1

Hydro-diplomacy to Address the Transboundary Water Issues

between India & Pakistan  

By: Ashfaq Mahmood

3 June 2014

2

Scope  of  Presenta�on  

  Background  of  Indus  Waters  Treaty    Water  Issues  Between  Pakistan  and  India    Natural  Factors-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐Climate  Change    Hydro-­‐diplomacy  to  Address  Water  Issues    Ins�tu�onal  arrangement  for  Hydrodiplomacy    PCIW-­‐-­‐-­‐Capacity  Building    

 

 

3

Historical Perspective -- Indus Waters Treaty

4

1.  In 1947, division of the sub-continent amidst one of the bloodiest riots in the world (killing, migration, loss of property, misery). Tensions and Mistrust

2.  Out of 20 basins, only Indus basin, partially, fell in Pakistan. Upstream control structures on Ravi, Beas and Sutlej fell in Indian Territory. The boundary commission assumed that the existing arrangements will continue.

3.  India stopped water flowing to Pakistan on 1 April 1948 affecting 1.7 mAcre of land, millions of people and immediate slaughter of thousands of animals.

4.  Restored through interim agreement on payment-- time bomb was ticking

5.  Two sides locked horns:

i.  Pakistan’’s Stand based on international principles:

a.  Existing (Historical) uses be protected

b.   Additional water to be divided according to future irrigation potential and population etc.

ii.  India’’s Stand: Upper riparian has the prior right. Sovereignty over water flowing through Indian or Indian held territory.

Se�lement  of  Dispute  

5

1.  Dispute settlement under the aegis of World Bank:

a)  Lilienthal’’s Article : ““Another ““Korea ”” in the Making?”” in Collier Magazine in 1951

b)  Eugene Black’’s Proposal

2.  Initial effort was for co-operative use (contemplating diversion of some water from Chenab to Sutlej while Sutlej continue to meet the needs of lower riparian (Pakistan). However, ultimately the principle of division of waters was adopted. IWT signed in 1960.

3.  For Pakistan: Western Rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. For India: Eastern Rivers, Ravi, Sutlej and Beas.

Basic Principles of Indus Waters Treaty    

 Division of Waters: (a) Fixing and delimiting the rights and obligation, (b) most complete and satisfactory utilization of waters in (c) cooperative spirit

 Eastern Rivers: Unrestricted use for India except Limited Pakistan Agri use.

 Western Rivers: 1. Unrestricted use for Pakistan and India under obligation to let flow all the waters and not permit any interference with the waters of Western Rivers EXCEPT for following uses:

(A) Domestic use (B) Non-consumptive use (C) Agricultural use (limited)

(D) Run of River Hydropower Projects , as per design criteria in IWT

(E) Storage works (limited)

3. India to inform Pakistan 6 months in advance of construction of Power Plant

4. Formation of Permanent Commission

5 Dispute Resolution: Commission (for question), N.E. (for Point of Difference on engineering matters), CoA (for Dispute---legal matters)

7

1960

C-J

T-P T-S

S-M

R-Q

Q-B

B-S II

M-R

INDUS BASIN REPLACEMENT WORKS

8

Link Canals (9 No) Barrages (6 No) Storage (3 No)

Trimmu-Sidhnai Sidhnai on Ravi Mangla

Sidhnai-Mailsi Mailsi Siphon on Sutlej Chashma

Mailsi-Bahawal Qadirabad on Chenab Tarbela

Rasul-Qadirabad Rasul on Jhelum

Qadirabad-Balloki Chashma on Indus

L.C.C Feeder Marala on Chenab

Balloki-Sulemanki-II

Chashma-Jhelum

Taunsa-Panjnad

   

Water Issues With India

9

 Trust  -­‐-­‐-­‐The  Fundamental  Issue    Pakistan  Side  Apprehensions:    

India  wants  to  interfere  and  a�ain  more  control  and  storage  on  the  waters  of  the  Western  Rivers  under  the  garb  of,  most  complete  and  sa�sfactory  u�liza�on  of  waters,  tech  design  of  projects  and  opera�onal  requirements.  

  Indian  Mindset(upper  riparian)  :    i.  India  is  right  -­‐-­‐  Project  Designs  are  Treaty  compliant.  Pakistan  

objects  for  the  sake  of  objec�ng.  ii.  India  can  start  projects  unilaterally  (Disregard  to  Pakistan’’s  

objec�ons)  iii.  India  knows  which  data  to  share.  iv.  Bilateral  dispute  resolu�on  rather  than  a  neutral  party  

.  Both  Sides  spread  misinforma�on,  make  provoca�ve  statements  

.  Both  Sides  adherence  to  posi�onal  stances,  arrogance.    

10

11

Baglihar Dam on River CHENAB

RIVER

RIVER

RIVE

R

DULHASTI H/E PLANT

SALAL H/E PLANT(345 MW + 345 MW)

(450 MW + 450 MW)

(390 MW + 390 MW)

HEADWORK PAK INDIAN H/E PLANT

RIVER

CHANDRA

JAMMU I N D I A

LINE OF CONTROLCANAL

RIVER

M.R

LIN

K

P A K I S T A N

B.R.

B.D

U.C.

C

LEGEND

UDHAMPUR

PERMNAGAR

BENZWAR

OCCUPIED JAMMU & KASHMIR

BAGLIHAR H/E PLANT

LINE OFCONTROL

MARALAHEADWORKS

RIASIAUJ

CHENAB

TAWI

AKHNOORKHAD

KANTHANDODA

RAMBAN

BHAG

A

KILLAR

SISS

U N

.BILI

NS N

.

SISSU

BHUT.N

CHENABKISHTWAR ARTHAL

RIVE

R

N

UPSTREAM ELEVATION OF BAGLIHAR

18

0 5

710.5

2015105 3025

RIGHT BANK

NORTH POINT

747.653

PROPOSED ROCK PROFILE

EXISTING ROCK PROFILE

18 17 1717 17 12.522.5 17 781.055

DAM TOP EL 844.50

8

164,000 A.F

EXISTING NASRI BAPASS RCAD

55 121255828.00

EL.821

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

797.34

CHUTE SPILLWAYS

17 11171114.5

12

844.50

STEEL PLATFORM SLUICE SPILLWAYS18

UPSTREAM ELEVATION OF DAMNOTE:-1- ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES AND LEVELS ARE IN METRES2 DIMENSIONS ARE NOT TO BE MEASURED BUT READ.

714.03

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

728.38

742.73

LEFT BANK784.18

770.63

757.63

780.00

838.50 231A 17

ROAD1 2

d4

FPL 840

3 54 6 7

d3CUM STAI CASE GENERATOR ROOM d2 ELEVATOR CUM STAIRCASE

POWER INTAKE

(EL: 818 M)

AUXILIARY SPILLWAY

816.00

EL. 808

816.90

6.0

11

TOWER 10.5 X 8.5

9 10853.40

12 13

832.50EL.837.0

1717

18A

12.0 M X 10.0 X 4.0 M

1514 16

ROOM 12.5X8.0X4.0

d1

17 18

10.5

336.492CONTROL ROOM

EXISTING RCAD

FPL 840

     

GRAND PLAN : PROJECTS ON THE JHELUM

URI H/E (480 MW)

(105 MW) URI - II

PUNCH

RIVER

(240 MW)

UNDER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED PROPOSED NALLAH LINE OF CONTROL

LEGEND RIVER

WULLAR LAKE

SRINAGAR

DAGWAN N. LIDDAR R.

WULLAR BARRAGE

NEELUM CONTROL

POHRU RIVER

(9 MW) MAHORA H/E L.JHELUM

OF (330 MW)

RIVER

MADMATI N.

ERIN N.

RIVER

KISHENGANGA PROJECT

NAUSARI MUZAFFARABAD NEELUM JHELUM

H/E PROJECT (969 MW)

POWER HOUSE

POWER HOUSE

URI H/E (480 MW)

Kishanganga HEP on JHELUM RIVER

1.  India allowed to Divert Water, as they were adjudged to be ahead of Pakistan. (Comment: Pakistan’’s Case was not presented well due to institutional disharmony !)

2.  India to ensure minimum flow of 9 Cumecs (317 cusecs) at all times. (net loss of about 10 % of hydroelectricity generation at NJ)

3.  Draw Down Below DSL not permissible as sediment flushing is not an unforeseen emergency. (Pakistan Vindicated. India cannot justify construction of orifice spillways on Western Rivers in future).

Foot Note: KHEP design be modified. Case to N.E under study

Decision  of  Court  of  Arbitra�on  (CoA)  

8 14

INDEX PLAN OF WULLAR BARRAGE

EL. (FT.)

AREA (ACRES

)

VOL. (A.F.)

5167 14172 -

61500

168500 422500

5170 22874

5174 32365

5180 48031

DESIGN RES. LEVEL

5178.2 42809 328,000 15

Issues-­‐-­‐Points  of  View  on  Wullar  Barrage  and  Storage  (Tulbul  Naviga�on)  Project  

INDIA  (1)  Naviga�onal  control  structure  not  a  barrage.  (2)  No  man  made  storage    (3)  Non-­‐consump�ve  use.    (4)      The  Project  is  techno  economically  feasible  .  PAKISTAN  (1)  The  structure  is  that  of    a  barrage  with  storage.  (2)  It  will  become  a  man-­‐made  storage  of  0.395  bcm  (0.324  MAF).    

No  storage  is  allowed  on  the  main  stem  of  river  Jhelum  except  for  that  incidental  to  the  barrage  0.01234  bcm  (0.01  MAF).  

(3)  The  Treaty  forbids  India  from  any  interference,  control  or  restric�on  in  the  flow  of  Western  Rivers.  

(4)  Project  feasibility  not  jus�fied  (naviga�on  with  modern  boats  possible,  Wullar  Srinagar  winter  water  data  not  suppor�ve  and  other  means  more  economic)  

   

16

LOCATION OF PROJECTS ON RIVER INDUS

CHUTAK44 MW

RIVER

BAZGO0.3 MW

SHYOK

KHARDUNG0.2 MW

HUNDER NOBRA0.4 MW

ACTUAL

NIMO BAZGO45 MW

KARGIL H/E3.75 MW

SUMOOR NOBRA0.1 MW

CONT

ROL

LEGEND

LINE OF CONTROL

NALLAH

RIVER

COMPLETEDUNDER CONSTRUCTION

HANU R.

TANGSTE R.

R.

OF

SHAKAR CHICKTAN0.84 MW

DRAS H/E0.075 MW

MATAYIN0.12 MW

LINE

DRAS

INDUS

STAKNA H/E3.24 MW

RIVERHAFTAL H/E2 MW

17

Other Issues

1.  Sharing  of  Shortages:    Dry  year  flow  is  less  than  half  the  wet  year  2.  Transboundary  Aquifers:  

§  Indus  Basin  losing  10  km3  per  year  §  Water  levels  falling  in  Punjab,  Haryana,  Rajistan  and  Dehli  by  0.3  m  /Yr.  §  Subsidized  electricity  rates  for  tube-­‐well  pumping  in  India  

3.  Pollu�on  of  Rivers  (discharge  of  industrial  waste,  chemicals/fer�lizers  and  domes�c  effluent)  

4.  Watershed  Management  5.  Apprehensions  of  water  the�s—telemetry.  6.  Reservoir  Opera�on  and  filling  7.  Environmental  Flows  in  Eastern  Rivers  8.  Basha  Dam  

18

Effects  of  Climate  Change    Shrinking    Glaciers  Glaciers  in  the  Pamir  and  Hindu  Kush  mountains  )  shrunk  by  30  %  in  the  last  half  century    Rising  temperatures/global  warming  will  result  in  at  least  10%  reduc�on  in  precipita�on  in  the  next  50  Years.    Increased  summer  flows  in  shorter  �me  spans  accentua�ng  floods  in  next  few  years.  It  will  be  followed  by  shortages  in  the  long  run.    Greater  Frequency  of  floods  .    Poverty,  food  and  electricity  prices,  urban  migra�on  affec�ng  millions  of  people  on  the  cards.    At  present  severe  drought  at  least  once  in  10-­‐15  years.  This  frequency  will  increase.  

19

Hydro-­‐diplomacy    Why  Hydro-­‐diplomacy?  

  To  make  a  paradigm  shi�  from  repe��ve  ac�on—reac�on  approach,  posi�onal  fixa�ons,  blaming,  sloganeering,  mispercep�ons,  �me  consuming  dispute  se�lement  to  :  

i.  Bring  coopera�on  at  the  centre  stage.  ii.  Maximize  benefits  for  the  people  connected  with  water.  iii.  Se�le  principles  of  future  engagements  

  Concept:      Integrate  mul�ple  perspec�ves  within  the  ambit  of  the  IWT(different  perspec�ves:  hydrologists,  engineers,    poli�cians,  economists,  sociologists,  environmentalists,  and  people  connected  with  water)  

  Approaches:    Bilateral    Third  party,  neutral  broker    Mul�lateral  and  donors    Interna�onal  poli�cal  maneuvering    Track  II  diplomacy   20

Framework  of  Water  Coopera�on  

1.  Coopera�on  within  the  ambit  of  IWT  2.  Se�ng  the  stage:  Build  Confidence  and  Trust  

i.  No  emo�ve  statements  ii.  No  poli�cal  mileage  iii.  Educate  and  regulate  media  iv.  Propagate  benefits  of  water  coopera�on  

3.  Approach  :  step  by  step—Rela�on  building  and  joint  studies  first  

21

Avenues  of  Coopera�on:  i.  Improve  data  sharing,  telemetry  ii.  Climate  change  studies  and  measures  iii.  Watershed  management  iv.  Transboundary  aquifers  studies  and  management  v.  Water  pollu�on  studies  and  management  vi.   Sharing  knowledge  and  experiences  in  water  management  vii.   Mechanisms  of  monitoring  compliance  with  IWT  viii.   Exploring  mechanisms  for  avoiding  repe��ve  issues  

a)  Engineering  ma�ers:  Design  of  infrastructure  b)  Legal  ma�ers:  Interpreta�on  of  IWT  c)  Unilateral  start  d)  Data  

ix.  Exploring  further  avenues  of  coopera�on  with  mutual  consent  

22

Drivers  of  Coopera�on  

  Primary  Drivers:  – Permanent  Indus  Commission  – Governments  

  Secondary  Drivers  – Media    – Thinkers,  opinion  makers,    – NGOs,  Civil  Society  – Research  ,  Academic  and  other  water  ins�tu�ons  

23

Permanent  Indus  Commission  (PIC)    Pakistan  &  India  to  create  permanent  posts  of  Commissioners  and  appoint  Engineers—competent  in  hydrology/  water  use  as  Govt’’s  Rep.      The  two  Commissioners  together  form  PIC.    Purpose  and  Func�ons:  

1.  Coopera�ve  implementa�on  of  IWT  and  promote  coopera�on  2.  To  serve  as  regular  communica�on  channel  3.  To  make  efforts  to  resolve  ques�ons  interpreta�on/applica�on/

breaches  of  IWT  4.  Hold  at  least  once  a  year  mee�ng  5.  Inspec�on  tours  once  every  5  years  or  as  requested  by  either  

Commissioner  6.  Submit  annual  report  to  the  two  governments.  

Note:      Mismatch  of  qualifica�ons  with  func�ons   24

 Deficiencies  of  PCIW  

 i.  Very  lean  organiza�on  with  engineering  focus  ii.  Lack  of  func�onal  classifica�ons  iii.  Low  salaries  iv.  Career  suffoca�on  v.  Lack  on  skills  in  communica�on  ,  hydro  diplomacy  

and  promo�on  of  coopera�on  vi.   Lack  of  opportuni�es  for  widening  and  deepening  

knowledge.    

25

Capacity  Building  of  PCIW    Organize  PCIW  along  func�onal  lines  with  increased  manpower.    Improve  salaries    Improve  career  development  prospects  within  PCIW  and  opportuni�es  in  other  organiza�ons.  

  The  post  of  Commissioner  should  be  tenure  based  (3  Yr)  preferably  on  deputa�on.  

  Develop  knowledge  base  and  skill  set-­‐-­‐-­‐  hydro  engineering,  management,  climate  change,  ground  water,  environments,  water  laws,  sociology,  economics,  diplomacy  and  communica�on.  

  Advisory  panel  of  experts    Decent    and  IT  enabled  state  of  the  art  office,  digi�za�on  of  record.    Provide  adequate  funds.  

26

Complimentary  Support  

  Set  up  water  chair,  HEC  to  provide  scholarships,  promote  scholarship  in  various  water  related  disciplines    Support    and  outsource  to  specialized  consultants,  legal  experts  and  other  consultants    Patronage  of  the  Government  with  a  cell  focused  only  on  promo�ng  coopera�on  with  finances.  

 

27

Conclusion  

  Coopera�on  be  brought  on  the  centre  stage    Build  mutual  trust  and  rela�onships  by  bringing  the  stake  holders  together    Restructure  strengthen  and  support  PCIW    Promote  scholarship  in  all  water  related  disciplines.    Allocate  funds  for  ac�vi�es  for  promo�ng  Coopera�on  

28

THANK YOU

29

Main  Features  of  TOR  of  Study  

  Collect,  review  and  analyse  the  data  and  informa�on  to  document:    –  opportuni�es  for  water  diplomacy  to  accomplish  water  coopera�on  in  addressing  trans-­‐boundary  water  issues  

–  trans-­‐boundary  water  issues  related  to  Indus  Water  Treaty  (with  India)  and  opportuni�es  for  water  coopera�on  in  sharing  benefits  

–  trans-­‐boundary  water  issues  related  to  Kabul  River  basin  and  opportuni�es  for  water  coopera�on  between  Afghanistan  and  Pakistan    

  Development  of  the  capacity  of  PCIW  in  water  diplomacy  and  to  facilitate  the  IWC  to  ini�ate  the  dialogues  among  the  stakeholders    

30