What's new

Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

Loss in storage capacity

A section of the Press has reported that as per WAPDA report the storage capacity of three Water storages of Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma have lost 27 percent storage capacity. As such there is urgent need for developing new water reservoirs but lack of political consensus is the main hindrance to construction of megadams. A report submitted by the WAPDA to the ministry of water and power says the live storage capacity of three dams has declined by 4.37 MAF over the years. The storage capacity will further drop considerably by the end of 2025. The original capacity of line storage was 16.29 MAF which has been reduced to 11.91 MAF due to sedimentation and silting. The country has water storage potential of up to 17.8 MAF in future for three more mega dams similar to Diamer – Bhasha dam. It is unfortunate that successive governments have failed to realise the dire need of new water reservoirs which has landed Pakistan in severe water and power shortage. The rulers ought to read the writing on the wall before it is too late.
Dr. Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatti,
Lahore , July 18.
 
Loss in storage capacity

A section of the Press has reported that as per WAPDA report the storage capacity of three Water storages of Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma have lost 27 percent storage capacity. As such there is urgent need for developing new water reservoirs but lack of political consensus is the main hindrance to construction of megadams. A report submitted by the WAPDA to the ministry of water and power says the live storage capacity of three dams has declined by 4.37 MAF over the years. The storage capacity will further drop considerably by the end of 2025. The original capacity of line storage was 16.29 MAF which has been reduced to 11.91 MAF due to sedimentation and silting. The country has water storage potential of up to 17.8 MAF in future for three more mega dams similar to Diamer – Bhasha dam. It is unfortunate that successive governments have failed to realise the dire need of new water reservoirs which has landed Pakistan in severe water and power shortage. The rulers ought to read the writing on the wall before it is too late.
Dr. Muhammad Yaqoob Bhatti,
Lahore , July 18.


Khod na shuru karo
 
Nimo Bazgo hydropower project

Water and Environment Ministry let Pakistan down


By Zeeshan Javaid

ISLAMABAD: The Water and Power Ministry and the Environment Ministry let Pakistan down over the 45MW controversial Nimo Bazgo hydropower project, constructed in Indian-held Kashmir.

Sources privy to the development said that both ministries had started accusing each other and were not ready to take the responsibility for loosing the case of the hydropower project.

They also revealed that the decision taken by the federal government not to approach the Permanent Court of Arbitration-International Court of Arbitration (PCA-ICA) was taken because of negligence of high officials of the two ministries. Former Indus Water commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah and former environment secretary Muhammad Naeem Khawaja were also found negligent.

A special committee formed by the former Water and Power minister, Naveed Qamar, had not concluded inquiry so far and remained tight-lipped regarding the inquiry.

Documents available with Daily Times revealed that the Military Intelligence (MI) informed the government on June 6, 2005 that the Indian government was planning to construct 45MW Nimo Bazgo hydropower project on western river ‘Sindh’ and project would likely be completed in 2010.

The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also informed the authorities concerned on July 25, 2005 that Indian PM Manmohan Singh visited Leh, Kargil and Siachen glacier on June 11, 2005 and laid foundation stone for Nimo Bazgo and Chuttak hydropower plants respectively.

The ISI on September 7, 2005, shared the information about the visit of the Indian premier and informed that the project would be completed by 2008.

First letter to Indus Water Indian commissioner Auranga Nathan regarding the controversial Nimo Bazgo hydropower project was sent on November 16, 2002 by Jamat Ali Shah. In the letter the Indian commissioner was requested to provide information about the proposed plan under provisions of the Indus Water Treaty 1960.

As per provisions of the Indus Water Treaty 1960, the Indian commissioner informed his Pakistani counterpart on December 27, 2006 that India would be availing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) benefits from Nimo Bazgo hydropower project.

The CDM benefit document issued to Indian authorities maintained that India fulfilled all requirements to avail the benefits, including environmental impact report.

Water Wing of the Water and Power Ministry and the Pakistani commissioner remained silent until 2009. However, when authorities came to know that after completion of controversial hydropower project, Pakistan would not be able to address its concerns, including the changing in design of the project, the Pakistani commissioner raised the issue, but to no avail.

A senior Environment Ministry official, on condition of anonymity, said the Water and Power Ministry was never consulted in this regard until India completed the project and obtained no objection certificate (NOC).
 
1.2 Million Pakistani die cause of Water problems.

Monsoon aggravates waterborne diseases

* Shabby civic infrastructure responsible for sewerage water’s mixing with drinking water

By Haris Hanif

KARACHI: After the fresh monsoon spell, scores of waterborne diseases, particularly gastroenteritis, diarrhoea and malaria were being reported at various private and government hospitals, said health experts while talking to Daily Times here on Sunday.

Waterborne diseases like Cholera, Hepatitis A & E, Typhoid and Gastroenteritis break out due to the consumption of polluted water and contaminated food items sold by roadside vendors.

In Karachi, water and sewerage infrastructure is in a poor shape and in many areas sewerage lines run parallel to waterlines, which makes drinking water polluted due to leakages.

The fresh monsoon spell in the city has raised the spread of waterborne diseases particularly diarrhoea, and gastroenteritis besides malaria and jaundice as there are chances of gutter water’s mixing with potable water because of leaking pipelines and overflowing gutters.

Gastroenteritis or stomach flu is a viral or bacterial infection, caused by a number of viruses and bacteria that grow manifold during or after rains and the symptoms include diarrhoea, vomiting and nausea with abdominal cramps. Unhygienic drinking water is one of the major causes of the disease in the city.

It is worth mentioning here that nearly 150 people suffering from gastroenteritis were reported in last couple of days from a locality of Murad Memon Goth in Gadap Town.

Some of them were shifted to the Sindh Government Hospital Saudabad while others were treated at a camp established in the area where only one doctor along with a handful of paramedics was available under open sky, which showed the seriousness of authorities concerned.

Last year, gastroenteritis spread in Kashmiri Mohalla and Bengali Para of UC-3, Landhi due to contaminated water, leaving two people dead and scores of others suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea.

After rains, the stagnant water becomes highly polluted with different chemicals and causes various skin and eye diseases. The children should avoid playing in accumulated rainwater and parents should keep them away from rainwater puddles. As many as 1.2 million people die of waterborne diseases in Pakistan every year, of them 250,000 are children under the age of five years, they informed.

The health experts have strongly advised people to use only boiled water and avoid outdoor meals, especially during rainy season. Majority of areas in the city receive contaminated water and such incidents had occurred in past as well.

They asked people to avoid drinking non-boiled water and taking unhygienic meals bought from outside. In case of any waterborne disease, patients must report to the hospital and drink more and more water mixed with some salt, or use ORS, they advised.

They said people must themselves take measures in order to avoid diseases, since the shabby civic infrastructure of Karachi does not seem to change overnight.

In interior Sindh, an outbreak of water-borne diseases added to the woes of people already affected by the monsoon rains.

According to National Disaster Management Autority, 85,404 rain-affected people are suffering from malaria, out of which, 1,660 are in critical condition. As many as 71,857 people are asthma patients, 35, 343 are suffering from cholera while 59, 763 are suffering from skin diseases.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
969MW Neelum-Jhelum project

‘Only Rs 5 billion released out of Rs 274bn in 4 years’

* NJHP CEO says Chinese engineers likely to stop work on project due to dearth of funds n PM inaugurates two TBMs

By Zeeshan Javaid

ISLAMABAD: Out of the total PC-I cost of Rs 274 billion for the construction of 969 megawatts (MW) Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project (NJHP), the government has released only Rs 5 billion during the last four fiscal years (2008-12), declining the level of confidence between Pakistan and China as the Chinese engineers working on the NJHP would halt their work from next month.

This was stated by NJHP CEO Lt General (r) Muhammad Zubair while talking to this scribe, on Monday.

The ongoing energy crisis in the country could further increase, thanks to slow release of funds against proposed allocations in the development budget for the construction of mega hydropower projects particularly 969 MW NJHP.

Sources familiar to the latest development informed this scribe that the federal government released accumulated amount of Rs 44 billion, which includes foreign funding and NJ surcharge, for the construction of NJHP till May 2012 against total allocation of Rs 75.818 billion during four FYs 2008-12.

After mutual consultation and comprehensive strict assessment, 969 MW NJHP project with initial PC-1 cost of Rs 130 billion was approved, however later on, the implementation body of this mega project, Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) took the support of natural disaster including earthquake 2005 and flood havoc 2010 and applied for revised PC-1 cost of amounting Rs 274 billion, which was recently approved by the Planning Commission in June 2012.

The NJHP Company demanded immediate release of Rs 9 billion from the federal governmental institutions including finance, water and power, foreign office and others associated with such multinational projects as the Chinese contractors are expected to stop development and construction work from next month.

The work on 969 MW NJHP, the strategically important and only major ongoing water sector initiative, is facing delay due to dearth of funds. The Chinese contractors expressed their inability to continue work beyond August 10, 2012 if overdue amount of Rs 7.8 billion was not paid, sources added. It is immensely important to finish work on this project within the stipulated timeframe in order to neutralise the threat from India’s water aggression, the sources maintained.

The management of Chinese consortium comprising China Gezhouba Group Co Ltd China and CMEC, China (CGGO-CMEC) has formally asked for release of funds saying all efforts for accelerating work on NJHP would be futile due to shortage of required money.

The joint venture warned that such extraordinary efforts that resulted in dramatic progress on the project would no longer be sustainable in the absence of funds, the contractors, in absence of the timely release of required capital will be left with no other option but to suspend or slowdown work on the project as per provision of clause 69.4 of the contract.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf formally inaugurated the two tunnel boring machines (TBMs) on Monday, following their successful installation at one of the sites of the 969 MW NJHP near Thotha Majoi in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).

These two TBMs were procured at a cost of about Rs 19.5 billion. This cost also included the expenditure incurred on their shipment to and installation at the site.

Zubair said the cost of these two machines would be recovered in three years, adding these machines would be used for other such projects in the future.

He said the project has been facing shortage of funds for the last two months due to delay in delivery of funds from the Finance Ministry. He said about 40 percent of work has been completed.

Zubair further briefed the premier that these machines are able to make one kilometre every month, adding once the NJHP is completed, these TBMs with the required modifications, could also be used for construction of the other water and hydropower projects that involve tunneling in their implementation.

Annual benefits of the project have been calculated about at Rs 45 billion, while the project will pay back its cost in about seven years, while deployment of TBMs would reduce construction period by about 18 months. This will result in an estimated benefit of Rs 67 billion and would be completed during the estimated period of next four years.

Cold feet: Setbacks in Diamer-Bhasha funding

ISLAMABAD: In a major setback for the $11.5 billion Diamer-Bhasha Dam project, all foreign lenders have expressed reluctance to provide finances and have, instead, offered to fund the 4,320-megawatt Dasu hydropower project.
According to reports, the Indian lobby in Washington is vigorously working against the funding of the Diamer-Bhasha Dam, forcing the US and other donors to link its assistance for the Pakistani project with a No Objection Certificate (NoC) from New Delhi – given India’s claims that the Dam is located in the disputed territory of Gilgit-Baltistan. Washington had earlier agreed to fund the project on the condition of approval from the US Congress.
The World Bank, on the other hand, already refused to extend finances for the Diamer-Bhasha Dam, linking the financing of the multi-billion dollar project with Indian concurrence.
Meanwhile, Pakistan and India have also been locked in a legal battle over the Baglihar Dam since several years, while a case over the Kishanganga Dam is ongoing in an international court.
Dasu Hydropower project

The Dasu hydropower project is located in Kohistan district, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and is situated seven kilometres upstream of Dasu village on the Indus River and 74km downstream of the Diamer-Bhasha.
According to officials, a recent meeting, held with all international donors including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), had discussed whether donors should provide funding for the Diamer-Bhasha Dam or the Dasu hydropower project first.
Officials of the water and power ministry have said the Diamer-Bhasha is at an advance stage, with land being acquired for construction.
“Work on Dasu Dam is not at the same stage; therefore, the government wants donors to extend financing for the 4,500-megawatt Diamer-Bhasha Dam,” sources quoted water and power ministry officials as saying.
When contacted, the spokesperson for the water and power ministry failed to respond, saying the issue was related to the water wing.
Developing consensus
Earlier, the ADB had pledged it would act as the government’s investment banker in raising money from international capital markets.
However, it had asked the government of Pakistan to pass a resolution in the National Assembly in favour of constructing the Diamer-Bhasha Dam so that it would not meet the fate of the Kalabagh Dam.
The government had even received the approval of the Council of Common Interest (CCI), represented by all provinces, to develop a consensus on the project.
 
Munificently treading water

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
NEW DELHI — Reciprocity is the first principle of diplomacy, and India has walked the extra mile to befriend neighbors, as underscored by its record on land and water disputes. Yet today, India lives in the world's most-troubled neighborhood.



India's generosity on land issues has been well documented. It includes its acceptance of Burmese sovereignty over the Kabaw Valley in 1953, its surrender of British-inherited extraterritorial rights in Tibet in 1954, its giving back of the strategic Haji Pir Pass to Pakistan after the 1965 war, and its similar return of territorial gains plus 93,000 prisoners after the 1971 war that led to East Pakistan's secession as Bangladesh.

Less well known is India's generosity on shared river waters, although it is now reeling under a growing water crisis.

The world's most generous water-sharing pact is the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India agreed to set aside 80.52 percent of the waters of the six-river Indus system for Pakistan, keeping for itself just the remaining 19.48 percent share. Both in terms of the sharing ratio as well as the total quantum of waters reserved for a downstream state, this treaty's munificence is unsurpassed in scale in the annals of international water treaties.

Indeed, the volume of water earmarked for Pakistan is more than 90 times greater than the 1.85 billion cubic meters the U.S. is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico Water Treaty.

This unparalleled water generosity, however, only invited trouble for India. Within five years of the Indus treaty, Pakistan launched its second war against India to grab the rest of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir before India had recovered from its humiliating rout in 1962 at the hands of the Chinese. In the first war soon after its creation in 1947, Pakistan seized more than one-third of the original princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

India's 1996 Ganges river treaty with Bangladesh guarantees minimum cross-border flows in the dry season — a new principle in international water law. In fact, the treaty equally divides the dry-season downstream Ganges flows between the two countries, while in other seasons when the total Ganges flows average more than 71.48 billion cubic meters per year, Bangladesh's share is larger than India's.

Today, Pakistan expects eternal Indian munificence on water even as its military establishment continues to export terror. Yet, with all the water flowing downstream under the treaty, the same question must haunt the Pakistani generals as Lady Macbeth in William Shakespeare's Macbeth: "Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand?"

In 2010, Pakistan filed a case with the International Court of Arbitration to halt India's construction of a modest-size, 330-megawatt Kishenganga hydropower plant. Even as India last fall suspended work on the project in response to the arbitration proceedings, Pakistan has fast-tracked its own three-times-larger, Chinese-aided hydropower project at a nearby border site on the same stream, apparently to gain priority right on river-water use under the doctrine of prior appropriation.

Meanwhile, India's portion of the Indus basin — according to the 2030 Water Resources Group, an international consortium of private-sector companies and institutions — confronts a massive 52 percent deficit between water supply and demand.

The Ganges treaty's allocations to Bangladesh, while not comparable to the cross-border flows under the Indus treaty, are much larger than the combined allocations set out in the world's other inter-country water accords signed since the 1990s, including the Jordan-Israel water arrangements, the Komati River sharing between South Africa and Swaziland, and the Lebanese-Syrian agreements over the Orontes and El-Kabir rivers.

Because of the Ganges precedent, Bangladesh now is pressing India to similarly reserve by treaty half of the flows of another but smaller river — the Teesta. And New Delhi seems ready to oblige.

Under the Indian Constitution, water is a provincial issue, not a federal matter. Yet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has sought to strong-arm a reluctant West Bengal state into accepting a Teesta River treaty on terms dictated by New Delhi.

The fact is that unlike Bangladesh, India is already a seriously water-stressed country. Whereas the annual per-capita water availability in Bangladesh averages 8,252 cubic meters, it has fallen to a paltry 1,560 cubic meters in India.

Lost in such big-hearted diplomacy is the fact that a parched and thirsty India is downriver from China, which, far from wanting to emulate India's Indus- or Ganges-style water munificence, rejects the very concept of water sharing.

Instead, the Chinese construction of upstream dams on international rivers such as the Mekong, Salween, Brahmaputra, Arun, Sutlej, Indus, Irtysh, Illy and Amur shows that Beijing is increasingly bent on unilateral actions, impervious to the concerns of downstream nations.

Over the next decade, as if to underscore the strategic importance it gives to controlling water resources, China plans to build more large dams than the U.S. or India has managed in its entire history.

By seeking to have its hand on Asia's water tap through an extensive upstream infrastructure, China challenges India's interests more than any other country's.

Although a number of nations stretching from Afghanistan to Vietnam receive waters from the Tibetan Plateau, India's direct dependency on Tibetan waters is greater than that of any other country. With about a dozen important rivers flowing in from the Tibetan Himalayan region, India gets almost one-third of all its yearly water supplies of 1,911 billion cubic meters from Tibet, according to the latest U.N. data.

Against this background, it is fair to ask: Is India condemned to perpetual generosity toward its neighbors?

This question has assumed added urgency because India has started throwing money around as part of its newly unveiled aid diplomacy — $1 billion in aid to Bangladesh, one-fifth as grant; $500 million to Myanmar; $300 million to Sri Lanka; $140 million to the Maldives; and hundreds of millions of dollars in new aid to Afghanistan and Nepal. If pursued with wishful thinking, such aid generosity is likely to meet the same fate as water munificence.

Generosity in diplomacy can yield rich dividends if it is part of a strategically geared outreach designed to ameliorate the regional-security situation so that India can play a larger global role. But if it is not anchored in the fundamentals of international relations — including reciprocity and leverage building — India risks accentuating its tyranny of geography, even as it is left holding the bag.

Brahma Chellaney's most recent book is "Water: Asia's New Battleground" (Georgetown University Press).

Non-serious attitude of policymakers: India begins work on another hydel project on Jhelum

August 12, 2012 MUSHTAQ GHUMMAN 0 Comments
India has started work on another controversial hydroelectric project on Jhelum River in held Kashmir in violation of the Indus Water Treaty, but Pakistani policymakers are not taking it seriously, it is learnt reliably. The 105-megawatt Gantamulla be taken up for hearing by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague later this month.

Pakistan had instituted arbitration proceedings against India under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) on May 17, 2010. The Indus Water Treaty was signed in 1960. The international agreement signed by both states allocates the use of six major rivers between the two countries. Pakistan and India have disagreement on the application of the provisions of the treaty on the Kishanganga project. A seven-member Court of Arbitration already constituted is looking into the dispute. The Court of Arbitration is chaired by Stephen M Schwebel of United States, who is the former president of the International Court of Justice.

In addition to the expert briefings and features observed during the site visit, the court will also consider the written and oral pleadings submitted by Pakistan and India after which it will issue the award. project is in addition to 330MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project, also being built on Jhelum River, on which both countries are already fighting a legal battle in an international arbitration forum. Indian government had floated a tender for the Gantamulla project a couple of months ago. Pakistan''s plea against the construction of the Kishanganga hydroelectric project in the Indian-occupied Kashmir would
 
Kishanganga : The new arbitration between India and Pakistan


India and Pakistan has yet another dispute to resolve. This time it is on a water project known as KHEP or Kishanganga Hydro-Electric Project. It is a run-of-the-river project involving a 37m tall dam to divert water through a tunnel and eventually into Wular Lake which is fed by the Jhelum River. It is similar to another project in Pakistan, known as Neelum–Jhelum Hydropower Project that Pakistan is working on.

In 2010, Pakistan appealed to the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (CoA), complaining that the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant violates the Indus River Treaty by increasing the catchment of the Jhelum River and depriving Pakistan of its water rights. Therefore, a commission was established and the arbitration went underway. In an interim order, the court asked India late September to stop constructing any permanent works that would inhibit restoration of the river. While India cannot construct the dam, they can continue on the tunnel and power plant in hopes that the court will allow the project.

6597337287_236b396799.jpg


KHEP (India) and NJHP (Pakistan) - Courtesy Briscoe

The complaints of Pakistan -

1. Whether India’s proposed diversion of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another Tributary, i.e. the Bonar Madmati Nallah, being one central element of the Kishenganga Project, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the Treaty, as interpreted and applied in accordance with international law, including India’s obligations under Article III(2) (let flow all the waters of the Western rivers and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV(6) (maintenance of natural channels)?
2. Whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of river Plant below Dead Storage Level (DSL) in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency?

The related treaty articles as mentioned by Pakistan -

Article III(2) : India shall be under an obligation to let flow all the waters of the Western Rivers, and shall not permit any interference with these waters, except for the following uses, restricted in the case of each of the rivers, The Indus, The Jhelum and The Chenab, to the drainage basin thereof: (a) Domestic Use; (b) Non-Consumptive Use; (c) Agricultural Use, as set out in Annexure C; and (d) Generation of hydro-electric power, as set out in Annexure D.

Article IV(6) : Each Party will use its best endeavors to maintain the natural channels of the Rivers, as on the Effective Date, in such condition as will avoid, as far as practicable, any obstruction to the flow in these channels likely to cause material damage to the other Party.

Comments – the first one above is very generic and clearly comes with exception clauses attached with it. Hence, in case India mentions something from those exception areas Annexure C and D, this article won’t be of any use. However the second one is interesting because it talks about natural channels of the rivers – something that India is not willing to maintain wholly. Interestingly, the downstream project in Pakistan is also guilty of the same offence – it’s also avoiding the natural channel. However, Pakistan’s obstruction won’t cause material damage to India but the reverse is not true. This asymmetry puts this article in the favor of Pakistan. India may still argue that Indian obstruction won’t have “significant” damage downstream and this is a “best effort” clause (i.e. asks the “as far as practicable”), but Pakistan can battle that vigorously. A couple of more significant factors determining the outcome of this verdict are whether Pakistan started their project first and if so, how large was it proposed initially. Pakistan can not upscale it after knowing about Indian project and then claim damages. The second one is what percent of river water is actually diverted – various reports suggest it to be between 10 to 33%. The court would probably have a cap on % water usage in its final verdict.

The treaty articles mentioned by India -

Annexure D, para 15 :

15 . Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17, the works connected with a Plant shall be so operated that (a) the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant, during any period of seven consecutive days, shall be delivered into the river below the Plant during the same seven-day period, and (b) in any one period of 24 hours within that seven-day period, the volume delivered into the river below the Plant shall be not less than 30%, and not more than 130%, of the volume received in the river above the Plant during the same 24-hour period : Provided however that :
(i) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chenab Main below Ramban, the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant in any one period of 24 hours shall be delivered into the river below the Plant within the same period of 24 hours ;
(ii) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chenab Main above Ramban, the volume of water delivered into the river below the Plant in any one period of 24 hours shall not be less than 50% and not more than 130%, of the volume received above the Plant during the same 24-hour period ; and
(iii) where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into an – other Tributary but only to the extent that the then existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use by P
akistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.

Comments – Annexure D clearly supports water diversion using tunnels but with restrictions. As I discussed earlier, this will be enough to negate the first article proposed by Pakistan. Interestingly, the treaty specifically mentions about Agro and Hydro uses, i.e. environmental impacts won’t probably affect the outcome of the case, unless the treaty is re-interpreted. Furthermore, the article (iii) scopes down to “existing” use and excludes “planned” use, favoring India. However, these are minor clauses and could be reinterpreted to maintain consistency in the treaty.

The other part of the arbitration has reference to same old dead storage level related issue that was deemed to be the core one in Baghlihar case. The World Bank expert actually supported Indian view on that and allowed India to go ahead with sediment control spillways. This theoretically provides India with more control over the water, but also makes the dam operation consistent with current knowhow.

Related cases -

I could only find one similar case between France and Spain. The summary of the case history and judgement goes like this -

“Lake Lanoux is situated in southern France near the border of Spain. The lake is fed by several streams that all originate in France. Water flows out of the lake in a single stream that joins the Carol River before crossing into Spain. In the 1950′s, France began developing a plan to divert water from Lake Lanoux over a 789 meter drop to generate hydroelectric energy. Even though France promised to return the diverted water to the Carol River, Spain pressed France to arbitrate the dispute because Spain believed the plan would violate its water rights under a series of treaties signed in 1866. The arbitration tribunal issued an award in 1957, which rejected Spain’s arguments because the French plan promised not to alter the volume of water entering Spain through the Carol River. Although France would not have been allowed to unilaterally promote its legitimate interests at the expense or injury of neighboring states, the tribunal did not identify a foreseeable injury to Spain. Further, the Tribunal stated that the 1866 treaties did not constitute a reason to subjugate the general rule that standing and flowing waters are subject to the sovereignty of the state where they are located.”

This supports Indian position, although the treaty between India and Pakistan is different from the same between Spain and France. The facts related to injury to Spain, not altering volume of water delivered to Spain and run-of-the-river plants – all similar logic can be reapplied in this case.

Possible Outcomes -

I personally think this arbitration judgement would go the same way as that of its earlier counterpart. As Baghlihar suggested, making compromises on a few technical parameters (dam height, pondage and in this case water diverted) would make India happy to settle the case with Pakistan. A less likely verdict will provide upper hand for Pakistan and will call for an injunction on KHEP. India have to deal with a set back and prepare more thoroughly going forward.

Some more reads :

Briscoe presentation - http://www.acus.org/files/SAC/Briscoe_ACUS_Presentation.PDF

Ramaswamy Iyer response - http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sit...treaty_A response_Ramaswamy Iyer_EPW_2011.pdf

wiki - Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case update - Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India)

Interim order - http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/16. Order on Interim Measures dated 23 September 2011.pdf
 
Rain, floods leave 40 dead

Afzal Khan / 24 August 2012

ISLAMABAD - Torrential rains in northern parts of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) have claimed at least 40 lives. They were killed in flooding, house collapses and drowning in the last two days.

The late arrival of monsoon has lashed many areas in both the provinces and led to low and medium floods in rivers. Officials in the KP said at least 22 people have been killed in Nowshera, Mansehra, Abbotabad and Swat areas.

Another 13 deaths were reported from Azad Kashmir. Balakot police told the media that landslides in the area had completely cut off the area from Mansehra, Kaghan and Kashmir.

Those dead in both the provinces and Azad Kashmir included nine children and three women.

In Azad Kashmir nine of the 13 dead belonged to three families who were buried alive when the roofs of their houses caved in due to heavy rain.

Eight persons drowned at Punjnad confluence of Punjab rivers near Multan.

Officials said rains and floodwater have inundated scores of villages and washed away household items and cattle heads. Standing crops over thousands of acres of land were also affected. The district administration declared a state of emergency in Nowshera and launched rescue operation.

In the tribal Bajaur Agency, two persons were killed while roads were badly damaged by flash floods caused by torrential rain.

An official of Pakistan Meteorological Department here said the country’s north is experiencing late monsoon rains while almost all rivers were flowing in low to medium flood. It predicted more rains extending current spell but said the situation will improve in coming days and no heavy floods were expected.

Rain, floods leave 40 dead
 
India need to improve the power generation capacity rapidly and so the construction of dams are unavoidable but still the water can be allowed to flow in to pakistan after we gerate power out of it. Will Pakistan have a issue with this.

Also we should look at the amount of water flowing in to the Arabian sea if and when Pakistan builds dams we should share the water to ensure they also have enough water.

The Indus water agreement ensures Pakistan has a fixed share of the water from all the rivers but they should also ensure the wastage in minimal or none.The idea is to use water optimally for one and all not to create another bone of contention.Fears of Pakistani people should be factored in our devlopment plans and we should have treaty in place to ensure it. Going to war is no solution.

Being the upper riparian we can control the flow and so should take Pakistan into confidence but it is quite possible that the Indian establishment thinks we can use the flow of water as a handle over Pakistan in situation like mumbai attacks where they refuse to act.I think there is some merrit in this line of thought but it is good only to the extent of larger objective of having peace and harmony like the nukes.

In all other times Pakistan should get its fair share of water in accordance of global practice between two friendly countries and it is our dutyand responsibility to ensure this.
 
Pakistan gives India ‘non papers’ on Indus treaty breach

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has handed over “non-papers” to India on Saturday pertaining documentary evidence of serious breach of Indus Basin Water Treaty (IBWT) by New Delhi. The non-papers were delivered to visiting Indian minister for External Affairs SM Krishna here during formal talks, concluding the third round of Composite Dialogue. Highly placed diplomatic sources told The News Saturday evening that the Indian minister has been told about the relevant clauses of the treaty about water-sharing between Pakistan and India brokered by the World Bank.

The treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960, by then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan. The treaty was a result of Pakistani fear that since the Source Rivers of the Indus basin were in India, it could potentially create droughts and famines in Pakistan, especially at times of war. The Indus System of Rivers comprises three Western rivers, the Indus, the Jhelum and Chenab, and three Eastern rivers — the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi; and with minor exceptions, the treaty gives India exclusive use of all of the waters of the Eastern Rivers and their tributaries before the point where the rivers enter Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan has exclusive use of the Western rivers.

The two countries agreed to exchange data and co-operate in matters related to the treaty. For this purpose, treaty creates the Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner appointed by each country. The Permanent Indus Commission has survived two wars and provides an ongoing mechanism for consultation and conflict resolution through inspection, exchange of data, and visits. The Commission is required to meet regularly to discuss potential disputes as well as cooperative arrangements for the development of the basin. Either party must notify the other of plans to construct any engineering works which would affect the other party and to provide data about such works. The ‘non-papers’ have also given the details of correspondence between the two sides where it was mandatory for India to provide information to Pakistan according to the treaty but India failed in fulfilling its obligations. The Indian interlocutors could not offer any explanation, but they assured Pakistan that India would look into the papers and respond in next engagement, the sources revealed. The sources said that the two sides decided not to discuss contentious issues vehemently publicly in the interest of ambiance of the talks, but the two foreign ministers discussed almost every subject present on the table but yet to be resolved. The human right situation in occupied Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Balochistan situation and Samjhota Express tragedy also figured in the dialogue. The two sides decided to enhance facilities for the Kashmiri people in their exchanges and trade across the line of control (LOC). It is believed that such steps would help thinning the LOC and making it ultimately irrelevant. Pakistan has impressed upon India not to discuss the issues related to terrorism through media. “The terrorism must not be glorified as it should be dealt through candid diplomacy and in quiet manner. Positive narratives must be encouraged as the negativity wouldn’t work in such endeavours,” reminded India by Pakistan. Earlier Talking to The News, Foreign Secretary Syed Jalil Abbas Jilani made it clear that all the subjects, including Kashmir, were discussed in the foreign ministers’ meeting. He said that terrorism also came up for discussion in the meeting since it is of importance to the both countries. We are both victims. We should develop mechanism to deal with this.

Asked for his comments on the recent move by the United States to designate the Pakistan-based Haqqani network a terrorist organization, and whether he saw this development as possibly heightening tensions between Washington and Islamabad, Jailani said that Pakistan is taking action against all those who are involved in terrorism. He said that Pakistan would like India to deal with the Siachen issue, Jammu and Kashmir, Sir Creek issue, and, in fact, eliminate all contentious issues so that a better environment is created between the two countries. He also welcomed news of about a possible resumption of cricketing ties between the two countries. Indian and Pakistan teams will play cricket in India. Hopefully, matches will be played in Pakistan subsequently.

To a question, the foreign secretary said that Pakistan wants that Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh should visit Pakistan as early as possible, accepting the invitation by Pakistan’s leadership. He said that Pakistan would be very happy to welcome Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh as and when he decides to undertake a visit of this country. He said that we hope that Dr Singh will come. Our doors are always open for him.
 
During the visit of India’s External Affairs Minister S M Krishna to Pakistan, Islamabad and New Delhi signed on September 9, this year. Khar stated that they discussed all the outstanding issues such as terrorism, Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage, water etc.
 
Kishanganga : The new arbitration between India and Pakistan


India and Pakistan has yet another dispute to resolve. This time it is on a water project known as KHEP or Kishanganga Hydro-Electric Project. It is a run-of-the-river project involving a 37m tall dam to divert water through a tunnel and eventually into Wular Lake which is fed by the Jhelum River. It is similar to another project in Pakistan, known as Neelum–Jhelum Hydropower Project that Pakistan is working on.

In 2010, Pakistan appealed to the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (CoA), complaining that the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant violates the Indus River Treaty by increasing the catchment of the Jhelum River and depriving Pakistan of its water rights. Therefore, a commission was established and the arbitration went underway. In an interim order, the court asked India late September to stop constructing any permanent works that would inhibit restoration of the river. While India cannot construct the dam, they can continue on the tunnel and power plant in hopes that the court will allow the project.

6597337287_236b396799.jpg


KHEP (India) and NJHP (Pakistan) - Courtesy Briscoe

The complaints of Pakistan -

1. Whether India’s proposed diversion of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another Tributary, i.e. the Bonar Madmati Nallah, being one central element of the Kishenganga Project, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the Treaty, as interpreted and applied in accordance with international law, including India’s obligations under Article III(2) (let flow all the waters of the Western rivers and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV(6) (maintenance of natural channels)?
2. Whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of river Plant below Dead Storage Level (DSL) in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency?

The related treaty articles as mentioned by Pakistan -

Article III(2) : India shall be under an obligation to let flow all the waters of the Western Rivers, and shall not permit any interference with these waters, except for the following uses, restricted in the case of each of the rivers, The Indus, The Jhelum and The Chenab, to the drainage basin thereof: (a) Domestic Use; (b) Non-Consumptive Use; (c) Agricultural Use, as set out in Annexure C; and (d) Generation of hydro-electric power, as set out in Annexure D.

Article IV(6) : Each Party will use its best endeavors to maintain the natural channels of the Rivers, as on the Effective Date, in such condition as will avoid, as far as practicable, any obstruction to the flow in these channels likely to cause material damage to the other Party.

Comments – the first one above is very generic and clearly comes with exception clauses attached with it. Hence, in case India mentions something from those exception areas Annexure C and D, this article won’t be of any use. However the second one is interesting because it talks about natural channels of the rivers – something that India is not willing to maintain wholly. Interestingly, the downstream project in Pakistan is also guilty of the same offence – it’s also avoiding the natural channel. However, Pakistan’s obstruction won’t cause material damage to India but the reverse is not true. This asymmetry puts this article in the favor of Pakistan. India may still argue that Indian obstruction won’t have “significant” damage downstream and this is a “best effort” clause (i.e. asks the “as far as practicable”), but Pakistan can battle that vigorously. A couple of more significant factors determining the outcome of this verdict are whether Pakistan started their project first and if so, how large was it proposed initially. Pakistan can not upscale it after knowing about Indian project and then claim damages. The second one is what percent of river water is actually diverted – various reports suggest it to be between 10 to 33%. The court would probably have a cap on % water usage in its final verdict.

The treaty articles mentioned by India -

Annexure D, para 15 :

15 . Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 17, the works connected with a Plant shall be so operated that (a) the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant, during any period of seven consecutive days, shall be delivered into the river below the Plant during the same seven-day period, and (b) in any one period of 24 hours within that seven-day period, the volume delivered into the river below the Plant shall be not less than 30%, and not more than 130%, of the volume received in the river above the Plant during the same 24-hour period : Provided however that :
(i) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chenab Main below Ramban, the volume of water received in the river upstream of the Plant in any one period of 24 hours shall be delivered into the river below the Plant within the same period of 24 hours ;
(ii) where a Plant is located at a site on the Chenab Main above Ramban, the volume of water delivered into the river below the Plant in any one period of 24 hours shall not be less than 50% and not more than 130%, of the volume received above the Plant during the same 24-hour period ; and
(iii) where a Plant is located on a Tributary of The Jhelum on which Pakistan has any Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use, the water released below the Plant may be delivered, if necessary, into an – other Tributary but only to the extent that the then existing Agricultural Use or hydro-electric use by P
akistan on the former Tributary would not be adversely affected.

Comments – Annexure D clearly supports water diversion using tunnels but with restrictions. As I discussed earlier, this will be enough to negate the first article proposed by Pakistan. Interestingly, the treaty specifically mentions about Agro and Hydro uses, i.e. environmental impacts won’t probably affect the outcome of the case, unless the treaty is re-interpreted. Furthermore, the article (iii) scopes down to “existing” use and excludes “planned” use, favoring India. However, these are minor clauses and could be reinterpreted to maintain consistency in the treaty.

The other part of the arbitration has reference to same old dead storage level related issue that was deemed to be the core one in Baghlihar case. The World Bank expert actually supported Indian view on that and allowed India to go ahead with sediment control spillways. This theoretically provides India with more control over the water, but also makes the dam operation consistent with current knowhow.

Related cases -

I could only find one similar case between France and Spain. The summary of the case history and judgement goes like this -

“Lake Lanoux is situated in southern France near the border of Spain. The lake is fed by several streams that all originate in France. Water flows out of the lake in a single stream that joins the Carol River before crossing into Spain. In the 1950′s, France began developing a plan to divert water from Lake Lanoux over a 789 meter drop to generate hydroelectric energy. Even though France promised to return the diverted water to the Carol River, Spain pressed France to arbitrate the dispute because Spain believed the plan would violate its water rights under a series of treaties signed in 1866. The arbitration tribunal issued an award in 1957, which rejected Spain’s arguments because the French plan promised not to alter the volume of water entering Spain through the Carol River. Although France would not have been allowed to unilaterally promote its legitimate interests at the expense or injury of neighboring states, the tribunal did not identify a foreseeable injury to Spain. Further, the Tribunal stated that the 1866 treaties did not constitute a reason to subjugate the general rule that standing and flowing waters are subject to the sovereignty of the state where they are located.”

This supports Indian position, although the treaty between India and Pakistan is different from the same between Spain and France. The facts related to injury to Spain, not altering volume of water delivered to Spain and run-of-the-river plants – all similar logic can be reapplied in this case.

Possible Outcomes -

I personally think this arbitration judgement would go the same way as that of its earlier counterpart. As Baghlihar suggested, making compromises on a few technical parameters (dam height, pondage and in this case water diverted) would make India happy to settle the case with Pakistan. A less likely verdict will provide upper hand for Pakistan and will call for an injunction on KHEP. India have to deal with a set back and prepare more thoroughly going forward.

Some more reads :

Briscoe presentation - http://www.acus.org/files/SAC/Briscoe_ACUS_Presentation.PDF

Ramaswamy Iyer response - http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sit...treaty_A response_Ramaswamy Iyer_EPW_2011.pdf

wiki - Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case update - Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India)

Interim order - http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/16. Order on Interim Measures dated 23 September 2011.pdf



You have not mentioned another clause in IWT regarding the country the completes the project first, will secure priority rights to the river waters. If India completes the race first, then Pakistan has to put up with less power generation but not total loss. But the reverse case ... that is if Pakistan completes their dam first then India will have to abandon the completed project...which is immense waste of resources for India.

In this case India is diverting river water from Neelum river to Jhelum river, so ultimately all the water is flowing into Pakistan. India can claim no wrong motivation here. So, India is still operating well within the scope of the IWT stipulations.

If you guys complete the project first, then you guys can claim material damages due to reduced electric generation.

Its unfortunate that we are always at loggerheads and no solution is complete satisfaction of others.

I think the biggest problem between our countries is not water deficit, but trust deficit. If we could cooperate in water sharing through Indus Water Treaty then we should be able to share the power generation too. How about create another pact which will be exclusively for sharing the electricity generation on western flowing rivers. If India chooses to build any hydro projects on these rivers, then you get 25 percent and we get 75 percent share on electricity. You get to pay 25 percent cost of the project by paying for the electricity. It will be a win=win situation for both sides. :cheers:

Caution:: If another mumbai occurs then all bet are off.
 
You have not mentioned another clause in IWT regarding the country the completes the project first, will secure priority rights to the river waters. If India completes the race first, then Pakistan has to put up with less power generation but not total loss. But the reverse case ... that is if Pakistan completes their dam first then India will have to abandon the completed project...which is immense waste of resources for India.

Sorry mate you are wrong about the clause. It is not about who finishes it first. The question is was there any existing power production when India started the project? The answer to that is a big NO!

no amount of hurrying upon the part of pakistan will make any difference now.
 
Sorry mate you are wrong about the clause. It is not about who finishes it first. The question is was there any existing power production when India started the project? The answer to that is a big NO!

no amount of hurrying upon the part of pakistan will make any difference now.
There wasnt any "existing use" when india first informed pakistan about Kishanganga dam.Its only recently pakistan came up with this.Treaty if any it obstructs india's dam then india wont mind nullyfying the treaty.Coz its not bound by it if its impinges on its interests.secondly both way its gonna be loss to pakistan.heads we win tails you lose situation is there for pakistan.

You have not mentioned another clause in IWT regarding the country the completes the project first, will secure priority rights to the river waters. If India completes the race first, then Pakistan has to put up with less power generation but not total loss. But the reverse case ... that is if Pakistan completes their dam first then India will have to abandon the completed project...which is immense waste of resources for India.

In this case India is diverting river water from Neelum river to Jhelum river, so ultimately all the water is flowing into Pakistan. India can claim no wrong motivation here. So, India is still operating well within the scope of the IWT stipulations.

If you guys complete the project first, then you guys can claim material damages due to reduced electric generation.

Its unfortunate that we are always at loggerheads and no solution is complete satisfaction of others.

I think the biggest problem between our countries is not water deficit, but trust deficit. If we could cooperate in water sharing through Indus Water Treaty then we should be able to share the power generation too. How about create another pact which will be exclusively for sharing the electricity generation on western flowing rivers. If India chooses to build any hydro projects on these rivers, then you get 25 percent and we get 75 percent share on electricity. You get to pay 25 percent cost of the project by paying for the electricity. It will be a win=win situation for both sides. :cheers:

Caution:: If another mumbai occurs then all bet are off.
Go to back pages i've posted whole IWT itself.
 
According To India The 60 Odd Hydel Projects Constructed By India On Indus Jhelum and Chenab Are Small to Medium Runoff The River Projects.The Greater Portion Of These Rivers Is In Pakistani Territory.If India Can Build 60 Plus Dams of Such Nature We Should Build Twice The Amount. I Wonder If This Potential Has Ever Been Looked At.Most Dams Being Built In Our Country Are Reservoir Dams.Small Scale Runoff The River Is Something We Should Look At.
 
Back
Top Bottom