The Hindu Newspaper Analysis

Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) Review

Context and India’s Concerns

• India’s Formal Notice: Served on August 30, 2024, under Article XII (3), to review and modify the IWT.
• Reasons for Review:
  • Rising domestic water needs.
  • Population growth and increased agricultural demand.
  • Need to boost clean energy development to meet emission targets.
  • Impacts of cross-border terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir, impeding treaty operations.

Divergent Approaches of India and Pakistan

• India’s Viewpoint (Upper Riparian): Focus on optimal utilisation of resources under IWT.
• Pakistan’s Perspective (Lower Riparian): Emphasis on uninterrupted water flow to its territory.
• Result: Conflicting interpretations lead to claims and counterclaims.

Kishenganga Arbitration 2013

• Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): Allowed India’s hydropower projects on the Kishanganga River, with a minimum flow of 9 cubic meters/second.
• India has 33 hydropower projects under various stages on western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
• IWT Clause: India’s projects allowed but must ensure minimum flow.

Challenges in IWT Structure

• Partition of Watercourses:
  • India holds rights to eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, Beas).
  • Pakistan holds rights to western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab).
• Hydrological Severance: Partition disrupted integrated water resource management and cooperation.

No Harm Rule & Customary International Law

• Obligation to Prevent Harm: Both nations must prevent harm under customary international law.
• ICJ Ruling (Pulp Mills Case, 2010):
  • Mandates transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for projects with potential cross-border effects.
  • India and Pakistan must conduct EIA for projects impacting shared watercourses.

Equitable and Reasonable Utilisation (ERU)

• UN Watercourses Convention (1997):
  • Article 5 and 6 emphasize equitable use based on various factors, including climate impacts.
  • Climate Change Impact: Melting glaciers may reduce Indus flow by 30%-40%.
• Joint Engineering Projects:
  • Article VII.1c allows both parties to undertake cooperative projects, mitigating water variability.

Way Forward

• Challenges: Lack of trust makes renegotiation difficult.
• Suggestions:
  • Use formal negotiation under IWT for Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs).
  • Strengthen cooperative mechanisms for effective basin management.
  • Prioritize joint projects for mitigating climate impacts and variability.

Conclusion

Effective management and trust-building through structured cooperation are critical to resolving disputes and ensuring the sustainable use of the Indus Basin.

 

 

 

The Hindu Newspaper Analysis

All Eyes on Baku and the Climate Finance Goal

Context

• COP29 (November 11-22, 2024, Baku, Azerbaijan): Focused on finalizing the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance.
• Article 9, Paris Agreement: Climate finance must address the “needs and priorities of developing countries.”

Unresolved Issues in Climate Finance

• Diverging Interests:
  • Developing Countries:
    • Demand equity in finance allocation.
    • Prefer public finance, grants, and predictable time frames (5-10 years).
  • Developed Countries:
    • Push for a broader contributor base.
    • Advocate for innovative financing and outcome-driven strategies.
• Key Unresolved Areas:
  • Structure, scope, and scale of financial contributions.
  • Sources and timeframes of funding.

$100 Billion Annual Pledge

• Commitment: Made in 2009, extended to 2025; target first met in 2022 with $115.9 billion.
• Glaring Shortcomings:
  • Standing Committee on Finance: Developing countries need $5.036-6.876 trillion for climate action.
  • Over-reliance on loans, insufficient grants.
  • Adaptation projects, critical for resilience, remain underfunded.

Challenges in Expanding Contributor Base

• Proposals:
  • Switzerland and Canada: Suggest including nations like China, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia based on emissions and GNI per capita.
  • Viewed as undermining equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
• Developing Nations’ Pushback:
  • Highlight historical responsibility of developed nations.
  • Fear delays and reduced accountability in climate finance commitments.

Issues in Climate Finance

• Updated Definition by SCF: Climate finance includes actions for reducing emissions, enhancing resilience, and meeting goals under national plans (NDCs, NAPs).
• Additionality Concerns:
  • Absence of clarity on whether funds are new and incremental.
• Private Investments:
  • Useful in mitigation but insufficient for adaptation projects.
  • Risks diluting developed countries’ accountability.
• Common Accounting Frameworks: Critical for transparency and consistency.

Way Forward for NCQG

• Comprehensive Support:
  • Finance must be complemented by technology transfer and capacity building.
• Addressing Barriers:
  • Multilateral mechanisms should prioritize need-for-money over value-for-money.
• Balancing Adaptation and Mitigation:
  • Ensure equitable funding between adaptation (infrastructure resilience, disaster management) and mitigation.

Conclusion

• The success of NCQG at COP29 depends on restoring trust and ensuring climate finance aligns with the unique needs of developing countries.
• The global community must prioritize historical responsibility and collective action to combat climate change effectively.