates or transpires through plants. The 65 percent is further broken down into 4% absorbed by water bodies, 1 percent wetlands, 5 percent arid shrubs and barren lands, 26 percent forests, 20 percent Savannas and grasslands, and 9 percent taken in by croplands.

The Blue water represents the fraction that runs into rivers and aquifers and has a potential for withdrawal. Out of this the environmental water flow is the amount of water needed to sustain ecosystem services and is about 11 percent, while the rest of the blue water, about 24 percent, is available for possible societal use. As concerned citizens, we hope that the esteemed ministry of water and power will launch some intelligent initiatives where greater use can be made of the rain water in the decades ahead.

If Musharraf had only used all his bulldozing potential on building at least one large dam, rather than wasting his dictatorial advantage on the judiciary and other institutions, he might not, after all, has been such a reviled person in Pakistan, which he finds himself to be today. Consensus is an option only when there is flexibility in choices. In the matter of building large dams, we no longer have any room for dilly dallying. The moral and legal argument may be on the side of riparian, but the writing on the wall is against the country.

We now have representative government which can be expected to better understand such perils and garner grass root support for remedial measures. Can the present democratically elected rulers of the country, therefore, deliver where the past dictatorial regime failed? Judging by the current cacophony from Islamabad, with the president and the prime minister not even on the same sheet of music, the prospects of a futuristic water strategy, getting any decent or scant attention are not very bright.

The tragedy of Cassandra’s forebodings will, as such, continue to play out like other Greek tragedies and the gods smiling as usual.

Taj M Khattak
The writer is a retired vice admiral and former vice chief of the Naval Staff.

[Prem]

‘Thal Canal to cause decline in Sindh agri output’
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=194736

In the Indus system, water availability is around 124 MAF (million acre-feet) for four out of five years and 133 MAF for three out of five years. The Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) requires 155.3 MAF. This includes the Water Accord 1991 allocation of 117.35 MAF of water amongst the four provinces, 10 MAF to sea below Kotri, the supplies of about 4 MAF above rim stations for irrigation and for measuring sites, and a contribution of about 8.71 MAF from Ravi and Sutlej pending full utilisation by India.

The water required for Left Bank Outfall Drainage (LBOD) is 2.2 MAF, to raise Mangla capacity is 3.0 MAF and the average water loss in the system (1948-98) is 12.9 MAF. The annual average availability of water is 138 MAF.

“Hence, the system is short of 16.58 MAF. Thus, an additional water of 5.0 MAF required for Greater Thal, Katchi and Rani Canal project is not available. And such project would further aggravate the water system,” said a research report of Sungi, a research organization.

According to the report the repeated cross-reference of availability of water for Greater Thal Canal by the president, WAPDA and federal ministers as well IRSA’s certification of February 20, 1998 shows water flowing down to the Kotri as waste and hence surplus water to the extent of 38.5 MAF is available for future projects. “This has been found to be a sheer misconception and distortion of facts,” said the report.

Looking at the historical data, the total water availability as well as the seasonal and annual river flows in the Indus river system has been highly variable.

Since the completion of Tarbela, annual average rim station inflows are about 131.19 MAF (IRSA). The highest annual flow was 187.66 MAF in 1959-60 and 91.22 MAF in the year 2001-2002.
The amount of water flows below Kotri has been reduced from 80 MAF in 1947 to 2.142 MAF in 2002-2003. As the water stopped flowing downstream, sea water started flowing upstream and according to an estimate, the saline seawater has intruded some 100 kilometers upstream inundating 2.2 million acres of land.

According to IUCN, Indus requires 27 MAF water to check the sea intrusion and to keep the Indus delta alive. The Kotri downstream water should be ensured to save human, environmental and biological life.

[Rkam]

Not sure if this was posted before:
http://www.apcss.org/Publications/APSSS ... sparro.pdf

"These two reasons are brought together with a third, still more disturbing, reason
in an unusually provocative book, The Final Settlement: Restructuring India-Pakistan
Relations, brought out by the Mumbai-based Strategic Foresight Group in 2005. This
third reason for dissatisfaction is that the treaty, though highly unlikely to be abrogated
by India, offers only a very frail defense against heightened conflict over river resources
between India and Pakistan, and that it is only a matter of time before water war
becomes a virtually unavoidable feature of the region’s political environment. In a
chapter entitled “Water” and with the subtitle “The Secret,” The Final Settlement holds
that water has been central to the Kashmir dispute from the beginning, that the public
debate over Kashmir—focused on lofty goals of self-determination and human rights
(and not on Islamabad’s self-interest in water security)—has always been discreetly
steered away from this fundamental fact,9 and that Pakistan’s mounting water
insecurity virtually ensures a still deeper and volatile nexus between water and Kashmir
in coming years. The book cites as evidence frequent unofficial Pakistani expressions of
interest in recent years in a so-called Chenab formula of conflict resolution, according to
which Jammu and Kashmir would be further partitioned, with Pakistan being granted
the Kashmir Valley and a substantial (and Muslim majority) portion of Jammu, enough
to give it command of the Chenab River. The Chenab, in The Final Settlement’s view, is
the ultimate prize, possession of which by Pakistan would virtually end its water woes:
with the 1960 treaty effectively terminated, Pakistan would be able to develop the
Chenab’s potential to the maximum, not only in terms of storage dams for irrigation but
also for hydroelectric power and flood control. This, according to the book, has in recent
years been the latent objective of Pakistani diplomatic and political activity relating to
Kashmir.10

Most disturbing, from The Final Settlement’s perspective, is that what Pakistanis
feel they must have, Indians will never give up. The Chenab River is clearly not for sale. "

[SSridhar]

Pakistan rejects India's protest

Pakistan summoned an official from the Indian High Commission on Friday and told him New Delhi had no “locus standi” to protest against either its recently announced package of measures for Gilgit-Baltistan or against the construction of a dam on its side of Kashmir.

Pakistan’s protest came a few hours after India made its own two protests: the first, over the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009 as a “cosmetic exercise intended to camouflage Pakistan’s illegal occupation” of parts of the Jammu and Kashmir State; and the second, against the construction of the Bunji dam in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

[jaladipc]

I guess i am fairly new to this issue.But a newbie question though.

since India is not getting what it is deserved,whats the consequences and further issues involved if India exits the treaty and control all rivers?

It can be used as a better bargain tool regarding POK.
I will give water to your agriculture and you f out from POK.

is it gonna work?

[milindc]

I guess i am fairly new to this issue.But a newbie question though.

since India is not getting what it is deserved,whats the consequences and further issues involved if India exits the treaty and control all rivers?

It can be used as a better bargain tool regarding POK.
I will give water to your agriculture and you f out from POK.

is it gonna work?

Before quitting the treaty and bargaining, you need the ability to control the water flow.
Hence the quest to build the run-of-the-mill dams for Electricity production

[SSridhar]

India-Pakistan race to finish hydel projects

India and Pakistan are racing to complete the 330MW Kishanganga and the 960MW Neelam-Jhelum power projects, respectively, as the Indus Water Treaty does not permit for both projects to operate simultaneously.

The plans made available to Daily Times reveal the Indian project would divert the River Neelam to Wullar Lake, leaving very little water for the Pakistani project, which is a mere 70 kilometres downstream from the Indian Kishanganga project. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the project commissioned first would be accorded top priority. In the case of Pakistan, this would likely mean that the Neelam-Jhelum project would have to be abandoned, as the Kishanganga project would leave very little water for Pakistan to use.

Currently, India’s state-owned National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) has set 2016 as its deadline for the project, while Pakistan plans to complete its project in 2017. “We will complete our project by 2016 at an estimated cost of Rs 36.42 billion,” Indian-held Kashmir junior Power Minister Shabir Ahmed Dar told journalists. He said the NHPC had been directed to expedite its project and commission it before Pakistan had a chance to complete the Neelam-Jhelum project. Pakistan had protested the construction of the Kishanganga project earlier this year, arguing it would adversely affect 133,209 hectares of agricultural land in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

[SSridhar]

Water War with India - Editorial in DT

The latest news in the Indo-Pak war of the waters is that the two countries are racing to complete the 330MW Kishanganga and the much larger 960MW Neelam-Jhelum power projects in their respectively controlled territories. The trigger in this race is that the Indus Water Treaty between the two countries allows them both to build the dams but not simultaneously. Only one state can build its dam if it beats the other to the draw.

India plans to complete the Kishanganga project in 2017; only 70 km downriver, Pakistan plans to complete is Neelam-Jhelum project one year later. The Treaty says there is water only for one dam. Had Pakistan started its project earlier and finished it, India would have faced an embargo. Now the chances are that India will win the race and the Pakistani dam will be left standing like a mausoleum. India will divert the new water to Wullar Lake — another disputed Indian project — where the waters have dried up.

The Pakistani Urdu press is already recommending war as a solution to the problem. On the Indian side, “punishment through water” is recommended against Pakistan because it is fighting shy of punishing the terrorist non-state actors who have been attacking inside India. Pakistan has tried the tribunals under the World Bank as allowed in the Treaty, but has got nowhere. India is planning numerous more dams in its part of upper-riparian Kashmir.

Both countries need peace, not war. In conditions of peace, they can sell to each other, or share, the electricity they produce and allow each other the irrigation water they need. In a state of war, both lose because both are nuclear powers. Peace can begin with “normalisation” of relations through free trade and the opening up of trade routes even as Pakistan undertakes to punish its “non-state actor” terrorists.

[SSridhar]

Pakistan's approach to Kishenganga Project

The government has decided to approach the World Bank to request the appointment of a neutral expert to resolve the Indo-Pak dispute over the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project if bilateral efforts fail.

An official document available to Daily Times has revealed that after failing to resolve the dispute through Indus Water Commission-level talks, the government has directed the Foreign Office to initiate the process of requesting the appointment of a neutral expert as stipulated in the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). Under the treaty, the western tributaries of the Indus River have been allocated to Pakistan, but Article III (2d) allows India to use these waters for hydropower generation.

Sources told Daily Times the government would attempt to solve the dispute bilaterally during the secretary-level talks. They said Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had already said Pakistan would discuss the water dispute with India in the next round of negotiations. However, they added, the government was not anticipating any leeway from India and had thus finalised preparations to request a neutral expert to resolve the matter. Both countries previously settled their differences on the Baglihar project through the arbitration of a neutral expert.

The dispute over the Kishanganga project started when India announced the plans for a reservoir with storage capacity of 0.14 MAF in 1994, prompting Pakistan to object to the design and the diversion of flow from one of the tributaries of the River Jhelum. Following several meetings of the permanent Indus Water Commission, India revised the design from “storage” to a “run-off river hydroelectric” project. However, Pakistan still objects to the diversion of flow and the resultant adverse effects on agriculture in Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

The permanent commission on the IWT requested both India and Pakistan on May 11, 2009 to jointly appoint a neutral expert to resolve the matter, but differences on both sides have prevented the governments from proceeding. Under the treaty, if both countries fail to jointly appoint the neutral expert, the World Bank can appoint a neutral expert whose decision is binding on both sides.

[Vivek_A]

Pak, China vow to boost up defence ties


At the meeting Hu outlined a major project to upgrade the Karakoram highway connecting the two countries overland and Chinese help in the Neelam-Jhelum hydroelectric project in the Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir.

[Vipul]

Work on Second phase of Baglihar hydel project to start in six months.

The Jammu and Kashmir government is planning to start work on the second phase of the Baglihar hydroelectric project in Ramban district in six months to boost the power generation capacity of the state, an official said.Chief Minister Omar Abdullah visited the proposed project site Friday. He sought details about the preparation of the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation (PDC) for undertaking the work. He also instructed that the blueprint should be ready in the next two weeks and work should start in six months, a PDC official who accompanied the chief minister told IANS.

Baglihar I was commissioned in October last year. It generates 450 MW of power. The second part of the project will have the same generating capacity, the official said.Baglihar is about 135 km north of Jammu and is constructed on river Chenab.

Now things are easier as the PDC has the knowledge and skills of construction of hydro-power projects after having successfully built the Baglihar project, the official said.

Jammu and Kashmir has the potential to generate 20,000 MW of power. But it generates less than its potential because of the shortage of resources and the absence of technical knowhow.

The chief minister said the state needs to move forward. To boost our energy generating potential, we must put our act together. More power will bring more investment to the state, and that would help generate employment for our unemployed youth, he said.

[Vivek_A]

Experts warn glaciers in Indian Kashmir melting

By AIJAZ HUSSAIN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 13, 2009; 6:54 AM

SRINAGAR, India -- Indian Kashmir's glaciers are melting fast because of rising temperatures, threatening the water supply of millions of people in the Himalayan region, a new study by Indian scientists says.

The study by Kashmir University's geology and geophysics department blamed the effect on climate change, and said it endangered the livelihoods of two-thirds of the region's nearly 10 million people engaged in agriculture, horticulture, livestock rearing and forestry.

The Kolahoi glacier, the biggest in the Indian portion of divided Kashmir, has shrunk to about 4.44 square miles (11.5 square kilometers) from about five square miles (13 square kilometers) in the past 40 years, the study found.

Shakil Romshoo, an associate professor in the department who led to three-year study, described the rate of melting as "alarming." He said Tuesday that Kolahoi had shrunk by 18 percent, and over the same period, other glaciers in the region had shrunk by 16 percent.

The Kolahoi feeds Kashmir's lifeline Jhelum River, which is also vital for agriculture in Pakistan's most populous province of Punjab.

[SSridhar]

Meanwhile, India invites Pakistan for talks on Kishenganga Project

Indus Water Commissioner G Ranganathan has written a letter to his Pakistani counterpart Syed Jamaat Ali Shah inviting him for discussing the issue, official sources said.

Ranganathan sent the letter months after Pakistan threatened to move for arbitration the World Bank, which is third party in Indo-Pak water disputes under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.

In his letter, Ranganathan has emphasised that approaching the World Bank was not warranted as the matter could be resolved through bilateral talks {Kufr Ranganathan is not only putting the knife in but also twisting it}, the sources said.

Pakistan is yet to respond to the invitation, they said. Pakistan threatened to approach the World Bank after several rounds of bilateral talks failed to end differences.

Pakistan has been opposing construction of the power project on Kishenganga, claiming that it violated the Indus Water Treaty, a contention rejected by India.

Work on the 330-MW project, whose capacity can be raised to 990 MW, started in 1994 and Pakistan immediately protested, prompting talks between the two countries to resolve it. {India has done well by starting the project, even for namesake, in 1994 and then calling Pakistan for talks after it objected. That would nail Pakistan completely because as per IWT, the country which starts the work first enjoys the rights in this particular case. The minutes of the meeting exchanged between the two Indus Commissioners in 1994 should be handy when this case finally goes for arbitration. It will surely go to World Bank, no doubt}

Under the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan has exclusive right over three of the common rivers -- Indus, Jhelum and Chenab while India has exclusive right over Sutlej, Ravi and Beas. Kishenganga is a tributary of Jhelum river.

Pakistan has been alleging that the diversion of flow will adversely affect its agriculture and hydroelectric project on river Neelum -- as Jhelum is known across the border.

Following concerns about submergence voiced by Pakistan, India reviewed the project in 2006, converting it from a storage project to a 'run-of-river plant. The reviewed data was communicated to Pakistan in June 2006.

When contacted to comment on the issue, Water Resources Secretary U N Panjiyar told PTI that "the provisions of the treaty have not been breached...the Kishenganga Hydro Power Project is as per the provisions of the Treaty". {AoA}

[SSridhar]

India asks China to stop activities in PoK

On Wednesday, the foreign office was reacting to Chinese President Hu Jintao’s assurance to Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani of help in upgrading the Karakoram highway and building the Neelam-Jhelum hydroelectric project in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Vishnu Prakash, the spokesman, noted that Pakistan had been illegally occupying parts of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947, and Beijing was fully aware of India’s position and concerns about Chinese activities in PoK. “We hope that the Chinese side will take a long-term view of India-China relations and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied by Pakistan.”

[SSridhar]

India once again says Chinese participation in PoK project is illegal

India today made clear its opposition to China's participation in projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, saying it treats any such activity as "illegal".

"Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. Any activity by any country in Jammu and Kashmir is illegal and this has been made known to all concerned," Mr Krishna told reporters here {Bangalore} in response to a question about Chinese participation in developmental projects in PoK.

[SSridhar]

Pakistan to move WB on Kishenganga

Pakistan is all set to move the World Bank (WB) for appointment of a neutral expert instead of opting for the Court of Arbitration on the Indian Kishanganga Hydropower Project.

“The WB-appointed neutral expert is our top most priority after receiving a discouraging response while exercising bilateral channels as the Indian project is being built to divert River Jhelum water,” sources told The News here on Friday.

The sources pointed out that the Permanent Indus Water Commission (PIWC), appointing two negotiators from each side, proved merely time buying moves of India.

“It will also be a futile exercise if Pakistan opts for court of arbitration consisting two nominees from each country and three mutually agreed ones, and, we can ill-afford to give more and more time to New Delhi to go ahead with its controversial project,” they elaborated.

“We are examining the possibility of invoking the option of neutral export instead of court of arbitration,” a Foreign Office spokesman confirmed to this correspondent when contacted.

The FO spokesman maintained that the Pakistan government along with experts was working seriously on an urgent basis to go for a neutral expert appointment since India was wasting time while engaging us in step-by-step process.

“Should India continue to prevaricate and procrastinate first?” he questioned while referring to the water dispute between Islamabad and New Delhi with almost a 30 per cent existing water shortage in Pakistan for ongoing Rabi crop season.

Pakistan first tried to resolve the problem at PIWC, the only body between two neighbouring rivals, secondly called for negotiators and then comes the option of court of arbitration. “We do not believe that India will agree within one month under IWT 1960 to nominate its members for the arbitration court.

“This is too serious a matter and Pakistan cannot afford to sit back and allow India to continue violating the IWT,” the spokesman said.

In response to a question, Abdul Basit said he was not in a position to give exact time-frame as to when Pakistan will move the WB for appointing a neutral expert whose findings will be binding both on Pakistan and India on water issues.

The PIWC Commissioner for Pakistan, Syed Jamaat Ali Shah ,said Pakistan was moving ahead with the relevant clauses of the treaty. “And next step is establishment of a court of arbitration.”

He, however, referred to the Foreign Office for furtherance on the Kishanganga project while saying it was now before the Government of Pakistan to handle after the India did not agree to the PIWC platform.

“And if the issue is not settled on the platform of court of arbitration, Pakistan can exercise the option to move the WB for appointment of a neutral expert.

[manjgu]

SSridhar, firstly i would like to thank you for this thread.. this is one of my all time fav on BR... and your knowledge and insightful thoughts have contributed a lot.. recently in the Delhi BR meet, i mentioned this fact to all the participants...


what is Pakistan hoping to achieve ( other than delay the inevitable) by taking it to WB... if we have started it first ( and plan to finish it first), then as per the rules our dam is the one which works. is India obligated to stop work on the dam when the case is being fought / in the court?

[manjgu]

SSridhar.... on page no 8 of this thread you say in BOLD that "there is no exisiting agricultural or hydroelectric use of Kishenganag on TSP side".... while i can understand that there is no exisitng Hydroelectic usage but surely there must be agricultutral use ( i mean all river waters are used for agricultural use unless of course the river passes through high mountains where there is no agriclutrue)?? whats the clarification.

[SSridhar]

what is Pakistan hoping to achieve ( other than delay the inevitable) by taking it to WB... if we have started it first ( and plan to finish it first), then as per the rules our dam is the one which works. is India obligated to stop work on the dam when the case is being fought / in the court?

manjgu, thanks. Disputes between and among riparian states are common. They exist within our own country. We are beginning to be worried about China damming the Brahmaputra. A lower riparian state can normally be expected to have some grouse, some apprehension with an upper riparian state especially as water flows dwindle. But, Pakistan's case is very different.

Pakistan has known from day one that it could not take on India militarily, economically or in any other way and yet it has manfully carried on with that single-minded obsession. In the process it has deceived its own people, it has deceived the rest of the world, and it never bothered about the costs of its obsession. Even the Cold War did not last this long and it is doubtful if the US would have been so obsessed by the USSR at the height of the Cold War. Pakistan never thought about the missed opportunities to improve the plight of its people, and create a nation-state that would be worthy of its achievements. I do not see any single achievement by that country in any sphere of activity except exporting terrorism. All its energies have been geared towards that single unattainable goal. Why ? What drives that single-minded obsession ? The answer to that is the only answer for all the actions of Pakistan.

India is not obligated to stop the work if and when arbitration proceeding starts. In Salal, as in the Tulbul project, we did exactly that (though it was not taken to WB). We delayed the work, we acceded to Pakistani demands and we are suffering big time now with siltation and reduced power production etc. Tulbul is not even started. By Baglihar time, we had learnt our lesson and we stood firm. We were confident from day one that we had done nothing wrong. Even while discussing with TSP or later when the Neutral Expert's proceedings were going on, we didn't stop the work. Pakistan was spinning a story that a fully constructed Baglihar would be a fait accompli for the NE to award in India's favour. However, the NE awarded the case solely on its merit.

[SSridhar]

.... on page no 8 of this thread you say in BOLD that "there is no exisiting agricultural or hydroelectric use of Kishenganag on TSP side".... while i can understand that there is no exisitng Hydroelectic usage but surely there must be agricultutral use ( i mean all river waters are used for agricultural use unless of course the river passes through high mountains where there is no agriclutrue)?? whats the clarification.

manjgu, I refer you to this post on the same Page 8. Except for some orchards and some maize & rice just upstream of Muzzafarabad (where Kishenganga/Neelum meets Jhelum), there is no agriculture. Also, the Indian diversion of water is through Wullar into Jhelum and so beyond Muzzafarabad, Pakistan will have the full flow of water. Pakistan itself is planning to tap Kishenganga/Neelum about 30 Kms upstream from Muzzaffarabad and tunnel the waters to get a good head up to Domel, which means that the rice and maize lands just above Muzzafarabad will be affected anyway. Besides, the Kishenganga is not going to dry out the flow beyond the storage point. Even Pakistan has claimed that there will be 21% reduction in water and its main objection is that the reduced water flow will affect its power production and might make the already very costly project unviable.

[manjgu]

OK ..yes the post explains it all. i need to get to google earth to check the geography of the area..

[SSridhar]

KSA to also fund the Neelum-Jhelum Project
One more protest by India is in order.

The third agreement to be signed would provide a loan of $80 million for the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project. The project is worth Rs 130 billion and is likely to be financed by various foreign donors, including the Islamic Development Bank, the SFD {Saudi Fund for Development}, the Kuwait Fund for Development and the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development.

[manjgu]

http://www.kewa.org/project.html ( good description of the project)...

On the funding issue ... if the legal position is so obvious ( in terms of indians having started the work earlier and so the first right... why are the saudis etc getting into funding of this project?? which might be a dead investment??)

Sridhar - Q1 has the work started on the indian side? Q2 .. what consitutes the phrase 'work has started'? ( is surveying etc included in work has started or some kind of civil work??).

thanks....

[SSridhar]

manjgu,

Q1. Current Status

The project parameters were revised a few years back to prevent submergence of the Gurez valley. Accordingly, the height of the reservoir and consequently the live storage etc were considerably revised down without impacting the power generation capacity of the project. The following is the status early 2009

Infrastructure works are under progress.
Revised CCEA approval accorded in December, 2008.
Turnkey execution of the project awarded to M/s Kishanganga Consortium with HCC ld. As lead partner, M/s Halcow group ltd., UK as partner and M/s SELI SJZA Italy, M/s BHEL, M/s DSD NOELL GmbH Germany & M/s PES engineers Pvt. Ltd. As subcontractor on 22.01.2009.

Q2. What is the definition of 'work started'

The IWT states in Paragraph 2, Article VII, entitled "Future Cooperation", the following:

(2) If either Party plans to construct any engineering work which would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers and which, in its opinion, would affect the other Party materially, it shall notify the other Party of its plans and shall supply such data relating to the work as may be available and as would enable the other Party to inform itself of the nature, magnitude and effect of the work. If a work would cause interference with the waters of any of the Rivers but would not, in the opinion of the Party planning it, affect the other Party materially, nevertheless the Party planning the work shall, on request, supply the other Party with such data: regarding the nature, magnitude and effect, if any, of the work as may be available.

The above is very important. It is the intention to start the project as conveyed with whatever data is available at that time that is important, IMO. In the case of Kishenganga, it was conveyed in the 1990s to Pakistan. That was why Pakistan demanded that if it were to allow the Tulbul Navigation Lock project (aka Wullar barrage in Pakistan), India must not execute the Kishenganga project. That objection was raised by Pakistan in february 1992 after the Tulbul Navigation project was agreed upon by both governments in 1991. Soon after that, Pakistan decided to develop its Neelum-Jhelum project and expected to complete it during 1994-1997. Obviously, without the Kishenganga project, the Tulbul Navigation project is a non-starter. Anyway, it means that Pakistan was aware of the Kishenganga project a long time back. Besides, it has regularly brought up the issue of the project in every PIC meeting.

Item d of Paragraph 2 of Article III vests India with the rights to generate hydroelectric power according to Annexure D.

Item 3 of Paragraph 15 of Part 3 of Annexure D entitled 'New Run-of-River Plants' 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.

Note that there is no *existing* hydroelectric use on this tributary. Pakistan may have an intent to build a plant in 2020, but that does not count according to the above. The *existing* agricultural use will be more than covered by the discharge from the plant anyway as such use is meagre according to the joint PIC survey already made. While completion of hydroelectric or agricultural projects is a must for Pakistan to claim relief according to IWT, it is not so for India. Otherwise it will be a contradiction of the IWT as Pakistan can simply stall any Indian project that India makes in good faith.

Q3. Funding issue

Pakistan will still implement its Neelum-Jhelum project but only thing would be reduced power generation and conseqently the price per unit to the customer would be on the higher side. Pakistan will have to then subsidize the consumers and incur a loss. It won't be a dead investment especially in a completely power-starved Pakistan. Besides, KSA's investment is meagre, USD 80 million only and we also don't know how much of it will come through eventually. Recently, KSA has not been giving cash directly to Pakistan (like the rest of the donors) and wants to fund only on project-basis and after a green signal from the IMF.

India has to strongly protest to KSA, nevertheless.

[manjgu]

"While completion of hydroelectric or agricultural projects is a must for Pakistan to claim relief according to IWT, it is not so for India.." ... i did not understand what this means?

does it mean that unless Pakistan makes a dam/barrage it cant contest a case?? or does it mean that only when india completes a project, subsequent to that only pakistan can file a case.. could u pl explain....

[SSridhar]

What I meant was that there should be current use of water to justify objections. Such objections cannot be made on projected 'future' use of water because on that basis everything can be claimed by everyone. IMO, the entire IWT is predicated on the 'Prior Appropriation' water-sharing principle {where rights are acquired by actual use} of the Indus System of Rivers with some meagre scope for future use especially for India as it never developed agriculture in certain areas as it never expected a division of lands and rivers. Therefore, Pakistan cannot claim anything that is non-existent. Obviously, this cannot be the case for the upper riparian India provided it meets the IWT parameters while developing a river construction work.

[manjgu]

ok ok... now its clear to me. thanks for the patient answers.

I tried following the neelum on google earth , but after a point it gets lost somewhere ( once it enters India) !! but anyways i got the plot )

[SSridhar]

Pakistan to use two forums to adjudicate Kishenganga dispute

Pakistan is to propose the establishment of a court for arbitration and appointment of neutral experts for the resolution of the dispute over the controversial Kishanganga Hydropower Project. Pakistan would soon contact India for the establishment of the two forums through the Foreign Office as part of the second leg of efforts to resolve the issue, Pakistan Indus Water Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah told Daily Times on Thursday. The establishment of a court for arbitration and the appointment of neutral experts would be proposed to India, as New Delhi had failed to satisfy Pakistan in matters related to the dispute during negotiations between the Indus water commissioners of the two countries. Jamaat denied that India had invited Pakistan for a meeting between the Indus water commissioners on the controversial Kishanganga project. He said that the Indus Water Treaty provided a dispute resolution mechanism, under which Pakistan had made its best efforts to resolve the dispute over the controversial Kishanganga project. He said India was not reciprocating Pakistan’s efforts.

To my best knowledge, both are not possible. There are certain disputes that can be handled by a neutral expert and the rest will have to be handled by a court of arbitration. Either both parties can a priori come to a conclusion about this or a neutral expert can decide that it has to be a court of arbitration.

[Stan_Savljevic]

India goes ahead with Kishenganga project

Work on the 330 mega watt (MW) Kishenganga hydro-power project has finally taken-off in North Kashmir, despite Pakistan's sustained objection. "Work on the project began last year but there was some disruption at two places over local issues like jobs and rehabilitation. These stands resolved now. Work is now on," commissioner-secretary of J&K power development department BR Sharma said.

Pakistan had threatened to approach the World Bank, seeking appointment of a neutral expert to settle differences on the project. Islamabad believes the project will divert waters of the Jhelum, in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. But "we believe the project is legal as per the Indus water treaty. We are continuing with our work and we hope to complete the project by the 2015 deadline," Sharma said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... ct_1313522

[Nihat]

India says it can construct more dams on western rivers

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday said it still had the right to construct more water-storage facilities on its western rivers in accordance with the Indus Water Treaty (IWT).

Replying to a question on the floor of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House), Minister of State for Power Bharatsinh Solanki said as per the IWT, the aggregate storage capacity of all single-purpose and multi-purpose reservoirs permitted to be constructed by India shall not exceed 3.6 million acre feet (MAF) (1.25 MAF of general storage, 1.6 MAF of power storage and 0.75 MAF of flood storage).

“India is also permitted to constructing run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the western rivers conforming to certain criteria specified in the treaty, under which, such use is unrestricted,” he added

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2009_pg7_3