The World Bank's neutral expert on Baglihar dam, Professor Raymond Lafitte of Switzerland, has declared the design of Baglihar hydroelectric project, being constructed by India on the River Chenab in Indian Occupied Kashmir, in violation of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.
Addressing a crowded press conference on Monday, the Minister for Water and Power, Liaquat Ali Jatoi, who flew in here all the way from Karachi particularly to announce the much-awaited decision, urged the Indian government to respect the neutral expert's verdict, which is also binding on both parties, and praised the World Bank for providing the services of the neutral expert.
He, however, did not agree with the expert's recommendations on spillways, saying that Pakistan would observe and assert its rights in accordance with the existing treaties.
He did not very clearly convey to India that Pakistan would go for arbitration if Delhi did the same, but an official present on the occasion told Business Recorder that Pakistan would adopt the policy of 'wait and see'.
If India challenged the decision to prolong the case in a bid to complete the construction of the dam by December this year, as was announced by Indian officials, Pakistan would also take the same course.
Sources said that Pakistan was still unsure if India would implement the decision of the neutral expert, "which is somehow binding on both countries", and asked the World Bank to take punitive action against India in case it failed to implement the verdict.
"The decision made by the neutral expert upholds Pakistan's contention that India's design is not in conformity with the design criteria on three of the four design features of the dam, which were objected by Pakistan," the minister said.
Flanked by the senior officials of the Ministries of Water and Power, Foreign Affairs and Information, Jatoi said that the final determination of the points of difference raised by Pakistan on the project was the success of Pakistan's principled stand.
The points of difference on the design of the project essentially pertained to four physical features of the dam. Pakistan's view was that:
(i) The free board for the dam was excessive, and provided capability to India for raising artificially the water level in the operating pool above the full pondage level (so its free board should be reduced).
(ii) The location of intake for the power plant was not at the highest level as required in accordance with the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 (so it should be raised).
(iii) The pondage in the operating pool, determined by India, was excessive (so it should be reduced).
The location of the spillway gates below the dead storage level was not at the highest level. Pakistan's view was that the location of the gates of the spillway, 27 metres below the dead storage level, was unnecessary.
Either an un-gated spillway or a surface gated spillway could be provided with the bottom of the gates at the highest level (dead storage level means, the level below which the water cannot be drawn down or depleted except in unforeseen emergencies).
The Treaty prescribes a comprehensive mechanism to process the differences and disputes for resolution between the parties under Article IX of the Treaty. India had shared the design of the project in 1992 to which Pakistan raised objections. It was Pakistan's contention that the Indian design was not compliant with the design criteria given in the Treaty. All efforts were made by Pakistan to settle the issues bilaterally at the level of the Indus Waters Commissions, Secretary Water and Power and at the highest political level.
In 2000, India started the construction work on the project without addressing Pakistan's concerns. Pakistan lodged a strong protest on further construction activity without addressing the issues, as it constituted a breach of the Treaty.
Since 1992, there had been several meetings between the Indus Waters Commissioners, which remained inconclusive. Subsequently, at the request of the Indian government, two meetings were also held at the secretaries' level.
The matter was also raised by the President and the Prime Minister of Pakistan with the Indian Prime Minister during their visits to India in 2005. During the meetings, it was emphasised that any breach of the Treaty would generate tension and would not be in the interest of peace.
As bilateral negotiations between the two countries were not making any headway while the construction work of the project continued uninterrupted, Pakistan was compelled to seek World Bank's intervention, as stipulated in the Treaty, to appoint a neutral expert to settle the issues.
Initially, India resisted the appointment of a neutral expert to settle the issue. However, the World Bank, upholding Pakistan's stance, appointed a neutral expert in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Treaty.
The neutral expert was appointed in May 2005. He obtained detailed information about the plant's design and respective point of view along with technical analysis from both parties. He also visited the site of the project.
The neutral expert has made specific recommendations for the changes as under:
(I) FREE BOARD: The neutral expert found that India's calculation on free board were inaccurate. He determined that crest level should be set at lowest level by India. He has accordingly directed India to reduce the free board from 4.5 metres to 3 metres (33 percent reduction).
(II) LEVEL OF POWER INTAKES: The neutral expert determined that the location of intake, stipulated by India, was not at the highest level, as required in accordance with the Treaty.
He has, therefore, decided that instead of locating the intakes at the elevation of 818 metres, it should be located at the elevation of 821 metres. In other words, three metres raise in the power intakes.
PONDAGE He has determined that the calculation methodology used by India was not in conformity with the Treaty. He has accordingly directed that India should reduce the pondage from 37.722 mcm to 32.56 mcm.
In respect to location of spillway gates, he has held these in conformity with international practice and state-of-the-art. However, he has observed that India's design and analysis is incorrect.
He has concluded that India is neither correct in analysis nor in calculations. The results of the model tests are also not "representative of reality" and are "illusory".
Pakistan's view is that the expert should have gone strictly by the Indus Waters Treaty, as any other practices are not relevant. Pakistan, therefore, reserves its right to pursue the matter further in accordance with provisions of the Treaty.
Pakistan had also challenged India's estimate of the maximum flood discharge at the site and in the decision the neutral expert has decided to retain India's value of design flood in view of the uncertainties of flood analysis.
By taking up the matter to the neutral expert, following have been accomplished: Established that the Indian design was a violation of the Treaty; and ensured the sanctity of the Treaty and demonstrated Pakistan's resolve to pursue its objectives on the basis of international legality and bilateral agreements.
The minister said that the government also wished to thank the neutral expert for the efforts and time devoted by him in formulating his determination. "We will carefully examine the determination and take appropriate steps in accordance with the Treaty to protect our interests," he said. He said that the neutral expert "has clearly stated" that India should modify the design of the dam.
"We received the verdict a short while ago and are still examining it in detail," he said, in reply to a question. The minister claimed that the neutral expert had allowed the height of spillways at 808 metres. "However, Pakistan has the right to pursue the matter in accordance with the treaty," he added.
He said: "If India would not have insisted on the same position, neither it would be a violation of the Treaty nor the people in Indian Occupied Kashmir would be deprived of electric power."
India has to demolish civil works it has already completed in violation of the Treaty and it would be again a success of Pakistan. Regarding Kishanganga dam, another controversial hydroelectric project, the minister said that once Pakistan challenged the Baglihar project, Indian cabinet decided to modify the design of Kishanganga, and no physical work has yet been started.
"We appreciate the efforts of the World Bank for providing the services of the neutral expert and our options are open on the issue of spillways," he added.
In reply to another question, he said: "When any donor, like the WB, which extends financial support to Pakistan and India, gives any decision, it is the moral obligation of that country to implement it".
He said: "Pakistan's options are open, and our legal experts are examining the case, and I urge upon the Indian government to respect the verdict of the neutral expert, which is in accordance with the Treaty." He added that India could boycott the proceedings of the expert, but it participated with full arguments.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.