IPRI :: Islamabad Policy Research Institute

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, being equally desirous of attaining the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers and recognising the need, therefore, of fixing and delineating, in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, the rights and obligations of each in relation to the other concerning the use of these waters and of making provision for the settlement, in a cooperative spirit, of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon herein, have resolved to conclude a Treaty in furtherance of these objectives, and for this purpose have named as their plenipotentiaries:

The Government of India: Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, and The Government of Pakistan: Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan, H.P., H.J., President of Pakistan, who, having communicated to each other their respective Full Powers and having found them in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles and An

Article II

Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers

All the waters of the Eastern Rivers shall be available for the unrestricted use of India, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Article.

Except for Domestic Use and Non-Consumptive Use, Pakistan shall be under an obligation to let flow, and shall not permit any interference with, the waters of the Sutlej Main and the Ravi Main in the reaches where these rivers flow in Pakistan and have not yet finally crossed into Pakistan. The points of final crossing are the following: (a) near the new Hasta Bund upstream of Suleimanke in the case of the Sutlej Main, and (b) about one and a half miles upstream of the syphon for the B-D Link in the case of the Ravi Main.

Except for Domestic Use, Non-Consumptive Use and Agricultural Use, Pakistan shall be under an obligation to let flow, and shall not permit any interference with, the waters (while flowing in Pakistan) of any Tributary which in its natural course joins the Sutlej Main or the Ravi Main before these rivers have finally crossed into Pakistan.

All the waters, while flowing in Pakistan, of any Tributary which, in its natural course, joins the Sutlej Main or the Ravi Main after these rivers have finally crossed into Pakistan shall be available for the unrestricted use of Pakistan: Provided however that this provision shall not be construed as giving Pakistan any claim or right to any releases by India in any such Tributary.

There shall be a Transition Period during which India shall (i) limit its withdrawals for Agricultural Use, (ii) limit abstractions for storages, and (iii) make deliveries to Pakistan from the Eastern Rivers.

The Transition Period shall begin on 1st April 1960 and it shall end on 31st March 1970, or, if extended under the provisions of Part 8 of Annexure H, on the date up to which it has been extended. In any event, whether the Transition Period shall end not later than 31st March 1973.

During the Transition Period, Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use the waters of the Eastern Rivers which are to be released by India in accordance with the provisions of Annexure H. After the end of the Transition Period, Pakistan shall have no claim or right to releases by India of any of the waters of the Eastern Rivers. In case there are any releases, Pakistan shall enjoy the unrestricted use of the waters so released after they have finally crossed into Pakistan: Provided that in the event that Pakistan makes any use of these waters, Pakistan shall not acquire any right whatsover, by prescription or otherwise, to a continuance of such releases or such use.

Article III

Provision Regarding Western Rivers

Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use all those waters of the Western Rivers which India is under obligation to let flow under the provisions of Paragraph (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.

Pakistan shall have the unrestricted use of all waters originating from sources other than the Eastern Rivers which are delivered by Pakistan into The Ravi or The Sutlej, and India shall not make use of these waters.

Except as provided in Annexures D and E, India shall not store any water of, or construct any storage works on, the Western Rivers.

Article IV

Provisions Regarding Eastern Rivers and Western Rivers

Pakistan shall use its best endeavors to construct and bring into operation with due regard to expedition and economy, that part of a system of work which will accomplish the replacement, from the Western Rivers and other sources, of water supplies for irrigation canals in Pakistan which, on 15th August 1947, were dependent on water supplies from the Eastern Rivers.

Each Party agrees that any Non-Consumptive Use made by it shall be made as not to materially change, on account of such use, the flow in any channel to the prejudice of the uses on that channel by the other Party under the provisions of this Treaty.

Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as having the effect of preventing either Party from undertaking schemes of drainage, river training, conservation of soil against erosion and dredging, or from removal of stones, gravel or sand from the beds of the Rivers: Provided that in executing any of the schemes mentioned above, each Party will avoid, as far as practicable, any material damage to the other Party.

Pakistan shall maintain in good order its portions of the drainages mentioned below with capacities not less than the capacities as on the Effective Date: (i) Hudiara Drain, (ii) Kasur Nala, (iii) Salimshah Drain, (iv) Fazilka Drain.

If India finds it necessary that any of the drainages mentioned in Paragraph (4) should be deepened or widened in Pakistan, Pakistan agrees to undertake to do so as a work of public interest, provided India agrees to pay the cost of the deepening or widening.

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.

Neither Party will take any action which would have the effect of diverting the Ravi Main between Madhopur and Lahore, or the Sutlej Main between Harike and Suleimanke, from its natural channel between high banks.

The use of the natural channels of the Rivers for the discharge of flood or other excess waters shall be free and not subject to limitation by either Party, and neither Party shall have any claim against the other in respect of any damage caused by such use. Each Party agrees to communicate to the other Party, as far in advance as practicable, any information it may have in regard to such extraordinary discharges of water from reservoirs and flood flows as may affect the other Party.

Each Party declares its intention to operate its storage dams, barrages and irrigation canals in such manner, consistent with the normal operations of its hydraulic systems, as to avoid, as far as feasible, material damage to the other Party.

Each Party declares its intention to prevent, as far as practicable, undue pollution of the waters of the Rivers which might affect adversely uses similar in nature to those to which the waters were put on the Effective Date, and agrees to take all reasonable measures to ensure that, before any sewage or industrial waste is allowed to flow into the Rivers, it will be treated, where necessary, in such manner as not materially to affect those uses: Provided that the criterion of reasonableness shall be the customary practice in similar situations on the Rivers.

The Parties agree to adopt, as far as feasible, appropriate measures for recovery, and restoration to owners, of timber and other property floated or floating down the Rivers, subject to appropriate charges being paid by the owners.

Except as otherwise required by the express provisions of this Treaty, nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as affecting existing territorial rights over the waters of any of the Rivers or the beds or banks thereof, or as affecting existing property rights under municipal law over such waters or beds or banks.

Article V

Financial Provisions

In consideration of the fact that the purpose of part of the system of works referred to in Article IV (1) is the replacement, from the Western Rivers and other sources, of water supplies for irrigation canals in Pakistan which on 15th August 1947 were dependent on water supplies from the Eastern Rivers, India agrees to make a fixed contribution of Pounds Sterling 62,060,000 towards the costs of these works.

The sum of Pounds Sterling 62,060,000 shall be paid in ten equal installments on the 1st of November of each year.

Each of the instalments shall be paid to the Bank for the credit of the Indus Basin Development Fund to be established and administered by the Bank.

These financial provisions shall not be construed as conferring upon India any right to participate in the decisions as to the system of works which Pakistan constructs or as constituting an assumption of any responsibility by India or as an agreement by India in regard to such works.

Except for such payments as are specifically provided for in this Treaty, neither Party shall be entitled to claim any payment for observance of the provisions of this Treaty or to make any charge for water received from it by the other Party.

Article VI

Exchange of Data

The following data with respect to the flow in, and utilisation of the waters of, the Rivers shall be exchanged regularly between the Parties: (a) Daily guage and discharge data relating to flow of the Rivers at all observation sites. (b) Daily extractions for or releases from reservoirs. (c) Daily withdrawals at the heads of all canals operated by government or by a government agency, including link canals. (d) Daily escapages from all canals, including link canals. (e) Daily deliveries from link canals.

Article VII

Future Co-operation

The two Parties recognize that they have a common interest in the optimum development of the Rivers, and, to that end, they declare their intention to co-operate, by mutual agreement, to the fullest possible extent.

Article VIII

Permanent Indus Commission

India and Pakistan shall each create a permanent post of Commissioner for Indus Waters, and shall appoint to this post, as often as a vacancy occurs, a person who should ordinarily be a high-ranking engineer competent in the field of hydrology and water-use. Unless either Government should decide to take up any particular question directly with the other Government, each Commissioner will be the representative of his Government for all matters arising out of this Treaty, and will serve as the regular channel of communication on all matters relating to the implementation of the Treaty, and, in particular, with respect to (a) the furnishing or exchange of information or data provided for in the Treaty; and (b) the giving of any notice or response to any notice provided for in the Treaty.

The status of each Commissioner and his duties and responsibilities towards his Government will be determined by that Government.

The purpose and functions of the Commission shall be to establish and maintain co-operative arrangements for the implementation of this Treaty and to promote co-operation between the Parties in the development of the waters of the Rivers.

Article IX

Settlement of Differences and Disputes

Any question, which arises between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty or the existence of any fact, which, if established, might constitute a breach of this Treaty, shall first be examined by the Commission, which will endeavor to resolve the question by agreement.

If the Commission does not reach agreement on any of the questions mentioned in the Paragraph (1), then a difference will be deemed to have arisen, which shall be dealt with by a Neutral Expert. If the Neutral Expert has informed the Commission that, in his opinion, the difference should be treated as a dispute, then a dispute will be deemed to have arisen.

As soon as a dispute to be settled has arisen, the Commission shall, at the request of either Commissioner, report the fact to the two Governments, as early as practicable, stating in its report the points on which the Commission is in agreement and the issues in dispute, the views of each Commissioner on these issues and his reasons therefore.

Either Government may, following receipt of the report, or if it comes to the conclusion that this report is being unduly delayed in the Commission, invite the other Government to resolve the dispute by agreement.

Article X

Emergency Provisions

If, at any time prior to 31st March 1965, Pakistan should represent to the Bank that, because of the outbreak of large-scale international hostilities arising out of causes beyond the control of Pakistan, it is unable to obtain from abroad the materials and equipment necessary for the completion, by 31st March 1973, of that part of the system of works referred to in Article IV (1) which related to the replacement referred to therein, (hereinafter referred to as the replacement element) and if, after consideration of this representation in consultation with India, the Bank is of the opinion that (a) these hostilities are on a scale of which the consequence is that Pakistan is unable to obtain in time such materials and equipment as must be procured from abroad for the completion, by 31st March 1973, of the replacement element, and (b) since the Effective Date, Pakistan has taken all reasonable steps to obtain the said materials and equipment and has carried forward the construction of the replacement element with due dilligence and all reasonable expedition, the Bank shall immediately notify each of the Parties accordingly. The Parties undertake that in being so notified, they will forthwith consult together and enlist the good offices of the Bank in their consultation, with a view to reaching mutual agreement as to whether or not, in light of all circumstances prevailing, any modifications of the provisions of this Treaty are appropriate and advisable and, if so, the nature and the extent of the modifications.

Article XI

[General Provisions are given in the text]

Article XII

Final Provisions

This Treaty consists of the Preamble, the Articles hereof and Annexures A to H hereto, and may be cited as "The Indus Waters Treaty 1960."

This Treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged in New Delhi. It shall enter into force upon the exchange of ratifications, and will then take effect retrospectively form the first of April 1960.

The provisions of this Treaty may from time to time be modified by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty and have hereunto affixed their seals.

Done in triplicate in English at Karachi on this Nineteenth day of September 1960.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/pak-india/accord1.htm (1 September 2003)

Rainfall in Pakistan is markedly variable in magnitude, time of occurrence and its aerial distribution. However, almost two-thirds of the rainfall is concentrated in the three summer months of July - September. The mean annual precipitation ranges from less than 100 mm in parts of the Lower Indus Plain to over 750 mm near the foothills in the Upper Indus Plain.

There are two major sources of rainfall in Pakistan: the Monsoons and the Western Disturbances. The relative contribution of rainfall in most of the canal commands is low when compared with the two other sources of irrigation water i.e., canal water and groundwater. More than 60% of the kharif season rainfall is concentrated in the month of July for almost all of the canal commands.

The Monsoons originate in the Bay of Bengal and usually reach Pakistan, after passing over India, in early July. They continue till September. The Indus Plains receive most of their rainfall from the Monsoons. There are two periods of thunderstorms in Pakistan: (1) April-June (2) October-November. These periods are the driest parts of the year, particularly October and November. During this time, thunderstorms caused by convection bring sporadic and localized rainfall.

Pakistan lies in an arid and semi-arid climate zone. The entire Indus Plains (canal command areas) receive an average seasonal rainfall of 212 mm (95% confidence interval ± 28) and 53 mm (95% confidence interval ± 8) in the kharif and rabi seasons, respectively.

The rainfall varies as we move from the north and northeast to the south of the country. It is only the canal command areas in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the northern-most canal commands of the Punjab Province that receive some appreciable amount of rainfall during the summer as well as the winter season. The canal commands upstream of the rim stations (i.e., in the NWFP) receive almost 55% of their annual rainfall during the kharif season. The canal commands in the Upper and Lower Indus Plains receive 75% and 85- 90% of the annual rainfall respectively, during the kharif season.

The annual variability of rainfall increases as one moves south. The canal command areas of Guddu and Sukkur Barrages fall in an area where variability is the highest.

Based on 10-year average (1990-1999), data from the Pakistan Meteorological Department of annual rainfall in some of the major cities is as follows:

The catchment area of the Indus Basin contains some of the largest glaciers in the world, outside the Polar Regions. The glacial area of the upper Indus catchment is about 2,250 km2 and accounts for most of the river runoff in summer.

The Kabul River, which is mainly snow-fed, originates from the Unai Pass of the Southern Hindukush at an elevation of 3,000 m above sea level (masl). It drains eastern Afghanistan and then enters Pakistan just north of the Khyber Pass.

The Jhelum River rises in Kashmir at a much lower elevation than the source of the Indus River. It falls much less rapidly than the Indus River after entering Pakistani territory. The Chenab River originates in the Himachal Pardesh in India, at an elevation of over 4,900 masl. It flows through Jammu in Indian-held Kashmir and enters Pakistani territory upstream of the Marala Barrage.

The snow and ice melt from the glacial area of the Upper Indus catchment supply approximately 80% of the total flow of the Indus River in the summer season. The annual flows in the Kabul River are less than one-third of that in the Indus River. However, the Kabul River starts to rise approximately a month earlier than the main stem of the Indus. Its flows are of significance for fulfilling the late-rabi early-kharif (March to May) irrigation requirements of the canals.

Snowmelt accounts for more than 50% of the flow in the Jhelum River. However, the Jhelum is much more dependent than the Indus on the variable monsoon runoff. Both, the Jhelum and Chenab River catchments can simultaneously be influenced by the Monsoons. Since the Chenab River rises at higher altitudes, snowmelt accounts for a considerable proportion of its runoff.

The embryonic Indus river system, which is the main source of surface water in Pakistan, most likely was created some fifty million years ago, when the Indian Plate (Gondwanaland) first collided with Eurasia (Angaraland). Between the two plates was the Tethys Sea, which was shallow and sandy and up-folded to form the great Himalayan Mountains in the Mesozoic era. These mountains, their an unbroken snow cover, have become the primary source of water to the Indus system.

The average annual flow-rates of major rivers has been calculated between 1922-61 to indicate water flows before the Indus Water Treaty, 1985-1995 to indicate the post-treaty flows and the 2001-02 flows to present the current situation of drought conditions. These are presented in the table below.

The history of dam construction in Pakistan is relatively short. The perennial River Indus fulfilled the irrigation needs and the drinking water supply was served by tapping the vast underground water reservoir. Before independence, there were only three dams in Pakistan, and none on the major rivers. Two of the dams were in the water scarce area of Balochistan i.e. the Khushdil Khan Dam - 1890 and the Spin Karaiz - 1945. The Namal Dam, 1913 was located in the Mianwali district of the Punjab.

The construction of dams in Pakistan was initiated in 1955, when the country was facing an acute power shortage. Work on the Warsak Dam on Kabul River near Peshawar was undertaken.

Later, when India stopped water supplies to the network of canals in Pakistan, it became imperative to build large storages and link canals to restore water to the affected canal system. This resulted in the construction of two gigantic dams, Mangla with a gross storage capacity of 5.88 MAF and Tarbela with 11.62 MAF, as a part of the Indus Basin Replacement Works. Apart from replacement works, a number of relatively smaller schemes of irrigation and water supply dams were also undertaken.

The accounting of surface water resources in the Indus System is based on river inflows measured at Rim Stations. A rim station, in the context of the Indus Basin Irrigation System, is defined as a control structure (reservoir, barrage, etc.) on the river just when the river enters into Pakistani territory or upstream of the canal-irrigated Indus Plains of Punjab and Sindh Provinces.

The rim stations for the Indus System rivers are the Kalabagh Barrage (or sometimes Tarbela Reservoir) for the main Indus River, Mangla Reservoir for the Jhelum River, Marala Barrage for the Chenab River and Balloki and Sulemanki Barrages for the Ravi and Sutlej Rivers.

The Indus River and its tributaries, on an average, bring 154 MAF of water annually. This includes 144.91 MAF from the three Western rivers and 9.14 MAF from the Eastern rivers. Most of this, about 104.73 MAF, is diverted for irrigation. 39.4 MAF flows to the sea and about 9.9 MAF is consumed by the system losses which include evaporation, seepage and spills during floods.

The flows of the Indus and its tributaries vary widely from year to year and within the year. As is the case with the water availability, there is significant variation in annual flows to the sea.

The waters of the Indus Basin Rivers are diverted through reservoirs/barrages into canals, classified as Main Canals. These main canals then distribute the irrigation water into their command areas through a network of branch canals.

The Indus Basin Irrigation System comprises of three major reservoirs, 16 barrages, 2 head-works, 2 siphons across major rivers, 12 inter river link canals, 44 canal systems (23 in Punjab, 14 in Sindh, 5 in NWFP and 2 in Balochistan) and more than 107,000 water courses. The aggregate length of the canals is about 56,073 km. In addition, the watercourses, farm channels and field ditches cover another 1.6 million km. The system utilizes over 41.6 MAF of groundwater, pumped through more than 500,000 tube wells, in addition to the canal supplies.

Outside the Indus Basin, there are smaller river basins. One on the Mekran coast of Balochistan drains directly in to the sea and a closed basin (Kharan). These in total amount to an inflow of less than 4 MAF annually.

Before the introduction of widespread irrigation, the groundwater table in the Indus Basin varied from about 40 feet in depth in Sindh and Bahawalpur areas to about 100 feet in Rechna Doab (the area between Ravi and Chenab Rivers). After the introduction of weir-controlled irrigation, the groundwater table started rising due to poor irrigation management, lack of drainage facilities and the resulting additional recharge from the canals, distributaries, minors, water courses and irrigation fields. At some locations, the water table rose to the ground surface or very close to the surface causing waterlogging and soil salinity, reducing productivity.

In the late 1950s, the Government embarked upon a programme of Salinity Control and Reclamation Projects (SCARPS) wherein large deep tube wells were installed to control the groundwater table. Over a period of about 30 years, some 13,500 tubewells were installed by the Government to lower the groundwater table. Of these, about 9,800 tube wells were in the Punjab.

The projects initially proved to be quite effective in lowering the water table but with time, the performance of the SCARP tubewells deteriorated. The development of deep public tube wells under the SCARPS was soon followed by private investment in shallow tube wells. Particularly in the eighties, the development of private tube wells received a boost, when locally manufactured inexpensive diesel engines became available. Most of these shallow tube wells were individually owned.

Now more than 500,000 tubewells supply about 41.6 MAF of supplemental irrigation water every year, mostly in periods of low surface water availability. These tubewells compensated the loss of pumping capacity of the SCARP tubewells and helped in lowering the water table.

The Indus Basin was formed by alluvial deposits carried by the Indus and its tributaries. It is underlain by an unconfined aquifer covering about 15 million acres in surface area. In the Punjab, about 79% of the area and in Sindh, about 28% of the area is underlain by fresh groundwater. This is mostly used as supplemental irrigation water and pumped through tubewells. Some groundwater is saline. Water from the saline tube wells is generally put into drains and, where this is not possible, it is discharged into large canals for use in irrigation, after diluting with the fresh canal water.

In the last 25- 30 years, ground water has become a major supplement to canal supplies, especially in the Upper Indus Plain, where ground water quality is good. Large scale tubewell pumpage for irrigation started in the early sixties. There are presently more than 500,000 tubewells in the Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) and the annual pumpage in all canal command areas has been estimated to be over 50 BCM. According to a study, the total groundwater potential in Pakistan is of the order of 55 MAF.

Major part of the groundwater abstraction for irrigation is within the canal commands or in the flood plains of the rivers. However, the amount of abstraction varies throughout the area, reflecting inadequacy/unreliability of surface water supplies and groundwater quality distribution.

The quality of groundwater ranges from fresh (salinity less than 1000 mg/l TDS) near the major rivers to highly saline farther away, with salinity more than 3000 mg/l TDS. The general distribution of fresh and saline groundwater in the country is well known and mapped, as it influences the options for irrigation and drinking water supplies.

Punjab
About 79% of the Punjab province has access to fresh groundwater. Some 9.78 million acres are underlain with groundwater of less than 1000 mg/l TDS, 3 million acres with salinity ranging from 1000 to 3000 mg/l TDS and 3.26 million acres with salinity more than 3000 mg/l TDS.

Saline waters are mostly encountered in the central Doab areas. The Cholistan area in southern Punjab is well known for highly brackish waters, which cannot be used for drinking purposes. Groundwater with high fluoride content is found in the Salt Range, Kasur and Mianwali. There are also reports of high fluoride content, ranging from 65 to 12 mg/l in groundwater in the Bahawalpur area. Samplings of groundwater in Jhelum, Gujrat and Sargodha districts have shown concentrations of arsenic well above the WHO guideline value of 50 g/l.

Sindh
Around 28% of the Sindh province has access to fresh groundwater suitable for irrigation i.e. the water has less than 1000 mg/l TDS. Close to the edges of the irrigated lands, fresh groundwater can be found at 20 - 25 m depth. Large areas in the province are underlain with groundwater of poor quality. Indiscriminate pumping has resulted in contamination of the aquifer at many places where the salinity of tubewell water has increased. The areas with non-potable, highly brackish water include Thar, Nara and Kohistan. In Tharparkar and Umarkot, the situation is further complicated by the occurrence of high fluoride in the groundwater.

NWFP
In NWFP, abstraction in excess of recharge in certain areas such as Karak, Kohat, Bannu and D.I. Khan has lowered the water table and resulted in the contamination from underlying saline water.

Balochistan
The Makran coastal zone and several other basins contain highly brackish groundwater. Local communities use groundwater with TDS as high as 3000 mg/l, for drinking purposes, as there are no alternatives. In Mastung Valley, the groundwater has been found to have high fluoride content. The Makran coast and Kharan have also been reported to have high fluoride groundwater.

Government expenditure in the water sector has randomly fluctuated since independence, because the allocation of funds for the development of the sector have not observed consistent growth patterns. Also, the relative priority of water sector has changed during various government regimes. The expenditure in the water sector as accrued during the 5-year development plans of the government are shown in the graph below:

The goals of the government for the development of water resources are reflected in the WAPDA Vision 2025 document, which stipulates the addition of 64 MAF of storage capacity and about 27,000 MW of additional power - mainly through hydel sources, by the year 2025. The estimated investment for Vision 2025 will be $50 billion spread over the next 25 years.

1. Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority, "Annual Report 1999-2000", 2001.

2. Dr. Bashir A Chandio and Ms Nuzhat Yasmin, "Proceedings of the National Workshop on Water Resources Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for the Next Millennium", Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, June 1999.

3. Asim R. Khan, M. Kaleem Ullah, Saim Muhammad, "Water Availability and Some Macro Level Issues Related to Water Resources Planning and Management in the Indus Basin Irrigation System in Pakistan", 2002.

4. Proceedings of a Symposium at Burlington House, London, "The Indus River - Biodiversity, Resources, Humankind", Oxford University Press, July 1994.

5. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Govt of Pakistan, "Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 2001", April 2001.

6. Sir M.MacDonald & Partners Ltd, National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd, Harza Engineering co International LP, Associated Consulting Engineers ACE (Pvt) Ltd, "Water Sector Investment Planning Study" Provincial Investment Plans, December 1990.

7. Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, Lahore, "Proceedings - Water for the 21st Century: Demand, Supply, Development and Socio- Environmental Issues", June 1997.

8. Global Water Partnership, "Draft South Asia - Water Vision 2025" Country Report - Pakistan, 2000.

9. Asian Development Bank - TA, Water Resources Sector Strategy, "National Water Sector Profile", April 2002.

10. Planning Commission, Govt of Pakistan (Sep 2001), "Ten Year Perspective Development Plan 2001-11& Three Year Development Programme 2001-04".

11. Dr. Nazir Ahmad, "Water Resources of Pakistan", Miraj uddin Press, Lahore September 1993.

12. Partial data acquired from Indus River System Authority for flows of rivers in Pakistan.

The waters of the Indus Basin rivers had been used for irrigation purposes even before the development of the present canal system by British engineers in the early 19th century. There were numerous inundation canals in the Indus Valley, which diverted supplies directly from the rivers during the high flow periods, without any diversion works across the riverbed. The local community, tribes, or states managed these inundation canals.

From the middle of the 19th century onwards, irrigation was gradually extended through the introduction of improved methods and the construction of diversion works across the rivers. A number of agreements for the sharing of river waters took place. The most significant of these have been the Indus Basin Treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan and the Water Apportionment Accord (1991) between the four provinces of Pakistan.

In August 1947, when South Asia was divided into two independent countries, there existed in the area, one of the most highly developed irrigation systems in the world. The system catered to approximately 37 million acres of land, supplying it with the waters of the Indus rivers. All available water supplies were allocated to various princely States and provinces, in conformity with the principle of equitable apportionment of waters.

The Indus System of Rivers in the Indus Basin comprises of the Indus and its five main tributaries i.e. Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. They all combine into one river near Mithan Kot in Pakistan and flow into the Arabian Sea, south of Karachi. The total area of the Indus Basin is roughly 365,000 miles2. Most of it lies in Pakistan and the remaining is part of occupied Jammu and Kashmir, India, China and Afghanistan.

At the time of Independence, 31 out 37 million acres in Pakistan were irrigated. The boundary line between the two countries being partitioned was drawn without any regard to the existing irrigation works. It was, however, affirmed by the Boundary Commission. Representatives of the affected zones expressly agreed before the Arbitral Tribunal that the authorized zones in the common water supply would continue to be respected.

The water dispute between Pakistan and India began when on April 01, 1948, immediately after the winding up of the Arbitral Tribunal, India stopped irrigation waters in every irrigation canal which crossed the India-Pakistan boundary. This affected 1.6 million acres of irrigated land in Pakistan.

The abrupt act stressed the urgent need for Pakistan to formulate an agreement between the two countries regarding the future use and distribution of the combined waters.

India demanded that Pakistan recognize that the proprietary rights on the waters of the rivers in Indian Punjab were wholly vested in the Indian government and that the Pakistani government could not claim any share of those waters as a right for areas of Punjab in Pakistan. Pakistan's claim was based upon the time honored formula that existing uses were sacrosanct and excess water, not previously committed, could be divided amongst the riparians according to area, population etc. This principle had the support of several treaties, nations or states and provisions in the same country.

The Indian put forward a principle, which had been advanced for some time during international negotiations but had not been accepted anywhere. Under this principle, the upper riparian had absolute right to the water and the lower riparian could only get it under an agreement or treaty, if the same were entered between the riparians.

India agreed to restore some of the supplies in May 1948, when a very pro-Indian temporary agreement was signed. It was, however, generally realized that Pakistan could not survive without a restoration of the full supplies and. on this question there could be no compromise. The controversy was serious enough to provoke an imminent war between the two countries.

Direct negotiations between the two Parties failed to resolve the dispute. Negotiations under the offices of the World Bank commenced in May 1952. It was agreed to work out specific engineering measures by which the supplies effectively available to each country would be increased substantially. The working party set up under the offices of the World Bank however failed to agree on a comprehensive plan for the utilization of the waters of the Indus River System. After eight years of intense negotiation, agreement between the two parties was finally reached in the form of the Indus Water Treaty in 1960.

The Indus Water Treaty was signed at Karachi on September 19, 1960. It consists of 12 articles and 8 appendices …

(i) All the waters of the Eastern rivers shall be available for the unrestricted use of India.

(ii) Except for domestic and non-consumptive uses, Pakistan shall be under an obligation to let flow, and shall not permit any interference with, the waters of Sutlej Main and the Ravi Main in the reaches where these rivers flow in Pakistan and have not yet finally crossed into Pakistan.

(iii) All the waters, while flowing in Pakistan, of any tributary which, in its natural course joins the Sutlej Main or the Ravi Main after these rivers have finally crossed into Pakistan shall be available for the unrestricted use of Pakistan.

(i) Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use all those waters of the western rivers.

(ii) 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.

(i) Pakistan shall use its best endeavors to construct and bring into operation a system of works that will accomplish the replacement from the Western rivers (and other sources of ) the water supplies for irrigation canals in Pakistan, which on 15th August, 1947 were dependent on water supplies from the Eastern rivers.

(ii) The use of the natural channels of the rivers for the discharge of flood or other access waters shall be free and not subject to limitation by either party, or neither party shall have any claim against the other in respect of any damage caused by such use.

(iii) Each party declares its intention to prevent, as far as practicable, undue pollution of the waters and agrees to ensure that, before any sewage or industrial waste is allowed to flow into the rivers, it will be treated where necessary, in such manners as not materially to affect those use.

From Pakistan's point of view, the settlement plan, as envisaged under the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, had some advantages as well as certain defects.

(i) After the completion of the Indus Basin Replacement Plan works each country became independent of the other in the operation of its supplies.

(ii) Each country is responsible for planning, constructing and administering its own facilities in its own interests and free to allocate its supplies within its own territories as it deems fit.

(iii) This provides strong incentives to each country to make the most effective use of water, since any efficiency accomplished by works undertaken by either country for storage, transfer, reduction of losses and the like, accrues directly to the benefit of that country. The same is true of efficiency achieved in operations.

(iv) The independence afforded by the program also brought a benefit of a different kind. The location of works serving each country or territories under its control, and the assurances against interference by either country with the supplies on which the other depends has reduced the chances of disputes and tension.

(v) Before the completion of Indus Basin Project works, after the signing of the Treaty, the entire irrigation system in the Indus Basin was based on run-of-the-river supplies. The hydrology of the rivers is such that about 80% of the total water was produced during the monsoon period - July to September - storage projects due to the treaty also increased the canal water diversions.

(vi) The winter supplies became very critical in drought periods. With supplies made available and the storage of water in the Reservoirs, water availability in winter has been assured and so the country is insignificantly affected in drought conditions. Besides total withdrawals and canal heads in Pakistan has increased from about 67 MAF to 104.5 MAF

(i) The traditional sailab (flood) irrigation, the most ancient way of using river waters, on the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi would disappear, because when these rivers are fully developed by India, the traditional floods would decrease or disappear and the sailab areas would not get seasonal water, which permitted cultivation. This area is considerable in extent.

(ii) Due to loss of regular flow in the Eastern Rivers, the channels have become silt up and floods in the channels causes great havoc in Pakistan, in addition to other environmental effects.

(iii) The up-keep of the new link canals and storages mean a very heavy additional burden on the cost of maintaining irrigation. Besides, storages are no substitute to the perpetual flow of water as the storages have limited life.

Under the provisions of Article VIII(1) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, both India and Pakistan have appointed a Commissioner for Indus Waters. Unless either Government decides to take up any particular question directly with the other Government, each Commissioner is the representative of his Government for all matters arising out of the Treaty and serves as the regular channel of communication on all matters relating to the implementation of the Treaty.

The two Commissioners together form the PERMANENT INDUS COMMISSION whose purpose and functions are (i) to establish and maintain cooperative arrangements for the implementation of the Treaty, (ii) to promote co-operation between the Parties in the development of the waters of the 'Rivers', (iii) to make every effort to settle promptly any question arising between the Parties and (iv) to undertake tours of inspection of the Rivers to ascertain facts.

Under the Treaty, restrictions have been placed on the design and operation of Hydroelectric Plants, Storage Works and other river works to be constructed by India on the Western Rivers. India is required to supply Pakistan with certain specified information relating to these works at least 6 months in advance of undertaking the river works, to enable Pakistan to satisfy itself that the design conforms to the criteria set out in the Treaty. Within a specified period ranging from two to three months of the receipt, Pakistan has the right to communicate its objections in writing to India, if any.

Under the Treaty, Pakistan was required to construct and bring into operation a system of works, which could accomplish the replacement of supplies for irrigation canals from the Western Rivers in Pakistan. These included those canals that were dependent on water supplies from the Eastern Rivers on 15th August 1947. These replacement works, comprising two storage dams, six new barrages, remodeling of two existing barrages, seven new inter-rivers link canals and remodeling of two existing link canals, have since been completed.

3. Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, Lahore, "Proceedings - Water for the 21st Century: Demand, Supply, Development and Socio- Environmental Issues", June 1997.

4. Dr. Nazir Ahmad, "Water Resources of Pakistan", Miraj uddin Press, Lahore September 1993.

5. Partial data acquired from Indus River System Authority for flows of rivers in Pakistan.

Efficient use of shared water resources has long been challenged by the reluctance of some neighboring nations to share "their" water, with conflict the most likely result. Rising water costs alone necessitate greater efficiencies: integrated management practices and some market-based means offer avenues for both reducing conflict and curbing costs.

From Canada to Mexico, from Africa to the Middle East, from Asia to Europe, conflicts and the potential for conflicts are growing over the availability of water. While sharing water resources has long been divisive, today's rising environmental, social, and financial costs of managing Earth's most abundant and renewable natural resource exacerbate these perennial tensions. Easing such tensions becomes imperative at a time when demands for water are rising. The greater efficiencies achievable by integrated resource management, developing water markets, and price incentives may prove the best ways to achieve this end.

Several factors underlie virtually all international conflicts over water and pose problems for managing and allocating it efficiently and equitably. These include the variability and uncertainty of supplies, the interdependencies among users, and the increasing scarcity and rising costs of freshwater. Because water is a "fugitive" resource—naturally flowing from one location and one state (liquid, gas, or solid) to another—individuals and countries have incentives to capture and use the resource before it moves beyond their control but little, if any, incentive to conserve and protect supplies for downstream users.

Also at the root of conflict, however, are other human elements: the vulnerability of water quality and aquatic ecosystems to human activities, the failure to treat water as an economic resource, the desire for food security and self-sufficiency in arid and semiarid regions of the world, and the importance of water to public health and economic development.

These human factors are making conflicts over water resources within countries increasingly common. When water is shared by two or more countries, the obstacles to achieving efficient, equitable, and conflict-free management are even greater. Such are the situations—described later in this article—between India and its neighbors Pakistan and Bangladesh and among most of the nations of the Middle East

From the standpoint of integrated resource management, these human factors contribute to the inefficient division of an otherwise natural hydrological unit. Efficient management techniques require treating all the water in a given river basin, aquifer, or watershed as a unitary resource: overcoming the tendency among neighbors to exploit water unilaterally would provide a cost-effective way to increase freshwater supplies. The institutional obstacles to achieving this, though, can be considerable.

Even within the United States, multistate water laws, independent water management systems, and institutional inertia impede the introduction of more efficient management systems. Greater obstacles to integrated regional water management are likely when different countries and cultures, and even historical animosities, are involved. Consequently, achieving a sense of equity, perhaps through formalizations of historic patterns of use, among all parties may be a more realistic short-term goal than efficiency in settling international disputes.

Water will surely become increasingly scarce, however, and questions of efficiency ultimately should grow to assume greater significance in resolving conflicts. Developing markets and market-based prices allows the peaceful transfer of most resources among countries.

Under some very restrictive conditions, markets lead to an efficient distribution and use of a resource: under a wide range of conditions, the market process contributes to a more efficient allocation and management of these resources. Markets can provide individual people as well as countries with increased opportunities and incentives to develop, transfer, and use a resource in ways that would benefit all parties.

Two conditions must be satisfied for the development of efficient markets. There must be well-defined and transferable property rights in the resource being transferred, and the buyers and sellers must bear the full benefits and costs of the transfer. Both conditions are now commonly violated for water resources. The fugitive nature of the resource makes it difficult to establish clear property rights, and the interdependencies among users might cause externalities or third-party impacts when the use or location of water is changed.

Rivers and lakes that border multiple countries, rivers that flow from one country to another, and aquifers that underlie more than one country are international resources: the use of the resource by one country affects the quantity or quality of the resource available to another country. Such situations are numerous: about 200 river basins are shared by two or more countries. Thirteen are shared by five or more countries, and four basins—the Congo, Danube, Nile, and Niger—are shared by nine or more countries. Shared watersheds comprise about 47 percent of the global land area and more than 60 percent of the area on the continents of Africa, Asia, and South America. (Groundwater resources are also frequently shared by two or more countries.)

The Middle East. The competition for water in the Middle East is so intense that lasting peace in the region is unlikely in the absence of an agreement over shared water use. Indeed, negotiations over water have a separate role in the ongoing peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. Outstanding issues and potential sources of conflict include the allocation and control of the Jordan River, the use of the aquifers underlying the West Bank, and Jordanian objections to the construction and operation of Syrian dams on the Yarmuk, the major tributary of the Jordan River. Water has already been the source of armed conflict in the region between Syria and Israel, once in the 1950s and again in the 1960s.

Several times over the past thirty years, disputes among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq over the development and use of the Euphrates River have nearly ended in armed conflict. Disputes arose in the 1960s when Turkey, where 90 percent of the water originates, and Syria started to plan large-scale withdrawals for irrigation. The conflicts heated up in 1974 when Iraq threatened to bomb the dam at Tabqa, Syria, and massed troops along the border because of the reduced flows they were receiving in the Euphrates. The threats were renewed in the spring of 1975. With the completion of the Ataturk Dam in January 1990, Turkey is in a pivotal position to influence the downstream flow of the river. Potentially, the dam could benefit all countries within the basin by reducing the variability of the river's natural flows. But the dam gives Turkey a potential water weapon that could be used against the downstream countries. The Ataturk Dam and related water projects could reduce flows as much as 40 percent to Syria and 80 percent to Iraq. The threat of reduced water flows has been used in an attempt to force Syria to withdraw support of the Kurdish rebels operating in southern Turkey. Border security and water sharing have been linked in recent negotiations between the two countries.

The Indian subcontinent. When the Indian subcontinent was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947, long-standing conflicts over the Indus River became overnight an international issue between two hostile countries. The partitioning divided the basin physically and split an established irrigation system between the two countries without specifying how the waters were to be divided. India was left with control of the waters supplying Pakistan's irrigation canals, and in 1948 India diverted those waters away from Pakistan. Although the canals were later reopened, the dispute threatened to lead to war. With help from the World Bank, negotiations over water issues between the two countries began in 1952. Concerns over sovereignty stymied the bank's attempts to develop and manage the basin as a unitary system for the mutual advantage of both countries. The Indus was divided between the two countries, with India receiving the three eastern and Pakistan the three western tributaries. This division deprived Pakistan of the original source of water for its irrigation system. In compensation, India paid for new canals to bring water from the rivers allocated to Pakistan and a consortium of countries financed the construction of storage dams to ensure Pakistan a reliable supply. At a price, the treaty defused a major source of potential conflict and allowed each country to develop its share of the basin's waters.

Bangladesh, which gained its independence from Pakistan twenty-five years ago with the aid of India's army, is now threatening to cancel its Treaty of Friendship with its former liberator because of conflicts over water. Most of Bangladesh's rivers flow from India, which has shown little concern about the impacts of its water developments on its downstream neighbor. A major diversion from the Ganges River just a few miles from the Bangladesh border has increased salinity levels and reduced water supplies in the Padma River (as the Ganges is known in Bangladesh), threatening the livelihood of millions of Bangladeshis.

The former Soviet Union. The breakup of the Soviet Union has also converted some formerly domestic water issues into potential international conflicts. Water scarcity and conflicts are particularly acute in the five former central Asian republics of the Soviet Union that share the flows of the Amu Dar'ya and Syr Dar'ya rivers. These two rivers originate in the high mountains to the southeast and flow through deserts to the Aral Sea. As recently as 1960 the Aral Sea was the world's fourth largest lake in area. Since then, water diverted primarily for cotton production has altered the water balance of the Aral; between 1960 and 1989 the sea declined precipitously in level, area, and volume. Mismanagement of the region's water and land resources has produced an ecological and human disaster with few parallels: the once productive fishing industry has disappeared; rising soil salinity has depressed agricultural yields; pesticides applied to the cotton have contaminated drinking water supplies in the lower reaches of the river basins, with tragic impacts on human health. Reversing decades of mismanagement and abuse of the region's water supplies may be more difficult now that it requires the cooperation of five struggling newly formed countries.

The lack of clear property rights to international water resources is an obstacle to more efficient resource management and to the resolution of water conflicts. Two extreme and opposing doctrines have been proposed for establishing property rights over international waters. The doctrine of unlimited territorial sovereignty states that a country has exclusive rights to the use of waters within its territory. This doctrine, which allows a country to deplete and pollute with no obligation to compensate adversely affected parties, was asserted by the U.S. Attorney General in 1895 in rejecting Mexico's claims to waters originating in the United States. Although the United States subsequently modified its stance on shared waters, this view characterizes India's approach for development of the Ganges River.

The contrasting doctrine of unlimited territorial integrity states that one country cannot alter the quantity and quality of water available to another. This doctrine, which greatly constrains how the upstream country can use the resource, is reflected in Egypt's threats against countries proposing water development projects that would reduce the waters of the Nile reaching Egypt.

In the absence of bargaining, both of these doctrines are likely to lead to inefficient outcomes. Under the first doctrine India has no incentive to mitigate the impacts on Bangladesh regardless of the relative magnitude of the damages imposed and the costs of abatement. On the other hand, under the second doctrine upstream countries on the Nile risk the wrath of a more powerful downstream neighbor unless they forego potentially profitable development projects regardless of how high the costs of mitigation and how small the impacts.

In practice, international water disputes generally have moved away from the extreme positions implied by these two doctrines and toward a doctrine of equitable and reasonable use. Although this narrows the likely range of disagreement, it does not provide clear property rights. In the absence of enforceable property rights, the strongest, most clever, and most advantageously positioned countries can claim and use the resource with little concern for the impacts on others. Opportunities for coordinated management may be lost in the acrimony over rights to the resource and obligations to mitigate any adverse impacts imposed on others.

Inefficient management of and conflicts over international water resources reflect problems in the management and allocation of water resources within individual countries. Individual water rights might be limited or poorly defined, constraining the ability to transfer water among competing users and uses in response to changing conditions. Water prices commonly reflect only a small fraction of the social costs associated with use, reducing incentives to conserve and protect the resource. The institutions controlling water use are often rooted in a "pre-scarcity" era when transfers were viewed as unnecessary or unimportant. Similarly, cultural and religious considerations may result in water being viewed as too important or too sacred to have its use determined by the impersonal outcome of markets.

Equity considerations and historical use have been more important than efficiency in the management of both domestic and internationally shared water resources. Relatively few precedents demonstrate the potential advantages of efficient integrated management of an entire hydrologic unit. Yet, as water becomes increasingly scarce, the potential benefits of integrated management—and of institutions that enable scarce resources to be transferred among competing uses in response to changing conditions—will grow. Institutions that perpetuate inefficient water use will become increasingly costly and unstable. Inflexible and inefficient international agreements, which must be self-enforcing, may not be sustainable.

Much of the world's most accessible freshwater supplies are located within basins and aquifers that cross international borders. Inflexible, inefficient, and often inequitable agreements for managing international waters contribute to rising water costs, growing concerns over the adequacy of supplies, and potential conflicts. More flexible allocation mechanisms and efficient management practices are critical for avoiding future conflicts over international supplies and curbing the rise in water costs. Introducing markets and market-based prices, which provide peaceful transfer of other resources among countries, might help promote a more efficient and flexible allocation of water resources located in international basins.

Dam Projects Must Take Into Consideration Social Factors

India and Pakistan were not at war in this unusual hearing on large dams being held in Colombo, convened by the World Commission on Dams. The official line from India and Pakistan on water resource use and large dams was almost identical as was the presentation of the problems the two Governments face in building large dams.

The controversial Kalabagh dam, downstream of the existing Tarbela dam on the Indus river, was the main focus of the presentations from Pakistan before the commission. ``The project stands shelved'', announced the Member and Managing Director of Pakistan's Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Sardar Muhammad Tariq. He stated that this was because of the opposition to the dam from different quarters. ``The world has changed. There are more than two views on these issues. That is why we are sitting together here as we have to learn from each other,'' he said.

Such a conciliatory attitude came as a surprise to most people attending the two-day South Asian hearing on large dams as the presentations by Mr. Tariq and two others from Pakistan representing the non-governmental point of view bristled with considerable hostility and tension.

The common thread that ran through their presentations, however, was an acknowledgement by both sides that environmental and social considerations had not been taken into account when the two large dams, the Mangala and the Tarbela, were built in the Sixties and the Seventies. Mr. Tariq acknowledged that in both cases, there were disputes over compensation, the displaced could not get possession of allocated lands and had problems adjusting to their relocation sites.

“Settlers in the new hamlets suffered from delays in the availability of lifeline facilities whereas those who continued living in nearby old places along the reservoir rim suffered from dislodged communications and health facilities”, he said.

Siltation was the other major problem affecting the efficiency of Mangala and Tarbela. The Indus is the fifth largest silt carrying river in the world bringing with it a load of 200 million tonnes of silt a year. Half of the new storage capacity that Pakistan hopes to gain if it builds two more large dams on the Indus - Kalabagh and Basha - will go towards replacing what is lost due to sedimentation from the existing dams. The only alternative to these two dams, Mr. Tariq argued, was several smaller projects for which an adequate number of suitable sites were not available. Thus, he saw no option but to go ahead with plans for the larger dams.

Contradicting the Pakistani official on almost every point, Mr. Shaheen Rafi Khan of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute of Pakistan (SDPI) argued that building the Kalabagh dam was not justified. He pointed out, for instance, that the water availability figures being projected by WAPDA had not just changed over time but were highly suspect.

For instance, it first gave a figure of 123 MAF (million acre feet) as the surface flow to justify building the Kalabagh dam based on calculations of flows over a 64-year period, which included both wet and dry cycles. Later, it revised this to 143 MAF, based on a 22 year period of only the wet cycle.

Secondly, Mr. Khan pointed out that even if more water was made available from the Kalabagh dam, there was not enough land available to use the water. At present, there was a wastage of 30 per cent in the existing water supplied for irrigation. Thus, more prudent use of water was a better option, he argued.

Compensating adequately for environmental damage that such a dam would cause, Mr. Khan argued, would completely alter the cost- benefit ratio and would not support the belief that hydel power is cheaper. He pointed out that the Indus delta ecosystem had already been adversely affected by the existing dams.

Mr. Khan also countered the argument that large dams were useful for flood control by showing figures which revealed that despite dams, the losses from floods in Pakistan had not decreased.

Finally, on the question of consulting people before any such large projects are built in future - projects which result in large-scale displacement of communities - Mr. Tariq stated that the Government had learned its lessons from past mistakes and was going through a process of full consultation in the case of the Ghazi Barotha Hydro project, due to be completed in 2001.

In all the presentations made on the first day of the hearings, the central issue that is emerging is how governments can devise an adequate mechanism of consultation before a project is planned so that it does not get delayed because of opposition from communities facing displacement or by groups concerned about the long-term adverse environmental impact.

Kalpana Sharma, The Hindu, 12 December1998

http://yangtze.cs.uiuc.edu/~jamali/kalabagh/thehindu/index.html

In 1991, an agreement to share waters of the Indus River was reached between the four provinces of Pakistan in the form of the Water Apportionment Accord (WAA). This accord is based on both, the existing and future water needs of the four provinces.

The Chief Ministers of the four provinces, in a unique demonstration of mutual cooperation and national spirit, resolved the long outstanding dispute, which had brought water development in the country to a grinding halt.

Even during the pre-partition era, there were episodes of contention among various provinces of the sub-continent over water. As early as 1920, during the period when Sutlej valley and Sukkur barrage projects were under consideration, some doubts were expressed about the availability of water for these projects. Moreover, Bhawalpur State also protested against the allocation of waters to non-riparian areas. The then Government of India persuaded the Punjab, Bhawalpur and Bikanir states to sign an agreement called the Sutlej Valley Tripartite Agreement of 1920.

During the operation of the Sutlej valley projects, it was noted that river supplies were short of assumed supplies particularly in the early kharif period. To investigate this, a Sutlej Valley Project Inquiry Committee was setup in 1932. Later, the Anderson Committee was set up in 1935 to examine the distribution of water for Sutlej valley projects, Sukkur barrage and other projects proposed by Punjab.

In 1939, the Government of Sindh lodged a complaint against the Government of Punjab about the perceived effects of the Punjab projects on inundation canals of Sindh and on Sukkur barrage. The Rau Commission was constituted which presented its recommendations in 1942.

The post-independence period has also witnessed similar events. In 1968, under the chairmanship of Mr Akhtar Hussain, the Water Allocation and Rates Committee was constituted by the Governor of former West Pakistan to review barrage water allocations, reservoir release patterns, drawdown levels and use of groundwater in relation to surface water deliveries. The Committee submitted its report on July 01, 1970 when the provinces were revived. No attention was paid to this report.

As a result, the Justice Fazle Akbar Committee was constituted in October 1970 to recommend apportionment of waters of the River Indus and its tributaries. The Committee submitted its report in 1971. During the same time period, ad hoc distribution of Chashma barrage and later Tarbela reservoir storage among the provinces was ordered. No decision was taken on the Fazle Akbar Committee recommendations and water continued to be distributed on ad hoc orders by the Government of Pakistan.

In 1977, the Government of Pakistan established another commission comprising the Chief Justices of the High Courts of the Provinces, headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to examine the issue of water apportionment. The report of this commission is still pending with the Government of Pakistan.

It was finally the Chief Ministers of the provinces who managed to reach consensus on the contentious issue. The breakthrough came in a series of meeting, first in Lahore and finally on March 16 in Karachi.

Surface water developments after the final commissioning of the Tarbela Dam Project in 1977, were almost stalled due to the non-resolution of the inter-provincial water dispute. The country underwent a one and a half decade long crisis related to irrigation supplies and hydropower generation before reaching consensus. Load-shedding and irregular agriculture produce was observed during this period. An inter-provincial agreement became essential to solve the longstanding dispute of canal water uses, shares in the river supplies and surplus flows in the form of floods, etc.

An agreement called the "Apportionment of the Water of the Indus River System between Provinces" was arrived upon, which had two important features:

ii. It apportions the balance of river supplies, including flood surpluses and future storages among the provinces.

The Water Apportionment Accord was agreed upon on March 16, 1991 at Karachi in a meeting of the Chief Minister's of the four provinces along with several provincial representatives. The accord allocates the following share to provinces:

Province	Kharif (MAF)	Rabi (MAF)	Total (MAF)
Punjab	37.07	18.87	55.94
Sindh *	33.94	14.82	48.76
NWFP (a)	3.48	2.3	5.78
(b) Civil Canals **	1.80	1.2	3.00
Balochistan	2.85	1.02	3.87
Total	77.34	37.01	114.35
**	1.8	1.2	3
* Including already sanctioned Urban and Industrial uses for Metropolitan Karachi.
** Ungauged Civil Canals above the rim stations

(i) The system-wise allocation would be worked out separately, on ten daily basis and attached with the agreement as part and parcel of it.

(ii) The record of actual average system uses for the period 1977-82, would form the guide line for developing a future regulation pattern. These ten daily uses would be adjusted pro-rata to correspond to the indicated seasonal allocations of the different canal systems and would form the basis for sharing shortages and surpluses on all Pakistan basis.

(iii) The existing reservoirs would be operated with priority for the irrigation uses of the Provinces

(iv) The provinces would have the freedom within their allocations to modify system-wise and period-wise uses.

(v) All efforts would be made to avoid wastages. Any surpluses may be used by another province, but this would not establish any rights to such uses.

The Water Apportionment Accord allocated about 12 MAF of additional water to the four provinces for priority irrigation development. It also specified sharing percentages for the provinces out of balance river supplies for further development. Hence, the Water Apportionment Accord envisaged long-term surface water development in Pakistan, which should lead to ultimate canal head diversions of about 131 MAF.

Surplus river water is available only between 70-100 days during the flood season (June-September). Water Apportionment Accord has also specified 10 daily allocations of various provincial projects throughout the year, which take into account the additional allocations. To provide these additional allocations during the non-flood period of the year, it is necessary to store the surplus water.

In the absence of new storage facilities, the provinces will be forced to share the shortages and in this scenario, the largest suffering will be transferred on to the new irrigation projects. Hence it is in the interest of all provinces to encourage the development of water resources projects in order to increase national storage capacity.

Pakistan has been facing drought conditions for the past 3 years. Moreover, seasonal and hydrologic variations, escapages to sea and canal water diversions create a huge imbalance in water availability.

The following tables have been generated for both kharif and rabi seasons using statistics at the first rim station on the Indus system - the Tarbela Rim Station. Averages of post-Tarbela period i.e. 1975-2000 have been calculated for the three western rivers.

A similar exercise has been undertaken for the three eastern rivers for the period 1990-2000. Average escapages below Kotri are also averaged for the period of 1975-2000 for both kharif and rabi. Finally, the canal water diversions are calculated for averages between the years 1975-2000 for both kharif and rabi.

It may be noted that the Water Accord allocates a total of 114.35 for the four provinces for canal water diversions whereas the averages are far below the amount of water allocated for development and implementation of irrigation projects. These facts clearly indicate the urgent need for development of water storage projects.

	Rim Station Inflow of Indus River and its Western Tributaries
1975-2000	Kharif	Rabi	Annual
Average MAF	118.99	25.92	144.91

	Eastern Rivers Inflow at Rim Stations
1990-2000	Kharif	Rabi	Annual Total
Average MAF	7.446	1.69	9.136

	Outflow to Sea below Kotri
1975-2000	Kharif	Rabi	Annual
Average MAF	37.01	2.49	39.5

	Canal Water Diversions
1975-2000	Kharif	Rabi	Annual
Average MAF	67.11	37.63	104.73

1. Dr. Bashir A Chandio and Ms Nuzhat Yasmin, "Proceedings of the National Workshop on Water Resources Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for the Next Millennium", Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, June 1999.

2. Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, Lahore, "Proceedings - Water for the 21st Century: Demand, Supply, Development and Socio- Environmental Issues", June 1997.

3. Asian Development Bank - TA, Water Resources Sector Strategy, "National Water Sector Profile", April 2002

4. Dr. Nazir Ahmad, "Water Resources of Pakistan", Miraj uddin Press, Lahore September 1993.

Mention of the very word "water" does bring water in the parched mouths of drought-hit people of Baluchistan and Sindh. This is the worst ever drought experienced since the inception of Pakistan. Scarcity of water did affect millions of people. Scores of people water-starved. Thousands of animals perished. And crops covering hundreds of acres of land destroyed. All this famine-like situation is just because of the non-availability of water-resources. The drought has now touched the frontiers of NWFP and is creeping silently into its one-time fertile villages. Pakistan has a rich water-resource base. But this was never exploited by government due to lack of political will and absence of a long-term vision. The general public either because of ignorance or apathy didn't pay any considerable heed to the emerging crisis of fresh water. The water-table went down and down but nobody took any notice. In 1950 a big quantity of 5300 cubic meters per capita surface water was available for irrigation purposes which came down to 1400 cubic meters in 1988.

However, the minimum requirement is 1000 cubic meters to avoid "water short country list" it is feared that by 2005, Pakistan will face acute water shortage. " Every year 40-50 million acre feet (MAF) water is being wasted by flowing into the sea unutilized but no one cares, lamented Hashmat Awan, an expert of hydel projects on the eve of "Earth Day" in a seminar on "Emerging water crisis in Pakistan and its solutions" arranged by FFEJ in collaboration with SPCS-Support Unit of IUCN-The World conservation Union. He opined that the present reservoirs' capacity of our dams like Tarbela, Mangla and Warsak etc. is not sufficient for the irrigation purposes because due to silting their capacity for water storage have been reduced to a great extent. Hashmat was quite right in suggesting for the construction of new dams like Zaibi Dam, Tanda Dam and Pehur High Level Canal to have more storage of water and more generation of energy.

Unfortunately, we as a nation have developed a very extravagant culture and lavish life style. The judicious use of a precious commodity like water is nowhere visible. At one place the fresh drinking water may be flowing unnoticed. And at other places, the people may be dying for a drop of it. According to a research half of the total water supply is leaked away. Only 40% of the existing water-resources is utilized. Rest of the 60% goes to waste which is a big question mark staring at our water-starved pale faces. As a consequence of this wastage it's estimated that by the year 2025, at least 52 countries inhabiting half of the world population would be hit by fresh water scarcity. "Although the oceans of the world contain an unlimited supply of water, yet supply for potable water is becoming insufficient for the rapidly increasing population and some 3 billion people will face water shortage in the next 25 years, says a report by leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD-Pakistan).

Pakistan is one of the countries depended for is survival on the very existence of water. "For one ton of food 1000 tons of water is required and countries in which annual run off per capita falls below 1700 m3 start facing difficulties. Pakistan is close to join the list of those countries" warns Information Manager, SDNP, Islamabad. Food shortage is sure to start after the acute scarcity of water. No big exaggeration to say that all future wars would be fought on water. This life-saving commodity is getting scarce with every passing day.

The crisis of water went on deepening due to wrong project planning and water management. The persons responsible for the menace are the bureaucrats, technocrats and politicians who did play a horrible game for a
long 50 years with the future of coming generations. They never thought for a single moment that they are sitting in highly sensitive and responsible positions. Accumulation of wealth and lust for power was their only interest. The government and general public went blind for sustainable use of water and rational water management practices. Now see the results. Horrible indeed. A big chunk of the country is in the grip of drought. Immediate measures must be taken to mitigate the effects of this drought. Structural and non-structural actions are needed to increase the available water supplies along with improving the efficient use of those supplies. The most effective measures to mitigate drought for the near future are water management and conservation programs involving on-stream, off-stream, and underground storage of excess water; conjunctive use of surface and
ground water; improved and coordinated project operations; and waste-water reuse.

The problem of water scarcity in Pakistan does not solely stem from a shortage of resources. Its roots also lie in the realm of awareness and willingness to find a participatory solution that is feasible and sustainable. There was a time when the conventional view was that droughts are natural calamities and are God's way of punishing the sinners. They were either to be endured or to be escaped by moving away to somewhere where there was water. This was fine as long as one was a nomad and could move from one place to another, and there were no international borders. What most people these days do, however, is to the contrary. They opt to settle down in one place. Go to the same place to work everyday. Their children go to schools that stay in one place. Their offices stay in the same buildings, and their agricultural lands do not sprout feet overnight and take a walk around the country.

Pakistan's economy relies heavily on agriculture. Agriculture accounts for a major portion of the national product. It is a major source of raw material to the industry and also of foreign exchange. According to the latest Economic Survey by the Government of Pakistan, agriculture contributes 25 percent of the GDP and employs 44 percent of the workforce. Water shortages affect agriculture in a way that not only food security is threatened, especially in arid and semiarid areas where irrigation is the main source of water, but also employment and industry. On a global level, growth in food supplies in recent years has been attributed to increase in irrigation. There have been examples from other parts of the world, where technology has been used to desalinate water for municipal and industrial usage in coastal areas. The costs are quite high for agriculture purposes, and beyond our country's capacity.

Unlike most developing countries of the world, where according to latest estimates 70 to 80 percent of fresh water resources are used for agriculture purposes, Pakistan consumes up to 98 percent of its fresh water resources for agriculture. This trend of water consumption in Pakistan, over the last ten years, has been on the rise. From using 37 percent of the water available, we have now almost doubled this quantity by using almost 62 percent. This increase can be attributed to rising demands of a growing population, The true reason is, however, sadder than that. Pakistan may boast one of the best irrigation system in the world, but experts say that the water losses from our irrigation system are the highest in the world.

Pakistan, like other developing countries, is a country where more and more people are moving to cities with a hope to find a better life. Twenty-five years ago less than 40 percent of the world's population lived in urban areas. 25 years from now, more than 60 percent will be living in large cities. These cities need water for municipal and industrial purposes. If we only consider the case of Karachi, we will find that a large number of private water providers are supplying water to houses. The water that is supplied by the public provider is of poor quality and not enough to meet the needs of city. Islamabad may be considered as a model city where people think it rains most of the time, but there also one can find homeowners installing hand pumps. Statistical facts may give numbers that are either incomprehensible or debatable, but these day-to-day examples sometimes provide a better picture of the enormity of a problem.

Many governments have come and gone over the last twenty years. None of them stayed long enough to resolve any of the major problems. The leaders held rallies, people chanted slogans, but nothing was actually done. The reasons behind this failure include reluctance on the part of the institutions and the communities to treat water as an economic product. There is also an excessive reliance on inefficient institutions for water and water services, fragmented management of water between sectors and institutions, and inadequate recognition of the health and environmental concerns associated with current practices. The government has recently initiated a debate on building the Kalabagh dam, which may seem to some as the ultimate solution for the water problems of this country. But one must also realise that dams need to be maintained, and their capacity can very quickly decrease due to sedimentation. Without proper protection and management of natural resources, any new dam may not be the final solution of the problem.

Water scarcity is a problem that affects everyone and in all aspects of life. It is therefore of utmost importance that we should try to understand the problem in its entirety, its causes and full ramification of the solution that we may think are the correct measures. We may be right in constructing the Kalabagh dam, but it is time that we also asses how well we manage our water resources and whether we need to review the design of the Kalabagh dam before we embark on an expensive exercise that may not be right solution. What we need is a broad vision and along term view of the developmental needs of our country and the resources that we need to sustain growth. The solution may lie in increasing the number of dams, but it also lies in preventing crisis and regional disputes through measures that are economic and institutional. Water must be treated as an economic good, which is priced and taxed. Allocation and usage of water should be defined according to clear laws and policies that are agreed to by all stakeholders. If infrastructure is to be built for improving storage and distribution of water, then this should be done through participation and joint agreements. Any measures that are taken to resolve this problem, should be co-operative arrangements. Awareness and participation are two key elements of sustainable development and they should also apply to finding a solution to the problem of water scarcity in Pakistan.

Cholistanis, at last, have been rescued by the heaven. Successive rains in the last two weeks have filled their tobhas and kunds that will quench their thirst as well as of their live-stock. Although they have lost more than 200 fellows and four million cattle-heads they, always thankful to the Almighty Allah, are going to start their life anew. They are heading towards their jhuggis surrounded by sand dunes in deep desert and will soon repair their dwellings, arrange the marriages of their young ones, and their live-stock will be doubled within the span of one year. But one would wonder if the DC Bahawalpur Division, Mr. Masood Shah, changes his mind about the desert and its life: " it was a phenomenal disaster and, thank God, it is over", he would say.

In the mid 1980's the government started digging a canal to provide fresh water to Cholistan in cooperation with Asian Development Bank, but the project was stopped for reasons best known to the concerned authorities. Later, Cholistanis started digging up a canal on their own initiative to utilise the water from Head Sulemanki that every year goes wasted during the flood season, but they were stopped from doing so by the Rangers on the ground that this was a strategic area, where commoners were not allowed to tread.

Afterwards, UNICEF offered a grant of six million rupees for the construction of a canal from the same Head Sulemanki but nobody knows what happened to the project. Soon after the drought-spell started affecting Cholistan, a Japanese team visited the area to study the desert life. Where they were impressed by the uniqueness of life in Cholistan, they were moved by the hardships of the people due to inadequate arrangements for the supply of water to 118,000 human beings and 1.6 million of their live-stock. They offered to donate mobile turbines, that were to be shipped to Karachi. These could pump out water from the depth of 2700 feet. But, surprisingly, it was India that benefited from it: the government could not arrange Rs. 0.8 million required for transporting these turbines from Karachi to Cholistan and their plantation in the area.

For the last five years, the drought has been persisting in Cholistan creating a famine-like situation throughout the area. The divisional administration of Bahawalpur during this period remained under the false impression that it was a periodical phenomenon the people were accustomed to cope with. The persistent hope of Cholistanis that the situation would improve soon also prevented them from migrating towards the green belts of the Bahawalpur and Sukkar divisions.

The change of government at the federal level with a special objective to end administrative corruption and streamline the national economy created panic among the officials of the Bahawalpur division. Facing threat of suspension and other severe penalties, they concentrated more to save their own skin rather than that of the poor Cholistanis, well known for their patience like people of the desert around the world are accustomed to. Where the administration became strict in revealing facts about the drought-spell and its hazards in terms the loss of human life and that of the live-stock in the area, it termed the protest of nationalist parties as a part of their anti-state propaganda - thus forcing the media men to neglect it and concentrate more on the developments in the drought-hit areas in Sindh and Balochistan. Moreover, traders' protest in the major cities of Pakistan against the government drive to document the economy also diverted the attention of the press from the drought spell in Cholistan.

The appointment of a retired Major as managing director of Cholistan Development Authority, bearing the sole responsibility to take care of the area put the whole administration on its toes. He, right on the very first day of his appointment, is reported of showing an overwhelming interest in the land allotment related cases of corruption. And soon he was surrounded by the well-informed people of the area ranging from the educated people of Cholistan to the nationalists of the area who have made the allotment of the Cholistani land to the people other than Cholistanis a major political issue. It was, however, not surprising that he soon became aware of the imposing linkage between corruption and the ongoing drought in Cholistan. More he knew about the problem of the area, more he became convinced about inefficiency of the administration. When the federal government announced a relief package for the drought-affected areas of Sindh and Balochistan, he reacted promptly: "I can show several graves of Cholistanis who died of thirst".

He issued certain statements about the drought situation in Cholistan that contradicted the official stance of the divisional administration. His revelations were alarming: while addressing a seminar in the first week of May, he told the stunned audience that Punjab government had allocated only one million rupees so far to tackle the menace of drought in Cholistan and that, 70 per cent of the fund had been already consumed by the divisional administration. He mentioned 20 places in the area where turbines could be fitted to provide sweet water to the people. His appeals not only fell on deaf ears, but also deprived Cholistanis of the only voice that was raised in their favour so far: within a few days he was arrested on charges of corruption! Cholistanis are great people as they own the kafis of Khawaja Farid that contain a hope for better days. They have been surviving the hardships of the hostile weather conditions of the desert for centuries and are always prepared to do so any time in the future. But what justice demand is that this "phenomenal disaster" should not cost them such a heavy toll of life and property.

LAHORE, May 29: Pakistan will question the legality of construction of a hydel power station on the Chenab by India and New Delhi's demand for costs of irrigation-related information in the two-day meeting of the Indus Water Commissions of the two countries starting in Islamabad on Wednesday.

The Indian commission is headed by Mr AC Gupta who arrived here on Tuesday evening. He is accompanied by a four-member team. The meeting is held routinely to monitor implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty. The Indian team left for Islamabad soon after reaching Lahore. After attending the two-day meeting in Islamabad it will reach here on May 31 and leave for New Delhi the next day.

The treaty, signed by the two countries, gave three eastern rivers Ravi, Sutlej and Beas to India and three Western rivers Indus, Chenab and Jhelum to Pakistan. Official sources told Dawn on Tuesday the meeting would discuss several issues including construction of Baghial hydel power station in the catchment area of Chenab upstream of the already functional Salal Dam. After signing the treaty, they said, India could not take up projects on Jhelum and Chenab rivers without their approval by Pakistan. Islamabad will object to storage capacity of the Baghial project which under treaty rules must not exceed a stipulated amount.

The sources said the Pakistan side would ensure that India did not store Chenab water. They said Pakistan had also objected to the original design of Salal Dam. The dam was constructed only after addressing the objections.

Another agenda item, they said, was the Indian demand for charges for irrigation-related information supplied to Pakistan. The information was other than that supplied under the treaty during flood season. The sources said India had so far been providing the information without any cost and Pakistan wanted it to continue the practice. The information, including availability of water upstream the river inflow measurement stations, they said, was vital for planning.

They said the third important item was the pollution of drains entering Pakistan from India. These include the Hudiara drain, the Fazilka drain and the Salim Shah drain.

The meeting will especially discuss the Hudiara drain which first enters Pakistan and then flows back into Indian territory before finally flowing into Kasur area. Pakistan has been accusing India of releasing untreated industrial effluents into the drain. New Delhi, for its part, has been blaming Islamabad for polluting it.

Water Shortage: Effects and Remedies

Finally, the government has annulled the 1994 ministerial water apportionment formula which had proved to be the main source of hurdle in resolving the water sharing dispute among provinces, specially Sindh and Punjab. Although it appears that the issue stands resolved now, there remains much to be done to make the resolution effective as there still persists differences over the interpretation of two clauses in the Water Accord of 1991, which will require another attempt to straighten the things.

The water sharing formula has remained a source of bickerings between Sindh and Punjab since long. On certain occasions the matter would get so warmed up or serious that the prime minister had to intervene to overcome the problem. Generally the decisions would be made with due regard to the needs and rights of the provinces, but doubts would crop up at the stage of implementation when the two main beneficiaries would find themselves at variance with each and make complaints. The problem still persists for one or the other reason. The present dispute also emanates from the basic question of how to share the water.

While the Punjab Water Council has announced a three-phased closure of the main Mangla water works for 30 days, lasting up to Jan 31, 2002, Sindh has announced a four-tier programme to conserve water during the ongoing Rabi season, in addition to the allegations that Punjab is consuming more water than was allocated for the season.

Experts calculate that this time the average shortfall would be about 51 per cent. Sindh fears it may not be able to get more than 39 per cent of water it requires during the Rabi season. The situation can be gauged from the fact that at present Sindh should get 40,000 cusecs but it is getting 22,000 cusecs at a time of the wheat sowing. This makes the issue more critical, and growers have begun expressing concern over the farm targets.

Whatever the intake and outflows at the dams, the fact remains that both provinces have to share the shortfall. But there has been a longstanding mistrust between the two on the sharing formula. This ensued from a clause in the ministerial formula of 1994, which was adopted during the Nawaz Sharif government, reportedly to benefit Punjab. In fact, the Water Accord of 1991 had already a similar clause, 14 A, which says that in case of water shortage all provinces will equally share the shortfall. To make it ineffective, the ministerial formula was adopted in 1994 with the addition of another clause in which the 1977-82 period was taken as average to work out the water sharing.

According to Sindh, this clause slashed its rightful share. Thus it became a bone of contention between the two provinces, with Sindh demanding its annulment. The present government took notice of the matter and issued two letters to the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) to undo the formula but it could not be complied with, on one or the other pretext. On Monday the Irsa chairman issued a formal notification to undo the 1994 formula and restore the 1991 Water Accord.

In view of the estimates that this Rabi season will face more shortage of water, the president's secretariat has asked the water engineering wing of the GHQ to seek a report from the ministry of water and power and has asked the Irsa to present a report on the issue and sort out the problem at a meeting convened for Wednesday at Islamabad. Obviously the meeting, to be attended by experts and high officials of the four provinces, will take into account the situation and evolve a strategy to face the shortage.

How the effects of the shortage are going to be reduced is a mind-boggling question which requires a multi-faceted solution, without any political or parochial reservations. This is the third consecutive year that the country has been facing water shortage, specially Sindh which has undergone drought-like conditions, affecting its produce and general environment in the deltaic economy. In the past too there had been serious political bickerings that at times had led to street demonstrations. On one such occasion a man was killed in police firing. To avoid such a situation, one hopes some sound strategy would be evolved this time.

Here the question is not about what a province's demand is. We know the ground reality, i.e. the water shortage will prevail till April-May 2002 and till then we have to make the best use of the water available in our reservoirs, underground resources and conservation. But the main hurdle is proper distribution. We have the formula which has been worked out after a long and extensive exercise by the experts and approved by all beneficiaries.

In the past Sindh had been complaining about Punjab drawing more water than its share. Even on Oct 25, it made a similar complaint that Punjab drew more water for the Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal. Complaints like this could again torpedo a formula. The only solution lies in the proper, judicious and neutral monitoring of the water outflows at all points.

Similarly, the underground water resources need to be revamped. Sindh has over 3,500 tubewells which are meant for lowering the underground water-table but can be used for irrigation purposes. A more liberal attitude towards this issue can also help meet the shortfall to some extent.

The provincial governments will also have to be more vigilant to stop water theft by influential landlords in collusion with the corrupt bureaucrats. But more important will be a neutral monitoring mechanism at the water works to help ensure an end to the distrust among the provinces.

The idea that water is fit to drink or drinkable is not one that most of us routinely think about. The only types of water we distinguish are tap, spring, mineral, flavoured, or carbonated. The only time we may have had to distinguish between potable and non-potable water is on a camping trip or some other outdoor adventure. But the sad fact is that most of the people on this planet do not have access to water that is fit to drink. That begs the question: what do they drink then? The obvious answer is they drink whatever water they can get their hands on.

According to a report by the Leadership for Environment and Development, by the year 2025, 52 nations comprising half the world's population, will have a severe shortage of potable water. In the next 25 years, some 3 billion people will be facing water shortages.

In Pakistan, the vast majority of the country's 135 million inhabitants do not have access to drinkable water. Pakistan's attempt to raise the living standards of its citizens has meant that economic development has largely taken precedence over environmental issues. Unchecked use of hazardous chemicals, vehicle emissions, and industrial activity has contributed to a number of environmental and health hazards, chief among them being water pollution. Much of the country suffers from a lack of potable water due to industrial waste and agricultural runoff that contaminates drinking water supplies.

Poverty and high population growth have aggravated, and to a certain extent, caused, these environmental problems. This means that most people are forced to use unclean water not only for all their sanitation needs, farming, and livestock but for drinking as well.

For much of the population, often there is only one water source. It may be a nearby river or pond, maybe rain water from a catch basin or a creek. Typically, the water source is used by both humans and animals. People use it for bathing, washing up, doing laundry, collecting for cooking, and drinking. Needless to say, the water is anything but clean.

Drinking water that is unsafe can, and usually does, lead to all sorts of health-related problems such as dysentery which is severe, prolonged diarrhea with bloody stools, fever, and weakness; cholera and typhoid; flukes -- stagnant, polluted water, especially in tropical areas, often contains blood flukes. If you swallow flukes, they will bore into the bloodstream, live as parasites, and cause disease; and leeches. If you swallow a leech, it can hook onto the throat passage or inside the nose. It will suck blood, create a wound, and move to another area. Each bleeding wound may become infected.

Pakistan is currently in the midst of what some are saying is the worst water crisis the country has ever seen. The drought affecting the region threatens agricultural output, and levels in the country's reservoirs are dangerously low.

The lack of water is taking on political overtones with parties organizing protests over the issue. One-day strikes have been called in Karachi to protest water shortages in the province of Sindh. The protests have been met with harsh responses from local authorities.

While drought and pollution play a significant role in the lack of safe drinking water, some critics maintain that a large part of the problem is a result of poor management. By some estimates, as much as 60% of Pakistan's fresh water is allowed to go wasted, flowing back into the sea. Only 40% of the water is used.

It is imperative that Pakistan seeks out new and cheaper ways to provide safe drinking water for its people. Some experts have looked at inexpensive desalination techniques, ones that could be employed on a mass scale. To be sure, this precious commodity, the very lifeblood of humans, is getting scarcer and scarcer everyday.

India has indicated that one of the sanctions it is considering against Pakistan is the abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty. The treaty is more than 40 years old and to unilaterally abrogate it is to bring about the uncertainty that followed the partition of India. To understand what the abrogation would mean for Pakistan, it is important to see how this treaty evolved and what it entails.

A Standstill Agreement was signed on December 18, 1947 which provided that the pre-partition allocation of water in the Indus Basin irrigation system would be maintained. This agreement was to terminate on March 31, 1948.

Alleging that Pakistan had failed to renew the Standstill Agreement, India on April 1, 1948 shut off water supplies from the Ferozepur Headworks to the Dipalpur Canal and to the Pakistani portions of the Lahore and the main branches of the Upper Bari Doab Canal (UBDC)

This sudden closure came as a rude shock to Pakistan. With this unilateral action, India was asserting the doctrine of upstream riparian propriety rights, completely ignoring the principle of equitable distribution. From the Indian point of view, Pakistan could not prevent India from any of a set of schemes to divert the natural flow of water from the Himalaya-Karakorum into the Indus Valley:

· Worse, the Wullar Lake scheme commands the Jehlum just before it enters Azad Kashmir.

Pakistan's position was dismal and India held all the cards in its hand. War appeared to be the only recourse to free the captive waters, but that could have seriously harmed Pakistan.

Pakistan therefore sent a ministerial delegation to Delhi to negotiate for the restoration of water and the Indians struck a very hard bargain. They wanted recognition of their rights to all the waters in the eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi). They also wanted Pakistan to pay for any water supplied by India until Pakistan could find replacement from the other (western) rivers. Consequently, the Inter-Dominion Agreement was signed in New Delhi on May 4, 1948, under which Pakistan was required "to deposit immediately in the Reserve Bank (of India) such ad hoc sum as may be specified by the prime minister of India" (Article 5 of the agreement).

This unequal agreement almost amounted to a blackmail and nothing concrete was settled by it. Put in a feeble bargaining position, Pakistan had no other choice but to acquiesce in order to extract a constricted breathing space until 1960, when the Indus Waters Treaty was signed.

Indian intentions became clearer when they started work on the Harike Barrage in 1948 at the confluence of the Beas and Sutlej, creating the capacity to cut off the whole pre-partition Sutlej Valley Project, now in Pakistan.

After the nasty jolt of the Indian water shut-off and alarmed at the construction of the Harike Barrage, Pakistan's immediate response was the design of the now famous Bambanwala-Ravi-Bedian Link Canal (BRBL), taking off from the Upper Chenab Canal, passing under the Ravi river in a siphon and feeding the Lahore UBDC near Batapur on the Lahore-Wagah road. The BRBL was completed in 1958 as an emergency measure. As the 1965 war was to prove, this canal was also an important water obstacle against an Indian invasion. In addition, it remains - in a modified form - a vital link in the Indus Basin Project to this day.

India's actions and its assertion of propriety rights were a clear indication of its position. Pakistan's case of prior allocation and equitable distribution was asserted, but with no ability to enforce it, even by war. Pakistan attempted to bring the case to the International Court of Justice in June 1949, but India refused to go along, maintaining that the inter-dominion agreement should now be made permanent. Pakistan was to continue to pay for the water from India and the agreement continued to hang over Pakistan's head like the Damocles' sword.

Finally, in September 1949 Pakistan refused to devalue its currency along with the rest of the Sterling bloc. India's reaction was to refuse to recognize the Pakistani rupee at the old value and to impose an economic blockade on Pakistan until the end of 1950. The tactic of economic blockade threatened by India today is therefore not new.

With prodding from the World Bank, both India and Pakistan agreed to the Indus Waters Treaty, which was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960. In brief, India received exclusive rights over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi), while Pakistan got the three western rivers (Indus, Jehlum and Chenab).

Unilateral abrogation by India is not new. As early as 1958, Pakistan's eminent geographer Kazi S Ahmad wrote:

"The Council of the Institute of International Law in 1911 (Madrid) decided that a state is forbidden to stop or divert the flow of a river which runs from its own to a neighbouring state, but likewise to make such use of the water of the river as either causes danger to the neighbouring states or prevents it from making proper use of the flow of the river on its part. (The) Barcelona Convention (1921) to which India was a signatory provides regulations with regard to the utilization of flow of the rivers: "No state is allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural conditions of the territory of a neighbouring state." However, the convention was unilaterally abrogated by India in April, 1956." (Kazi S. Ahmad "Canal Water Problems")

India's unilateral abrogation clearly showed that not only did it consider the disputed territory of Kashmir as a part of India, but that it also had the intention to interfere with the flow of the western rivers four years prior to the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty.

If India were to abrogate the treaty, the central issue for Pakistan would be Article III of the treaty, the provisions regarding western rivers, whereby Paragraph 1 is relevant:.

"(1) Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use all those waters of the western rivers which India is under obligation to let flow under the provisions of Paragraph (2)."

Paragraph 2 outlines peripheral "non-consumptive" use by India and Pakistan's right to use these waters even if they flow into the eastern rivers.

Were India to abrogate the treaty, it would mean dangerous interference with the upper reaches of the western rivers. India would go ahead with the construction of at least two large dams:

-Khapala Dam on the Shyok River in Indian Occupied Kashmir (a tributary of the Indus entering Baltistan). This would seriously affect flows in the Indus and proportionally increase the effective silt load from the Gilgit River into the Indus downstream of the Rondu Gorge. This would create a very detrimental impact on the current design of the proposed Basha Dam on the transverse course of the Indus in Diamer District of the Northern Areas.

-Wullar Barrage on the Jehlum River, which would inundate more land than could be commanded upstream of the point where the Jehlum enters Azad Kashmir. This barrage can easily submerge Srinagar, thus ensuring a "final solution" of the Kashmir issue from the Indian point of view. This is an effective lever to intimidate Pakistan.

India would thus be free not only to starve Pakistan of water, but also to open sluice gates at will to generate devastating floods in the country.

India's threat to abrogate the Indus Waters Treaty would destabilize the current status quo that both countries have learned to live with. Though both nations were far from satisfied with the treaty, it provides to this day a modus vivendi for them to live in peace with each other. The abrogation would mean the stirring up of resentments, fears and angers that have settled in the silt of 42 years. Even more crucial, it is a recipe to subject innocent people in Pakistan to hunger, famine and poverty.

After threats by the Indian government of starving Pakistan by scraping the Indus Water Treaty , the unusual water shortages in the country has entered into its most critical phase.

This is the most stupid attempt of India to encroach upon Pakistani waters since signing of the treaty in 1960. The debate over this unwanted unilateral Indian attempt has not been over that there are reports of resumption of work by the Indian government on the controversial Baglihar power project on river Chenab, It is not the first time that India has tried to violate the sanctity of the Indus Water Treaty because the history tells us that during the last 41 years, implementation of the Treaty was more often arduous and frustrating due to unwanted Indian hostility.

The Indus water basin was divided into Pakistan and India in 1947. The division of the catchment induced conflict between the two neighbours over water resources in the basin as upstream and downstream countries and the two nations failed to settle the dispute through bilateral talks.

During the early years of partition the waters of the Indus were apportioned by the Inter-Dominion Accord of May 4, 1948. This accord required India to release sufficient waters to the Pakistani regions of the basin in return for annual payments from the government of Pakistan. The accord was meant to meet immediate requirements and was followed by negotiations for a more permanent solution. Neither side, however, was willing to compromise their respective positions and negotiations reached a stalemate. Pakistan wanted to take the matter to the International Court of Justice but India refused, arguing that the conflict required a bilateral resolution.

By 1951, the two sides were no longer meeting for resolving the issue bilaterally due to nonserious attitude of India and the situation seemed intractable. Despite the unwillingness of India to compromise, both nations were anxious to find a solution, fully aware that the Indus conflict could lead to overt hostilities if it remained unresolved.

At this stage, the World Bank offered its assistance in order to establish an integrated water resources development and management scheme in the basin. Two countries resumed negotiation under the good offices of the World Bank in 1951 and after nine years of long negotiations, the Indus Water Treaty, which is based on division of the catchment into two basin countries and let them develop and manage water resources within their own territory, was signed at Karachi by Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan, the then President of Pakistan, Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister and Mr. W.A.B. Illif of the World Bank on 19th September, 1960. The treaty however is effective from 1st April 1960.

The success of the World Bank in bringing the two neighbouring countries to a point of consensus is attributed to (a) the support given by the United States and other western governments, (b) the ability of the World Bank to raise funds for development of the Indus river basin from its own resource and developed countries, and (c) the riparian countries' willingness to secure funds for development of the catchment.

The treaty fixed and delimited the rights and obligations of India and Pakistan in relation to each other, concerning the use of the waters of the Indus system of rivers comprising of three eastern rivers (the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi) and three western rivers (the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab). The average annual flow of the eastern rivers at that time was estimated as 41 BCM (33 MAF) and that of western rivers 166 BCM (135 MAF). Under the treaty, the waters of the eastern rivers stand allocated to India and those of western rivers largely to Pakistan. However India has also been permitted to use, to a certain limit, water of western rivers for agricultural and power generation purposes.

It will be worthwhile to note that Article VIII of the Indus Waters Treaty provides for constitution of a Permanent Indus Commission. In accordance with the treaty both India and Pakistan have each created a post of commissioner for Indus waters. The two commissioners together constitute the Permanent Indus Commission whose purpose is to establish and maintain co-operative arrangements for the implementation of the treaty, to promote co-operation between the two parties in the development of the waters of the rivers and to settle promptly any question arising between the parties.

Despite the presence of this commission there were certain occasions when India acted in contravention to this agreement. It planed and executed work on Kishanganga hydroelectric power project thereby adversely affecting the production of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydro-electric project although diversion of flow from one tributary to another tributary of the river Jhelum in Indian-held territory was not provided under the provisions of the treaty.

Not only this, in 1984 India undertook controversial Tulbal Navigation Project, commonly known as Wular barrage, on the river Jhelum, below Wular lake. Pakistan had objected to this project, as it was a storage work and was accordingly not permitted under the Indus Waters Treaty on the river Jhelum.

More recently India came up with the idea to construct storage for its 500-600 mw Baglihar hydropower project on river Chenab. Though Pakistan has managed to suspend this project but the idea has not been dropped completely by India as yet. Resumption of work on this project and denial of Indian authorities to allow Pakistan's Commissioner on Indus water to inspect the site/project as envisaged in the Treaty shows the vested interests of India. Under Indus water treaty India can use water of western rivers for power generation by run-off installation without diverting its flow or effecting any change in its size or direction.

The greed of India for extracting more water has not ended here as there are renewed calls from its leaders for a review of the four-decade-old Indus water sharing treaty with Pakistan as they feel that the pact has forced the state to give up its rights on the huge economic potential of its water resources.

Last year occupied Kashmir Finance minister Abdul Rahim, while presenting the budget for the financial year 2000-2001 in the state legislative assembly, lamented that one major resource, which could have helped the state overcome its financial distress, is not under its control. The chief minister of occupied Kashmir, Farooq Abdulah, once said the IWT as a nightmare for India while referring to suspension of Wular barrage by Indian government on Pakistan's objection.

The Treaty, so far, had helped resolve a severe resource distribution problem caused by the partition. Under the terms of the agreement, the two countries agreed to cooperate in the management and sharing of the river waters in the Indus basin, including regular data exchanges, routine consultations, arbitration of disputes and assurance not to interfere with, or, in anyway, change the agreed distribution of water resources. But the recent hostile attitude of BJP-lead fundamentalist Indian government doses not seems to care this bilateral cooperation at all.

Despite all Indian attempts to harm the Indus Water Treaty, the question is that can India scrap this treaty unilaterally? The simple answer is never. The farming community needs not to worry about this Indian proposal.

Indian leadership must keep it in mind that the treaty was brokered by the World Bank and the Bank is also a signatory to the treaty like Pakistan and India. There is no provision in the treaty under which any party could take a unilateral action. Rather, both parties can, by consent, take steps to save each other from any possible harm to the other side as a result of any project planned by one party.

Moreover India has no storages on the rivers designated to and flowing to Pakistan, thus it is not in a position to withhold their water and create shortages for Pakistan. To be able to create any problem, India would have to first set up storages on three western rivers (the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab), a task which will take years to complete even if undertaken immediately.

Furthermore if a war is started between India and Pakistan and the former attacks hydraulic installations of the later, then Pakistan will also retaliate on Indian installations. In such circumstances, Pakistan will always be in a winning position due to natural hydraulic gradient towards Pakistan as in the absence of any stable diversion structure all water ultimately flow towards Pakistan.

Indian leadership must keep it in mind that Pakistan can go on shouting at India over Kashmir issue for all time to come but can not afford even one percent reduction in its allocated water of western rivers that would put to starvation its millions of people what to talk about scraping the Treaty and encroaching upon Pakistani waters.

ISLAMABAD, April 22: Pakistan has expressed satisfaction over the implementation of the Indus Basin Water Treaty during its about 40-year existence, and hoped that whatever issues of concern that might be there would be resolved when the commissioners of India and Pakistan meet some time soon.

Foreign Office spokesman Aziz Ahmad Khan, at his weekly news briefing here on Monday, referring to a press report, said its headline tended to make it "sensational" but as a matter of fact the treaty had effectively and satisfactorily dealt with issues and problems that arose during the last 40 years. Similarly, he hoped, the commissioners' meeting would be able to deal with what Pakistan had heard about what India might be contemplating regarding river Chenab.

The spokesman said because of the prevailing situation (arising out of massing of troops of both sides on the border) the Indus commissioners had not been able to meet as regularly as before, however, Islamabad is said to have requested New Delhi for an early meeting since it has been due for some time.

Khan sought to allay fears about any possibility of the treaty being "scrapped", and said the treaty, which was assisted by the World Bank in its formulation, contained a specific provision which stipulated resolving all points of discord by commissioners and, in the event of their failure, at diplomatic levels between the two governments and ultimately by a tribunal if these steps failed.

In reply to a question, he said he did not expect that the commissioners meeting would be delayed so much that the disputed issue would become irretrievable, and reaffirmed that the two sides, as in the past, would meet soon and hopefully help resolving any issues, questions or doubts. He ruled out that the treaty was in danger of being annulled or scrapped as, since its inception, it had been very useful in sorting out the Indus water issues between the two countries.

NO MEETING: Responding to another question, the spokesman said he believed that there was no specific proposal for a possible meeting between President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Srinagar at an initiative of the All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC) during a recent meeting of four lawyers from Indian-held Kashmir who had called on the president during their visit to Pakistan.

However, the spokesman recalled that as was well-known Pakistan's position had been that it was ready to resume dialogue with the Indian leadership "at any time, any place and at any level", and suggested that the position remained unchanged.

ISLAMABAD, May 5: India is well into the advanced stages of implementing the controversial Baglihar project in clear breach of the Indus Water Treaty, but Pakistan's ministries of foreign affairs and water and power continue to downplay the creeping violations of the Treaty, investigations by Dawn show.

The Baglihar hydroelectric project on Chenab River in occupied Kashmir could bear serious consequences for Pakistan resulting in acute water shortages with even complete suspension of water supplies for a continuous 26 days during December, January and February.

Senior officials in both the ministries remained tight-lipped on the issue, the standard official line being that the press had blown the issue out of proportion. However, sources well in the know of the matter say it is likely to assume a serious dimension with grave political and legal implications.

Information obtained by Dawn from responsible functionaries in key government institutions revealed that work on the project was under way. Sources maintain that the project has started with India using local funding and local contractors. They say the project is expected to complete in 2004.

According to technical and legal experts, the project violates the IWT terms by providing for submerged gated spillways. These spillways allow India to increase the storage capacity of the proposed project to 164,000 acre feet, which is far more than the storage capacity allowed to India under the Treaty.

Experts warn that with its increased storage capacity, if mal-operated, the project will lead to serious fluctuation in the supplies reaching Marala. It could even go to the extent of complete stoppage for a continuous period of about 26 days during December, January and February, adversely affecting agriculture uses and defence requirements at Marala headworks. This project, they believe, could also lead to inundation of Bajwat Area above Marala headworks due to sudden synchronized releases from Dul-Hasti, Baglihar and Salal reservoirs on Chenab.

India had supplied information on the Baglihar project to Pakistan in 1992. Pakistan had then asked India to revise the project design and provide some additional information about technical aspects of the project. However, at the last annual meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission held in May-June 2001, India turned down both these requests. Nevertheless, India agreed to hold a special meeting on the issue and also gave its consent for conducting a special tour to the site of the project.

The tour was scheduled for the last week of December, but was postponed by India at the eleventh hour. The special meeting on this issue is yet to be held. At the moment, India is not willing to provide a schedule for the special tour.

The IWT provides for general and special tours of inspection to be carried out by both sides. Although the annual general tour is provided for in the treaty, India refused to carry out any general tour of inspection during the last year.

Pakistan had asked India for a special tour to the site of Baglihar hydroelectric project in 2000. Avoidance of meetings and tours by India violates the relevant provisions of the IWT [Article VIII (4) (c) (d) and Article VIII (5)].

The next annual meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission is scheduled to be held by the end of May in India. However, Pakistan has not received any correspondence about the agenda of the meeting. Usually this correspondence starts four to six weeks before the annual meeting. A reminder was sent by the Pakistan Commissioner on Indus Water to his counterpart in India more than a month back but he has not received a reply so far.

Given the current Indian posture and the prevailing tense border situation, some officials believe, there is a possibility that this meeting may not be held at all. The 1960 IWT provides for settlement of disputes and differences between the two parties first by the Commission and if that fails, the issue is to be taken up at diplomatic level, and if even that fails a Court of Arbitration can be invoked.

Solving Water Scarcity Problem

Pakistan is already in a state of water crisis- particularly in southern Punjab, Sindh and its capital Karachi. It is high time that the people are made fully aware of the grave implications of the water disaster, likely to occur in a decade or two.

Such a disaster would threaten not only the environmental existence of the country but the very security of lives of those who live in these areas. The crying need of the hour is to galvanise people on the issue.

These conclusions are based on the findings of a long-term research programme to improve the empirical basis of water availability in 118 countries of the world, by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI). The first abstract was published in 1998.

The writer was elected as a member of the Board of Governor of IWMI in 1990 for a period of three years for his services in the cause of irrigation and comprehensive and integrated water resource planning, in developing members countries of the Asian Development Bank, along with Mr. Robert MacNamara, the ex-President of the World Bank. Both stressed the need and priority for such a long-term research study by IWMI.

The forecast then made, proved to be correct and these days scarcity of water is almost a national crisis. At present the worst sufferers are southern Punjab, Sindh and its capital Karachi. The NWFP will also face serious water problem, in case, India succeeds in building a dam on Kabul river upstream. There has been almost 50 per cent reduction in agricultural production in Sindh. Its water bodies are drying up.

Sea intrusion is accelerating, the sea has intruded almost 40 kilometre in Badin district. The mangroves in the whole Indus delta is fast vanishing. The water supply problem in Karachi is so acute that many areas go dry even for a week and after great hue and cry, the people get water in trickles. For Karachites, water has become a rare and expensive commodity. For instance the writer with a households of five persons spends every month Rs. 4,500 on tankers, in addition Rs9000 are paid to the Cantonment Board per annum.

The IWMI researchers concluded in 1998 that Pakistan was a water scarce country in the same category as Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East and North African countries and that the scarcity of water would accentuate in the near future. They had defined 'water scarcity' either in term of the existing and potential supply of water or in terms of the present and future demands or needs of water or both. In pioneering studies on water scarcity, the IWMI researchers took a supply side approach by ranking countries according to per-capita amount of annual water resources (AWR).

The study took into account the present and future demands or need for water by simulating the demand for water in relation to the supply of water over the period 1990 to 2025. In the water balance analysis for Pakistan the estimates of water supply and demand were made. Pakistan's population, even conservatively estimated is expected to be around 280 million in 2025 the AWR, remaining constant, water availability on a per capita basis will be substantially reduced. The estimates were adjusted to take explicit account of return flow and water recycling whose importance is often neglected in studies of water scarcity.

The study warned that the water scarcity would be a major constrain on food production, human health and environmental quality. Many of the countries on food production, human health and environmental quality. Many of the countries in this category, including Pakistan, will have to divert water from irrigation to supply their domestic and industrial needs and will need to import more food. However the study concluded that around 50 per cent of the increase in demand for water by the year 2025, can be met by increasing the effectiveness of irrigation. While some of the remaining water development needs can be met by small dams and conjunctive use of aquifers.

In some cases medium and large dams may also be needed. The productivity of irrigation water can be increased in four ways: (i) increasing the productivity per unit of transpiration; (ii) reducing flows of usable water to sinks and converting this into productive use; (iii) controlling salinity and pollution and (iv) reallocating water from lower valued to higher valued crop.

In his whirlwind tour of the country and particularly in Sindh in connection with referendum, President Musharraf has, time and again, touched upon the issue of water crisis. In his Sukkur speech he emphasized that he would not allow Sindh to become barren and waste land. The process of desertification in Sindh would be prevented. It is in this context, an action plan is suggested on a national basis as well s for Sindh and Karachi for implementation as soon as possible. The essentials of the proposed action program are outlined in the following paragraphs.

(i) First of all, the backlog of following works must be completed and maintained; (a) strengthening and revitalizing of Mangla and Tarbela watershed management projects, including effective measures for monitoring and impact-evaluation with a view to prolonging the life of the storage reservoirs; (b) priority public sector investments in restoring / upgrading productivity of the reverine areas affected by changes in the river hydrology due to storage and deterioration of catchment areas; and (c) remedial measures to protect the mangroves in the Indus delta, affected by increased saline intrusion, which will destroy the province of Sindh. President Musharraf should note that his dream will remain unfulfilled, if the above works are not completed and results published in major dailies to inform the people.

(ii) A comprehensive law should be enacted within six months to 'Save the Indus'. Such a law should substantively cover environmental protection of its overall ecology, protection of all the rivers and their banks, their catchment areas, deltas, protection against discharge of pollutants and industrial wastes into the river, speedy enforcement procedures and severe punishment involving both imprisonment and fine. Pakistan would be in the category of a modern country if we establish exclusive environmental courts in all key districts situated on the banks of the Indus, its tributaries and major canals.

(iii) There is an urgent need to establish an 'Indus Commission' on the pattern of the 'Ganges Commission' of India. This commission should be a fully autonomous body directly under the responsibility of the President or PM The scope of this organization should be comprehensive enough to include all the water related roles of WAPDA and IRSA. This Commission should deal with all matters pertaining to Indus and its tributaries. The existing functions of WAPDA and IRSA together with functions of environmental control should be transferred to this Commission. It must be adequately staffed and funded. International cooperation should be sought. The Head Office of the Commission should be at Panchnad, the confluence of our rivers, or at Sukkur or Hyderabad. A detailed proposal can be prepared in this regard.

(iv) We must develop a crash program for drainage facilities primarily in Punjab and Sindh.

(v) A set of physical measures need to be developed on a priority basis. This essential of these measures are the following:

(a) A number of embankment schemes, particularly in the critical areas, must be undertaken. This will also serve as flood control device. Together with embankment, river revetments works would need to be taken at many places.

(b) Desiltation schemes in areas where the river has been fordable are urgently required to be prepared and implemented. These schemes should include dredging of the rivers in critical areas. In other words, we must increase the water retention capacity of the rivers by deepening or broadening its longitudinal profile. All these will restore the year-round navigability of the Indus.

(d) Establishment of a widespread network of lakes and ponds. The country has many depression areas and swamps. We can convert these into big lakes.

(e) Similarly, we must dig ponds and tanks, through Social Action Program. Can there be a better social action program than providing safe drinking water to our teeming millions? The overwhelming majority of the people of Pakistan do not have access to potable water. Lakes, ponds and tanks can play a major role in improving our national water balance. During the Mughal days, more than seven lakh tanks and ponds existed only in Bengal. They were built by the Mughals mainly for drinking and irrigation purposes.

(vi) The impact of all the preventive and curative measures in the plain and deltaic regions would be temporary unless we solve the root of the problem at the source, emanating from the catchment areas of the Indus.

(vii) Intensify activities through on-farm water management projects in Punjab and Sindh. The scale and magnitude of warabandi approach should be enlarged as much as possible.

As regards Sindh, it may be said that the implementation of the above action programme will certainly have positive impact on the water balance and ecology of the province. In addition, a three-pronged action program is specifically needed for Sindh and Karachi to solve water crisis.

(i) Immediate rehabilitation and enlargement of its lakes and water bodies. In addition the enlargement of the Hub Dam and its watershed is necessary to supply water to Karachi.

(ii) Immediate rehabilitation and rejuvenation of the mangroves of the Indus Delta. The mangroves of the Indus Delta have been disappearing. Mangroves play crucial role in protecting our coastal areas from the adverse effects of storms and highwaves and provide the best environments for the breeding of fisheries and crustaceans like shrimps. They also provide a cheap source of fuel wood and fodder for camels and other animals.

While the forests of Sindh are being destroyed mainly by human beings mostly in the name of law and order, the mangroves are being destroyed because of insufficiency of water and reckless cutting of mangroves. Today only one fourth (4 lakh acres) of mangrove exists out of a total 1.5 million acres in 1947.

Before independence, there used to be about ten varieties of mangroves, now only four species remain. Before, the mangroves used to be tall now they are becoming shorter and dwarf. The main reason for this is that the deposit of silt (which provides the nutrients for the mangroves) is decreasing in the deltaic plain. Lack of safeguard measures by steel mill, refineries, power stations, oil spills at Port Qasim and discharge of polluted water and industrial effluents and sewerage into the Indus river, and fresh water lakes of Sindh and other water bodies are gradually dying.

The water supply problem of Karachi is critical indeed. Ad hoc approach to solve Karachi water supply did provide part-time relief but it is not a long term solution. Such ad hocism must be discarded. In the seventies Jeddah had worst water problem than Karachi.

The writer in 1975-76 was sent on deputation to the Islamic Development Bank as Operational Advisor from ADB. In course of discussion he advised Saudi officials to undertake desalinisation projects. They did. Today Jeddah is becoming a green city and there is no scarcity of water. It is not understood why such schemes were not undertaken by Pakistani planners. Lack of funds can not be a reason as more than Rs.100 billions have been spent on motorways.

Can motorways have a higher priority over water supply? How long the Karachi people will continue to suffer in silence? The people of Karachi and Sindh will certainly consider President Musharraf a great 'Quaid' if he solves Karachi's water supply problem through desalinization technology by transferring funds from motorway projects to Karachi water supply projects.

http://dawn.com/2002/05/06/ebr3.htm

India/Pakistan: Water War Warning as Tension Escalates

Even as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee prepared to visit an army camp in Indian-administered Kashmir and intensifying cross-border firing raised fears of another Indo-Pakistan war, the head of a leading think-tank on South Asian conflicts has forecast that peace would hold - but only until water sparked off a full-scale clash within the next few years.

A potential crisis over water is more dangerous than the struggle over the disputed territory of Kashmir because Pakistan has stated that it would be prepared to use nuclear weapons over the issue, Sundeep Waslekar, director of the Mumbai-based International Center for Peace Initiatives, told a seminar in London Monday.

Water shortages were already affecting parts of Pakistan, and India's water table was falling rapidly, said Waslekar. This was leading to pressures on both sides for a renegotiation of the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that sets out India's right to manage three of the six rivers flowing between the two countries through Kashmir, and stipulates consultation on the other three with Pakistan.

A recent study from Peace Initiatives points out that Pakistan is "fast turning into a water scarce country and runs the risk of a collapse of its agricultural production in the next decade."

Waslekar emphasized that an agreement on water which helped to solve this problem could help pave the way for a resolution of the broader conflict, which has torn apart the predominantly Muslim territory since the partition of India and Pakistan by Britain in 1947.

Since the latest phase of the violence, which began in 1989, between 30,000 and 70,000 people have lost their lives, and as many as 350,000 have been displaced, according to the group.

The disputed territory's hydropower potential could help to transform it "from a valley of death and destruction to a center of excellence in...engineering," according to a new report co-authored by Waslekar and drawing on a conference of political leaders in the state of Jammu and Kashmir earlier this year.

The report, 'Reshaping the Agenda in Kashmir', says the state has harnessed barely 10 percent of its enormous hydropower potential. This would be a major contribution to economic growth, which, according to the report, is a top priority in securing peace for the region.

Waslekar admits that while he does not believe either side intends to launch an "all-out war," there is "intense pressure in India for a 'surgical strike.'" Following last week's attack on an Indian garrison, in which more than 30 people were killed, such a strike could inadvertently spark a series of mutual retaliations, he said.

"We will be sitting on tenterhooks," he said, noting that a meeting last weekend between Prime Minister Vajpayee and India's opposition leader was seen as ominous by many because the government would not decide on war without ensuring the support of the Congress party.

Indian and Pakistani officials have met for a second day running to review a bilateral water agreement which has lasted more than 40 years.

There is a sense of relief on both sides that the annual talks have taken place as scheduled - despite escalating tension on the border.

Tight-lipped bureaucrats have been giving little away, however, about what it is like to sit across the table from one another with the two countries on the brink of war.

The Pakistani delegation arrived in the Indian capital well in advance of Wednesday's meeting.

But cutting off travel links between the two countries meant the Pakistani team had to take a longer route to Delhi.

"We have flown in via Dubai," delegation leader Commissioner M Mammen told the BBC.

"No comment," he replied, when asked if military tension between the two nations had been reflected in the meetings in any way.

But if their body language was any indication, the two teams were trying their best to appear grim in public.

Mr Mammen politely sidestepped any questions relating to the treaty, or to the meeting with his Indian counterpart, AC Gupta.

"I categorically state that we were not discussing the treaty," Mr Mammen told reporters. "It is not for us to take such decisions at this level."

"We have discussed certain other routine issues which we deliberate upon every year.

In an atmosphere charged with war-mongering, analysts believe the annual meeting of the Indus water commission provides a glimmer of hope for peace and better sense.

The body routinely reviews water-sharing arrangements between the nuclear neighbours.

Some in India have been demanding the government abrogate the Indus water treaty in order to send a strong message to Pakistan at a time of heightened tension.

In any case, scrapping the treaty would serve no purpose, India's Former Water Resources Secretary Ramaswamy Aiyer told the BBC.

"India cannot cut off water supply to Pakistan immediately. Water supply can [only] be stopped by building dams and reservoirs on the Indian side.

"Such projects would take years to be completed. Besides, the international opinion would go against India, too."

The Indus water treaty, signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank, is cited as a shining example of success in conflict resolution.

The treaty simplified the division of water resources between the two states, allocating the three eastern rivers of Sutlej, Beas and Ravi to India, and Indus, Chenab and Jhelum to Pakistan.

The agreement allows India, the upper riparian state, to use the flowing water, but any construction aimed at facilitating storage or diversion of the river by India is prohibited.

Despite a few problems over contentious projects, such as the Salal hydroelectric project, the treaty has worked well.

The tense stand-off between India and Pakistan has cast the shadow of nuclear conflict across the globe. But, even if both see sense and pull back from the first war between nuclear powers, there are concerns that relations are so soured that Delhi and Pakistan might resort to conflict by other means. In particular, there are worrying reports suggesting that India could cut off Pakistan's water supply. The Indus water treaty, drawn up in 1960, under the auspices of the World Bank, divided the distribution of water from the six rivers that run down from Tibet through India to the shared Indus Basin. India did not revoke the accord during either the 1965 or the 1971 war with Pakistan. In raising the treaty as an issue India may be signalling how deeply angry with Pakistan it is.

But Delhi would be wrong even to contemplate such an action. Millions of lives are at stake. India could not simply turn off the taps - any move would require the building of dams and reservoirs, but that the idea is openly voiced is bad enough. The water table of Pakistan, a semi-arid country where drought has parched many parts, is falling rapidly. Farming and electricity, which account for almost 30% of Pakistan's gross domestic product, are being affected and a crisis looms. India, too, is drying out, especially in its north-western regions, and unless both countries act soon, water not land may be what they trade blows over.

Water is a resource to be shared equitably by peoples. It is an argument that India knows well, having used it to engage China, Bangladesh and Nepal, neighbours it shares rivers with. No nation should deprive another of a shared resource which, thanks to geographic design, collects in a basin within its borders. It is true that some disputes between India and Pakistan appear intractable. But the Indus treaty is proof that these can be amicably solved. For peace, both sides must accept that water must never become a weapon of war.

ISLAMABAD, June 3: Pakistan will pay to India an amount of $1.8 million as "data transmission charges" during the upcoming season for advance flood forecast and daily information supply on river situation, official sources told Dawn.

India, however, will not provide flood data on Thein Dam on river Ravi and Reasi on river Chenab, the sources said. An agreement to this effect was reached during the meeting of Permanent Commission on Indus Waters (PCIW) concluded in New Delhi two days ago.

Pakistan's permanent commissioner on Indus Waters, who returned from New Delhi on Monday morning, briefed the 37th meeting of the Federal Flood Commission (FFC) over telephone from Lahore about this agreement.

When contacted the FFC Chairman, Riaz Ahmad Khan, confirmed that "an agreement has been reached (at the Delhi meeting) under which India would continue providing information on flood situation to Pakistan with effect from July 1, 2002."

To a question, he said that under the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 Pakistan was required to pay "normal nominal charges for data transmission". He, however, said that it would have been a "good gesture" from the Indian side if they could provide the data free of cost. He declined to quantify the charges.

Official sources said that the Indian side had demanded $3.5 million for data transmission, but later it agreed to reduce the figure to $1.8 million for this season.

An official statement issued later said: "As informed on telephone by the PCIW, both commissioners have agreed to repeat the arrangements for the flood season 2002 on the same pattern as for the previous year 2001, which include supply of data of flood/base flow through telephone on daily basis and Radio Jammu broadcast thrice daily information about flood flows. However, India will not provide the flood data on river Ravi on Thein Dam and Reasi on river Chenab."

Construction of 450mw Baglihar power project on the Chenab by India is one of the controversies threatening the very existence of the treaty. When asked, the FFC chairman said that the PCIW had not submitted its report but since supply of flood data from India was on the agenda of the FFC's meeting, the information was provided on telephone.

Riaz Ahmad Khan said that the flood warning centre had started working in Lahore from June 1, instead of its schedule of June 15 to receive information flow, while the provincial duty centres had also become functional.

The meeting was informed by the Met office that the monsoon season would be normal and thus no extraordinary flood was expected this year. The monsoon was, however, projected to start from the last week of June or the first week of July, instead of routine start from mid-July.

To a question about armed forces role in flood protection in view of border situation, the FFC chairman said that army involvement was always required only for evacuations and coordination which would remain available. However, provincial and district administration would enhance their flood-related deployments.

He said that water situation was normal at the moment which was not only meeting the current crop requirement but sufficient quantity was also being conserved.

An official statement said that meeting reviewed the status of strengthening of flood protection network by the provinces for the season 2002 and identification of areas of weaknesses, the progress on ongoing improvements in flood forecasting and warning system, including performance of the system during the monsoon season of 2001 and drought situation. The meeting also reviewed compliance of the decisions of previous FFC meeting on flood fighting plan for the year 2002 and preparedness of provincial irrigation departments.

The meeting was told that total length of the rivers in Punjab is 1,782 miles while the total length of flood bunds on both river banks is around 1,420 miles. This means that less than half of the total river lengths are covered by the flood protection bunds.

There are 14 barrages from which 21 main canals off-take. In addition, over 405 spurs have been constructed in the provinces for river training and providing protection to the infrastructure and the local population.

In the backdrop of persistent water shortages in the country, the more efficient use of water in our agriculture has become a core requirement, as over 70 per cent of the national food production is produced under irrigation. The dangerous water situation, developing since mid 1990s, has been proving ruinous for the agricultural economy of the country.
The drought that hit the agriculture last year resulted in water shortages by 51 per cent, and a 40 per cent loss of agriculture. The total flows of water in major rivers declined to 91 million-acre feet against the average flows of 131 million-acre feet. Rainfall has also been below normal. The canal head withdrawals of last Kharif and Rabi seasons also witnessed significant decline. It was due to these reasons of irrigation water scarcity that pushed agriculture sector into deficit during 2001-02, with an overall negative impact on national economy.

With growing demand and dwindling water resources, water today defines and confines development. Therefore, water and environmental sanitation coverage has become a major development indicator, which has a strong bearing on the quality of people's life.

The agriculture sector in Pakistan uses 90 per cent of the country's available fresh water. However, irrigation efficiency is only 50-65 per cent. In other words, our agriculture wasted nearly half of the country's fresh water supply. Although, from a basin perspective, much of the wasted water is reused, significant amount of water is wasted; primarily due to irrigation inefficiencies, which results in deterioration of agricultural fields.

It is observed that water released from rivers to canals, and onward to farmers' fields, sustains conveyance losses of 40 to 50 per cent, due to seepage, spillage and topping of the water channels all over the country, which can be reduced to upto 20 to 25 per cent, if the growers make efficient application of water at their fields by improving their agronomic practices and sowing technology.

The intensity of water shortage in Sindh was much higher than Punjab, because Sindh is located at the tail-end of the Indus River System, with 95 per cent dependence on canal irrigation, as its more than 75 per cent underground water resources are brackish and unfit for irrigation, while the prospects of water supplement through rains are negligible, as the province almost falls in the arid zone.

Before we talk about efficient water use, we need to analyse thoroughly, the inefficiencies in our irrigated agriculture sector. There are five causes of water loss. First is the choice of crop. Farmers select crops that bring in maximum benefit to them; and not crops that use less water. The natural environment also plays an important role in determining how much water is lost. Soil types, climate and hydrology; all affect water losses.

Technology is next on the list of causes. The type of irrigation and delivery systems determines how efficiently water is used. Drip and sprinkler irrigation systems are more complex in design, but can be more easily operated with low losses than surface irrigation methods, which require a high degree of flexibility in water supply. Pipe delivery systems generally lose less water, than the more commonly used canal systems.

The type of control structure used in irrigation is also important. Fixed control structures are less flexible, but require a lower degree of expertise to operate and maintain. All this lends to the fact that technology that requires less skill to manage, may often incur less water loss, than systems that are theoretically more efficient.

The fourth cause of water loss is the inefficiency of farmers. Farmer characteristics; such as skills, knowledge, organisation and motivation determine their ability to manage water. The fifth cause of water loss is the provincial irrigation department and its policy. This cause should be recognised as the most important cause, because it underlies the others.

The efficiency of any water management technology is dependent on the reliability of the water supply. Farmers cannot function effectively without a reliable supply of water and have no incentive to use water efficiently, if it is supplied with little or no charge.

In our country water is supplied to the agricultural sector at nominal charges. Therefore, farmers use as much of it as possible. It has been observed that our farmers are willing to pay more for the water they receive; provided that the supply is reliable. Currently, water supply to farmers is very unreliable. Farmers never know how much water they will get and when it will come.

Farmers are willing to pay more for timely and reliable water supplies for irrigation. Hence, those institutional and financing arrangements that ensure reliable water supplies, are likely to be more sustainable for improving water use efficiency, than those that concentrate only on cost-recovery.

If a breakthrough in economy of the country is wanted through agriculture sector, the quantity of water available is more than sufficient. What is needed is that agronomy practices and knowledge of efficient application of available water should be improved. We should make concerted efforts to check water conveyance losses, which are around 40 to 50 per cent, and once these losses are saved, we will have enough water to bring additional land under cultivation.

It must be borne in the mind that over or under-irrigation means reduction in crop output, and for better crops, proper application of water is a must. Those few who know about efficient application of water are having wheat yield of 3200 kg per acre, while the average yield is around 800 kg per acre. This proves that the country has the potential of higher yield of wheat, but the common grower is not getting it for the reason that he has less knowledge of efficient water application.

Addressing water use efficiencies in our agricultural sector requires a strategic combination of several interdependent components. There has to be central and state policy dialogue on water sector reform to develop an effective water conservation framework. It is also essential to involve the rural consumer in partnership to advance water use efficiency, thereby improving reform prospects.

The need to develop pragmatic and practical approaches to address the issues, with regard to water, environment and social sectors and efficient use of water in agriculture, particularly in the face of the increasing overall demand and competition from urban and industrial users, must be the highest priority. Merely identifying problems and discussions is not enough, but we need to bring in greater foresight in addressing the sector's issues.

We need to work on the philosophy of 'more crop per drop' for coming out of this severe situation. The strategy and planning will have to include ecological water assets and ground water. Possibilities for water saving and substitution need to be stimulated; and it will be better to rehabilitate the existing system, rather than creating a completely new infrastructure.

While the technical issues and concerns raised by the upper and lower riparians have been resolved, the socio-political factors remain unsolved to date, and are being exploited by those having vested interests.

Out of the 100% water available in various forms, about 99% is not economically available, and only 1% of available surface water if used properly is enough for the entire planet. Let us see what we have done with this resource, which was available to Pakistan at the time of independence in the form of the rivers Sutlej, Bias, Ravi, Chenab Jhelum and Indus.

According to the Indus Basin Treaty signed in 1960 between Pakistan and India, we had to surrender the three eastern rivers of Sutlej, Bias and Ravi, and were allowed to build reservoirs and dams on the remaining three. Therefore, Pakistan accepted an unjust principle of replacing perennial stream water, with man-made reservoir water, which had inherent complications.

Today, we are faced with acute water shortage, and are facing the El Nino effect as well, due to climatic changes resulting from the elimination of certain biological organisms. Our population growth rate is nearly around 3%, which is highest in the world. It is expected that by the year 2025, Pakistan would become the fourth most populous country in the world. Imagine how hard it would become to feed such a big population with the shortage of resources, when we are already facing problems in providing basic necessities to the existing ones.

Issues of population, environment, bio-diversity and depletion of the ozone layer were discussed at the Rio World Summit conference in Brazil, held about a decade ago. It described that about 40% plus of the world population lives below poverty line. The share of poorest states in the world trade is only around 4%, which presently is about 2%. An estimated 40% plus people in the world have no access to electricity. The recently concluded Earth Summit in Johannesburg discussed, more or less, the same agenda.

America has built more than 10,000 dams, while India and China have about 100 multi-purpose storage facilities. These countries have made tremendous progress in agricultural and industrial sectors mainly due to the availability of these multi-purpose dams, which supply irrigation water and power for their industries. The developed countries do not wish that underdeveloped/developing countries should be able to exploit their natural resources, and thus remain dependent on them in some form--a typical application of master and slave theory. So they have started raising objections on starting mega-scale developmental projects on flimsy bases, including environment and other social issues etc. Whenever such projects are discussed in developing countries, efforts are made to stop and prevent them from making dams to exploit natural resources for the progress of their poor people.

Since independence, India has been creating problems for Pakistan in terms of the natural resources, for instance the Indus Basin Treaty and now a barrage on river Chenab, through which India would be able to stop or regulate water flow to Pakistan whenever it desires against the provisions of the treaty. On river Jhelum we have already built Mangla dam, which provides electricity and irrigation water for the entire country, through a network of barrages and link canals etc. Leaving these two rivers, the only other dependable source which seems to be outside the grip of India is the river Indus, over which we have already built Tarbela dam, which stores only 15% of its water obtained mainly through snow melts.

The lake of Tarbela is silting heavily and this silt load is estimated at 554,000 tons per day. This amount of silt cannot be taken out from any reservoir; even if it is supposedly taken out, the problem would be where and how to store it. A silt delta has been formed in the reservoir having a width between 31-65kms and 68 meters deep, located at 14kms from the main embankment due to the sedimentation process. Wapda has been able to contain the movement of this silt delta so far, which otherwise could have moved in and choked all power generating turbines due to the seismic activity in the area. The danger is still there and in this regard Tarbela will not be able to serve as a multi-purpose reservoir and will only be suitable for irrigation purposes.

It is stated that even if Basha dam were brought online today, it would take at least 20 years to build it. In the meantime, usefulness of Tarbela would have gone. The only economic option left at our disposal is Kalabagh dam, which is already late and has become controversial mainly due to the socio-political misunderstandings, misgivings and apprehensions amongst the people of various provinces.

Ironically, all the governments starting from late Z A Bhutto, in order to lengthen their stay in power, have always avoided this technically feasible and economically sound option, which was declared to be a better site than Tarbela in the 1960s. Tarbela was brought on line first due to political considerations and preferences. It is, therefore, natural to think that national interests have been compromised, jeopardised and manipulated for the sake of a handful of people with personal interest.

By year 2050, about 2/3 of the world population could be plagued by water scarcity. It is interesting that while water scarcity is becoming severe, yet in most water-scare regions large quantities of water flow into the sea remain unutilised.

The constraints in the implementation of Kalabagh dam can be described as technical and socio-political. Almost all technical issues and concerns raised by the upper and lower riparians have been taken care of in the shape of design adjustments, while the socio-political factors remain unsolved to date, and are being exploited by those having vested interests.

Apprehensions of upper riparians included fear of flooding of Peshawar valley and Nowshera, with negative impact on the drainage in areas of Mardan, Pabbi, Swabi and Mardan SCARP, along with the submergence of fertile land in reservoir area coupled with population displacements. Lower riparians feared desertification of Sindh, non-availability of surplus water to fill the Kalabagh reservoir, negative effects on cultivation of riverian areas, sea water intrusion, mangrove forests and diminishing of fish resources below Kotri. They have been fully analysed by Wapda and almost all of them are not sustainable considering the magnitude of benefits available to a large population of this country.

Benefits also include availability of water for entire Rabi, sowing and maturing of Kharif crops, 3,600MW electricity and flood alleviation between downstream and Indus-Punjab confluence. The Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 reflects consensus of all the four provinces over issues of new storage on Indus and other rivers. This should serve as a starting point for the construction of the Kalabagh dam.

The World Bank has funded projects like SCARP and NDP, which were to the tune of billions of dollars, but they failed to bring about desired economic benefits to Pakistan, because of wrong assumptions, malpractices and essential long-term anti-Muslim interests of the World Bank. WTO will also pursue its plan in 2003, calling for an access to free markets. This will again suit those who have cheaper energy. Only their products, which are invariably backed by ISO certifications, will be able to sell in open international markets. Pakistan is likely to get affected with this intensely because we do not have cheap energy available for our agricultural and industrial sectors. Our products would be out of competition resulting in closures of industry and damage to our agro-base. In future there will be less exports and heavier imports. We can very well imagine our country's position at that time.

There is no denying the fact that in addition to bringing down population growth rate and making Kalabagh dam, other feasible reservoir sites must also be exploited to utilise the invaluable Indus water, for irrigation and power generation, which flows almost unused into the Arabian Sea during summers. This is our lifeline and the only option for our economic survival.

http://www.pakissan.com/2002/english/issues/kalabagh.dam.outweight.cost.shtml (5 September 2003)

Should Tarbela be with Wapda? The answer is no. Tarbela was constructed as part of the Indus Basin Treaty to provide storage of 9.4 MAF. Tarbela makes a major contribution to the national economy.

It provides nearly 30 per cent of all the irrigation water available in dry season. 2100 MW of hydropower was to be generated as a by-product. By the year 1992, the generating capacity was raised to 3428 MW, with the 3rd extension comprising four more units of 432 MW capacity each.

In the original operating rule, stipulated by the designers, the' minimum operating level' (MOL) of the reservoir level was mandated to be lowered to 396 meters (1300 feet) for a month between May 20 through June 20 every year, before being raised to 492 meters (1550 feet). This rule was designed to ensure optimum condition for effectively flushing out the sediments through tunnels 3 and 4. As long as this rule was diligently followed, the delta formed by the sediments moved slowly towards the dam at an average rate of one mile per annum.

In November 1985 (MOL) of the dam was raised to 408 meters (1339 feet). This was done to overcome violent vibrations to 4 power units (No.5 to 8). This was also done in the hope of starting construction of Kalabagh to make up for loss of water resulting from the raising of its MOL. With this decision, Wapda almost converted Tarbela from irrigation to a power project.

From 1990 to mid 1996 Wapda maximized the generation of electricity and as a result of good rains and more than normal water flows into the rivers, demand for irrigation was relatively less than normal. The effects of this decision were not felt. During this period MOL was gradually raised to 440 m which slowed downstream movement of the sediments and trapped about a billion tons in the live storage zone of the reservoir.

In 1997, dry cycle commenced and increased the demand for water. Wapda lowered the MOL to 402 meters (below the revised operating level of 408 meters) but this had an unexpected effect of choking the cooling water system of four units on tunnel 3. It was therefore decided to raise the MOL to an unprecedented level of 412 meters (1350 feet), thus withholding water from agriculture.

In the year 2000 the MOL was lowered to 403 meters (1322 feet) and the chief engineer of Tarbela confidently reported: "Tarbela units 11-14 are capable to run at low reservoir level if the modified procedure is followed. The turbine parts are designed to withstand the prevailing situation of sedimentation for next 5 to 10 years, whereafter the repair facilities would be available in Pakistan, to cope with the abrasion/erosion of hydraulic surface".

The original operating rule was abandoned because of the following two apprehensions:

1) Removal of very large quantity of sediments from the reservoir through the tunnels would erode the turbines and impose huge expenditure on subsequent maintenance and repair of the power units, and

2) If the sediments were allowed to accumulate in the dead storage near the dam the possible forward slumping and movement of the sediment delta might block the intakes.

The policy of abandoning the original rule proved short sighted and only postponed the problem of erosion facing the turbines at a huge cost of losing storage capacity. It did not diminish the risk of blockage of the intakes but increased the possibility of slumping or liquefaction of the delta as a result of increased sediments. The primary objective of providing irrigation water was sacrificed to the secondary objective of generating power. This policy shift entails huge costs. Several billion tons of sediments have been trapped in the reservoir reducing its live storage capacity.

A panel of experts reported in 1995 that there was a close and direct relationship between the MOL and the rate of advancement of the sediment delta towards the Dam. Lower the MOL, greater the advancement of delta. The movement of the delta increases the volume of sediments in the dead storage zone but decreases it in the live storage zone. On the other hand, if the delta moves closer to the intake, it causes erosion of the power plant. These two conflicting phenomena, one of reducing the live storage and the other of providing cheap electricity present a paradox.

In 1997 M/s Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stretton International Corp. (TAMS) recommended that if additional remedial measures were not taken for the management of sediments, the delta will cross the limit line as early as 2006, preventing the operation of tunnels 3 and 4 and few years later tunnels 1 and 2. They recommended following measures for sustainable operation of Tarbela with a reduced live storage capacity of 6 MAF (64per cent of the original capacity):

1) Raise the minimum operating level by 1.2 meters every year, for not more than 15 days in a year, because the sediment profile being within 3.2 k.m. of the limit line, it poses a threat of overwhelming, the intakes of tunnels No.3 and 4.

2) Construct an under water dike by the year 2008, to protect the intakes of the right bank tunnels. The crest of the dike should be at 421 meters level.

3) Construct a bypass by the year 2015 for flushing out the sediments. The bypass should comprise four new tunnels to be built between the service and auxiliary spillways.

4) Procure dredgers having an annual dredging capacity of 0.5 mcm should be for dredging the intake channel to carry the silt laden water to the new tunnels.

The estimated cost of TAMS proposal is $ 663 million. This proposal is cheaper than the contentious and palpably jinxed undertaking of Mangla Dam at a cost of $ 1 billion. The action plan proposed by TAMS consist of three phases: Phase I comprises modification of the reservoir operation rule so as to provide security of the intakes against clogging up to the year 2008 while at the same time maximizing reduction in live storage. In the proposed operation rule, the minimum reservoir level would be increased by four feet every year and the period of annual drawdown limited to 15 days.

Phase II comprises construction of under-water dike to protect the intakes of tunnels from sediments.

Phase III comprises flushing the annual inflows of sediments in the reservoir with a low level high capacity bypass to be situated on the left abutment.

The objective is to provide 6 MAF live storage on a sustainable basis which is not possible if the priorities are stood on their head by sacrificing storage to power generation.

As an alternative to the above, but only to ensure the security of the intakes against inundation for as long as possible MOL has to be raised by six feet each year. Those way tunnels 3 and 4 are likely to be free of the risk of inundation up to the year 2025 and tunnels 1 and 2 up to the year 2040. Then onwards some powerhouses will have to be shut down or replaced by thermal plants, if excess capacity available with the IPPs is not sufficient to meet the demand. Under this option spillways have to be modified to resist the abrasion from high sediment loads. This proposal does not fulfil any of the objectives of the action plan.

A third alternative is to go for dike only option which comprises construction of an under-water dike in two stages to protect tunnels 1 to 4 against inundation. In the long run this would effectively convert Tarbela into a run-of-river hydropower project with only a small live storage, and obviously merits not a thought.

i. The construction of an under-water dike may not, as claimed, prevent sediments from entering the right bank tunnels. A similar dike at Warsak failed.

ii. Huge quantity of water, 22 per cent of the annual flows will be needed under TAMS proposal to flush the sediments out, and maintain live storage level.

iii. Disposal of the huge quantity of sediments along the left bank of the barrage of Ghazi Brotha Hydropower Project (GBHP) will adversely affect the GBHP; and

The policy of inaction, which defines the attitude of the government entails huge national cost and does not portend well for the future of this country. We cannot afford to lose our storage capacity having lost 2.4 MAF already. With the prospects of Kalabagh or Basha having receded into history, and the raising of Mangla most likely to be lost in intense controversy, the most feasible and cost effective option is to do something about Tarbela. The following is proposed:

1. Treat Tarbela as an irrigation project and assign only a secondary role to power generation. In any case there is enough unutilized power generation capacity within the country, which could easily be utilized at a little higher cost than the hydel power.

2. Institute the original operating rule of MOL of 396 meter (1300 feet) between May 20 and June 20 every year to reduce annual loss of live storage.

3. Tunnels No.3 and 4 should be effectively used for flushing out the sediments. These tunnels have an annual discharge capacity of more than 26,000 million cubic meters, which is more than sufficient to flush out the annual sediment inflow (the discharge assumed by TAMS for their proposed bypass was 18,000 million cubic meter).

5. Tunnel No.4 should be converted to power so that instead of spilling the water through it, hydropower should also be generated.

6. To prevent the possibility of liquefaction during an earthquake or slumping of the delta, deep-water suction dredging system of reasonable capacity should be arranged to clear the blockage as quickly as possible. The required barge mounted dredging systems can be fabricated locally in collaboration with foreign manufacturers.

The attractive feature of the Tarbela project, according to Kirmani report (July 1964), is the possibility 'for successive development of off-channel storages in the Haro and Swan river basins aggregating to some 40 MAF.'

The Tarbela dam was proposed to be constructed in two stages. In the first stage 400 feet high earth and rock filled with a capacity of 8.4 MAF was to be constructed and in the second the height was to be raised by 50 feet to increase the gross capacity to 11.1 MAF. The maximum pool level of the reservoir in the ultimate stage will be at elevation 1550 which is slated to feed the off-channel reservoirs on the Haro and Swan rivers. This interesting aspect of Tarbela appears to have been abandoned.

Lastly, Tarbela owes its mismanagement to its control of Wapda. It should have been independent of Wapda. A separate organization should be set up or in the alternative its control may be handed over to the existing organization, the Indus River System Authority. The head of the organization should be an expert in water with a power engineer as a subordinate so that correct priorities are maintained.

Management of Water Resources as a Regional Problem

Water resource is going to be the major problem in world politics overtaking oil and fuel as a major issue to be tackled globally. Human ingenuity may enable scientists to find a substitute for energy issues but this commodity that we are tackling has no substitute and it is no more infinite. When Water was worked in the Indo‑Gangetic plain it was an infinite commodity. That is what led to the kind of irrigation systems that we have since inherited. Out of the 79 million hectares of land that Pakistan can cultivate only 22.5 million hectares is cultivated, not adequately but in a much skewed manner. With the population of this part of the world likely to touch 50 of 8 billion by 2025 the matter assumes a significant issue in this region. There are in this region potential flash points between China, Tibet, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iran, and Nepal, with Bhutan thrown in as a bit player. The Himalayas and the control of Himalayas are going to be the major source from where this resource emanates.

The geopolitical ramifications need an assessment at this stage to counter any conflict that might emerge. The Indus basin treaty agreed between Pakistan and India in the 1960's is a case in point and was taken about the time that Pakistan and India were on a collusion course. Now, however, the treaty [ies] will have to be more complex as the world has moved on and there are now complications that have to be resorted to and resolved. That not only means a quantitative equation but the adequacy of human conditions. Water tensions could lead to other tensions in the areas as sovereignty and ownership becomes crucial. Borders, ethnicity and cross border migration become important. China, India and all the countries in this region would have to take a position. The tragedy is that given the importance of this commodity the decisions would be selfish and parochial with the powerful upper riparian not bothered about what has happened in the lower riparian. As Kabul rebuilds itself it has an opportunity as well as a dangerous situation developing. The destruction of all systems is a tragedy but given this the opportunity is to take itself to water usage in a responsible way. Water conveyancing is not what is required for ultimately it is water harvesting that assumes primacy. When conflict is based on survival it assumes brutal proportions and could lead to expenditure on items other than development. The irony of the situation is that in safeguarding development they may have to resort to expenditure that is destructive. There lies the danger.

Given this population scenario it is not surprising that food security will be the major concerns of the countries involved in this region. Agriculture may be the prodigal son in the wasteful use of these resources but urbanization is no less wasteful. Given the development scenario and the fetish about Industrialization another dimension is added as the polluters of this resource is industry. There is no polluter's payment system in this country or in the region. The developing countries feel that whatever comes by way of industrialization is welcome as it provides for employment, foreign exchange earning and other benefits to the economy. No audit of the actualities of industrialization may ever take place in these countries.

The institutional aspects that are needed for governance of such sensitivities is indicative of a regional arrangement. In other words there is a need for governance of hydrology as separate line in the governments involved. The secretariat is to be different in as much as it must resort to support of all the governments in the region. The time for playing favorites is over. Neither is to be a hand maiden of any particular country. It must transcend and rise above parochial interests.

Governments have fallen in the past for the reason that they have not been able to handle crucial issues at critical times. S.W. Afghanistan and other areas come to mind. These potential spark areas need our focused concern. There is considerable confusion as to whether this should be handled centrally or should the sector be decentralized. Neither. The rule for such unique commodities is that the actual authority and responsibility should go to the users. How can that be affected through the region. The answer is that that is the challenge that has to be responded to. There are eminent farmers that are sensitive to the requirement of the poorest of the poor [the farmer's community is the poorest]. That being so there is no need for those that seek guidance from elsewhere.

The point has to be driven home that stability is threatened when sovereignty is under threat. China wants to divert the waters of Brahmaputra from India, Farakha barrage could mean the end of Bangle Desh food security, India holds a perpetual threat to the waters of Chenab and Sutlej so far as Pakistan is concerned and this could be a powerful lever against the country. Pakistan's lifeline is the Indus as most of the land is severe arid to semi arid. Pakistan's jugular could be irrevocably cut should this happen. These entire factors forces one to understand that foreign relationships between all these water linked countries is of vital concern. Diplomacy takes another shift where water takes central and pivotal position. Foreign offices are not hooked to these factors yet.

The institutional arrangement that is based on equity is never implemented. Why? There are three options that operate in the water sector. Pricing, participation and administrative options all have their pitfalls as the powerful force water uphill. Why is country assessment important for regional aspects? Unless and until the country is on sound lines it will not be able to contribute positively to regional and ultimately to global requirements. There cannot be any dissonance between the country and the regional and global requirements. For morality cannot be selective. This is not an easy option but it is a challenging option and it is doable.

The country focus will then be dependent on hydrology governance. The environment will shift. The compulsions of a civil society will come forward. Pakistan has taken a step in that direction by going in for 14 mega projects and for trying to get the matters going for the poorest of the poor. That is only part of the way. There are other complimentary steps that are to be taken. That is where the sagacity of the policy makers will come in. The dollar or the rupee can go as far as you want it. So is the case with water. One acre feet of water can go as far as you want it to go. Political will is needed and political will has to be collective for the region and not for the country. But the base is the country and then it is the regional ultimately ending into a global policy. The current Global water partnership has the correct objectives but is going about it in a manner that is not conducive to resolving conflicts. The options must come from the people that are most affected and not from the Elites from the World Bank taking a measly 100,000 dollars a year for the elimination of the issues that affect the poor. One has to understand the compulsions as David Hopper would for he did his Ph. D by being in an Indian village for five years. Such sensitivities are hard to get. The current custodians are not in any position to do this. So shift is called for. Those noises affected by this kind of reasoning are going to shut and make shrill noises of all kinds. They will create confusion so that a decision is not possible.

Conceptually what is being suggested is that there is a strong relationship between the technical world and the social/political cultures. A way to redefine them has to be found. And that is possible only when the real issues are understood. No amount of sustainable factors will come in to play if the people are hungry. A full stomach and a reverberating mind [intellectually sound] is a required condition for the development of sustainable concepts. In the alternate the poor will do any thing to eke out a living as best as they can and to hell with the consequences. That is contradiction in terms of having a sustainable world. With the poor now in excess of any figures that the global authorities can give us there seems to have devolved on the rich and the powerful in the developing world, not the developed world, the consequences of their myopic policies. The options for the policy makers is not in terms of security factors but the removal of such causes as can lead to terrorist activities. Water usage in terms of equity, efficiency and efficacy are important concepts. To these concepts we will revert at a later stage.

The solutions that are in this realm are of two kinds. Those within the water sector and those in other sectors. And finally the solutions may be in the joinder of a number of options in different fields or what has now come to be called ‘consiliency’. Little bits and pieces have to be so joined that one gets what is a reasonable solution.

Within the water sector the commodity is to be dealt in an integrated manner. The public goods that have been developed by the International Water Management Institute could be a starting point. They have been in position for the last two decades and have done seminal work on the Indus basin amongst others. It has developed in to a fine scientific organization and its technical expertise is not questionable. Since it is non‑partisan it has a chance of working the sector in a transcendental manner. Basin level policy means that the river will be studied and managed from source to ocean. In the very definition the entire concerns are covered. It becomes a holistic trans‑boundary policy. For this to be a success the countries partner to the basin relationship will have to subscribe to the technical assessments and then allow the policy to be followed. Having worked the natural systems the human systems will have to be put in place. That is the essence of the countries coming to an agreement.

The reuse of water has to be balanced and such factors as rainfall and precipitation have to be taken in to consideration. The fact is that there are many options on water that have not been exercised so far. People and nations have been allowed maverick behavior in the use of water. A focus is now called for water, to be allocated in terms of equity. That means that water tinned according to the proportion of land ownership. For this to be the international level individual countries must do the needful of water, which is an essential ingredient to this policy. At the moment this is hopelessly poor. It varies from 27 to 44%. Within the sector can one do this? By technical support and bringing irrigation agronomists.

For efficacious use of water the need seems to be to go into low delta requirements. Thus for sweetener industry Sugarcane is not the only option [it takes 16 to 18 applications of water], for rice the intake is just as bad when the crop can be dry cropped rather than wet cropped. Latest is that if the eco management is as it should be the productivity jumps four fold. So why do not we work the new system. The neglect of this is so blatant that developing countries have not invested in the farming community. The problem has now gone out of bounds. Himalayan efforts will be required. Every crop has an alternate option. In other words the start of a new water ethics is called for. The time has come to understand the intrinsic value of water rather than the utilitarian concept that we have played with so far. Not that the utilitarian concepts are not important, they are. How else will food security be addressed. Water as a means is significantly required but by that very essence it is essential to understand the rebalancing the use of water.

Much will depend on the credibility and detached point of action that is taken by the institutional arrangement that is put in place. There can be no losers in this game. So new arrangements between man and man, between nature and man have to be created in a manner that could lead to the benefit of mankind. The world in which we live must give way not to parochial interests but to the adequacy of life for every one.

The water sector must give way to the interventions that would be required in the agriculture sector. The cropping pattern needs to undergo a drastic change not in the national scene but in the regional situation. The cropping pattern has to undergo a change so that the living of the majority can be modest but adequate. For this the region must rethink its options on WTO. If WTO remains in play then the adequacy of human living and the modest means of living will be snatched away from them. Why should this happen? Simply because when there is a realignment of cropping patterns a new marketing structure would have to be developed. Without this the growth of trade will be an illusion.

The cropping pattern will have to even out the productive capacity of the various categories of land. The least productive will have to be developed along lines that will provide enough for a living family. Do not for a minute think that that is not possible. The most fragile lands have a productive capacity that need not be based on traditional agriculture. A new institutional arrangement where the entire fragile and marginal lands reproductive system is worked will have to be developed. The original supply side of agriculture will not work rather it has to be managed on the demand side. The main hurdles that would be encountered would be from the cartels and the monopolists. Such a situation is visible in the developing world.

A number of uncertainties can then be worked and the risk factor reduced. On the social side the farmer has to develop a super‑ordinate rather than a "subordinate stand. What does this indicate? It does indicate a liberal and ferociously independent stand. That is the most difficult thing to get going. The reason lies in the colonial legacy. The bridges that would have to be built for this category of water users in the agricultural field would be across the board.

The days of pure technologists are over. The days of a mix of policy implementers are upon us. A balance would have to be struck between the structuralists that ruled the day as against the current requirements of nonstructuralists that are a requirement of our times. No developing country can provide a buffer net for its poor. It is the poor themselves that have to get into action. The time is ripe for all the regional countries to resolve to understand and take a united stand in their search for solutions. There can be no universal solutions for local compulsions must come in to play.

How does this work? What are the mechanizations? First, those that are net gainers must invest so that there is adequacy of resources for the new scheme of things. That is the beneficiaries create and pay in to a development fund where those that are at risk can take up action for change. They will have to be covered for risk and uncertainty. Since quality of water is important a water quality tax be imposed on those that either pollute the water or are inefficient users of that water.

Besides this there has to be payment to the sufferers for the changes in production system that they will have to bring about. By definition they will be the ones that will need new technologies and will definitely be on a learning curve. Similarly some one will have to bear the costs of the new technologies.

Much will depend on how the country worries about equity. If there are reasonable men, eminent ones, then the people will benefit but if the actions are questionable and credibility is lost then no matter what is done the risk and the uncertainty factor will increase. Water is a means and agriculture in developing countries is the end for about 75 to 80% of the people. What we do with and to water will matter. There are serious ills for misuse. Salinization and secondary salinization are only two of the problems being accosted in Pakistan. We have lost the equivalent of 5 million hectares of land to this factor. This is about 20% of our productive base.

To recapitulate the solutions are not only in the water sector but also in the other sectors, political, social, economic, agriculture.

Dr. Zafar Altaf

Paper presented at seminar on “Comprehensive Security and Economic Prospects in the South West and Central Asian Region” organized by IPRI and Hanns Seidel Foundation on 28-29 August 2002

Water to be Given on Historic Basis: Indus River System Authority

ISLAMABAD, March 27: With estimates of a maximum five per cent water shortage during the Kharif season, the technical committee of the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) has decided to release water from both Tarbela and Mangla dams on a proportionate basis.

The meeting, presided over by Irsa chief engineer Amanullah, was attended by Irsa secretary and representatives of four provinces and Wapda.

Sohail Ali Khan, the Irsa secretary, told reporters here on Thursday that distribution of water would be made on actual annual average basis commonly known as historic use basis till such time the matter was decided by higher authorities to share the shortage among the provinces.

The provincial representatives, however, agreed that Irsa authority had the power to distribute water among the provinces on water accord basis when it meets next week if the shortage was assumed at one per cent as suggested by Sindh.

He said all provinces generally agreed to the calculations made by Irsa on water availability and provincial share in three different situations and noted with satisfaction that shortage would not be as high as during the last three years and would be very nominal.

In the most likely scenario, water shortage would be four per cent in early Kharif and overall three per cent throughout the season. The shortage would be just one per cent during Kharif under a maximum availability estimate.

Comparing with last three years, the Irsa secretary said overall shortage in Kharif 2000 was 11 per cent, 22 per cent in early season. In 2001, overall shortage was recorded at 18 per cent but early Kharif shortage was 46 per cent. Similarly, early Kharif shortage was at 31 per cent and six per cent in the overall terms.

Mr Sohail said that Punjab was likely to get around 33.519 MAF (million acre feet) during Kharif against its average annual use of 34.647 MAF. Sindh was likely to get 27.294 MAF against the average annual use of 28.79 MAF water.

Balochistan and the NWFP would remain unaffected and get their share of 2.848 MAF and 0.823 MAF water respectively.

He said there was no major difference in calculations made by the provinces at their own but Sindh insisted that shortage should be assumed at the maximum availability scenario of 1 per cent and adjust the same with downstream Kotri situation and distribute water purely on accord basis.

Mr Sohail said that all participants agreed that this could be considered by the Irsa authority because it was out of the technical committee's jurisdiction.

Mr Sohail said that the Punjab and Sindh would together have an anticipated water availability of 17.912 MAF in early Kharif season on total Indus system basis and 43.532 MAF in the later part of Kharif. The total anticipated availability of water in the whole indus system would be 61.444 MAF.

On the basis of actual annual uses, the share of two provinces should have been 18.674 MAF and 44.765 MAF in the early and later part of Kharif respectively and a total of 63.439 MAF.

He did not agree that Sindh was given less water than its share during the Rabi season and said the province was being given two to three times higher than its water share nowadays and it would get its complete share by March 31.

Mr Sohail said Sindh agitated that storage from Tarbela dam should not be depleted earlier than the Mangla dam because it was disadvantageous to Sindh. The technical committee agreed that water from both the dams would be released proportionately so as to cater to the next Rabi season.

In reply to a question, the Irsa secretary confirmed that the government had not yet released funds to make operational the telemetry system that was installed to remove inter-provincial mistrust.

He said the system had been installed, put on trial and feedback was satisfactory. However, two or three censors had yet to be installed along the Sindh-Balochistan boundary due to administrative problems.

He said both the provinces had been asked to address security issues so that the telemetry system could also be installed there.

Pakistan Demands Neutral Expert: Water Dispute with India

ISLAMABAD, May 7: Pakistan is putting India on notice on the violation of Indus Waters Treaty and has said the two countries should appoint a neutral expert within 15 days to resolve the dispute over the construction of Baglihar Hydropower Project on the Chenab river in occupied Kashmir.

Water and Power Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao confirmed on Wednesday that Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali had approved of the summary to issue a notice to India.

"The notice would be sent to India tomorrow (Thursday)," said Water and Power Secretary Riaz Ahmad Khan, adding that the two sides were bound under the 1960 treaty to meet and appoint a neutral expert within 15 days.

Asked why Pakistan was extending a hand of friendship to India when Delhi was trying to deprive Islamabad of its rights over Chenab and Jhelum waters, the minister said Pakistan, too, was initiating a project on Jhelum river in Azad Kashmir. However, he added, funds had not been arranged for the project so for.

India and Pakistan are in a serious dispute for more than four years now over the 450MW Baglihar project which Islamabad believes is being constructed in violation of the treaty.

Bilateral means of resolving the issue at the level of Permanent Indus Commission have exhausted and India is going with the construction of the controversial gate-structure which could deprive Pakistan of more than 7,000 cusecs water per day.

Sources said Pakistan wanted to appoint a World Bank official as neutral expert as the bank itself was the guarantor of the treaty. The World Bank had facilitated the two sides to sign the treaty in 1960 to resolve their water disputes.

The summary approved by the prime minister also assigns various responsibilities to relevant ministries and organizations.

The finance ministry will arrange for the required funding of more than $1 million, the Attorney-General of Pakistan has finalized a panel of lawyers while NESPAK and Wapda are preparing technical and engineering reports.

In February, the Indian Commissioner for Indus Commission refused to allow a Pakistani team to visit occupied Kashmir for physical verification of the project and insisted to continue with the gate-structure.

Pakistan was left with no other option but to invoke Article IX(2)(a) of the treaty for the appointment of a neutral expert to protect its rights. This would be first time since the treaty was inked 43 years ago that a dispute is likely to be referred to the neutral expert. The treaty brokered and guaranteed by the World Bank even survived 1965 and 1971 wars.

Officials believe India is trying to complete the project by 2004 through dilly-dallying tactics to deprive Pakistan of a river that belongs to Pakistan under the treaty.

Under the treaty Pakistan has exclusive rights over waters of western rivers - Jhelum, Chenab and Indus - while eastern rivers - Ravi, Beas and Sutlej - belong to India.

The article IX(2)(a) further states if the neutral expert reaches the conclusion that there is a dispute then a court of arbitration shall be set up upon agreement between the two parties to do so, or at the request of either party if that party feels that the dispute is unlikely to be resolved by negotiations or mediation, or if it feels after one month that the other party is unduly delaying negotiations.

Pakistan Shelves Raising Water Dispute with India

ISLAMABAD: As Pakistan and India inch closer to talks, Islamabad has shelved a plan to take up the issue of a controversial hydropower project at the international forum.

"Water commissioners are expected to meet from May 28 to 31 in New Delhi to discuss water issues between the two countries, including the Baglihar hydropower project," an official who is expected to be part of the Pakistani team told IANS.

Pakistan objects to the design of the 450-megawatt project that is being constructed on the river Chenab. Pakistan shares waters of the Chenab with India.

"We will ask Indian officials to arrange our visit to the disputed gateway structure of the Baglihar project and other sites," said the official.

Pakistan's position has been that the 450 MW Baglihar power project design is in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty.

Pakistan's main concern is that the gated spillways provided for in the Baglihar project would give India the capability to manipulate the flow of water to Pakistan's disadvantage.

Technical experts believe this structure would allow India to increase its storage capacity while reducing Chenab waters from 8,000 to 7,000 cusec per day in Pakistan.

Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters Syed Jamaat Ali Shah will lead Pakistan's delegation to India and it will include technical experts and a legal adviser from the foreign office.

Last year, Pakistan's team had asked the Indian officials to facilitate its visit to the project sites in Jammu and Kashmir. This was refused by New Delhi because of the tense situation along the Line of Control (LOC) and in Kashmir.

Ali Shah gave a detailed presentation at the 38th annual meeting of the Federal Flood Commission Monday, with Minister for Water and Power Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao in the chair.

The commissioner told the meeting that all arrangements have been finalised for asking the World Bank to appoint neutral experts for resolving the controversy over the Baglihar project, but the government has deferred the decision for the time being keeping in view the developments on the political front.

According to the official, the water and power minister asked the Indus Water Commissioner to seek a waiver of the Rs.1.8 million payment to be made to India for providing flood related data.

"There were arguments and counter-arguments on the issue of Rs 1.8 million waiver, but the minister again asked the commissioner to proceed with the matter," the official said.

The official said though the Indian commissioner for Indus waters has conveyed the dates to his Pakistani counterpart for the meeting, the final dates are yet to be announced.

Pakistan had sought dates for the meeting of the Permanent Commission on Indus Waters (PCIW) from India through a written communication about two weeks ago. The last regular meeting of the commission was held in New Delhi in 2002 from May 30 to June 1.

The PCIW meets once every year to exchange data on water and weather-related issues. A special meeting of the PCIW was held here early February on Pakistan's request. The special session was convened to address Pakistan's reservations on the Baglihar hydroelectric project being constructed by India on Chenab River.

However, the talks failed and Islamabad decided to seek the intervention of neutral experts for arbitration of the dispute. Indian officials' refusal to change the project design as proposed by Pakistani experts reportedly led to the breakdown of the talks.

ISLAMABAD, Aug 29: Pakistan needs a water management strategy comprising pro-poor, affordable technologies such as small-scale water harvesting instead of the conventional focus on formal irrigation systems , says the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in a report.

The report, "Freshwater for Agriculture", prepared in connection with the International Year of Freshwater 2003, observes that global food production will have to increase by 60 per cent to fill nutrition gaps resulting from the growth in population over the next three decades.

To meet this requirement, water withdrawals for agriculture are expected to go up by some 14 per cent, representing an annual growth rate of 0.6 per cent. Much of the increase will take place on arable irrigated land, forecast to expand globally from some two million sq km to 2.421 million sq km.

For Pakistan, the FAO sees broad scope for policy intervention to help "re-invent" agricultural water management. It has recommended a strategic approach to develop available land and water resources in order to meet demand for food products and agricultural commodities and a broader awareness of the productivity gains that can be achieved through the use of water wisely.

Individual farmers and households need to be assured "stable engagement" with land and water resources, that is, land tenure and water use rights that are flexible enough to promote comparative advantage in food staples and cash crops, observes the report.

Those rights, it further stresses, must be matched by access to rural credit and finance and dissemination of technology and good practices in water use, particularly, through technologies which redound to the well-being of the poor.

Terming the existing command-and-control systems of irrigation, the report calls for measures that would transform these into much more "flexible service-delivery" systems.

It adds that agriculture should- and can- shoulder its environmental responsibilities much more effectively by minimizing the negative environmental impacts of irrigated production and seeking to restore the productivity of natural ecosystems.

The report goes on to stress the need of a government policy that facilitates investment and helps local markets for agricultural produce to become more effective in meeting local demands. "This means investment in key public goods such as roads and storage as well as institutional capacity, but will also demand a more progressive role for large-scale private investment."

To ensure the economic use of the available water resources for sustained agricultural productivity, the FAO has proposed a number of measures by the government, civil society and other stakeholders under the captions, "Modernisation", "Participation" and "Investment".

ISLAMABAD, Aug 28: Pakistan lacks enough water resources to meet present and future demands and is fast approaching the critical threshold of chronic water stress , generally believed to be 1,000 cubic meters per capita per annum, remarks UNDP in the book "Water: A Vital Source of Life" released by the United Nations System in Pakistan here on Thursday.

Calling this an alarming situation "which must be brought to a halt and reversed", the UN agency finds it particularly worrying that "not only is there over-exploitation of ground water resources but also a great deal of it is wasted".

The publication marks the celebration of 2003 that has been declared by the UN General Assembly as "the international year of freshwater" to emphasise the role that freshwater plays in the ecological systems as well as in the process of development.

The UN Information Centre, Islamabad, had organised a meeting which was attended by officials of UN system, journalists from different places and students. Minister of state for environment Tahir Iqbal was in the chair.

Greater increase in population of Pakistan over the last two decades was definitely putting further strain on meagre water resources for all three main users, i.e. agriculture, industry and households including drinking water.

"All water users are affected but it is the poor who bear the brunt," the UNDP points out, noting that the deficit in year 2001 was estimated to be about 8.1 billion cubic metres (BCM), which was expected to swell to 18.3 BCM in 2004.

It, therefore, underlined the need to create awareness on judicious use of water resources and to educate the general public that a free gift of nature though, water is neither infinite nor inexhaustible.

The way to tackle the insufficiency of water lay in increasing its availability through conservation and recycling as well as ensuring consistent policies and increase the budgetary allocations for water sector, it stressed.

The book published in Urdu and English comprises a diverse collection of chapters by different writers on the problems of each province of Pakistan related to water and sanitation as well as writings and paintings done by school children and messages from various personalities of the government. Pakistan, Mr Onder Yucer, UNDP Representative in Pakistan said, was home to the mighty Indus river system and endowed with a wealth of natural freshwater assets. Nevertheless, it faces important questions surrounding the usage and storage of fresh water.

He said access to clean drinking water for all peoples, regardless of social and economic background, was a basic challenge faced by Pakistan. The problems of disease and illness caused by inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene occur regularly and on a scale that is "worrisome", Mr Yucer observed.

Water is becoming scarce in most regions of the world. In Asia also, where water has always been regarded as an abundant resource, per individual availability of water declined by 40-60 per cent between 1955 and 1990. In Pakistan, at the time of independence 5,000 cu/m of water was available for each Pakistani, which has now come down to 1,000 cu/m because of very less number of reservoirs available, inefficient water management with uncontrolled population growth.

A renowned WWF expert who visited Pakistan recently to attend a seminar in Islamabad said that, "At the prevailing rates of consumption, it is a certainty that within 25 years, one out of three people in Pakistan will face critical shortages of water threatening their very survival".

Ground water levels are going down. Rainwater is lost due to mismanagement in most of countries and lack of planning with politicisation of water issue; the future availability of water in many countries will be a major problem. Moreover, as population increases and economic development intensifies, governments will be forced to make critical decisions in their long-term planning for regulating, allocating, and using their water resources.

In our country, water disputes are as old as the civilisation itself and the provinces of Punjab and Sindh are not unique in this respect. They have had periods of intense debate followed by camaraderie, just as now.

However, we have to be cognizant of the fact that water is one resource that cannot be generated; it can only be preserved. Farsighted nations try to conserve each and every drop of water available to them. They are aware of the fact that if this most valuable source of nature is not prudently preserved and used, the human survival itself would be jeopardised and future wars would be fought for its possession and control. The only manner to conserve this resource for the living of mankind is to construct dams and canals. Dams have been built for at least 5,000 years, and their functions have evolved with the growing needs of the society. Most likely, the earliest dams were built to store water for domestic and agriculture water supply. With the onset of industrial era, hydropower became a major reason to build dams. Presently, dams are built to serve many other functions, such as flood control, irrigation and improving the environment.

Here in Pakistan, the provincial leadership of all the four provinces needs to tackle the water dispute from the standpoint of it being ‘an issue of national importance’. If this issue kept on lingering, the country could land into a food crisis, especially in view of its impact on agricultural sectors. Therefore, an answer to this problem is ‘building more reservoirs’.

September 19, 1960