10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER

10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER
OFFICE OF PAKISTAN COMMISSIONER FOR INDUS WATERS 10 December 2014

Contents Relevant Treaty Provisions Current Issues with India
Present status of negotiations Dispute Settlement Mechanism Recommended Strategy and Authorization Required

ARTICLE-III PROVISIONS REGARDING WESTERN RIVERS (INDUS, JHELUM AND CHENAB)
(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. (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: 3 1/2 3

ARTICLE-III PROVISIONS REGARDING WESTERN RIVERS (INDUS, JHELUM AND CHENAB)
(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. (3)… (4) Except as provided in Annexures D and E, India shall not store any water of , or construct any storage works on, the Western Rivers. 2/2 4 4

ANNEXURE D – GENERATION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER BY INDIA ON THE WESTERN RIVERS ([ARTICLE-III (2) (d)]
1. The provisions of this Annexure shall apply with respect to the use by India of the waters of the Western Rivers for the generations of hydroelectric power under the provisions of Article III(2)(d) and, subject to the provisions of this Annexure, such use shall be unrestricted. Provided that the design, construction and operation of new hydroelectric plants which are incorporated in a storage work (as defined in Annexure E) shall be governed by the relevant provisions of Annexure E. Design criteria of Run-of River Plants (Paragraph 8 of Annexure D) Design criteria of hydroelectric plants incorporated in a Storage Work (Paragraph 11 of Annexure E) 5

[ARTICLE-III (2) (d)] PROVISIONS REGARDING WESTERN RIVERS (INDUS, JHELUM AND CHENAB)
Under Para 8 of Annexure D Indian Projects to compliant with following Design Criteria (New Run-of-River Plants) Freeboard – Minimum freeboard so that artificial raising of the water level in the operating pool is not possible Pondage – Limited pondage Outlet below DSL – If required, should be of minimum size and at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operations of the works Spillway – Un-gated spillway or gated with crest of the spillway at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design Intake – At the highest level consistent with sound and economical design 6

Limits on Irrigated Cropped Areas from Flow-(Annexure C Paragraph 7)
Within the limits of maximum Irrigated Cropped Areas specified against items (b) and (c) in Paragraph 5, the development of these areas by withdrawals from river flow (as distinct from Conservation Storage cum river flow in accordance with Paragraph 6(b) shall be regulated as follows:- (a) Until India can release from Conservation Storage (as defined in Annexure E) in accordance with sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) below, the new area developed shall not exceed the following:-

(i) From the Jhelum 150,000 acres (ii) From the Chenab 25,000 acres during the Transition Period and ,000 acres after the end of the Transition period. (b) and (c) Pertains to releases from Conservation Storage

The releases from Conservation Storage, as specified in Paragraphs 7(b) and 7(c), shall be made in accordance with schedule to be determined by the Commission which shall keep in view, first the, effect, if any, on Agricultural Use by Pakistan consequent on reduction in supplies available to Pakistan as a result of withdrawals made by India under the provisions of Paragraph 7 and, then, the requirements, if any, of hydroelectric power to be developed by India from these releases. In the absence of agreement between the Commissioners, the matter may be referred under the provisions of Article IX(2) (a) for decision to a a Neutrral Expert.

On those tributaries of the Jhelum River on which there is any Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan, any new Agricultural Use by India shall be so made as not to affect adversely the then existing Agricultural Use or hydroelectric use by Pakistan on those Tributaries

The Relevant Treaty Clauses
Paragraph 14 of Annexure D The filling of Dead Storage shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 18 or 19 of Annexure E. continued on next slide...

The Relevant Treaty Clauses
Paragraph 19 of Annexure E The dead storage shall not be depleted except in an unforeseen emergency. If so depleted, it will be refilled in accordance with the conditions' of its initial filling.

CURRENT ISSUES WITH INDIA
Ratle Hydroelectric Plant (850 MW) (ROR) Miyar Hydroelectric Plant (120 MW) (ROR) Lower Kalnai Hydroelectric Plant (48 MW) (ROR) Pakal Dul Hydroelectric Plant (initially1000 MW, ultimate 1500 MW) (Storage) Kishenganga Hydroelectric Plant (330 MW) (ROR)

INDIAN HEPs IN CHENAB BASIN
Sr. No. India's Hydroelectric Project Distance from Marala (km) 1 Lower Kalnai 195 2 Ratle 202 3 Pakal Dul 225 4 Miyar 365 15

RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
The gross storage capacities of Lower Kalnai (1508 acre-ft), Miyar (1300 acre-ft) are small with negligible downstream impacts on Pakistan. Pakal Dul is a storage project on a tributary of Chenab River with storage capacity of 88,000 acre-ft but this is within the permissible limit of storage of 0.6 million acre-ft on the tributaries of Chenab River. Other design differences are small and are not of much significance with respect to downstream impacts. However, the design differences on Kishenganga and Ratle HEPs are of major nature and need design changes by India.

RATLE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (850 MW)

SALIENT FEATURES OF RATLE HEP
[1] amsl stands for ‘above mean sea level’. 1. Location About 55 km upstream of Baglihar HEP on Main Chenab River 2. Installed Capacity 850 MW 3. Dam Type Concrete Gravity Dam 4. Height of Dam 111 meter 5. Gross Storage Capacity of Reservoir 78.71 Mm3 (million cubic meter) or 64,000 acre-ft 6. Pondage (Operating Pool) 23.86 Mm3 or 19,300 acre-ft. 7. Type of Spillway Deep orifice Spillway with five gates of m (width) x m (height) 8. Spillway Crest El meter amsl with storage above the spillway crest of 61.2 Mm3 or 50,000 acre-ft.

DESIGN DIFFERENCES ON RATLE HEP (850 MW)
Pakistan objected on four parameters of the design of Ratle HEP viz. Freeboard, Pondage, Spillway and Intake Crest Elevation. Comparison of Indian proposed design and Pakistan’s suggested changes are as follows.

DESIGN DIFFERENCES ON RATLE HEP (850 MW)
Parameter Indian proposed Pakistan Suggested Free board 2 meter 1 meter Pondage 19,300 acre-ft. 6,600 acre-ft. Spillway Orifice spillway with crest placed 44 m (144.4 ft) below normal pool level. Storage above spillway crest, 50,000 acre-ft . Surface gated spillway with crest level 19.5 m (64.0 ft) below normal pool level. Storage above spillway crest, 25,000 acre-ft. Intake Crest Elevation 1000 m amsl Surface intake with crest at m amsl i.e. crest is to be raised by 8.8 m (29 ft.)

UPSTREAM VIEW OF RATLE HEP INDIA’S DESIGN CONFIGURATION
PAKISTAN’S PROPOSAL

MIYAR HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (120 MW)

SALIENT FEATURES OF MIYAR HEP
1. Location On Miyar Nallah, a right bank tributary of Chenab River joining the river 106 km upstream of 390 MW Dulhasti HEP on Chenab Main, and 253 km upstream of working boundary between Pakistan and India where Chenab Main enters Pakistan 2. Installed Capacity 120 MW 3. Height 27 meter above stream bed 4. Gross Storage Capacity of Reservoir 1.6 Mm3 or 1,300 acre-ft 5. Pondage (Operating Pool) 0.9 Mm3 or 730 acre-ft 6. Type of Spillway orifice spillway with four gates of 6 m (width) x 4 m (height) placed at the bottom of the structure

MIYAR HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
Parameter Indian proposed Pakistan Suggested Freeboard 2 meter 1 meter Pondage 0.9 Mm3 or 730 acre-ft. 0.28 Mm3 or 227 acre-ft. Spillway Deep orifice spillway with crest placed 25 m below normal pool level i.e. at the bottom of the structure. Surface gated spillway with crest 10.4 m below normal pool level, the crest level is to be moved up by 14.6m. Intake Sill at m amsl Raise intake crest by m to take it to El.2845 m amsl Capacity above Spillway Crest or controllable storage 1.6 ≈ 1300 acre-ft 1.185 ≈ 960 acre-ft

UPSTREAM VIEW OF MIYAR HEP INDIA’S DESIGN CONFIGURATION

LOWER KALNAI HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (48 MW)

SALIENT FEATURES OF LOWER KALNAI HEP
1. Location Located on Lower Kalnai river, a left bank tributary of Chenab River about 19 km downstream of Dulhasti HEP and 180 km upstream of working boundary between Pakistan and India. 2. Installed Capacity 48 MW 3. Dam Type Concrete Gravity Dam 4. Height of Dam 34 meter 5. Gross Storage Capacity of Reservoir 1.86 Mm3 or 1,508 acre-ft 6. Pondage (Operating Pool) 0.76 Mm3 or 616 acre-ft 7. Type of Spillway an overflow ogee type spillway with four radial gates of 10 m (width) x 15 m (height) 8. Spillway Crest at an elevation of 1,120 m amsl with storage above the spillway crest of 1.48 Mm3 or 1,200 acre-ft

LOWER KALNAI HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
[1] amsl stands for ‘above mean sea level’. LOWER KALNAI HYDROELECTRIC PLANT Parameter Indian proposed Pakistan Suggested Freeboard 2 meter 1 meter Pondage 0.76 Mm3 or 616 acre-ft 0.38 Mm3 or 308 acre-ft. Spillway Crest gated spillway with crest placed 15 m below normal pool level No objection on spillway configuration Intake Sill at 1,125 m amsl Raise intake by 3.13 m on account of reduced Pondage.

UPSTREAM VIEW OF LOWER KALNAI HEP INDIA’S DESIGN CONFIGURATION

PAKAL DUL HYDROELECTRIC PLANT [1000 MW (ultimate 1500 MW)]

SALIENT FEATURES OF PAKAL DUL HEP
1. Location Located on Marusadar River, a major right bank tributary of the Chenab Main, in Doda District in OJK. Confluence of Marusadar and Chenab is 225 km upstream of Marala and 76 km from Baglihar Plant 2. Installed Capacity 1000 MW (ultimate 1500 MW) 3. Dam Type concrete faced rock fill dam 4. Height of Dam 167 meter 5. Gross Storage Capacity of Reservoir 132.2 Mm3 or 108,000 acre-ft 6. Live Storage Capacity 108.4 Mm3 or 88,000 acre-ft 7. Type of Spillway surface gated spillway with two gates of 12 m (width) x 16 m (height) + Tunnel spillways with invert level at 1,580 m amsl 8. Spillway Crest At an elevation of 1,684 m amsl with storage above the spillway crest of 33.7 Mm3 or 27,321 acre-ft

PAKAL DUL HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (1000 MW)
Parameter Indian proposed Pakistan Suggested Freeboard 7 meter 2 meter Pondage Pondage value not given. Asked India to provide calculations for maximum pondage as defined in Annexure D to ascertain the overall effect of operation of the storage work on flow patterns being entered into Pakistan. Conservation Storage 108.4 Mm3 or 88,000 acre- ft No objection. Spillway Surface gated spillway at crest El. 1,684.0 m + Tunnel spillways with invert level at 1,580 m amsl. Invert level of the tunnel spillway be raised close to DSL (EL 1,620 m) to minimize the capability of partially depleting the dead storage capacity. Operation of the Plant - Planned operation of Pakal Dul is required to be furnished with complete details including reservoir filling and release criteria corresponding to the full range of possible hydrological conditions.

UPSTREAM VIEW OF PAKAL DUL HEP INDIA’S DESIGN CONFIGURATION

KISHENGANGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT (330 MW)

Jhelum River Basin

KISHENGANGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
India proposed this plant in 1994 as a storage work with concrete gravity dam of 75 m height and storage of 174 Mm3 (141,000 acre-ft). Pakistan objected on the design of this project within the stipulated time period. Matter remained under discussion until in 2006 the revised design as run-of-river plant with height of 37 m and storage of 7.55 Mm3 (6120 acre-ft) . The matter remained under discussion at the level of PIC till 2009. Government decided to take up the issues of diversion of water of Neelum River to Jhelum River and drawdown below dead storage level to Court of Arbitration (CoA). Court gave its Partial Award in February 2013 and Final award in December 2013.

THE COA’s AWARD Dispute on diversion was decided in favour of India; mandatory environmental release of 9 m3/s made obligatory on India (mitigates annual loss by 154 million units or US $ 30 million). The issue of drawdown below dead storage level decided in favour of Pakistan which meant that India cannot carry out drawdown flushing by lowering the water level of the reservoir below DSL.

The four remaining questions pertaining to design aspects, if not resolved amicably, can be referred to the Neutral Expert (NE) or Court of Arbitration.

DESIGN ASPECTS OF KISHENGANGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
Mainly, Pakistan has objections on: Pondage Type of Spillway/Sediment outlets Placement of power intakes

Parameter Indian proposed Pakistan Suggested India’s Revised Proposal Freeboard 5 meter - Full Reservoir Level 2390 2387.5 Pondage 6120 acre-ft (7.55 Mm3) 811 acre-ft (1.0 Mm3) 3060 acre-ft ( Mm3) Spillway Orifice spillway with crest placed 20 m ( ft) below normal pool level Surface gated spillway with crest level 19.5 m (64.0 ft) below normal pool level Orifice spillway with crest at 2373 meters i.e meter above the original proposed. Intake Crest Elevation m amsl Surface intake with crest at m amsl i.e. crest is to be raised by 4 m. Intake at m No change Capacity above Spillway Crest or controllable storage 14,836 acre-ft (18.3Mm3) 11,700 acre-ft (14.7 Mm3) 11,000 acre-ft (13.6 Mm3)

(FREE OVER FLOW SPILLWAY)
KISHENGANGA HEP INDIA’S ORIGINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL PAKISTAN’S PROPOSAL-1 (FREE OVER FLOW SPILLWAY)

INDIA’S ORIGINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL
KISHENGANGA HEP INDIA’S ORIGINAL DESIGN PROPOSAL PAKISTAN’S PROPOSAL-2 (SURFACE GATED)

KISHENGANGA HEP INDIA’S REVISED DESIGN INDICATION
PAKISTAN’S PROPOSAL-1 (FREE OVER FLOW SPILLWAY)

KISHENGANGA HEP INDIA’S REVISED DESIGN INDICATION
PAKISTAN’S PROPOSAL-2 (SURFACE GATED)

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
IN THE TREATY ARTICLE-IX 45

PROCEDURE FOR SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERNECES & DISPUTES
ARTICLE-IX PROCEDURE FOR SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERNECES & DISPUTES Permanent Indus Commission : Questions shall be examined by the Commission for an endeavour to resolve by agreement Neutral Expert Difference falling under Part-I of Annexure-F (23 Technical questions) Court of Arbitration Differences other than Part-I of Annexure-F, being a “dispute” or any difference declared by the Neutral Expert shall be termed as “dispute” (Annexure-G) Any other way Upon agreement by the Commission Govt. to Govt. level Either Government may take up any particular question directly with the other Government. 46 46

ELABORATION OF ARTICLE-IX IN KISHENGANGA ARBITRATION CASE IN THE PARTIAL AWARD
Paragraph 484 “In the court’s view, nothing in the Treaty requires that a technical question listed in Part 1 of Annexure F be decided by a Neutral Expert rather than a Court of Arbitration– except where a party so requests (and then only if the Neutral Expert considers himself competent).” Paragraph 485 “Similarly the Court can identify no Treaty provision that would bar it from considering a technical question, unless a Party had in fact requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert.” 47 47

ELABORATION OF ARTICLE-IX IN KISHENGANGA ARBITRATION CASE IN THE PARTIAL AWARD
Paragraph 486 “The very composition of the Court of Arbitration also points to its competence in technical matter in general, skills or qualifications required for the members of the Commission or tribunal represent a probative indication of the role the parties intended the body to perform.” “Here, one of the Court’s umpires is required to be a “highly qualified engineers,” and, indeed, nothing would stop the Parties from appointing engineers as their Party appointed arbitrators or as the Chairman of the Court.” Paragraph 487 “Accordingly the Court considers that no dispute brought before a Court of Arbitration could be rendered inadmissible merely on the grounds that it involved a technical question.” 48 48

Spent for Third Party Resolution
Comparison of Time Spent for Third Party Resolution

BAGLIHAR CASE APPOINTMENT OF NEUTRAL EXPERT
Time spent from first notice to India to Writing to World Bank for appointment of Neutral Expert (NE). 21 months Time spent from request to WB for appointment of NE to Appointment of NE. 4 months Time spent from appointment to convening of first meeting 1 month Time spent from first meeting to Final Decisions Total time 47 months Total cost US$ 1.7 million

KISHENGANGA CASE APPOINTMENT OF COURT OFARBITRATION
Time spent from first notice to India to request for institution of proceedings by GOP 12 months Time spent from request for institution of proceedings of the Court to its first meeting 7 months Time spent from convening of first meeting to Partial Award 25 months Time spent from Partial Award to Final Award 10 months Total time 57 months Total cost US$ 5.5million

THANK YOU

Definition of Terms as given in Article I
The term “Agriculture Use” means the use of water for irrigation except for irrigation of household gardens and public recreational gardens. The terms “Domestic Use” means the use of water for: drinking, washing, bathing recreation, sanitation (including the conveyance and dilution of sewage and of industrial and other wastes),stock and poultry, and other like purposes; household and municipal purposes (including use of household gardens and public recreational gardens); and industrial purposes (including mining, milling and other like purposes); but the term does not include Agricultural Use or use for generation of hydro-electric power.

Definition of Terms as given in Article I
The term “Non-Consumptive Use” means any use or control of water for navigation, floating of timber or other property, flood protection or flood control, fishing or fish culture, wild life or other like beneficial purposes, provided that, exclusive of seepage and evaporation of water incidental to the control or use , the water (undiminished in volume within the practical range of measurement) remains in, or is returned to, the same river or its Tributaries, ; but the term does not include Agricultural Use or use for the generation of hydroelectric power.

PERMISSIBLE LIMTS OF IRRIGATED AREA ON THE WESTERN RIVERS UNDER ANNEXURE-C
Particulars Maximum Irrigated Cropped Area (over and above the cropped area irrigated under the provisions of Paragraphs 3 and 4) (acres) (a) From The Indus, in its drainage basin 70,000 (b) From The Jhelum, in its drainage basin 400,000 (c) From the Chenab (i) In its drainage basin 225,000 of which not more than 100,000 acres will be in the Jammu District. (ii) Outside its drainage basin in the area west of the Deg Nadi (also called Devak River), the aggregate capacity of irrigating channels leading out of the drainage basin of The Chenab to this area not to exceed 120 cusecs 6,000

LIMITED STORAGE ON THE WESTERN RIVERS ALLOWED TO INDIA (PARA VII OF ANNEXURE E)
River System General Storage Power Storage Flood Storage (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) MAF (a) The Indus 0.25 0.15 Nil (b) The Jhelum (excluding Main) 0.50 0.75 (c) The Jhelum Main As per Paragraph 9 (d) The Chenab (excluding Main) 0.60 (e) The Chenab Main 56

DESIGN CRITERIA OF RUN-OF-RIVER PLANT (PARAGRAPH 8 OF ANNEXURE-D)
The works themselves shall not be capable of raising artificially the water level in the Operating Pool above the Full Pondage Level specified in the design. (b) The design of the works shall take due account of the requirements of Surcharge Storage and of Secondary Power. (c) The maximum Pondage in the Operating Pool shall not exceed twice the Pondage required for Firm Power. (d) There shall be no outlets below the Dead Storage Level, unless necessary for sediment control or any other technical purpose; any such outlet shall be of the minimum size, and located at the highest level, consistent with sound and economical design and with satisfactory operation of the works. Contd….. 57

DESIGN CRITERIA OF RUN-OF-RIVER PLANT (PARAGRAPH 8 OF ANNEXURE-D)
If the conditions at the site of a Plant make a gated spillway necessary, the bottom level of the gates in normal closed position shall be located at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design and satisfactory construction and operation of the works. (f) The intakes for the turbines shall be located at the highest level consistent with satisfactory and economical construction and operation of the Plant as a Run of River Plant and with customary and accepted practice of design for the designated range of the Plant’s operation. (g) If any Plant is constructed on the Chenab Main at a site below Kotru (Longitude 74o – 59’ East & Latitude 33o – 09’ North), a Regulating Basin shall be incorporated. 58

Annexure E – Paragraph 11 The design of any Storage Work (other than a Storage Work falling under Paragraph 3) shall conform to the following criteria:- The Storage Work shall not be capable of raising artificially the water level in the reservoir higher than the design Full Reservoir Level except to the extent necessary for Flood Storage, if any, specified in the design. The design of the works shall take due account of the requirements of Surcharge Storage. The volume between the Full Reservoir Level and the Dead Storage Level of any reservoir shall not exceed the Conservation Storage Capacity specified in the design. With respect to the Flood Storage mentioned in Paragraph 9, the design of the works on the Jhelum Main shall be such that no water can spill from the Jhelum Main into the off-channel storage except when the water level in the Jhelum Main rises above the low flood stage. Contd….. 59

Annexure E – Paragraph 11 e) Outlets or other works of sufficient capacity shall be provided to deliver into the river downstream the flow of the river received upstream of the Storage Work, except during freshets or floods. These outlets or works shall be located at the highest level consistent with sound and economical design and with satisfactory operation of the Storage Work. f) Any outlets below the Dead Storage Level necessary for sediment control or any other technical purpose shall be of the minimum size, and located at the highest level, consistent with sound and economical design and with satisfactory operation of the Storage Work. g) If a power plant is incorporated in the Storage Work, the intakes for the turbines shall be located at the highest level consistent with satisfactory and economical construction and operation of the plant and with customary and accepted practice of design for the designated range of the plant’s operation. 60

BAGLIHAR HYDROELECTRIC PLANT APPOINTMENT OF NEUTRAL EXPERT
PCIW’s notice for the appointment of Neutral Expert (NE). 8 May 2003 PCIW’s request to the two Governments for appointment of NE. 20 Jun 2003 Correspondence/discussion continued to resolve the issue under Article-IX(1) but India refused to discuss ‘Questions’ under Article IX(1) – A special meeting in this regard was held and ended on deadlock. Jul 2003 to Jan 2004 Indian Minister for External Affairs and Pakistan High Commissioner met at New Delhi and proposed to settle issue through Secretary Level Talks. The issue remained under discussion at Sectary Level. 3 Jun 2004 to 7 Jan 2005 Pakistan Requested the World Bank to appoint NE. 15 Jan 2005 India tried to stop appointment of NE and said that the appointment of NE is premature. Correspondence exchanged between India, Pakistan and the Word Bank in this regard. Ultimately WB decided to appoint NE. 24 Jan to 9 May 2005 Mr. Raymond Lafitte was appointed as NE. 10 May 2005 Meetings with NE were held and NE in Oct 2006 presented its Final Draft Determination. Jun 2005 to Oct 2006 NE gave its Final Decision. 12 Feb 2007

KISHENGANGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT FORMULATION OF COURT OF ARBITRATION
India provided revised information of KHEP. The issue remained under discussion at the level of Permanent Indus Commission. Three meetings were held during this period. Jun 2006 to Feb 2009 PCIW notified Indian Commissioner about Pakistan’s intention to process the case through NE & CoA . 11 Mar 2009 A request was made by PCIW on 11 May 2009 to GoP & GoI for jointly appointing NE. 11 May 2009 India asked to two Governments to jointly appoint an NE and emphasized that issue be further discussed in the forthcoming annual meeting of the Commission. Pakistan agreed for the meeting as a gesture of goodwill and 103 meeting was held but unfruitful. PCIW informed India that Pakistan will pursue the resolution as communicated earlier. 19 May to 20 July 2009 Correspondence exchanged between the Parties for selection of Arbitrators. July 2009 to May 2010 Meeting between GoP and GoI for selection of Umpires was held. 13 Jul 2010 GoP instituted proceedings for establishment of Court of Arbitration. 17 May 2010 Contd…..

KISHENGANGA HYDROELECTRIC PLANT FORMULATION OF COURT OF ARBITRATION
Each Party appointed its two arbitrators and remaining two were appointed according to provision of the Treaty . The Secretary General of UN appointed Judge Stephen M. Schwebel as Chairman (umpire) on 12 October, 2010. May 2010 to 12 Oct 2010 First meeting of the Court was held. 14 Jan 2011 The Court issued Partial Award 18 Feb 2013 Final Award of the Court 20 Dec 2013

AGRICULTURAL AREAS ON WESTERN RIVERS
Figures in Acres River Eff. Date Add Area Total From Flow Indus 42,179 70,000 112,179 48,492 Jhelum 517,909 400,000 917,909 667,909 628,374 Chenab 82,389 231,000 313,389 157,389 106,209 Total: 642,477 701,000 1,343,477 937,477 783,075 64

10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "10 December 2014 MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback