India has marked the completion of the Shahpur Kandi Barrage on the Ravi River, stopping the water flow to Pakistan.
More on news
India has exclusive rights to the water of the Ravi River under the Indus Water Treaty.
At present, some of the water of the River Ravi is going waste through the Madhopur Headworks downstream to Pakistan.
Now, with the Shahpur Kandi Dam project, India will redirect 1,150 cusecs of water towards J&K, Punjab, and Rajasthan, bolstering agricultural and hydropower prospects in the region.
The Shahpur Kandi Barrage is a dam on the Ravi River in Pathankot district, Punjab. It is part of a multi-purpose river valley project, featuring two hydel power projects with a total installed capacity of 206 MW.
Background of Indus Water Treaty
A bilateral agreement was signed between Punjab and J&K in 1979 for construction of RanjitSagar Dam (Thein Dam) and Shahpurkandi Dam was to be taken up by Punjab Govt.
RanjitSagar Dam was commissioned in 2000. The foundation stone for the Shahpur Kandi Barrage Project was laid in 1995. However, the project faced several disputes between the governments of Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, leading to its suspension for over four and a half years.
About Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)
Genesis: IWT was signed in 1960, between India and Pakistan and brokered by the World Bank (which was also a signatory).
Objective: The treaty fixed and delimited the rights and obligations of both countries concerning the use of the waters of the Indus River system.
Provisions for water usage rights:
IWT allows India unrestricted use of three eastern rivers Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej.
Pakistan has control over three western rivers Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab.
Can be used by India with certain restrictions (for irrigation, transport and power generation).
Implementation: The treaty required the creation of a Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner from each country, to maintain a channel for communication and is required to meet at least once every year.
Step 1: Permanent Indus Commission-to resolve questions about implementation of the treaty.
Step 2: Neutral Expert- Appointed by World Bank to deal with unresolved differences on water sharing and involves rendering a binding decision.
Step 3: Court of Arbitration (CoA)- If a neutral expert fails, the dispute goes to CoA. It is a seven-member arbitral tribunal, determines its own procedures and decisions by majority vote.
Neutral Expert and CoA steps are mutually exclusive, i.e. only one of them can be used at a time to address a particular dispute.
Issues with the treaty
Pakistan’s frequent opposition to the Indian projects: The opposition is majorly on the issue that whether these projects adhere to the technological criteria outlined in the treaty. It is evident from Pakistan’s opposition to Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) on Jhelum River and Ratle Hydroelectric Project on River Chenab.
Limitations of Judicial Recourse: India seeks resolution of differences through a neutral expert (interprets the treaty in spirit), while Pakistan has opted to approach the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which interprets the treaty in letter.
PCA unanimously rejected India's concerns in July 2023, rendering a legally binding decision on both sides without an appeal, although India rejected the verdict.
Strained bilateral relations: Treaty gets affected by the overall developments in the India-Pakistan relationship. For instance, the biannual talks between the commissioners of the Indus treaty were suspended due to the frequent use of state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan.
Impact of climate change: Climate change has altered the form, intensity and timing of precipitation and runoff. The partitioning of rivers prescribed by the IWT does not account for potential shifts in water availability caused by climate change, undermining its efficacy in ensuring equitable water allocation.
Conflict-resolution method through a third-party guarantor: The World Bank is the guarantor of IWT and relies on the riparian to report any issue related of illegal intervention in the river flows. However, there is no definite way of knowing if illegal intervention really happened or it is only a case of low seasonal flows due to climate variability.
No regular data sharing as planned in the treaty: The flow data sharing is significantly important to understand the dynamics of river basin in totality.
Technical nature of the Treaty: The treaty'sprovisions are highly technical in nature, prompting diverse and wide-ranging interpretations.
Way Forward
Revisiting the IWT:
Water experts believe that countries need to take into account the technological advances, which were absent at the time of drafting the IWT.
Inclusion of Principles of International Water Law: Principles of Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation (ERU) and No Harm Rule (NHR) can help bridge differences between the countries and ensure predictability to a certain extent in water allocation.
Indus Water Commissioners from both sides should be empowered to work together and make rational decisions uninfluenced by the political situations. Regular meetings between both sides and sharing of designs and data can help to prevent future problems.
Implement adaptive measures, such as improving water storage and management practices, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the river and its tributaries so as to address the challenges posed by climate change.
Promoting open data policy for promoting transparency and applied scientific research.
Principles of International Water Law
Based on: The Helsinki Rules 1966 and The UN Watercourses Convention, 1997
The UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (the UN Watercourses Convention) is the only treaty governing shared freshwater resources that is of universal applicability.
It provides a framework of principles and rules that may be applied and adjusted to suit the characteristics of particular international watercourses.
Principle of ERU: Entitleseach basin state to a reasonable and equitable share of water resources for beneficial uses within its own territory.
It rests on a foundation of shared sovereignty, equality of rights and it does not necessarily mean equal share of waters.
Obligation not to cause significant harm or No Harm Rule (NHR): No state is allowed to use the watercourses in their territory in a way that would cause significant harm to other basin states or to their environment.
Other key principles:
Principles of notification, consultation, and negotiation
Responsibility to exchange data and information regarding the state of the watercourse.
