Asset 1

Global Go To Think Tank Index (GGTTI) 2020 launched                    111,75 Think Tanks across the world ranked in different categories.                SDPI is ranked 90th among “Top Think Tanks Worldwide (non-US)”.           SDPI stands 11th among Top Think Tanks in South & South East Asia & the Pacific (excluding India).            SDPI notches 33rd position in “Best New Idea or Paradigm Developed by A Think Tank” category.                SDPI remains 42nd in “Best Quality Assurance and Integrity Policies and Procedure” category.              SDPI stands 49th in “Think Tank to Watch in 2020”.            SDPI gets 52nd position among “Best Independent Think Tanks”.                           SDPI becomes 63rd in “Best Advocacy Campaign” category.                   SDPI secures 60th position in “Best Institutional Collaboration Involving Two or More Think Tanks” category.                       SDPI obtains 64th position in “Best Use of Media (Print & Electronic)” category.               SDPI gains 66th position in “Top Environment Policy Tink Tanks” category.                SDPI achieves 76th position in “Think Tanks With Best External Relations/Public Engagement Program” category.                    SDPI notches 99th position in “Top Social Policy Think Tanks”.            SDPI wins 140th position among “Top Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks”.               SDPI is placed among special non-ranked category of Think Tanks – “Best Policy and Institutional Response to COVID-19”.                                            Owing to COVID-19 outbreak, SDPI staff is working from home from 9am to 5pm five days a week. All our staff members are available on phone, email and/or any other digital/electronic modes of communication during our usual official hours. You can also find all our work related to COVID-19 in orange entries in our publications section below.    The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) is pleased to announce its Twenty-third Sustainable Development Conference (SDC) from 14 – 17 December 2020 in Islamabad, Pakistan. The overarching theme of this year’s Conference is Sustainable Development in the Times of COVID-19. Read more…       FOOD SECIRITY DASHBOARD: On 4th Nov, SDPI has shared the first prototype of Food Security Dashboard with Dr Moeed Yousaf, the Special Assistant to Prime Minister on  National Security and Economic Outreach in the presence of stakeholders, including Ministry of National Food Security and Research. Provincial and district authorities attended the event in person or through zoom. The dashboard will help the government monitor and regulate the supply chain of essential food commodities.

Business Recorder

Published Date: Feb 20, 2013

Kishanganga: a win-win for Islamabad, New Delhi

and India are claiming victory on the partial decision taken by the Court of
Arbitration Justice (CoJ) at The Hague with respect to the 330 MW Kishanganga
hydroelectric project but facts indicate that the decision is a win-win for the
two countries.

India claims the CoJ ruled in its favour on diversion of Kishanganga water and
set aside objections by Pakistan that halted work on the project in Held
Kashmir. On the other hand, Pakistani officials dealing with this issue told Business
Recorder that though the CoJ has allowed diversion of water to India the issue
of minimum flow regime is yet to be defined. Both countries have been asked to
submit one year’s water data to the court by June this year and a final
decision will be announced in December.

However, India would have to redesign Kishanganga project and the other six run
of the river projects. The court decided that the design and operation of the
project will be in accordance with the 1960 Indus Water Treaty and India has to
give a date for filling the dam.

"It’s a huge achievement for Pakistan as India will not be allowed to
drawdown flushing of water in future as was permitted by the neutral expert in
case of Baglihar Dam," said Shumaila Mehmood, a legal expert who also
represented Pakistan at the CoA. Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesman
Syed Akbaruddin, in a statement said, "the award of CoA at The Hague
reaffirms the validity of India’s position."

In an interview with Business Recorder, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister
on Water Resources and Agriculture Kamal Majidullah said the verdict of the CoA
in Kishanganga dispute would help check violations of Indus Basin Treaty by
India. India is building about 150 dams of different sizes on the Western
rivers meant for Pakistan and the verdict of the CoA is a clear message that
India cannot construct them as per its whim.
He said India has officially acknowledged construction of three more dams on
Western rivers but there is information that India has plans to build 47
projects of more than 50 MW each. He said construction of 150 dams would mean
depriving Pakistan of its share of water but the verdict in Kishanganga dispute
has sent a clear signal to India that it cannot violate provisions of the Indus
Basin Treaty.

Kamal Majidullah dispelled the impression created by a section of media that
the verdict of the CoA was, in any way, in favour of India or against Pakistan.
Instead, he said, this would compel India to change the design of the project.
He explained that as per verdict India, in principle, can divert water but
there is no decision as to the volume and timing. He said this would disturb
Indian plan for construction of the power plant as they would not know the
quantity and flow of the water and the quantity of water that it will have to
be ensured down-stream.

The Special Assistant to the Prime Minister said India wanted annual draw down
flushing which would have deprived Pakistan of its share of water. Pakistan
argued before the court that if India was allowed diversion or flushing then
Pakistan might not get water at all from Neelum River for about seven to nine
months a year depending on rain and snow fall. The court acknowledged
Pakistan’s point of view and it would give its final verdict about quantity of
water that India will be allowed to divert by December this year after Pakistan
and India submit data on flow of water, irrigation and drinking water
requirements and needs of hydel power stations by June this year.
Asked how implementation of the verdict would be ensured, Senior Legal Counsel
Shumaila Mahmood expressed the hope that the arbitration court would lay down
clear mechanism for the purpose. She hoped that the final award would not only
define and clarify different provisions of the Indus Basin Treaty but its
interpretations would also serve as guideline for future.
Replying to a question, Kamal Majidullah said credit goes to President Asif Ali
Zardari and the present Government for taking the issue of water to the CoA
that would help safeguard rights of the country. He said that the verdict would
send a message to India that it cannot go beyond the framework of the Indus
Basin Treaty as it did in the past.

He said India, which has ambitions to become a major power, would stand exposed
before the international community if it persisted with its plans in violations
of the provisions of the Indus Basin Treaty and verdict of CoA. He said in the
past India did not show seriousness in settling water disputes through dialogue
and that is why Pakistan had to resort to the mechanism laid down in the Indus
Basin Treaty.

According to a study, conducted by Sustainable Development Policy Institute
(SDPI), the catchment area at Kishanganga dam site is roughly 1820 square
kilometers, and annual average flow is 115,900 cusec. By diverting this flow
towards a tributary, named Bunar Madumati Nullah, of Jhelum River, through a
22-km tunnel, would be a clear violation of the Article (clause) 1V-3-c of the
Indus Waters Treaty. This diversion will increase the catchment area of the
Jhelum River. The Article 1V (-C-) explicitly says that India shall not take
any action to increase the catchment area, beyond the area on the effective
date, of any natural or artificial drainage and drain which crosses into
Pakistan, and shall not undertake such construction or re-modelling of any
drainage or drain which so crosses as might cause material damages in Pakistan;
and increase in catchment area is the violation of this article of the treaty.

The author of the study, Arshad H Abbasi, argued that by diverting the flow of
Kishanganga river, upstream at Gurez, the catchment area of river Jhelum
(tributary of main Jhelum) will be increased, which will cause enormous
material damage in Neelum Valley due to adverse effects of
non-availability/reduction of water.

On the other hand, increase in catchment area of river Jhelum tributary will
increase the flow in tributary, that will cause material damage due to adverse
effects arising from flood-like situation ie erosion of agriculture land along
both sides of River Jhelum tributary. There is a little doubt that diverting
Kishanganga under the proposed project will lead to drastically reduced flow in
the Neelum river.

The Indian stance is that the reduction in flow would be 10 percent. It is
totally wrong: the Indian calculation of flowing at Nauseri is based on annual
average, the point/place, where the intake for NJHEP is designed, Abbasi added.
The 60 percent to 70 percent of total flow is approximately 343100 cusec at
Nauseri drained out during three to four months of the whole year. Thus, the
average flow at this point would reduce by 33 percent after completion of KEHP
and in May, June and July, to around 9 percent; but the financial impact of
power generation would be around Rs 12.18 billion alone with the worst impact,
minimal, almost reduced to zero at Toabutt, the place where Kishanganga becomes
Neelum River. At this place, annul flow which is approximately 136000 cusecs
would be totally diverted 8 months a year. The study further observed that
other than worst impact on the Neelum valley, the Jhelum valley in Pakistan is
stretched from Chakothi (entry point of river Jhelum) to Domel (Muzaffarabad)
and will also become victim to abnormal excessive flow of the Jhelum River. The
unnatural flow of water in the Jhelum river basin may be a flooding threat to
road and built-up public/private infrastructures, in addition to agriculture

The four bridges have to be relocated or their height from the bed would have
to increase. All the built-up infrastructure along both banks of the Jhelum
river ie public and private buildings, agriculture extension offices,
agriculture and food stores, main roads and link road network, suspension
bridges, hydroelectric units, power supply posts, telecommunication network,
village shops etc would be under a threat of floods and would require to be
relocated. The situation will disturb the farm families and would result in
local and intra-country migration increasing pressure on the resource use. The
surrounding mountains of the Jhelum valley, already lost their natural
interlocking in earthquake-2005, would further become geologically fragile.
The additional flow would not only cause serious erosion of fragile slope lands
along the river banks, but also affect the natural stability that would trigger
massive landslides. Thus, there is great likelihood that geological instability
would cause loss to agriculture farms, fruit bearing plants, grazing pastures,
forest poultry and fish farms and water mills. Consequently, the livelihood of
poor farm families will be negatively affected. The rough cost of relocation of
these all in-built infrastructure will be around Rs 2.4 billion. These losses
are conveyed to members of CoA. MOWP hired a contractor for environmental
damage assessment who has failed to quantify the actual damage.