Onus on India to protect its riparian rights
ANY action by India along the western rivers has always drawn flak from Pakistan. Once again, the Kishanganga hydroelectric project and the Ratle hydroelectric plant are in focus following the announcement by the World Bank on March 31 to have a relook into the objections raised in the context of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. The two countries disagree over whether the technical design features of the two hydroelectric plants contravene the treaty. Pakistan had asked the World Bank to facilitate setting up a court of arbitration to consider its concerns about the designs of the two projects, while India asked for the appointment of a neutral expert for the same purpose. The World Bank’s decision to resume these two processes has been formally communicated to India and Pakistan.
In December 2016, the World Bank declared a pause in these processes to allow the two countries to consider alternative ways to resolve their disagreements. Since then, the World Bank has encouraged and worked with both countries to seek an amicable resolution. Multiple high-level meetings have been convened and a variety of proposals has been discussed but to no avail.
Kishanganga is a run-of-river project that includes a 37-metre-high concrete rock fill dam across the Kishanganga river, located in the Gurez Valley, just before it flows across the LoC into PoK. It diverts the water to an underground powerhouse through a 23.25-km tunnel. The project generates 1,713 million units per annum. Jammu and Kashmir has been provided with 12 per cent of the power generated by the project.
In the early 1990s, India had informed Pakistan of its intentions to construct the Kishanganga hydro-electric project. Ever since then, Pakistan has been raising objections. The main objections were that inter-tributary diversions were barred as per the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty and that existing Pakistani uses must be protected as execution of this project would deprive Pakistan of 27 per cent of the river’s natural flows, thereby adversely affecting 133,000 hectares of irrigated area in the Neelum valley. Pakistan also raised objections relating to design features.
In response, India clarifying its position, informed Pakistan that the Kishanganga project on the LoC was a run-of-river scheme. The Indus Waters Treaty categorically permitted inter-tributary diversion as per Article III (2) and Para 15 (iii) of the Annexure D. The treaty stipulated that ‘where a plant is located on a tributary of the Jhelum of which Pakistan has an agricultural use or hydroelectric use, the water released below the plant may be delivered, if necessary, into another tributary but only to the extent that the then existing agricultural use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on the former tributary would not be adversely affected’.
In 2010, Pakistan took the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which stayed the project for three years. But in 2013, the court ruled that the Kishanganga was ‘a run-of-river plant within the meaning of the Indus Waters Treaty and that India may accordingly divert water from the Kishanganga (Neelum river) for power generation’. The court also ruled that India was under an obligation to ‘construct and operate’ the Kishanganga dam in such a way that it ‘maintains a minimum flow of 9 cumecs (318 cusecs) of water in the Kishanganga/Neelum river’, following which India declared that it was lowering the height of the dam from the planned 98 metres to 37 metres and resumed construction in full swing.
However, concerned about the performance of the under-construction Neelum-Jhelum hydro station (900 MW) at Nowshera and to prove that India was violating the treaty as well as the court verdict, Pakistan again approached the World Bank in August 2016 to appoint a court of arbitration to review the design of the Kishanganga project. Finally, overcoming all hurdles, this hydroelectric project (costing Rs 5,750 crore) was inaugurated on May 19, 2018.
Similarly, the Ratle plant (850 MW) is a run-of-river hydroelectric power station, currently under construction on the Chenab river, downstream of the village of Ratle in Kishtwar district of J&K. The project includes a 133-metre-tall gravity dam and two power stations adjacent to one another. Water from the dam will be diverted through four intake tunnels about 400 metres southwest to the power stations. The main power station will contain four 205-MW Francis turbines and the auxiliary power station will contain a 30-MW Francis turbine. This project, costing Rs 5,282 crore, is likely to be completed by January 2024. India has, simultaneously, submitted to the United Nations its final design of the Ratle project for qualifying the carbon credits.
In this case too, Pakistan has raised four technical objections: one that the freeboard should be one metre instead of two metres; two, pondage should be a maximum of eight million cubic metres instead of 24 million; three, intake level should be at 8.8 metres and four, that the spillways should be at a height of 20 metres. It believes Ratle’s design would reduce Chenab flow by 40 per cent at Head Marala, causing loss to crops.
India has rejected the suggestions, saying that Pakistan’s objections were technical in nature and that the matter should be decided by a neutral expert. Pakistan disagrees, arguing that decision by a technical expert will be non-binding and India would be under no obligation to implement the expert’s recommendations. There have been several interactions lately under the aegis of the World Bank but no decision has been arrived at.
However, for India, there is a need to draw a lesson. A think tank in Pakistan has been consistently resisting construction of any hydropower project on the western rivers, even though all projects by India are run-of-river projects and are in tune with the stipulations laid down in the treaty. India’s stance has, in the past, been accepted by the neutral expert in case of Baglihar and the court of arbitration in case of Kishanganga. Therefore, taking the benefit of previous experience, we must expedite construction/completion of various projects in the pipeline on priority and draw full benefits entitled under the provisions of the treaty for our economic growth. Simultaneously, we should prepare ourselves to put across our point of view to the court of arbitration and the neutral expert. Any intervention by Pakistan should be taken only as a delaying tactic.
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access.
Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Already a Member? Sign In Now