dispute resolution mechanism

8/3/2019 Dispute Resolution Mechanism

1/23

Dispute ResolutionMechanism:The Indus Waters Treaty


2/23

Index

Part I: What is Water Conflict?..........................................................3

Part II: Pakistan Running Dry: Fact or Fallacy?................................5

Part III: Step-By-Step Dispute Resolution Mechanism.....................9

Part IV: Indus Waters Treaty: How good in resolving disputes?..... 11

Part V: Lessons learnt from the world around ...................................15

Part VI: The Way Forward: Recommendations...............................21


3/23

Part I: What is Water Conflict?

Water is not necessary to life but rather life itself," the French poet and aviator An- toine

de Saint-Exupery wrote after his substantial experience in the arid countries.1 Fresh water is a

resource which has been depleting steadily over the past century. Whenever a natural resource

becomes scarce there arise a potential for conflict as the entire globe is running towards the same

recourse. Conflict occurs when more than one person or group have, or think they have,

incompatible goals. Water conflict may occur when two or more groups of people have

incompatible goals of consuming maximum amount of fresh water. Such conflict may also occur

due to many fresh water basins, more than 300 globally, lying on different sides of international

borders.2 The risk is accelerated with escalating population rates and degradation pressures.

Water as a resource is degrading in quality and quantity due to poor allocation plans, wastefuluse and pitiable management action. The World Resource Institute also authenticate this claim of

reducing water levels by stating that during the period 1940-1990 freshwater withdrawals

increased by a factor of four.3

Conflicts are more plausible where there are shared water resources. In his paper, Water and

Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security, Peter H. Gleick cites an index that

measures the extent to which water supplies are shared between nations and thus, could be a

cause of conflict. His results suggest that disputes may arise in certain parts of Europe (Hungary,

Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) and in Asia (Cambodia,

Bangladesh and Pakistan), where water is shared between the neighboring countries.

4

Moreover, some nations follow the Harmon Doctrine according to which a nation has the right

to use the water which is within its territory even though that is at the expense of its neighboring

countries. Following such a practice by upstream nations in todays world would certainly lead

to violence, conflicts and war.5

1 Cooley, John K. "The War over Water."Foreign Policy 54 (Spring 1984): 3-26. Print.

2 Dolatyar, Mostafa, and Tim Gray; "Water Politics in the Jordan River Basin." Water Politics in the Middle East: aContext for Conflict or Co-operation? New York: St. Martin's, 2000. 85-114. Print.

3 World Resources 1996-97, 1996; A joint publication by the World Resources Institute, the United Nations

Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank. New York & Oxford:Oxford University Press.

4Peter H. Gleick, Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security, International Security,

Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer, 1993), pp. 79-112

5 Peter H. Gleick, Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security, International Security,Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer, 1993), pp. 79-112


4/23

Part II: Pakistan Running Dry: Fact or Fallacy?

Increasingly scarce water has become the new Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan.

Pakistani farmers are accusing Delhi for affecting their bread basket. The main hue and cry is

over the river Chenab which has become a mere trickle recently. The once majestic river is fed

with glacial melt waters from the Himalayas and for centuries has provided water for the

agricultural heartland of Pakistan. Recently, the water levels of the river and the groundwater

have depleted resulting in a distressing situation among the farmers.6 These reduced levels have

caused even more tensions between the quarrelling neighbors as Pakistan blames India for

withholding water for filling up the massive Balighar dam for hydroelectric power (HEP) use.

Pakistan staunchly believes that this is a clear cut breach of the Indus Waters Treaty. However,

the flip side of the coin is a bit different. India refutes any such allegations and blames the

reduced levels on the changing climatic conditions of South Asia.7

However, Majid Nizami and other experts in Pakistan are proposing arguments that a water

bomb is in the making in South Asia and war is inevitable in the near future.8 This water bomb

is in the creation because India has planned on making several dams on the Pakistani rivers. If

Pakistan does not respond to these dams promptly then the Indians after the completion of these

projects would own a powerful weapon in their hands which would dry up around 406 canals and

1125 distributaries in Pakistan. However, the credibility of these statistics, quoted by Miami, is

questionable.

The comparative analysis of India and Pakistans water could be made by looking at Table 1.

From this table, we can see how much of a threat water scarcity is for Pakistan and India.

6 India is stealing water of life, says Pakistan; Thousands of Punjab farmers suffer as river Chenab runs dry by

Andrew Buncombe and Omar Waraich

7 Pakistan: water on the boil again by Ramaswamy R. Iyerhttp://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2293565.ece

8The water bomb By Majid Nizami | Published: May 27, 2008 http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bomb
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2293565.ecehttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bombhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bombhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bombhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bombhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-May-2008/The-water-bombhttp://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2293565.ece


5/23

Table 1 910

9http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_pak_en.pdf

10 http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_ind_en.pdf
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_pak_en.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_ind_en.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_pak_en.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/factsheets/aquastat_fact_sheet_ind_en.pdf


6/23

Table 1 shows the obvious that India has more than four times the territory than Pakistan. India

has a higher population crisis as there are 359 people who have to fit in a kilometer square,

whereas Pakistan has to fit in only 222. Pakistan has around 14% population engaged in

agriculture whereas India has around 22% of people who still practice agriculture as their sole

occupation. This statistic shows that India has a more water dependent economy than Pakistan-

however more factors will be looked into to confirm this claim. Pakistani precipitation is much

less than India once the area is taken into account. India, having four times more land area than

Pakistan, gets nine times more volume of long term average annual precipitation as compared to

Pakistan.

Coming to the long term average annual renewable water resource, the internal renewable

resource differential is very high where as the external differential is comparatively lower. When

we analyze these with respect to the areas of the countries it could be seen that internalrenewable water resource is 26 times higher for India as compared to Pakistan and external water

resource is only around 2.6 times higher with respect to Pakistan. Comparing both these statistics

to the four times larger area of India, it could be said that when it comes to internal renewable

water recourses India is privileged and in the area of external renewable resources Pakistan is

fortunate. The dependency ratio is extremely high for Pakistan i.e. 70 % whereas that of India is

lower i.e. 30.5 %. This statistic shows that how much is a population dependant on the

renewable water as a resource. Both these ratios are high enough and show that India and

Pakistan fall under the yellow to orange band as shown in Figure 1 below.


7/23

Figure 1 11

11http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article79.html
http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article79.htmlhttp://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article79.htmlhttp://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article79.html


8/23

Next is the total renewable water resource per capita. Pakistan has 1304m 3 per person per year

whereas India has 1618m3 of water per person per year. Comparing this with the population

would tell us which country is ahead in this game. The population of India is six times higher

that Pakistan yet the per capita fresh water that comes under ones share is around 300m3 higher

for India. This shows that the threat to Pakistan of water scarcity is more even with its low

population when compared to India.

The total water withdrawal per capita from freshwater resources is higher in Pakistan in contrast

to India. This would lead to the obvious conclusion that since Pakistan is withdrawing more so

there are more chances of it drying up faster since the annual precipitation of Pakistan is also

lower. On the other side it could be argued that since India is withdrawing less thus it leaves

more water for Pakistan to use as a lower riparian. However, surface water withdrawal is 121km3

in Pakistan and 510km3 this shows that even though Pakistan is seen to be drying up but it has

not utilized the water it has optimally. The pressure on the water resources is greater for Pakistan

according to Table 1 but an accurate analysis cant be made since this statistic includes ground

water as well and our primary concern is fresh surface water.

India Pakistan

9 times more volume of long term

average annual precipitation

Less water based economy

Higher External water resource Less differential in internal

renewable water resource

More precipitation Lower water surface fresh

water withdrawal

Lower dependency ratio

Higher per capita renewable water

consumption

Lower total withdrawal

Table 2

The analysis above in Table 2 shows that the threat Pakistan is facing is not a fallacy but a fact.

India has plenty of water in its glass to quench its thirst but Pakistan has considerably lower

water levels. However, the hype that has been created in Pakistan by the media is a bitexaggerated to wake up the long sleeping government and to coax it into taking some action.


9/23

Part III: Step-By-Step Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Figure 2

The permanent Indus water commission is supposed to exchange data every month as per articleVI. If either of the commissions have any questions regarding a fact which might be consideredas a breach of the treaty they raise it to the Indus water commission on the other side of theborder. It is said that a question has arisen. It is duty of both the commissions to answer all thequestions. If the commission is unable to reach an agreement after discussions on a question thena difference would have arisen. The difference would be solved by two ways. Firstly, if thedifference falls under part 1 of annexure F. the question according to this article could be oftwenty three types which include topics like determinants of the water available for Pakistan,storage options of India on the western rivers, construction or remodeling of waters assigned to

the other country. Determination of the schedule of releases from the conservation storagefacilities whether the projects on the western rivers adhere to the treaty or not? and whetherstorage work confirms to the entire treaty or not? If the questions fall under these topics then thecommission has a right to call for a neutral expert.

The neutral expert shall be appointed in accordance with Annexure F of the treaty.

If however, the topic of the question over which a difference has arisen doesnt fall under theseparticular topics then a dispute is said to have occurred. A dispute can also occur if the neutraladvisor which has been appointed says that in his opinion the difference should be treated as adispute. After the establishment of the fact that a dispute has occurred the government of thecountry is contacted and given the detail of the dispute. If the government feels viable, the

government on the other side of the border is contacted and negotiation talks begin. A resolutioncan occur at this stage or the governments could decide to set up a court of arbitration to settlethe matter.

The court of arbitration should be set up in accordance to Annexure G. this annexure states thatthe court should be instituted either by both the parties or by either one of them, on request. Thedate of the institutionalization would be the date on which both the parties decided on setting upthe court or when either party forwarded a request to set it up. The court would consist of 7arbitrators whose composition would be as follows:

Two arbitrators appointed by the two parties. If only one party makes a request to set upthe court then the other party must appoint its two arbitrators within the next thirty days.

Three more arbitrators sometimes called the umpires will be appointed. These peopleshould be one from each category: highly qualified engineer, expert international lawyer,a person with high reputation and status who could be the chairman.

Further the annexure gives in detail the procedure of electing a new chairman or umpire, if eitherdies or retires. The expenses of the courts proceedings are to be met by the respective parties andwill be under the treasurer. The treasurer would be appointed on the first meeting of the court.The law applied by the court would be the Indus Waters Treaty.


10/23

Part IV: Indus Waters Treaty: How good in resolving disputes?

There are many disputes which have occurred between the two major neighbors of south Asiawith respect to the Indus Waters. Most of these disputes have been on the dam projects beingconstructed by either of the parties. The negotiations on these projects have been very complex

as there are varied interpretations of the treaty and the relationship of the two countries involvedis also multifaceted. The four main disputes in which the treaty has been used are the Sallal dam,the Wullur/Tulbul project, the Balighar dam and Kishanganga hydro electric project.

Sallal Dam

This was the first dispute the treaty had to face. The project was to make a dam on the ChenabRiver by India. The treaty commands the government undergoing the new project to submit adetailed plan of the Indus Water Commission. This was done by the Indian government forPakistans approval in 1968. Sallal, a runoff-the-river hydro electric project was consideredimperative for the agricultural needs of Indian Punjab. In 1974 Pakistan objected to the design ofthe project, claiming that it didnt meet the criteria for the design of such hydro electric power

stations laid down in the Indus Water Treaty. Several negotiation talks were conducted and thedifference transformed into a dispute, many proposals were made by the governments of therespective countries. Resorting to the court of arbitration was also discussed. However, Indiafinally agreed to alter the original design of the dam which included reducing the height of thedam and permanently closing the diversion canal once the project was complete.

The resolution of this dispute is an outstanding example of the two countries coming togetherand solving a problem. It is still quoted as a success of the Indus Waters Treaty and of excellentdiplomacy among the two nations. Pakistan and India turned from being the uncompromisingand stubborn neighbors to more compromising ones and signed the Sallal Agreement in April1978.12

Wullur/Tulbul BarrageThe second test of the treaty came about when India announced the construction of the TulbulNavigation project, as they call it or the Wullur barrage as the Pakistanis term it. The disputeemerged in 1984 when India began work on a project to build a navigation project on the mouthof Wullar Lake on the River Jhelum. Two years later, work was paused by India on the project.The main point of dispute was that Pakistan argued it to be a storage barrage whereas Indiaclaimed it to be a mere navigational project.

Pakistani side

Pakistan argues that the project violates t he treaty on multiple basis. Firstly, it breaches Article Iparagraph 11 which forbids both the parties to build any man-made obstruction which can

result in reduced levels of waters on the other countries rivers. Secondly article III paragraph 4also bans all sorts of storage of water by India on the western river. Moreover, if India has tostore small amounts of water on the western rivers then the projects plan has to be approved andscrutinized by Pakistan under paragraph 8 (h) in the same article. Under the treaty India can onlystore up to 10,000 acre feet of water whereas the storage capacity of the Dam is 32 times morethan that. Pakistan further claims that the existing water in the lake is enough for navigational

12 http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/IB128-Ploughshares-Nausheen.pdf
http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/IB128-Ploughshares-Nausheen.pdfhttp://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/IB128-Ploughshares-Nausheen.pdf


11/23

projects thus there is no need for additional storage facilities. Small boats can easily travel formBaramula to Srinagar according to Pakistan.

Indian side

India on the other hand asserts the fact that I has been allowed to construct barrages on the

western rivers under article III paragraph 4 which says that India can store water in accordancewith annexure D and E. these annexes state that navigational projects are allowed forconstruction and India firmly calls Tulbul a navigational project.13

Bilateral negotiations have been taking place since the question turned into a dispute in 1986. In1987 India suspended the construction of the barrage and Pakistan restrained to take the case tothe court of arbitration. 8 rounds of talks have been held since then and the matter still remainsunresolved after twenty five years. In 1991 both the countries were inches close to an agreementin which India would keep 6.2m of the barrage ungated with a crest level of 1574.9m and wouldsacrifice the storage capacity of 0.37km. In return, India would be allowed to attain the waterlevel of 1578.4m. However the agreement was called off when Pakistan added the clause thatIndia would stop work on Kishananga hydropower plant. India refused to accept this clause

under any circumstances. The Wullur Tulbul project was a subject of discussions in both Lahoremeeting in 1999 and the Agra summit in 2001, yet the two governments couldnt come to aconclusion.

Recently a report claims that the talks between India and Pakistan to be scheduled in the midSeptember 2011 will omit the Wullur Dam. It is said that the government of the Indian heldKashmiri government has silently abandoned the controversial plan and this could be abreakthrough for the strained relation between the countries and could prove to be a confidencebuilding measure.14

Thus the Indus waters treaty has not been that successful in dealing with this dispute as multipletalks have not been able to solve this issue. However, it could be said that the countries did not

avail the options presented to them in the treaty i.e. calling for the court of arbitration, to solvethe problem.

Kishanganga Project

The Kishanganga hydroelectric project is another issue which has caused a dispute between thetwo countries. The Hydroelectric project is of 330 megawatts and is located 160 km fromMuzaffarabad and will divert waters from Kishanganga/Neelum River. The total distance bywhich the river would be diverted would be 100km.

Pakistan is again the one with objections. The first objection is that the project would haveundesirable effects on the Neelum Jhelum project which was initiated in 1988. Secondly, the

diversion of waters from Kishanganga to Jhelum River would inundate the Neelum valley inPakistan causing a displacement of around 20,000 people. Pakistan is also dreading that theproject would cause a stark decline of Pakistani water from 154 MAF to 140 MAF. This wouldbe a drop of 9% of the total water which Pakistan receives.

13 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdf

14 http://www.worldupdatednews.com/wullar-thorn-out-of-pak-india-talks.php
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdfhttp://www.worldupdatednews.com/wullar-thorn-out-of-pak-india-talks.phphttp://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdfhttp://www.worldupdatednews.com/wullar-thorn-out-of-pak-india-talks.php


12/23

The Indian of the dispute is that they have a right to construct this project on Kishanganga. Indiaclaims that it has been working on this project since 1980s which is before Pakistan planned theNeelum-Jhelum project. Under the Indus waters treaty whichever country will complete theproject first will have the rights to use the water. Thus this Indian stance has caused a racebetween the two countries to complete their respective projects.

Is the Indus Water Commission working hard enough to reach a conclusion to this dispute since1996? Five meetings were held to discuss the matters of the project till 2004 and an agreementwas reached to reduce the height of the dam by 40m. However, in 2006 India announced that theproject is now a run off project. This was unbearable for Pakistan as it claimed that negotiationswere made on a non run off project and if India is to make a run-off project at Kishanganga thenthe plan would have to be approved by Pakistan once again. During the two years from 2006 till2008 the commission met thrice but a deadlock was reached. In 2008 Pakistan notified India thatit wanted to take the difference to a neutral expert who will be appointed by the World Bank.However, India refused Pakistans plea and resorted to its old habit of solving issues bilaterally.Pakistan agreed to meet in the commission once more, but the meeting resulted in things stillbeing unsettled. In March 2009 Pakistan proposed to the opponent to set up a court of arbitration

but India refused again. Pakistan is pressing that the environmental impact should be addressedby the court of arbitration whereas the design of the project should be settled by a neutral expert.

The latest developments on the difference were in 2010 when the Indus water commission metfor the hundred and fourth time in March, long discussions were done but still no breakthroughwas achieved. Meetings were held even in may 2010 in New Delhi but it seems that the problemis unsolvable even with the powerful Indus water treaty.

Balighar Dam

The Balighar hydropower plant is under construction since 2002 on river Chenab, which is awestern tributary and allotted to Pakistan. It has a capacity of 450 mega watts. In January 2005the Pakistani government stated that a difference has occurred and it wants the World Bank toappoint a neutral expert to settle the difference. The World Bank appointed after the approval ofthe parties, Mr. Raymond Lafitte, Professor at the Federal Institute of Technology of LausanneSwitzerland, as the neutral expert.15

Pakistani side

Pakistan has multi faceted objections on the project. Firstly, it would divert up to 28.34m3persecond of water this is unacceptable to Pakistan as India is allowed to build a dam if and if onlyit doesnt affect the water flow to Pakistan. The design of the dam is also unacceptable as thegated spillways are way taller and provide India with a greater storage capacity. Pakistan accusesIndia of violating article I paragraph 15 of the treaty16 which states that any construction whichchanges the daily flow of the river is not allowed. Pakistan also asserts that according to the

15http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf

16 Article I Para (15) illustrates that The term interference with the waters means: a) Any act of withdrawal therefrom; or b)Any man-made obstruction to their flow which cause change in the volume (within the practical range ofmeasurement) of the daily flow of the waters: provided however that an obstruction which involves only aninsignificant and incidental changein the volume of the daily flow for example, fluctuations due to afflux caused by

bridge piers of a temporary by-pass etc., shall not be deemed to be an interference with the waters.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdfhttp://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171996340255/BagliharSummary.pdf


13/23

treaty India is only permitted to construct small run-off-river hydro power plants with amaximum discharge of 8.5m3 per second through the turbines.Pakistani engineers have objectedon the height of the dam which is 143.3m and their analysis shows that this height would hinderthe flow of water into Pakistan. The dams bondage capacity is 37.5 million m 3 which, Pakistanasserts, is twice the amount of bondage which is allowed in the treaty.

Indian side

Balighar dam is the only project by which the needy people of Kashmir can get a cheap way ofgetting electricity. If India accepts Pakistani stance of reducing the height of the project then theKashmiri people will suffer as per unit cost of electricity would go up. Secondly, India insists ontechnical consideration of the project bilaterally and the involvement of the World Bank is notjustified. Thirdly, India claims that since it has paid 62 million pounds to Pakistan under articleV, the article no linger remains valid. India also asserts that the storage capacity of the damwould not disrupt the daily flows to Pakistan.

The neutral expert did an in depth analysis of the difference and interpreted the Indus WatersTreaty in a new light. He came to the conclusion that India had the right to construct gated

spillways under the treaty. Secondly, the pondage of the dam was reduced to 32.58 million m3

thus reduced by 13.5 %. Thirdly, the height of freeboard was reduced from 4.5m to 3.0 m. andlastly, the power intake tunnels were raised by 3m therefore reducing the flow controlcapabilities of India.17

Despite the enormous hue and cry over the judgment passed by the neutral expert on both sidesof the border, it could be said that the Indus Waters Treaty was once again victorious in thisinfamous case to resolve the conflict between the two countries.

Part V: Lessons learnt from the world around

History is abundant with incidents of conflict over shared water resources. Such conflicts havetaken place within nations like the violence between the Indian states of Karnataka and TamilNadu over the Cauvery River. At the international level, shared water resources have resulted inclashes between states and have led to aggression between the Arabs and Israelis, Indians andPakistanis, and among the Nile co-riparian nations, to name a few.

Conflicts elsewhere in the world can be looked into and analyzed to see what are the reasonsother nations have water conflicts and how do they solve them. Such an analysis will make usbetter suited to judge Pakistans position in its water disputes with India. Pakistan can learn fromthe mistakes other nations have made and try to embody a model that will be most beneficial.

The Jordan River

The Jordan River flows between five riparian countries- Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt andSyria. It has been the locus of immense international conflict in the last five decades; it isbelieved that this looming conflict over the Jordan River basin is most likely to lead to a newwater war.18

17http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdf
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdfhttp://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdfhttp://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pk_ulr_d1_2.pdf


14/23

Even before the creation of Israel, Zionists believed that control over the water resources wasnecessary to maintain a Jewish state. At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, for example, theWorld Zionist Organization insisted that the future Jewish state control not only the waterresources within the British Mandate of Palestine, but also the sources of their flow19. Soonafter the creation of Israel in 1948, the Israelis associated water with their national security andas a tool to maintain their national sovereignty.

Israel has been at a state of war with the Arab world since creation. These conflicts range fromharsh verbal exchanges to wars. Threats and political rhetoric are used time and again by those inpower to exert their power and hold on the water resources. The Israeli Prime Minister, LeviEshkol, stated that "water is a question of life for Israel," and therefore "Israel would act toensure that the waters continue to flow".20 These are not just plain threats; the Israelis haveindeed entered into a state of war with Syria over the Headwater Diversion Plan, which wouldhave channeled the Hasbani River in Lebanon and Banias River in Syria, two of the sources ofthe Jordan River, to Lake Tiberias through Syria to the Yarmouk River where the water wouldhave been regulated by a Jordanian dam at Mukheiba.21 This plan of the Arab League to divertthe headwaters of the Jordan River away from Israel in early 1960s is considered as one of the

contributing factors that led to armed conflicts and eventually the 1967 war.

In March, May and August of 1965 and July of 1966, Israel launched an attack on the waterdiversion works of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, where the Headwater Diversion Plan was to becarried out. Moreover, these conflicting claims over water led to the six day war of 1967 whenIsrael destroyed a Jordanian Dam on the Yarmouk which is the most significant tributary of theJordan River. Israel conquered the West Bank and the Golan Heights from Syria and improvedtheir hydro-strategic standing by taking control of the Upper Jordan River. This violence came toend with a ceasefire in 1969 which now allocated half of the Yarmouk River to Israel whenpreviously it only had right to ten kilometers of it before.

A number of settlements have been made between the riparian countries but to no effect. In 1951many states publicized unilateral plans to develop the river basin but the riparian states soonrealized that plans like All Israel Plan, irrigation of East Ghor plan and the Bunger Planwould not take off the ground due to multi party interests in the Jordan River basin. Theirrigation of East Ghor plan by tapping the Yarmouk River by Jordan caused skirmishes on theinternational borders, with Israel protesting against it by shutting the gates of an already builtdam south of the Sea of Galilee and draining the Huleh swamps.22

18 Mostafa Dolatyar and Tim S. Gray, Water Politics in the Middle East: A Context for Conflict or Co-operation?; 2000

19 Meredith Giordano, Mark Giordano, Aaron Wolf, The Geography of Water Conflict and Cooperation: Internal

Pressures and International Manifestations, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 168, No. 4, Water Wars? GeographicalPerspectives(Dec., 2002), pp. 293-312


21 Hans Petter, Wollebk Toset, Nils Petter Gleditsch , Havard Hegre, Shared rivers and interstate conflict,Political Geography 19 (2000) 971996


15/23

Johnston worked until the end of 1955 to reconcile U.S., Arab, and Israeli proposals in a UnifiedPlan amenable to all of the states involved. Allocations under the Unified Plan, later to be calledas the Johnston Plan, included 400 MCM/yr to Israel, 720 MCM/yr to Jordan, 132 MCM/yr toSyria and 35 MCM/yr to Lebanon.23 Despite the forward momentum, the Arab League Councildecided not to accept the plan in October 1955 because of the political implications of accepting,and the momentum died out. As noted above, the agreement was never ratified, but both sideshave generally adhered to the allocations.

Even though a number of parties are involved over the issues surrounding the Jordan RiverBasin, the situation is similar to that of Pakistan and India as these countries- Israel, Jordan,Lebanon, Egypt and Syria are at loggerheads with each other just as Pakistan and India areenemies from the time they emerged as separate nations. This fact makes this comparison andanalysis relevant as it can be argued that Pakistan can have the same fate as the weaker ArabLeague in this case; Israel has gone to wars with the Arab world over water- the same canhappen between Pakistan and India if no agreement is reached over the fair use of water betweenthe two contending countries.

However, as Peter Gleick argues, water is just an instrument of war and not the cause.24

Nationsuse the pretext of unfair distribution of shared water resources to go to war but in reality, theyhave other intentions behind this warfare. Meredith Giordano, Mark Giordano, Aaron Wolf intheir paper The Geography of Water Conflict and Cooperation have carried out a study thatinvolves finding out the Friendship/Hostility index(FH), Water Friendship/Hostility index(WFH)and the relationship between these two variables. For both FH and WFH, a higher value meanscooperative relationships and a lower number represents greater conflict levels. By looking at therelationship between both FH and WFH, the question being answered is whether water is thedriving force in the relationships between neighboring countries or if water relations simply

move with overall bilateral relations.25

The results found show that overarching regional issues shape international matters over waterfor South Africa and Israel. However, the findings depict that Indias relations with othercountries over water is independent of any regional issues. This lack of a relationship betweenwater and non-water related events is consistent with Indias and Pakistans relationship over theIndus; even though both countries are enemies from birth, they have decided to act cordially onthe water issue and signed the Indus Waters Treaty which is still holding strong despite of all thecontinued hostilities and disputes. Even though Pakistan has gone to war with India twice, in1965 and 1971, this pact which was signed in 1960 holds strong and did not suffer from anyofficial breach.

22 Naff, Thomas, and Ruth C. Matson, "The Jordan River" Water in the Middle East: Conflict or Cooperation?Boulder: Westview, 1984. 17-61. Print

23Wolf, Aron., Joshua T Newton. "Case Study of Transboundary Dispute Resolution: the Jordan


25 Meredith Giordano, Mark Giordano, Aaron Wolf, The Geography of Water Conflict and Cooperation: InternalPressures and International Manifestations, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 168, No. 4, Water Wars? GeographicalPerspectives(Dec., 2002), pp. 293-312


16/23

The Ganges River

To have a look at Indias water policies with rest of its neighbors, we look at the Ganges Riverbasin and the relevant water disputes with Bangladesh. The upper riparian of the Ganges, India,had developed plans for water diversion for irrigation, navigability, and other water supplyinterests. Initially Pakistan, and later Bangladesh, wanted to protect the water flowing

downstream which it could put to its own uses. This set up the stage for an upstream anddownstream riparian conflict.

India diverted the waters of the Ganges at Farakka which resulted in reduced water supply toBangladesh- a repercussion the Bangladeshis could not tolerate. In this case, a stronger and morepowerful country acted solely for its own benefit and neglected the legitimate interests of aweaker neighboring country. This hydrological securitization is a common occurrence in theworld where individual riparians capture water resources while not caring that neighboringriparians will be denied previously shared waters.26 Pakistan needs to make a note of this andunderstand that India has its own ulterior motives behind each of their actions and will neverhave Pakistans interest in mind. Pakistan being a weaker country than India both geo-strategically and hydro-strategically should try to push for a peaceful agreement if any problemarises as the powerful party has no incentive to reach any agreements.

Moreover, India has always pressed for bilateral negotiations but a solution to the Gangeswater dispute may be endlessly deferred in the hope of each party gaining a better bargain shouldthe parties continue to rely on sheer bilateralism.27 Bangladesh tried to resolve its differenceswith India through talks and back door discussions but when these failed, it took up the issue onthe international front. Bangladesh brought the issue before the General Assembly under Article14 of the U.N. Charter. The U.N. feared that the Bangladeshis might resort to an armed conflictas it has been argued that a riparian state may employ physical force in peace time to destroyworks for the utilization of waters of an international river in co-riparian states when these worksthreaten the vital interests of the former. Such an action has been considered as an act of self-

defense.28

The U.N. consensus resolution gave a platform to Bangladesh and an interimagreement was reached in 1977. Such short term agreements are only useful in the long run ifthere is some kind of a mechanism that caters for the continuation of these agreements. This hasbeen the case with the Ganges River whose agreements have been short term and difficultiesemerge as soon as these contracts lapse.29 Pakistan should learn from the Bangladeshi exampleand avoid any bilateral talks with India pertaining to the division of the Indus River water.

An Indo-Bangladesh Memorandum of Understanding was signed on November 22, 1985, on thesharing of the Ganges dry season flow through 1988, and a Joint Committee of Experts was

26 Phillips, D.J.H., Allan, J.A., Claassen, M., Granit, J., Jgerskog, A., Kistin, E., Patrick, M., and Turton

A. 2008. The TWO Analysis: Introducing a Methodology for the Transboundary Waters Opportunity Analysis.Report Nr. 23. SIWI, Stockholm.

27 M. Rafiqul Islam, The Ganges Water Dispute: An Appraisal of a Third Party Settlement, Asian Survey, Vol. 27,No. 8 (Aug., 1987), pp. 918-934

28 M. Rafiqul Islam, The Ganges Water Dispute: An Appraisal of a Third Party Settlement, Asian Survey, Vol. 27,No. 8 (Aug., 1987), pp. 918-934

29http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/Ganges_New.htm
http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/Ganges_New.htmhttp://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/Ganges_New.htmhttp://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/Ganges_New.htm


17/23

established to help resolve development issues. After long bilateral talks on 12 December 1996,Ganges Water Treaty was signed by the Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh. This treatysafeguarded the rights of both the countries after some compromises were made. The treaty isoperational till date despite some disagreements. Examples include the period of 1996 to 2004when Bangladeshs attempts to talk with India over agreements concerning seven rivers was metwith non- interest and December 2002 when India announced plans for river linking projectconnecting rivers from north to those in the south and east.30

The Brahmaputra River

The increasing demand for water will lead to severe scarcity of water resources that woulddampen the economic growth of the effected nations. Such acute scarcity could turn the food-exporting countries such as China and India into major importers, thereby worsening the globalfood crisis. India has more arable land than China, 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1million hectares respectively and hence, a greater need for water. However, the source of mostmajor Indian rivers is Tibet where China has initiated a number of water projects that threaten todiminish the river flows into the riparian states, one of them being India. Moreover, China does

not maintain transparency in the sharing of hydrological data even after several requests fromIndia. A joint expert level mechanism set up in 2007 for the purposes of interaction andcooperation on hydrological data has also been in vain.31

India feels threatened by the Chinese plan of diverting the waters of the Brahmaputra River,known as the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet and Yaluzangbu in China, to the parched Yellow River.It is believed that China has already decided on the point of this rerouting- the bend where theBrahmaputra forms the worlds longest and deepest canyon. This project has been kept hiddenby the Chinese as it will greatly devastate Indias northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh- ablow that would be analogous to declaring a water war with India and Bangladesh. In the articletitled China's future water war with India, Hari Sud argues that even if fifty percent of thewater is diverted from the Brahmaputra, the river will become a seasonal ditch. This would

lead to one hundred million people living in India and Bangladesh losing their livelihood andcould eventually lead to a brutal war.32

Pakistanis needs to learn from the Chinese example as to how to assert their position in face ofopposition. China attacked India in 1962 over a disputed Himalayan border when India was leastexpecting it. The Chinese took control of the area they claimed to be theirs and then declared acease fire. India is still wary of the Chinese which shows that it is cautious of those who showresilience rather than submitting to it.

30 Newton, Joshua T., and Aron Wolf. "Case Study of Transboundary Dispute Resolution: the Ganges RiverControversy."Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation. Oregon State University. Web. 5 Aug.2011

31Brahma Chellaney, Coming Water Wars, International Economy

32http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/05/13/chinas_future_water_war_with_india/3300/


18/23

However, the nature of relationships between nations differs from region to region as GilbertWhite stated almost half a century ago that if there is any conclusion that springs from a

comparative study of river systems, it is that no two are the same33

Part VI: The Way Forward: Recommendations

The Transboundary Waters Opportunity (TWO) Analysis advocates the sharing of benefits intransboundary basins. The TWO focuses on the management of fresh waters in transboundarybasins with an emphasis on promoting optimal economic development, and the attainment ofsocial and political agreement on development opportunities and trade-offs, based on soundtechnical information.34 In a number of transboundary basins, there is a possibility of a win-win solution or a Positive-Sum Outcome (PSO) where all the concerned parties gain from acertain set-up. A frequent outcome of the agreements on shared rivers is the Zero-Sum Scenariowhere anything gained by one riparian is lost by the other. By identifying and introducing theTWO analysis that looks into finding the broader benefits and works towards achieving Positive-Sum Outcomes, this Zero-Sum dynamic can be overcome. Therefore, Pakistan should exploredevelopment opportunities determined to be PSOs and work towards enlarging the basket ofbenefits to all riparians concerned.

It is said that by jointly managing a river body, riparians can generate public goods that can beused by all the riparians, India and Pakistan, in case of the Indus River. Such joint managementcan include floods regulation and drought protection by building storage dams, increasedbiodiversity and improved conservation, better water quality and better possibilities for peaceand regional stability.

There are a number of development opportunities for PSOs in transboundary basins. One suchopportunity is to work for hydropower production and power trading.35 Pakistan and India can

work together to take advantage of the link that exists between hydroelectric power generationtrade and economic development. Pakistan could sell hydroelectric energy to India that isproduced on the dams built on the Indus with the financial help of the Indians. India could thenbuy this energy from Pakistan at preferential rates. Brazil and Paraguay followed a similar modelwhere Brazil used the Itaip dam to help develop its cities and industries and Paraguay wasforced to sell its excess capacity to Brazil at preferential rates.36 Moreover, hydroelectric damsbuilt on the Indus near Kashmir will lead to the development of the region.

33 Selected writings of Gilbert F. White By Gilbert F. White; a perspective of river basin development

34 Phillips, D.J.H., Allan, J.A., Claassen, M., Granit, J., Jgerskog, A., Kistin, E., Patrick, M., and Turton

A. 2008. The TWO Analysis: Introducing a Methodology for the Transboundary Waters Opportunity Analysis.Report Nr. 23. SIWI, Stockholm.

35 Phillips, D.J.H., Allan, J.A., Claassen, M., Granit, J., Jgerskog, A., Kistin, E., Patrick, M., and TurtonA. 2008. The TWO Analysis: Introducing a Methodology for the Transboundary Waters Opportunity Analysis.Report Nr. 23. SIWI, Stockholm.

36http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/americas/27paraguay.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/americas/27paraguay.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/americas/27paraguay.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/americas/27paraguay.html


19/23

In principle, India should be able to negotiate such uses and undertake the investments required.Pakistan might, however, desire to monitor the investment to make sure that no water is beingdiverted. Such monitoring would raise currently insurmountable issues of security andsovereignty. Even greater problems would arise with respect to Pakistani investment withinIndian Territory. As a result of these issues, the full hydroelectric potential of the Chenab andJhelum remains untapped.37

Furthermore, cross-border energy investments and the promotion of regional trade are importanttools to avoid conflicts.38 Barnaby has argued that the solution to water conflicts and scarcity ofwater lies outside the water sector in the water or food or trade economic development nexus.39Jammat and Ruijis have stated that the gains from basin level management cannot be fullygained if the economic integration does not extend beyond the issues surrounding water. 40Thebasin states could also look into joint electrical projects and energy swaps.41Article VII of theIndus Waters Treaty is on future cooperation and clearly states that the two Parties recognizethat 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.42

Another example of co-operation is that of the South African Power Pool (SAPP) created in1995, encompassing South Africa, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Malawi, Zambia andZimbabwe. The SAPP is a joint venture of the national electricity companies of Southern Africaand the member countries have developed a common power grid and a common electricitymarket amongst themselves. This pool has proved to reap a lot of benefits for the partiesinvolved.43

Pakistan feels that India is not transparent in its plans and hides crucial information from theconcerned authorities of Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty clearly states the principles ofcooperation in Articles VI and VII which relate to "exchange of data" and "future cooperation,"respectively.44 Data pertaining to the daily flow and the utilization of the waters of the Indus hasto be shared between the countries regularly. Steps have already been taken to ensure atransparent exchange of information as the Dawn Newspaper says Pakistan and India agree to

37 BEN CROW and NIRVIKAR SINGH, Impediments and Innovation in International Rivers: The Waters of

South Asia, World Development Vol. 28, No. 11, pp. 19071925, 2000

38http://amankiasha.com/detail_articles.asp?id=44

39 Wendy Barnaby,Do nations go to war over water?, Nature 458, 282-283 (19 March 2009)

40 Janmatt, J., and A. Ruijs. 2007. `Sharing the load? floods, droughts and managing international rivers.'Environment and Development Economics 4(12), 573-592.

41 Indus Water Treaty and Managing Shared Water Resources for the Benefit of Basin States Policy Issues andOptions, IUCN Pakistan

42 Indus Waters Treaty, Article V11

43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Power_Pool

44 Dr. Shaheen Akhtar, Emerging Challenges to Indus Waters Treaty: Issues of compliance and transboundaryimpacts of Indian hydro projects on the Western Rivers
http://amankiasha.com/detail_articles.asp?id=44http://amankiasha.com/detail_articles.asp?id=44http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Power_Poolhttp://amankiasha.com/detail_articles.asp?id=44http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Power_Pool


20/23

Install telemetry system45 that would record and transfer real-time data between the twocountries and would result in better understanding between them.

According to a report published in The Hindu Newspaper by Sandeep Dikshit, the Governmentof Pakistan has proposed a certain steps to be followed by the Indian government. These stepsinclude that India should provide details of any new project six months in advance, anydiversions for storage or agricultural use should be reported to Pakistan and India should alsoprovide details about any ancillary projects.46

In the article Indus Water Treaty and Managing Shared Water Resources for the Benefit ofBasin States Policy Issues and Options by IUCN Pakistan, a number of potential options ofcooperation between India and Pakistan are cited. These include joint watershed managementand joint commissioning of studies, comprehensive development and planning of water resourcesto optimize use of water in the basin states, resolve conflicts through cooperative programs foroptimum utilization of river system by the basin states, and manage water as a shared resourceand as well as a shared commodity.47

The Indus Waters Treaty and Climate Change:

The Indus Waters Treaty, having withstood two wars, has now come under immense stress dueto a growing rise in water demand and a simultaneous decrease in water supply. A report of theWorld Bank states that water supply in Pakistan fell from 5000 cubic meters per capita initiallyto 1000 cubic meters in 2010. This water supply is believed to fall to 800 cubic meters by 2020.48Such an acute shortage of water will lead to problems in an already turmoil ridden country.

The Falkenmark Water Stress Index (WSI) represents the volume of available water resourcesfor a country. If the average amount of water available per person falls short of a threshold value(1700 cubic meters per year), the country is labeled as water stressed. If this amount is 1000cubic meters or 500 cubic meters, then a country is considered water scarce and water poorrespectively. According to this Water Stress Index, India is now water stressed and Pakistanwater scarce.49

45Dawn (Islamabad), July 22, 2010, http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-contentlibrary/dawn/news/pakistan/44-india-pakistan-to-inspect-ravi-dams-jamaat-shah-fa-02?

pageDesign=mobile_detail

46 Barrister Mansur Sarwar Khan, May 20, 2010, http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-

potential-way-out-%E2%80%93-part-ii/in PAKISTANS WATER CONCERNS by DR NOOR UL HAQ andMUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN

47 Indus Water Treaty and Managing Shared Water Resources for the Benefit of Basin States Policy Issues andOptions, IUCN Pakistan

48http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucity

http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-potential-way-out-%E2%80%93-part-ii/http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-potential-way-out-%E2%80%93-part-ii/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucityhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucityhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucityhttp://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-potential-way-out-%E2%80%93-part-ii/http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/water-crisis-in-pakistan-a-potential-way-out-%E2%80%93-part-ii/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucityhttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Regional/Islamabad/21-Mar-2011/Pakistan-facing-acute-water-paucity


21/23

The climate changes have heightened the insecurity surrounding water and have resulted in thepoliticization of the water issue. Headlines like Zardari warns India: Water treaty breach todamage relations50 and Assef warns India against water theft51 have started to appeareverywhere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report statesthat Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations ofincreases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice andrising global average sea level. The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]C islarger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]C (1901-2000) given in the ThirdAssessment Report (TAR).52 Figure 3 shows the amount of the rise in the surface warmth by theyear 2099. For Pakistan, this temperature increase reaches 5 C which has its repercussions.There could be an increased amount of water at higher altitudes that could lead to flooding or adecreased supply of water at lower latitudes that would further exacerbate the developingeconomy of Pakistan.

The Indus Waters Treaty does not incorporate the effect of climatic changes but it has now

become a necessity to work out a mechanism that caters for this obvious change in the world.The change in the Indus Rivers discharge depends on the degree of change in the temperatureand is shown in Figure 4. Such a variability in the future flow of the Indus calls for some kind ofan arrangement that stores water at times of increased water flow that would prevent floodingand store water for lean periods when the water supply is low. Pakistan has to keep this issue onthe desk and work for the construction of storage dams so as to prevent cases of flooding such asthat of 2010 that resulted in widespread destruction and economic loss.

Furthermore, Pakistan has to keep in mind that India will experience similar changes intemperature and hence its negligence of this climate change issue can have disastrous effects forPakistan. India can discharge the extra amount of water that it gets from the excessive melting ofglaciers to Pakistan, leaving Pakistan to deal with floods, and consequently destroyed cities andloss of life.

There should be a joint venture between India and Pakistan that would work to avoid any suchoccurrence in the future. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers is a phenomenon that clearlydeserves greater study and closer monitoring. The issue can be discussed under IWT ArticleVIIs relevant clause regarding future cooperation in which both parties have recognized havingcommon interest in the optimum development of the rivers.53 No such project has beencarried out since 1960.

50http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relations

51http://archives.dawn.com/archives/138910

52 IPCC, 2007:1-10

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relationshttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relationshttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relationshttp://archives.dawn.com/archives/138910http://archives.dawn.com/archives/138910http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relationshttp://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/13-Oct-2008/Zardari-warns-India-Water-treaty-breach-to-damage-relationshttp://archives.dawn.com/archives/138910


22/23

Shaheen Akhtar feels that there is a need to form a Indus Water Consultative Group that wouldconsist of Indian, Pakistani and international neutral water experts that would together work onthe supply capacity of the Indus taking into account issues like that of the climate change. Thegroup can conduct joint studies on the impact of climate change on Himalayan glaciers, jointwatershed management and joint studies on environmental impact assessments of the hydroprojects, especially on the lower riparian.54

One major implication of climate change for agreements between competing users (within aregion or upstream versus downstream) is that allocating rights in absolute terms may lead tofurther disputes in years to come when the total absolute amount of water available maybedifferent.55 Hence, having a treaty like the Indus Waters Treaty that does not cater to climaticchanges may lead to an increased chance of water disputes. However, a World Bank Paperargues that this climate change will also affect the interests of the riparian nations that wouldwant to cooperate and look for solutions to these changes. This cooperation will be by alteringthe existing treaties or by signing new pacts.56

Figure 357

54http://irs.org.pk/publfocus.htm

55 IPCC, 2001: Section 4.7.3

56 Ariel Dinar, Brian Blankespoor, Shlomi Dinar, Pradeep Kurukulasuriya; The Impact of Water SupplyVariability on Treaty Cooperation between International Bilateral River Basin Riparian States; The World BankPolicy Research Working Paper, May 2010

57 IPCC, 2007 Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers
http://irs.org.pk/publfocus.htmhttp://irs.org.pk/publfocus.htmhttp://irs.org.pk/publfocus.htm


23/23

Figure 4: Changes in Indus flow just above Tarbela58

58 Pakistan Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy Water Economy: Running Dry,November 14, 2005

dispute resolution mechanism

Documents