India and Pakistan’s truculent cooperation:
Is 50 years enough?
Dr Undala Alam
Queen’s University, Belfast
Institute for D...
Improbable cooperation
• Conflict
▫ August 1947 Partition divides Punjab and irrigation system – headworks
to India, canal...
The Indus Waters Treaty
Articles
I. Definitions
II. Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers
III. Provisions Regarding Western ...
Hydrologic ‘divorce’
• Sun Bright Rivers Can Jive Indefinitely - Sutlej Beas Ravi Chenab Jhelum Indus
• Assets
▫ India: 3 ...
Not enough
• Recent and persistent calls to
revoke it
• India: Pakistan attacks us
▫ Indian parliament 2001
▫ Mumbai 2008
...
Dams are good
• Climate change recast dams
▫ Hydroelectricity as carbon neutral = good
▫ Water storage – safeguard against...
Is the Treaty upto it?
• Negotiated not fought (12 years)
• Signed & ratified
▫ Backdated to 1 April 1960 - temporary agre...
Baglihar dam
• Salman, S. (2008) The Baglihar difference and its resolution process: A triumph for the Indus
Waters Treaty...
Resolution process
• Bilateral: India/Pakistan discuss in PIC
• Multilateral:
▫ Jan 2005: Pakistan unhappy, asks Bank to i...
Process cont.
• 1st meeting: June 2005, Paris. NE meets India/Pakistan. India submits documents,
Pakistan responds, India ...
NE’s determination
• Criteria under which IWT contravened
▫ (a) Operating pool can be raised artificially
▫ (c) Operating ...
Conclusion
• Can India/Pakistan negotiate a better deal today?
• NO.
• IWT is well crafted –
▫ Recognises countries’ limit...
Undala Alam - India and Pakistan's truculent co-operation - is 50 years enough?
Undala Alam - India and Pakistan's truculent co-operation - is 50 years enough?
Undala Alam - India and Pakistan's truculent co-operation - is 50 years enough?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Undala Alam - India and Pakistan's truculent co-operation - is 50 years enough?

1,697 views

Published on

Presentation at STEPS Centre Water Seminar, 16 November 2010. Dr Undala Alam, Queen's University

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,697
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Undala Alam - India and Pakistan's truculent co-operation - is 50 years enough?

  1. 1. India and Pakistan’s truculent cooperation: Is 50 years enough? Dr Undala Alam Queen’s University, Belfast Institute for Development Studies Brighton, 16 November 2010
  2. 2. Improbable cooperation • Conflict ▫ August 1947 Partition divides Punjab and irrigation system – headworks to India, canals to Pakistan ▫ 1 April 1948, East Punjab (India) closes tap on Sutlej ▫ Mayhem. Disrupted production systems, refugees. Profound vulnerability. • Cooperation ▫ 1948-51 bilateral efforts fail. ▫ 1952-60 Multilateral talks with World Bank mediating succeed. Sign Indus Waters Treaty, 19 Sept 1960
  3. 3. The Indus Waters Treaty Articles I. Definitions II. Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers III. Provisions Regarding Western Rivers IV. Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers and Western Rivers V. Financial Provisions VI. Exchange of Data VII. Future Co-operation VIII. Permanent Indus Commission IX. Settlement of Differences and Disputes X. Emergency Provision XI. General Provisions XII. Final Provisions Annexures A. Exchange of notes between Government of India and Government of Pakistan B. Agricultural use by Pakistan from certain tributaries of the Ravi [Article II (3)] C. Agricultural use by India from the Western Rivers [Article III (2)(c)] D. Generation of hydro-electric power by India on the Western Rivers [Article III (2)(d)] E. Storage of waters by India on the Western Rivers [Article III (4)] F. Neutral expert [Article IX (2)] G. Court of Arbitration [Article IX (5)] H. Transitional arrangements [Article II (5)]
  4. 4. Hydrologic ‘divorce’ • Sun Bright Rivers Can Jive Indefinitely - Sutlej Beas Ravi Chenab Jhelum Indus • Assets ▫ India: 3 Eastern rivers – Sutlej, Beas, Ravi (20%) ▫ Pakistan: 3 Western rivers – Chenab, Jhelum, Indus (80%) ▫ Equitable utilisation* AND appreciable harm*  Permit India’s new uses  Protect Pakistan’s existing uses and new ones • Money ▫ India: US$ 175 million ▫ Pakistan: IBF US$ 838 million, India c.£62 million • Talk ▫ Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) ▫ Notification* ▫ Dispute resolution – Neutral Expert, Court of Arbitration
  5. 5. Not enough • Recent and persistent calls to revoke it • India: Pakistan attacks us ▫ Indian parliament 2001 ▫ Mumbai 2008 • Pakistan: India steals our water ▫ Baglihar (Chenab) 2005 ▫ Kishanganga (Jhelum) 2010 • J&K: We was robbed ▫ Treaty ignores us ▫ Our water, our electricity
  6. 6. Dams are good • Climate change recast dams ▫ Hydroelectricity as carbon neutral = good ▫ Water storage – safeguard against variability ▫ But previous problems not disappeared • Himalayas = HYDROPOWER + STORAGE ▫ Increasing demand for energy/water ▫ India/Pakistan – programme of development • More controversial dams en route
  7. 7. Is the Treaty upto it? • Negotiated not fought (12 years) • Signed & ratified ▫ Backdated to 1 April 1960 - temporary agreements ▫ Predates 3 principles in 1997 Draft UN Convention on the Law of Non- Navigational Uses of International Watercourses* • Implemented within allotted time (10 years) • Maintained (50 years) ▫ HOT: Survives three wars (1965, 1971, 1999), nuclear arms race (c.80 warheads each), military skirmishes ▫ WORDS: Controversial dams (Baglihar, Kishanganga) ▫ Pakistan’s economic survival – alternative Ad hoc Agreements (Suhrawardy) ▫ Increased water to India
  8. 8. Baglihar dam • Salman, S. (2008) The Baglihar difference and its resolution process: A triumph for the Indus Waters Treaty? Water Policy 10, 105-117. • India: Run-of-river HEP, Chenab river in J&K ▫ 144.5 m high ▫ Installed capacity 450 MW, final 900 MW ▫ Planned late 1990s, started 2002 • Pakistan: Contravenes IWT under Annex D (Para 8) following criteria: ▫ (a) Operating pool can be raised artificially ▫ (c) Operating pool too big ▫ (e) Gated spillway – existence & height ▫ (f) Turbines’ intake too low
  9. 9. Resolution process • Bilateral: India/Pakistan discuss in PIC • Multilateral: ▫ Jan 2005: Pakistan unhappy, asks Bank to intervene ▫ India disagrees: still ‘question’ not a ‘difference’ ▫ 3 rounds to agree on intervention ▫ Pakistan – legal, India – engineering • Bank’s involvement ▫ 1st request since Sept 1960 ▫ Use ICSID rules to determine ‘consultation’: Names, transparency (writing, share documents, all parties in meetings) ▫ May 2005: India/Pakistan agree to a Neutral Expert – Prof. Raymond Lafitte
  10. 10. Process cont. • 1st meeting: June 2005, Paris. NE meets India/Pakistan. India submits documents, Pakistan responds, India responds • Site visit: Early Oct 2005. NE with Indian/Pakistani delegations visits Baglihar dam. • 2nd meeting: Late Oct 2005, Geneva. NE meets India/Pakistan to discuss issues arising from site visit. • 3rd meeting: May 2006, London. India/Pakistan presented their views. • 4th meeting: Oct 2006, Paris. NE presents draft detemination to India/Pakistan • 5th meeting: Nov 2006, Washington DC. India/Pakistan present comments. • Final determination: February 2007.
  11. 11. NE’s determination • Criteria under which IWT contravened ▫ (a) Operating pool can be raised artificially ▫ (c) Operating pool too big ▫ (e) Gated spillway – existence & height ▫ (f) Turbines’ intake too low • Determination 1. Max. design flood: India’s higher value (16,500 m3/s) was prudent due to uncertainties arising from flood analysis and climate change 2. Spillway, ungated or gated: Gates due to site conditions, otherwise risk flooding. Alternative is a higher crest but more expensive. 3. Spillway, level of the gates: India’s design as okay, but lower by 8 m to protect against upstream flooding 4. Water level’s artificial raising : India lower crest from 844.5 m asl to 843 m asl 5. Pondage: Fixed max. pondage size lower than both India/Pakistan’s values 6. Power intakes’ level: India to raise level by 3 m to 821 m asl
  12. 12. Conclusion • Can India/Pakistan negotiate a better deal today? • NO. • IWT is well crafted – ▫ Recognises countries’ limitation ▫ Ensures access to water ▫ Acknowledges limits to knowledge ▫ Leaves the door open to the future • Cooperation = political will ▫ India: Jawaharlal Nehru – Manmohan Singh ▫ Pakistan: Ayub Khan – Asif Zardari

×