Theparadox
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2016
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
ISLAMABAD - A Parliamentary Committee was yesterday informed that India has rejected all the four options, presented by World Bank, for the resolution of issue pertaining to construction of Dams, by New Delhi, on the western rivers in the violation of Indus Basin treaty.
In view of the options floated by the World Bank and Indian reaction to those, it seems that both forums, Neutral Experts and Court of Arbitrations, would be formed where Neutral Experts would consider differences (matter specific to the projects) and the court disputes(the matters of general applicability) said Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Water Resources here.
The meeting, chaired by Senator Yaqoob Khan Nasir, recommended the government to not allow India to construct spillways below dead level of the dams on the western rivers.
Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, briefed the meeting about the violation of India of the treaty, the steps taken by Pakistan to stop the Indian designs and recent Secretary level talks held in Washington under the auspices of the World Bank.
He said that under the Indus treaty India is allowed to construct dams on the western rivers but after the consultation with Pakistan.
Indian design of new dams, on the western rivers, are in complete violation of the India treaty, he added.
Senator Taj Haider said that there is trust deficit in the relationship between India and Pakistan and ,therefore, India cannot be granted the permission of constructing spillways below the dead level as it can be used against the country.
In a briefing it was informed that Pakistan has dispute on the design aspects of Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant (KHEP) and Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (RHEP).
After India failed to remove Pakistan reservations about KHEP and RHEP, it was decided that at Pakistan would take the matters to the third forum for resolution i.e Neutral Expert (NE) or Court of Arbitration(COA).
Subsequently, following the procedure in the treaty, Pakistan invoked the disputes under Article IX of the treaty in February 2016.
Pakistan submitted its Request for Arbitration (RfA) to India on August 19 2016 but India wanted to go to NE while Pakistan wanted to go to CoA.
India has approached the World Bank for the appointment of NE in October 2016.
However, apparently on India’s request an opportunity was provided to both the countries to resolve the issue amicably.
Pause intended to resolve the matter related to the decision of the issue but it was not achieved as the parties didn’t agree on the mode of resolution.
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the pause India completed the construction of KHEP and announced in July that it would carry out initial filling of reservoir.
After Pakistan’s protest, the Bank took the matter with India and India has agreed to Secretary level talks. In the first Secretary level talks held in Washington on July 31 and August 1, for RHEP Pakistan side stated that such alternative designs were possible that would not cause any reduction in power and energy and would be sound and economical.
During the second round of talks held in Washington on Sept 14-15, on the alternative design of KHEP and RHEP India made a general observation that Pakistan ignores soundness of the design and economy while making objections.
On the issue of Pondage India stuck to its earlier position that the upper limit of the pondage is to be worked out by load fluctuations.
In response Pakistan noted that the design should be carried out considering first the Treaty’s limitations concerning, minimum freeboard, pondage of only sufficient magnitude to meet fluctuations of load,spillways providing no control over the water stored in the reservoir (Ungated spillway).
It was evident from Indian stance on the pondage and intake that it would not be possible to achieve resolution on the technical matter, as India didn’t show any flexibility in modifying its designs, the Commissioner said.
Regarding KHEP,India didn’t want to discuss this matter and held the view that as the project stood completed it need not be discussed. As Pakistan insisted having Indian evaluation on the alternative designs India summarily provided its observation and said that it was not possible to modify the designs.
On proposal of ungated bay on the right side of the dam Indian side said that geology was weak and constructing a spillway would endanger the safety of the dam.
On the proposal of construction in front of spillways and intake Indian side said that it would require constructing coffer-dam again and putting the facility out of function.
He had no appreciation of the concern of Pakistan that the project’s was achieved without addressing Pakistan objections to the design.
In the first round of Secretary level talks the Bank had presented eight options to the parties for consideration as mode of resolution. After the resolution of the technical matters failed the bank presented four shortlisted options to the parties under article IX(2) of the treaty,which specifies that the Commission has the discretion of adopting resolution of differences by NE or disputes by CoA or by any other way agreed upon by the commission;.
Options presented by the Bank includes:
1. Expert Panel to be decided by the parties along with ToR
2. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE
3. Make both forums and divide the work between them(NE considers difference CoA considers disputes or division of projects)
4. Make both forums and stagger the sequence(drawing of lots)
India in its initial response stated that the treaty specifies only NE and CoA as resolution forums and any other way required meeting of the Commission at a proper place.
Pakistan evaluated the option and except for the option of Panel of Experts accepted the options with the following priority.
Pakistan prioritised option
1. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE
2. Make both forum and divide the work between them (NE considers differences CoA considers disputes or division of projects)
3. Make both forums and stagger the sequence(Drawing of lots)
Bank has once again asked Indian response and India has rejected all the four options as non-treaty complaint and asked for the appointment of NE for resolution of the differences.
On this Pakistan asked the Bank that since all options presented by the Bank have been rejected by India, Pakistan also asks for empanelment of the Court of Arbitration for resolution of the disputes.
The Bank announced that it will discharge its responsibility according to the treaty provisions without delay and that the bank would continue consultations with the parties.
Baig said that Pakistan should accept the option with the condition that the court decided first the matter of general applicability and NE later.
On the basis of the decision of the court, decide the matter specific to the projects.
http://nation.com.pk/national/26-Sep-2017/india-rejects-all-4-options-presented-by-wb-on-dams-issue
In view of the options floated by the World Bank and Indian reaction to those, it seems that both forums, Neutral Experts and Court of Arbitrations, would be formed where Neutral Experts would consider differences (matter specific to the projects) and the court disputes(the matters of general applicability) said Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Water Resources here.
The meeting, chaired by Senator Yaqoob Khan Nasir, recommended the government to not allow India to construct spillways below dead level of the dams on the western rivers.
Indus Water Commissioner, Mirza Asif Baig, briefed the meeting about the violation of India of the treaty, the steps taken by Pakistan to stop the Indian designs and recent Secretary level talks held in Washington under the auspices of the World Bank.
He said that under the Indus treaty India is allowed to construct dams on the western rivers but after the consultation with Pakistan.
Indian design of new dams, on the western rivers, are in complete violation of the India treaty, he added.
Senator Taj Haider said that there is trust deficit in the relationship between India and Pakistan and ,therefore, India cannot be granted the permission of constructing spillways below the dead level as it can be used against the country.
In a briefing it was informed that Pakistan has dispute on the design aspects of Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant (KHEP) and Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (RHEP).
After India failed to remove Pakistan reservations about KHEP and RHEP, it was decided that at Pakistan would take the matters to the third forum for resolution i.e Neutral Expert (NE) or Court of Arbitration(COA).
Subsequently, following the procedure in the treaty, Pakistan invoked the disputes under Article IX of the treaty in February 2016.
Pakistan submitted its Request for Arbitration (RfA) to India on August 19 2016 but India wanted to go to NE while Pakistan wanted to go to CoA.
India has approached the World Bank for the appointment of NE in October 2016.
However, apparently on India’s request an opportunity was provided to both the countries to resolve the issue amicably.
Pause intended to resolve the matter related to the decision of the issue but it was not achieved as the parties didn’t agree on the mode of resolution.
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the pause India completed the construction of KHEP and announced in July that it would carry out initial filling of reservoir.
After Pakistan’s protest, the Bank took the matter with India and India has agreed to Secretary level talks. In the first Secretary level talks held in Washington on July 31 and August 1, for RHEP Pakistan side stated that such alternative designs were possible that would not cause any reduction in power and energy and would be sound and economical.
During the second round of talks held in Washington on Sept 14-15, on the alternative design of KHEP and RHEP India made a general observation that Pakistan ignores soundness of the design and economy while making objections.
On the issue of Pondage India stuck to its earlier position that the upper limit of the pondage is to be worked out by load fluctuations.
In response Pakistan noted that the design should be carried out considering first the Treaty’s limitations concerning, minimum freeboard, pondage of only sufficient magnitude to meet fluctuations of load,spillways providing no control over the water stored in the reservoir (Ungated spillway).
It was evident from Indian stance on the pondage and intake that it would not be possible to achieve resolution on the technical matter, as India didn’t show any flexibility in modifying its designs, the Commissioner said.
Regarding KHEP,India didn’t want to discuss this matter and held the view that as the project stood completed it need not be discussed. As Pakistan insisted having Indian evaluation on the alternative designs India summarily provided its observation and said that it was not possible to modify the designs.
On proposal of ungated bay on the right side of the dam Indian side said that geology was weak and constructing a spillway would endanger the safety of the dam.
On the proposal of construction in front of spillways and intake Indian side said that it would require constructing coffer-dam again and putting the facility out of function.
He had no appreciation of the concern of Pakistan that the project’s was achieved without addressing Pakistan objections to the design.
In the first round of Secretary level talks the Bank had presented eight options to the parties for consideration as mode of resolution. After the resolution of the technical matters failed the bank presented four shortlisted options to the parties under article IX(2) of the treaty,which specifies that the Commission has the discretion of adopting resolution of differences by NE or disputes by CoA or by any other way agreed upon by the commission;.
Options presented by the Bank includes:
1. Expert Panel to be decided by the parties along with ToR
2. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE
3. Make both forums and divide the work between them(NE considers difference CoA considers disputes or division of projects)
4. Make both forums and stagger the sequence(drawing of lots)
India in its initial response stated that the treaty specifies only NE and CoA as resolution forums and any other way required meeting of the Commission at a proper place.
Pakistan evaluated the option and except for the option of Panel of Experts accepted the options with the following priority.
Pakistan prioritised option
1. Merge NE into CoA with a person who qualifies to be NE
2. Make both forum and divide the work between them (NE considers differences CoA considers disputes or division of projects)
3. Make both forums and stagger the sequence(Drawing of lots)
Bank has once again asked Indian response and India has rejected all the four options as non-treaty complaint and asked for the appointment of NE for resolution of the differences.
On this Pakistan asked the Bank that since all options presented by the Bank have been rejected by India, Pakistan also asks for empanelment of the Court of Arbitration for resolution of the disputes.
The Bank announced that it will discharge its responsibility according to the treaty provisions without delay and that the bank would continue consultations with the parties.
Baig said that Pakistan should accept the option with the condition that the court decided first the matter of general applicability and NE later.
On the basis of the decision of the court, decide the matter specific to the projects.
http://nation.com.pk/national/26-Sep-2017/india-rejects-all-4-options-presented-by-wb-on-dams-issue
