Pakistan And India-Water Disputes-News And Updates

[ANG]

Photos Reveal Receding Himalaya Glaciers - Lens Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[ajtr]

 

[ajtr]

there have been many discussions in the J&K Assembly calling for scrapping the IWT because India and by extension J&K, was getting much less water in the bargain. Most elected members have said that India must quicken the pace of the hydroelectric projects. J&K is criss-crossed by the Western Rivers on which India conceded almost all privileges thereby putting J&Kites at a big disadvantage. On the Pakistani side too, they realize that Mangla served the Punjab while it only submerged their lands. Cleverly, Pakistan and the UK colluded to relocate the Mirpuris into the UK thereby blunting any opposition. The Neelum-Jhelum project has also caused revulsion but the iron hand with which the Federal Government rules *** and the blandishments it offers to various factions of political parties there keeps their mouth shut.

 

[ajtr]

USA has nothing to do with the IWT. So also the UK. Bit, Pakistan repeatedly asks for their intervention. Even the WB's {IBRD's} role is very limited and that is limited to for the purposes specified in Articles V and X and Annexures F, G and H. These deal with Financial Provisions, Emergency Provision, Neutral Expert, Court of Arbitration and Transitional Agreements respectively.

 

[ajtr]

The Indus Water Treaty was flawed from day one.
1) It divided waters based on rivers and not based on proportion of the population which depends on the river. The Indian states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Western Madhya Pradesh, were deprived of waters from Indus and its tributaries.
2) It allowed foreigners, namely World bank selected, to interfere into a resolution. This allowed pakistan to say "If in IWT we can have foreigners meddling in a purely bilateral issue, why not in kashmir and whatever issue we feel like?" Also with China now getting a more prominent role in World Bank, it is not is India's interest any more to have people from world bank meddling in a bilateral issue.
3) It allowed Pakistan to have a veto over many Hydro projects in India. And Pakistan has never ever passed any opportunity to veto any project.
4) This treaty was supposed to have taken water off the Pakistan-India table. It has done nothing of such sort. In fact Pakistan blames its entire mismanagement of water resource on India. Notice the recent pak Foreign Minister's statement with US Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton.

It is time that India scraps this treaty. The people of India should get their fair share of water from Indus and its tributaries. India's gains from IWT have been minuscule.

 

[ajtr]

Pak and India rejected nominees for Kishanganga project​

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and India have rejected each other’s proposed nominees for the Court of Arbitration which will adjudicate on a dispute over the Kishanganga hydropower project.

The two sides have decided to draw lots to determine three individuals who will now select the umpires under three categories — chairman, legal member and engineer member.

Pakistan had two months ago requested for arbitration on the disputed project which, it alleges, violates the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.

On July 13, delegations from India and Pakistan had exchanged the names of members for the court. The Pakistani side was led by Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Water Resources and Agriculture Kamal Majidullah and the Indian side by Chairman of the Central Water Commission A.K. Bajaj.

Although they failed to agree on any of the names, they decided to set up a panel comprising a chairman, a legal member and an engineer to select the umpires. The panel will be chosen by drawing lots.

Pakistan is waiting for a date, time and venue in New Delhi to draw lots.

Pakistan and India will follow the settlement mechanism outlined in the treaty to settle the dispute. Kishanganga is the first case of arbitration under the treaty since 1960.

“There is a complete mistrust and the Indians show zero flexibility towards Pakistan,” said an expert. {Where is the question of trust. Indians simply follow the IWT}

Pakistan has also engaged the services of AlanVaughan Lowe QC, a professor of the public international law with the Oxford University and an expert in water related-matters.

Pakistan has opposed the Kishanganga project on the grounds that it will reduce generation capacity of the 969MW Neelum-Jhelum power project by 16 per cent on the same river downstream Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir. The project will result in a loss of energy equivalent to Rs6 billion every year.

The diversion will also reduce river flows near the Line of Control, on the Pakistan side, for at least six months and cause irreparable losses to environment, particularly the Musk Deer Gurez Park — a vast grassland in AJK — and denude the Neelum valley of its attraction for tourists. {Reduction of tourists is now touted as a reason to stop Kisenganga project}

About 200 kilometres of riverbed in Azad Kashmir will be affected by the project. The river will turn dry over 40km, a negation of international environmental laws.{So now they are harping on International law and not IWT. The river bed of Indus in Pakistan is itself mostly dry due to the numerous canals}

Under the law, at least 70 per cent of river flows are to be protected in case any project is taken in hand. Pakistan has also objected to the design of the Kishanganga project because it envisages drawdown flushing which is against the spirit of the 1960 treaty.{Again the use of spirit - so effectively IWT alllows it. }

The design will arm India with the power to cause floods and water scarcity on the Pakistani side.

 

[ajtr]

Water talks underway between Pak, India​

LAHORE: The water commissioners of India and Pakistan started their first round of talks in Lahore on Thursday.
Ahead of these talks, Pakistan and India rejected each other’s nominees for the Court of Arbitration which will adjudicate on a dispute over the Kishanganga hydropower project.
Two months ago, Pakistan had requested for arbitration on the disputed Kishanganga project which violates the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Pakistan contended that having the drainage at the very base of the dam will allow India to manipulate the water flow.{again misinformation, this is a matter for NE on which final verdict has been given in baglihar, here main question will be diversion of water is permissible under IWT or not and if India is following IWT stipulations in this regard}
Pakistan and India will follow the settlement mechanism outlined in the treaty to settle the dispute.
Kishanganga is the first case of arbitration under the treaty since 1960.{Now Pakistan has reached the pinnacle of its misinformation in case of IWT, what next for it. India has scores of Dam projects in the offing. All decisions would act as precedence}

 

[ajtr]

India, Pakistan look to settle water dispute​

GARGI PARSAI
SHARE · PRINT · T+
India and Pakistan will decide, by draw of lots at the end of this month, the agencies that will select the chairman, technical umpire and legal umpire for the Court of Arbitration that is to be set up to adjudicate the differences on the Kishanganga project in Jammu and Kashmir. Earlier this month, the two countries failed to reach a consensus over selecting candidates for the court.

It is expected that they will meet in New Delhi for the draw of lots to decide who, between the United Nations Secretary-General and the World Bank President, willappoint a chairman to head the court.

The draw of lots will also decide whether the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States, or the Imperial College of Engineering, U.K., will select the technical umpire, and whether the Chief Justice of the U.S. or the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales will appoint the legal umpire.

The two sides have named two experts each to be members on the Court of Arbitration. The court will consist of six members and a chairman.

India maintains that it can, under provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, divert the Kishanganga waters to the Bonar Madmati Nallah, another tributary of the Jhelum, which falls into the Wullar lake before joining the Jhelum again. Pakistan raised objections to this, saying India's plan will obstruct the flow of the Kishanganga, impinging on its rights.

It is expected that during the three-day meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission that began on Thursday in Lahore, the two sides will discuss Pakistan's demand for satellite telemetry in the Indus water system for real-time hydrology data on rivers it shares with India.

High on the agenda will also be the issue of strengthening the Commission. This was discussed in the annual meeting held in New Delhi in June. India wants the scope of the Commission to be expanded to allow consultation with experts before taking disputes and differences to outside agencies.

Pakistan took the Baglihar dam dispute to a neutral expert and has again sought a Court of Arbitration on its dispute over the Kishanganga project.

 

[ajtr]

New approach to the Indus Treaty​

Urban/urbane

Friday, July 23, 2010
Ahmad Rafay Alam

Indo-Pakistani water relations are bound, limited and defined by the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. The treaty divides the resources of the Indus Basin, one of the largest and oldest basins on the planet, and states that India will have control over the waters of the three eastern rivers of the basin (the Ravi, the Sutlej and the Beas) and that Pakistan will have control over the waters of the three western rivers (the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum). The treaty then goes on to set out the rights and obligations of the riparians and, importantly, allows India to avail itself of the waters of the western rivers for domestic consumption, non-consumptive functions, limited agricultural use and for hydroelectric purposes.

So far, the treaty has held strong. However, because of a variety of factors, some voices are accusing India of stealing Pakistan's water and violating the treaty. I will not dwell upon these voices in this article because they are incorrect and, as I will try to show, they can be made irrelevant. However, some factors providing these voices their motives and reasons must be acknowledged: the mistrust that characterises Indo-Pakistani relations, gross mismanagement of water resources within Pakistan, outdated irrigation practices, poorly planned agricultural zoning, a rising population and resultant water scarcity.

What these voices are doing is choosing to ignore Pakistan's most pressing political, economic, social and environmental issues, and instead are looking for solace in the age-old chestnut: India is to blame. What else explains the reason given for having more troops deployed on its eastern border than its western, when the trouble so clearly is: to ensure water security?

One of the problems in Indo-Pakistani water relations, as far as Pakistan is concerned, is that, thanks to Sir Cyril Radcliff and the outcome of English colonialism in India, Pakistan is a lower riparian. What the treaty does is set up a riparian hegemony by dividing the resources of the Indus Basin, creating an asymmetrical relationship between the two riparians and cementing India's position as the riparian hegemon. In other words, the treaty stacks the cards against Pakistan and makes it close to impossible for it to rationalise the disproportionate relative bargaining positions the treaty allocates. This is because, in practice, the more powerful riparian is loath to give up the benefits it has.

There are some who suggest that, for this very reason, the treaty should be scrapped and another negotiated. To these gifted geniuses, I ask this: Very well, then, but what brilliant strategy do you have hidden away that will outmanoeuvre the riparian hegemon and get the lower riparian more than it already has under the treaty? This question is met with silence.

How can Pakistan get itself out of this situation? The answer is simple: Don't look at the Indus Water Treaty for solutions. The treaty is based on a sort of divide-the-resource-of-the-Indus-Basin theory, which will always result in a zero-sum game for Pakistan. What we need is to look outside the "divide the resource" paradigm and look towards the opportunities afforded by the "sharing the resource" paradigm. What we need to do is see whether it is in the economic, social or political interest of both riparians to cooperate on water, rather than be antagonistic over it. What we need is a trans-boundary water opportunity analysis.

Trans-boundary analysis looks at the positive sum outcomes of sharing the resources of a water basin. The approach is unique, in that it allows the weaker riparian to offer the hegemon some additional benefit.

The idea would be to conduct a full-spectrum trans-boundary water opportunity analysis that will identify the areas where cooperation between India and Pakistan over the waters of the Indus Basin will yield in economic, social or other benefits. For example, if India is building run-of-the-river dams on the western rivers, this need not be a cause of alarm in Pakistan. After all, what keeps Pakistan from purchasing the electricity from India? We are more than willing to pay an extortionately high cost for electricity from diesel-powered rental power projects when everyone knows hydroelectric power is a fraction of the cost.

Selling electricity to Pakistan would also be in the economic interests of India because of the premiums it could charge. Similarly, there could be economic benefit to India if it allowed Pakistan to expand, say, its fisheries along the eastern rivers. The purpose of the trans-boundary water opportunity analysis would be to identify and quantify the all the possible positive sum outcomes of a "sharing the resource" strategy. The wider the scope of such an analysis, the more chances of identifying more and more areas of cooperation.

The analysis would involve other issues as well. One would be the identification of what sort of "green water" resources exist (as in water that falls from the sky, and distinct from "blue water" which is, essentially surface water) and how such resources could be harnessed for the benefit of either India or Pakistan. (The study of "green water" is rare, as most hydrologists tend to ignore something they can't pipe, and government doesn't care about stuff it can't tax.) The inclusion of such things could widen the overall opportunities, at least in Pakistan, of harnessing the water resources of the country.

The economic science of sharing resources is also cutting-edge. Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Sciences this year for her study of shared resources. I had the opportunity of meeting Ms Ostrum last month and to speak to her about Indo-Pakistani water relations. She hadn't studied the Indus Basin (she has studied others), but told me that, should the two countries ever decide to go down such a path, the only problems they would encounter would be working out the right profit-sharing formulas.

And, finally, in the Pakistani context again, if Pakistan could be seen sitting down with India and doing something large-scale, without the rhetoric of Kashmir or terrorism clouding the way, it would create enormous international goodwill that, surely, Pakistan could leverage to its advantage.

On almost all counts, it is impossible to deny how attractive a proposition a trans-boundary water opportunity analysis is. It's difficult to judge how the governments of these countries would respond to the call for such an analysis. Perhaps this is not the time for such a call and perhaps it isn't for the governments of the countries to conduct such an analysis. At this stage, the opportunities of sharing the resource of the Indus Basin are the perfect place for players in Track-II diplomacy to pick up the gauntlet and show their respective governments the way forward.



The writer is an advocate of the high court and a member of the adjunct faculty at LUMS. He has an interest in urban planning. Email: ralam@nexlinx.net.pk

 

[sparklingway]

India agrees to allow inspection of power plants​

By Nasir Jamal
Saturday, 24 Jul, 2010

LAHORE: India agreed on Friday to allow Pakistan to inspect the two under-construction hydropower plants on the Indus river in the Indian-held Kashmir to allay Islamabad’s concerns over their designs, indicating that bilateral talks under the Indus Waters Treaty are making gradual progress.

During the periodic talks between the Indus Water Commissioners of the two countries in May Pakistan had demanded that its officials be allowed to visit the sites of Nimmo Bazgo and Chutak hydropower plants and both countries had agreed to discuss the matter in July. The visit is expected to take place next month.

A Pakistani official, however, cautioned against describing the agreement as a breakthrough and said India was bound by the water agreement to allow such inspection.

“There is nothing unusual about it,” he said after the conclusion of the two-day talks.

But he agreed that there had been some progress in certain areas, which would help bridge the trust gap on India’s water projects on Pakistani rivers.

The two sides also agreed to jointly inspect the flood embankments on the Ravi on both sides of the border.

On the first day of the talks, the two sides had agreed in principle to put in place a telemetry system on the western rivers to record and transfer real-time data.

The agreement was reached after the Indian delegates had conceded to the usefulness of the telemetry system in removing the confusion over water flows into Pakistan.

The officials of the two countries also discussed quality of water being released by India. Pakistan had raised the issue of inflows of polluted water from India in detail and asked the Indian officials to take effective measures to stop contamination of the waters of Hadiara and Kasur drains and Jhelum river.

Pakistan firmly holds that that polluted water has been flowing from the Indian side.

India agreed to a joint inspection of the polluted water under the Indus Water Commission.

Indian Commissioner Aranga Nathan reassured his Pakistani counterpart Jamaat Ali Shah that he would take up the issue with the department concerned in India.

The two teams also discussed proposals to make the commission more effective to allay a perception that the water pact is losing its utility.

They also reviewed issues relating to the sharing of flood data with the Indian officials denying that they had released flood waters without giving prior information to Pakistan.

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | India agrees to allow inspection of power plants

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Most posts related to Pakistan's water crises and water managements issues have been moved here:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/67837-pakistans-water-crises-mismanagement.html

Posts related to the Pakistan floods have been deleted. There are threads on the floods where those discussions can be carried out.

Stick to discussions of the IWT and India-Pakistan water disputes on this thread please.

 

[Time Assassin]

Funny Story, 2 days ago, me and my family/friends in Karachi hired a boat to view all the port. A Pakistani ship saved a Indian ship that was sinkin and after their "help" the Pakistanis arrested all Indians that were on broad because they came into Pakistani terrortory. LOL

 

[ajtr]

Gwynne Dyer: A question of water in Pakistan​

This may not be the most tactful time to bring it up, with much of Pakistan underwater and many millions homeless, but Pakistan’s real problem is not too much water. It is too little water—and one day it could cause a war.

The current disastrous floods (to which the response of both the Pakistan government and the international community has been far too slow) are due to this year’s monsoon being much stronger than usual. But that is just bad weather, in the end: every 50 or 100 years you can expect the weather to do something really extreme. It comes in various forms—blizzards, floods, hurricanes—but it happens everywhere.

The longterm threat to Pakistan’s wellbeing is that the country is gradually drying out. The Indus river system is the main year-round source of water for both Pakistan and northwestern India, but the glaciers up on the Tibetan plateau that feed the system’s various tributaries are melting.

While they are melting, of course, the amount of water in the system will not fall steeply—but according the Chinese Academy of Sciences, some of the glaciers will be gone in as little as 20 years. Then the river levels will drop permanently, and the real problems will begin.

When India and Pakistan got their independence from Britain in 1947, there was plenty of waters in the Indus system for everyone. In fact, almost half the water was still flowing into the Arabian Sea unused. But the population has grown fast over the years, especially on the Pakistani side of the border—from 34 million in 1947 to 175 million now—and the amount of water in the rivers has not.

The per capita supply of water in Pakistan has fallen from over 5,000 cubic metres annually in 1947 to only about 1,000 cubic metres today, a level defined by the United Nations as “high stress”. Ninety-six percent of that goes to irrigation, and the Indus no longer reaches the sea in most years. That’s what has already happened, even before the melting of the glaciers has gone very far.

Fifteen or 20 years from now, the water shortage (and therefore also food scarcities) will be a permanent political obsession in Pakistan. Even now, Pakistani politicians tend to blame India for their country’s water shortage (and vice versa, of course). It will get worse when the shortage grows acute.

What turns a problem into a potential conflict is the fact that five of the six tributaries that make up the Indus system cross Indian-controlled Kashmir on their way to Pakistan. There is a treaty, dating from 1960, that divides the water between the two countries, with India getting the water from the eastern three rivers and Pakistan owning the flow from the western three. But the treaty contains a time-bomb.

India’s three rivers contain only about one-fifth of the system’s total flow. To boost India’s share up to around 30 percent, therefore, the World Bank arbitrators proposed that the treaty also let India extract a certain amount of water from two of Pakistan’s rivers before they leave Indian territory. The proposal was reluctantly accepted by Pakistan.

The amount is not small—it is, in fact, enough water to irrigate 320,000 hectares—and it is a FIXED amount, regardless of how much water there actually is in the river. Now roll the tape forward twenty years: the glacial melt-water is coming to an end, and the total flow of the Indus system is down by half. But almost all of the loss is in Pakistan’s three rivers, since the smaller Indian three do not depend heavily on glaciers.

So India is still getting as much water as ever from the eastern three rivers, AND it is still taking its full treaty allocation of water from two of Pakistan’s rivers, although they do depend on glacial melt-water and now have far less water in them. As a result, India’s total share of the Indus waters rises sharply (and quite legally) just as Pakistanis start to starve.

In these circumstances, would an Indian government voluntarily take less water than the treaty allows? Get real. India will be having difficulties with its food supply too, though it will not be in such grave trouble as Pakistan. Any Indian government that “gave India’s water away” would promptly be driven from power—by parliament if it was the usual fractious coalition, or by voters at the next election if it were an unusually disciplined single party.

On the other hand, no Pakistani government, civilian or military, could just sit by as land that has been irrigated for a century goes back to desert and food rationing is imposed nationwide. Especially not if India’s fields just across the border were still green. That is the nightmare confrontation that lies down the road for these two nuclear powers.

Meanwhile, the homes of millions of Pakistanis are underwater. In terms of human suffering, it is twenty times worse than Hurricane Katrina was in the United States five years ago, and it needs a proportionate response now. But the future holds something much worse for Pakistan (and for India), unless they start revising this 52-year-old treaty now, before the crisis arrives.

The second edition of Gwynne Dyer’s latest book, Climate Wars, was published recently in Canada by Random House.

A good example of showing scholarly ignorance. The arguments are based on contra-factual interpretation and blatant disinformation.

As pointed out in this thread , in several posts , Indus River system carries Annual Average Flow of 168 MAF. Of which 33 MAF comes from eastern rivers and 135 MAF comes from Western Rivers.

At the time if Signing IWT India was irrigating 6.42477 Lakh Acres ( Acres Feet) from Western Rivers. Additionally India was permitted to develop irrigation for 7,01,000 Acres. However India can not withdraw water for more than 2,71,000 Acres ( Acre Feet) till it is able to release water from Conservation Reservoir to be constructed as per ANN E of IWT.

River------------- Conservation Storage Capacity ( MAF)
-------------------General Storage---- Power Storage ------ Flood Storage
Indus---------------0.25 ------------- 0.15-------------------Nil
Jhelum-------------0.50----------------- 0.25-------------------0.75
Jhelum Main--------Nil--------------------Nil-------------------As per ANN E
Chenab----------- 0.50--------------------0.60-------------------Nil
Chenab Main------ NIL------------------0.60-------------------Nil

Total 3.6 MAF

India has not build any conservation storage capacity so It can use on 2710000 AF water only as ICA against total permitted 7,01,000 AF water as ICA. It has developed so far only 1,65,754 AF as ICA.

The Author claims that Treaty provides water from western rivers to India to boost its share to 30% as against 20 % presently. That means total entitlement would be 50.4 MAF as on effective date i.e. 17 MAF more from Western Rivers. All permutations and combination failed to yield extra 17 MAF ( based on effective date) from western rivers on the basis of IWT.

New Hydro Electric Plants are run of the river plants built with optimum design considerations consistent with minimum levels required for operating the plants at specified capacity.

So the authors claim , that India gets 30% from Indus system (inclusive of eastern rivers) is disinformation.

Now the question of reduction in flow of Western river and the claim that India is getting full quota of eastern rivers which are not facing any reduced flow.

First Western Rivers

According to data provided by Pakistan;s WAPDA Water delivery below RIM is around 135-145 MAF. The Data for Average Annual flow and Mean Annual Flow is calculated for about 100 years. During lean years it has been somewhere 95 MAF to peak years 175 MAF.It is established fact that western rivers depend on Glacial melt especially Indus while Jhelum and Chenab do get Monsoon waters as well. About 70-80 % of flow in IRSA comes during August to Nov. Naturally Pakistan has to devise a policy to use water flowing during certain periods to be used during lean periods. It has to develop storage capacities . It has failed to do so and suffer the consequences.Empirical data do not suggest drastic reduction in flow of water in Indus river system. Though seasonal variations are there. For example this year Pakistan is witnessing excessive flow of water through Indus system ( India too is witnessing that).

Table 3.9. Variation of Rim Station Flows for Western Rivers

 

[Illusive]

Funny Story, 2 days ago, me and my family/friends in Karachi hired a boat to view all the port. A Pakistani ship saved a Indian ship that was sinkin and after their "help" the Pakistanis arrested all Indians that were on broad because they came into Pakistani terrortory. LOL

Isn't this off-topic trolling.

Anyways Pakistan itself admitted that it is responsible for water mismanagement, so India is not responsible for water thefts.

 

[Hutchroy]

India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan: Raja Pervez Ashraf | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan: Raja Pervez Ashraf

Federal minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf has disclosed that India does not have capability to stop water share of Pakistan while it is even not using its own share of water under Indus basin Water River Treaty.

Responding to queries of members of National Assembly (NA) on Thursday Federal minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf said that dams are being constructed to utilize rain water but Kala Bagh Dam is controversial while only consensus dams are being constructed.

He said that India reserved 2-lac acre-feet water for initial digging of Baglihar plant during 8th August to 25th August 2008 and President and Prime Minister has raised the issue.

He brushes aside the rumors that India is stopping water share of Pakistan as no violation of stoppage of water come in notice. He said that India does not have the capability to stop water share of Pakistan.

He said that Kala Bagh Dam has become controversial as three provincial assemblies approved resolutions against it only those dams are being constructed which are not controversial.

He said that construction of Neelam Jehlum Hydro Power Project could be delayed by one year while Rs 17541 million would be spent on the project and 1000-megawatt power would be gained.

He said that PEPCO and the companies under it would be given autonomy and handed over to private sector so that they would be responsible for their loss and profit. The decision would improve PEPCO's performance and decrease it's line losses. He said that Prime Minister has constituted special committee in this regard.

He said that power pilferage is a big issue and system is pressurized due to it. He said that agreements have been made with distribution companies to stop power pilferage.

He further said that PEPCO and distribution companies are being restructured. He said that strict steps are being taken to stop electric pilferage through "kunda culture". He said that he has appealed the provinces to restore magistrate system and the government is legislating in this regard so that power pilferage could be declared heinous crime.