NATURE OF WATER CRISIS IN PAKISTAN & A POTENTIAL WAY OUT

BY Dr. M. S. Shafique

A. Nature of Water Crisis: Water crisis is a term that refers to the scarcity and quality of available water resources relative to human demand. However, nature of crisis can change from one context to other. In global context, according to Wikpedia, the following symptoms are reported for water crisis:

• Inadequate access to drinking water for 1.1 billion people;
• Inadequate access to water for sanitation and wastewater disposal for 2.5 billion people;
• Groundwater excessive use leading diminished agricultural yields;
• Overuse and pollution of water resources harming biodiversity; and
• Regional conflict over scarce water resources sometime resulting into warfare.

Internationally, an indicator is devised to see if a certain country can be classified as water stressed or water scarce country to determine the emerging seriousness of water crisis. This indicator is generally termed as quantity of water available per year per person. If this per capita annual water availability in a country ranges between 1000-2000 m³, this status is said to be water stressed and if this amount of water drops below 1000 m³, the locality in focus is considered to be facing water scarcity situation.

As far as water availability per capita per year is concerned, sources like Amin Dadbhoy reports huge water distribution distortions in global context. For example, on one hand there those where water scarcity is too acute like Kuwait, Ghaza and UAE where annual per capita water availability is around 10 m³, 52 m³ and 58 m³, respectively. Opposite to such water poor countries, there are some water rich countries, where annual per capita water availability is very high, for example: French Guiana (812,121 m³), Iceland (609, 319 m³), Guyana (316,689 m³), Surinam (292, 566 m³), Congo (275,679, m³), Canada (94,353 m³) and New Zealand (86,554 m³).

The reported uneven water availability results because of the nature of regions. The ongoing climatic changes, it is predicted that humid regions will receive even more rain and arid and semi arid zones may get lesser and erratic rains in the future. According to an estimate, climatic change may cause another 20 % water scarcity in drought-prone areas. Because of the population growth and climatic changes, water crisis in many non-humid regions will aggravate.

In case of Pakistan, water crisis is much more complex and multi-facet phenomenon. For example, per capita water availability that was 5, 300 m³ in 1951 is expected to drop to 850 m³ in 2013. This is mainly because of the population growth from 34 million in 1951 to 207 million projected in 2013. If population increase in 62 years is six times, the corresponding decrease in per capita water availability is a natural outcome as presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Past, present and future water availability per capita per year in Pakistan

This reported water scarcity becomes even more serious concern when we look at the degree of control of water sources and percentage of water used in Pakistani context. As presented in Figure 1, the percentage of water originating outside of Pakistan’s territory is 75% or more. When viewed this status in a very hostile environment, this complication becomes even more complex. Added to this very low degree of control, this water crisis takes another boost when we look at water exploitation index. As shown in Figure2, Pakistan’s use of water as % of total renewable water resources, it is around 75 % plus. This high water exploitation index puts Pakistan in a category of severe water stressed situation.

Figure 1: Degree of water control in Asia

Figure 2: Water stress status in Asia-Pacific

In addition to the above referred indicator of water availability per capita per year, those countries where overwhelmingly water consuming sub-sector is agriculture, there is need to consider annual irrigation water required or needed versus that is available. In the context of South Asian sub-continent, agriculture sector consumes 99%, 97%, 92% and 86% of total water available in Nepal, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, respectively. Perhaps per capita water available may have to be complemented with additional indicators to identify the real nature of prevailing water crisis in this region.

For Pakistan, therefore, it is important that we also look at the availability of water for irrigation. We had 9.2 million hectares irrigated land in 1950-53 which has gone up to 18.02 million hectares in 2000 -03; an increase of almost 100 % over a period of 50 years. As shown in Table 2, there has been an increase in water diversions to canals at different stages but not in the same proportion as horizontal expansion in irrigated land.

Table 2. Historical Canal Water Diversions in the Indus Basin of Pakistan

Key Influences	Period	Canal Diversions MAF / (billion m3)
Kharif	Rabi	Annual
Pre – Partition	1940-1947	47.6/ (58.5)	20.2/ (24.9)	67.8/ (83.4)
Partition	1947-1948	46.3/ (57.0)	22.4/ (27.6)	68.8/ (84.6)
Dispute	1948-1960	51.5/ (63.4)	24.7/ (30.4)	76.3/ (93.8)
Pre – Mangla	1960-1967	60.3/ (74.2)	27.6/ (34.0)	88.0 / (108.2)
Post – Mangla	1967-1975	65.3/ (80.3)	30.2 (37.1)	95.5 (117.4)
Post – Tarbela	1975-1980	68.1/ (83.7)	38.2/ (47.0)	106.3 / (130.7)
Post – Tarbela	1980-1985	68.4/ (84.1)	37.3/ (45.9)	105.7 (130.0)
Post – Tarbela	1985-1990	66.3/ (81.6)	37.7/ (46.4)	104.1/ (128.0)
Post – Tarbela	1990-1995	66.3/ (81.5)	38.5/ (47.3)	104.7/ (128.8)
Post – Tarbela	1975-1995	67.2 (82.7)	38.0 (46.7)	105.2/ (129.4)

Data Source: Water Resources Management Directorate, WAPDA.

Based on meteorological data from 18 stations country-wide, annual potential evapo-transpiration varies from 1.20 m in Muree to 2.0 m in Jackababad. Similar estimates of irrigation requirements are made for each province of Pakistan. When we compare these annual irrigation requirements, based on areas irrigated, we observe, as shown in Table 3, another dimension of the water crisis. Since water use in agriculture sector in Pakistan is around 97%, the nature of water crisis becomes very critical for food security and livelihood of the people. If one province that the dominant source of agricultural production, overall water deficit per unit area irrigated is going to keep productivity down and consequently food security at risk.

Table 3. Comparison of Surface water allocations and Water Requirements among four Provinces of Pakistan

Description	Punjab	Sind	NWFP	Baluchistan
Annual Irrigation Requirements (m)	1.26	1.34	1.16	1.19
Annual Water Allocation as per 1991 Accord in BCM (MAF)	68.81 (55.94)	59.98 (48.76)	10. 80 (8.78)	4.76 (3.87)
Canal Irrigated Areas (million hectares) in 2000-03	11.04	1.96	0.77	0.55
Annual water available per unit area irrigated (m)	0.62	3.06	1.40	0.87
Deficit (-) or Surplus (+) in m/ha	-0.64	+ 1.72	+ 0.24	-0.32

Punjab has canal irrigated area about 11.04 million hectares which constitute 77 % of the entire country. Almost same ratio holds for the cropped areas that are irrigated exclusively either by tube-wells or wells. Shortage of more than half of irrigation water required has caused deficit irrigation causing productivity concerns. Now, this crisis is not brought either by nature nor by India; it is home-made and we have no option except to find ways and means to face it off.

Because of sever water shortages as presented above; tube-well irrigation got an exponential growth over a period of 50 years. Recent data suggest that over 1.2 million tube-wells are installed in the country and more than one million these tube-wells are pumping about 35 MAF of groundwater only in Punjab to irrigate 7.17 million hectares conjunctively with canals and 2.74 million hectares exclusively by the tube-wells. Without getting into arguments and counter-arguments, this is clear and solid ground reality that there is huge water crisis in the food granary of Pakistan. It is interesting to note that 71.1% irrigated area of Punjab receives either exclusive tube-well water or conjunctively surface and ground water are being used. In contrast to Punjab, the share of tube-well irrigation in other provinces is almost insignificant.

On one hand, dependence on groundwater in Punjab is a blessing as quantity being used is almost three times that of surface water storage that Pakistan has built. Moreover, this explosion of pumping technology helped to control the twin menace of water-logging and salinity in this region. Imagine a possible severity of water crisis in a scenario where there would have been no use of groundwater at all. It would have definitely flabbergasting and horrifying outcome.

On the other hand, this practice of delaying its fatal impact has put the entire sustainability of irrigated of Punjab at risk. In an insane absence of institutional support system for groundwater management and due to shortage of canal water, farmers of Punjab are forced to use groundwater where almost two-third tube-wells are pumping sodic water for irrigation. As farmers are left on their own to decide about installation of tube-wells for groundwater extraction, they can only avoid pumping brackish water that gives tastes of excessive salinity but sodic / alkaline waters are, usually, assumed to be alright. This is why that more two-third tube-wells are adding slow poison to irrigated lands and this is becoming a significant factor for low yields in this region. This is another aspect of the seriousness of the emerging colossal water crisis.

At present, on one hand, our entire focus is confined to either blaming India for stealing water or debating on building Kala-Bagh Dam. Sure, there is a lot of truth in it but should we opt a destructive way of war where there will be no-winners or look at the options that are still available to overcome such crisis? Obviously, war is NOT an option, period.

To seek a constructive way out, we need to ask an honest question from ourselves: At present, are we really in position to abrogate the Indus Water Treaty and get even a half way decent agreement from an extremely hostile neighbor? Of course, NOT! Since Indus river systems became a trans-boundary flow case after the partition in 1947, we could have convinced India and the international community at large to follow international laws regarding the established water rights for lower riparian. Instead, we were forced to negotiate and accept the partition of the Indus valley and Indus River waters as consequence. In other words, we agreed to the law of jungle, might is right, instead of taking right stand based on relevant international law of established water rights.

On the other hand, the entire canal irrigation system was designed, planned and implemented on a cardinal principle of equitable river water “disposal” / distribution per unit of irrigated area in the Indus Valley. Interestingly enough, in this intra-national context, our negotiations among four provinces revolved around the prevailing international water laws to satisfy established water rights because of inundation canals under lower riparian scenario. Although ground realities did change drastically after say independence, formation of one unit, Indus water treaty of 1960 and in spite of original design criteria opted for the use of 97% water use in irrigated agriculture; once an agreement signed with consensus, it should be accepted whole heartedly. As a matter of fact, we should still feel fortunate enough that all provinces signed on the Water Apportionment Accord in 1991. This brings us to ask one more honest question to ourselves: Without endangering the entire fabric of our federation, is there any possibility to get a better water apportionment accord among our four provinces? Answer is obvious; a big NO.

In spite of the above two soul -searching questions and candid answers, fact remains that both of these agreements had a huge impact on the on-going water crisis. In both cases, as far as one can honestly feels, all stake-holders are sticking to these best possible agreements based on compromises made but only in letter sense. If these agreements are our best possible and last resort options, we can have way out only if we create conditions that make all stake-holders to implement and follow these agreements both in letter and spirit.

For example, India is allowed to develop hydro-power potential by constructing dams as long as this power generation is made to stay within run-of- the-river principle. If India tries to deviate, we negotiate and once issue is established and bilateral negotiations fail, there is provision to seek arbitration from a neutral expert by using the good offices of the World Bank. Such an arbitration on Bughliar Dam is a recent case in point. Yes, there were few minor adjustments made but these alterations do not stop India to continue building dams across all three western rivers, allocated for supplying water to Pakistan, as long as these power generation facilities are kept confined to run-of-the-river flows.

In letter sense, India could do so. However, in doing so, India is developing a capacity and capability to flood Pakistan when there is least water required for crops and can create drought conditions when there is dire need for crops in the Indus Valley of Pakistan. Since we do not have observers stationed at all such dam and control sites, India can start storage when there is very little rain or glacier water available. A delay of well-coordinated water stoppage for even few weeks can ruin our agricultural economy to a greater extent. Similarly, when there is not much need for crops, like wet season, a letter bound hostile India can flood the country to cause further damage to economy. This risk is further enhanced with acceptance of sluice gates to remove silt by the neutral expert appointed by the World Bank while arbitrating on Baglihar case. While doing all such manipulations, India will be hiding behind the letter sense of the Indus Water Treaty. But for Pakistan, water crisis will keep getting bad to worse as time progresses.

At the national level, we created problems for ourselves by ignoring the basic principle of design for equitable river water disposal; we generally term it irrigation, but started deviating to establish new rights for water use by increasing water allowance criterion followed in canal areas of the Pakistani Indus Valley. Like the famous gold rush in the US, just to establish water rights, all provinces tried to increase water allowances either by developing new irrigation systems or widening the existing facilities by authorizing and pushing more water than the original design of conveyance systems. This has caused rivalries and hot exchanges among provinces and stakeholders. Also, different lobbies used such deviations to seek political benefits by justifying extra water needs over and above the original water allowances.

Because of an absence of proper water management essentially at secondary canal level, water crisis, particularly at the lower parts of these canals, is very evident. Coupled with flood irrigation, either irrigation by flooding basins or using old Punchoo system, water crisis keeps on increasing its intensity day by day. IRSA or no IRSA and telemetry system or no telemetry system; unless we decide to distribute water by going beyond letter sense and include the spirit of the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, we do not see an end of this water crisis in Pakistan.

In order to face this emerging serious threat to our main living source, we may have to revisit our perceptions and self-righteous claims about Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. If all stakeholders honestly decide to follow these agreements in letter and spirit, instead of getting stuck to the letter part only, there exists a real hope to face off such crisis effectively. On the other hand, if we keep playing drama of make-believe for appearing to be acting according to the letter part of such historic commitments, I am afraid that its potential consequences could be disastrous for all concerned. We all have to move beyond blowing fire to get our self-claimed and perceived rights and show courage to openly take steps to shoulder relevant responsibilities both in letter and spirit. With that kind of stated paradigm shift, I am sure that there is nothing that we cannot face and manage.

B. Context of Water Crisis: Before we deliberate on a potential way-out of this crisis, to bring about the above stated paradigm shift in our thinking patterns, the following realities have to be revisited:

• The Red-Cliff boundary drawn to bring partition of 1947 was either absolutely blind toward hydraulic boundaries of the Indus River Basin, or, more bluntly, it was intentionally designed to partition this basin as a revenge of an imperial power fatally hurt.
• Indus Water Treaty of 1960 was not based on international laws applicable for trans-boundary river basins; it was a naked display of power by an upper riparian state that made a weaker lower riparian to swallow its pride and accept an unequal deal brokered by the World Bank.
• In spite of fact that the Indus Water Treaty was not just in view of the established water rights of the lower riparian state, Pakistan; a question still needs to be answered honestly: Considering our inherent weaknesses and constraints, what were the chances to get a better deal at that time and, for that matter, even now? Perhaps, none.
• Within Pakistan, Punjab being one of the upper riparian province, are there enough measures taken to satisfy Sindh, a lower riparian province, to deliver its legal share as per Water Apportionment Accord of 1991?
• Sindh being “upper riparian” for Baluchistan, are there required measures put in place to ensure “lower riparian” province of Baluchistan to get its due share as per Accord of 1991?
• Even in the presence of equitable river water distribution based on area irrigated in the Indus Valley, the Accord of 1991, on the contrary, is basically pegged in the historical water use under international water laws; is there any possibility for all four provinces to get a better deal either in 1991 or, for that matter, now? Perhaps, none. If so, what stops us to think about ways and means to make it work?
• With inundation canals replaced with modern weir-controlled canal irrigation systems with specified water allowances and after signing the Water Accord of 1991, why cannot we go back to original design criterion of equitable water distribution within each province to bring more areas under irrigation?
• Scarcity of water with ever exploding population and topped with climatic changes, supply and demand side water management are plausible options to be given due consideration. By blowing fire in the national context and threatening calls of water wars at regional level will not help to face off water crisis; innovative and rational approaches will – why cannot we divert our energies to do just that?
• Why cannot we take up a positive and thankful approach by reminding ourselves the following: With all our short-comings and blunders, we still are very lucky nation to have the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 intact; why cannot we divert all our energies to make sure that these agreements are implemented in original letter and spirit? When we all know very well that nothing better can be achieved in the prevailing environment and as per the prevailing ground realities, why should we hurt our interests knowingly anymore?

C. Issues Associated with Water Crisis: For finding a way-out from the emerging water crisis within the stated ground realities, it is important that we identify issues to be addressed. These issues can be listed under different categories that include:

· Management of population explosion in view of the free fall of per capita water availability of water;

· Additional Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) to ensure that the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 is implemented by India and Pakistan both in its original letter and spirit;

· Additional Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) to ensure that the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 is followed by all four provinces of Pakistan in its true letter and spirit;

· Agreed and efficient supply side water management;

· Agreed and enforceable demand side water management;

· Creation of conducive environment for effective water conservation practices; and

· Getting rid of ineffective water governance.

D. Potential Way-out of Water Crisis: Of course, a potential way-out of the prevailing and more serious emerging water crises is to address all issues that cause misunderstandings, lack of transparency in water sharing, uneven water distribution, unreliability of quantity and quality of water, mismanagement on supply and demand sides, unfavorable conditions for water conservation and imperial style water governance in all relevant water-consuming sub-sectors. Based on this assumption, different components of this potential way-out of water crisis are presented in the following sections:

D1. Population Management as a Way-out for Stopping Drop in Water Availability per capita: It is interesting to note that everyone in Pakistan is concerned about the downward slide in the annual water availability per person but hardly have we even mentioned about the real cause of such steep drop say 5,300 m³ in 1950-53 to under the magic figure of 1000 m³ per capita per year at present; it is mainly due to the population explosion from 34 million in 1953 to 176 million in 2010. Let acknowledge this ground reality for a realistic appreciation of the water crisis we face and its nature.

We need to remind ourselves that we had 9.23 million hectare irrigated land in 1950-53 that went up almost 100 percent (18.02 million hectares) in 2000-03. However, our surface water diversions to the irrigated lands also increased from 83.4 BCM (67.64 MAF) to 129.4 BCM (104.95 MAF) during the same period. As this increase in water availability was less than the additional area brought under irrigation, annual water delivery depth per unit area dropped from 0.90 m to 0.72 m; these figures are significantly lower than required irrigation depths in each province as given in Table 3. Even with the introduction of tube-well technology since sixties, additional groundwater availability of about 50.29 BCM (40.8 MAF) has made this annual water depth available for the current area to 1.o m; a bit higher than before. In either case, we are not supplying adequate amount of water and we are forced to live with deficit irrigation phenomenon in this country. No wonder that our productivity of many crops is well below the one found on the other part of the Indus Basin under Indian control.

Based on the data presented above, it appears that main cause of steep drop in per capita water availability is less associated with the quantity of water available or being made available but more linked to the ongoing population explosion in Pakistan. Unless we come up with measures to manage this explosion; there is no way to check this free fall in the annual water availability per capita.

D2. Additional Confidence Building Measures regarding Indus Water Treaty: Why do we need additional measures to implement Indus Water Treaty when there are already institutional provision of Indus Water Commission and a built-in mechanism of a neutral arbitrator that can be sought through the good offices of the World Bank? One obvious answer is that the existing provisions have not helped fully to remove mistrust developed between our two upper and lower riparian states. Main reason for such development is that most Pakistanis have come to believe that the existing mechanisms are not sufficient and additional confidence building measures are needed to ensure that the treaty is followed in its true letter and spirit. In order to address this mistrust, according to a recent report by Sandeep Dikshit in an Indian newspaper, the Hindu, on 12^th March 2010, the Government of Pakistan has proposed the following steps:

1. Construction of projects at three western rivers should be undertaken only after objections are amicably resolved;
2. Joint watershed management should be agreed;
3. Joint commission of environmental studies be established;
4. India should provide details of new project six months before commencement;
5. Diversions for storage and farm purposes be conveyed to Pakistan; and
6. India should also provide details about ancillary projects.

In response, India has expressed its concerns, as per the referred report, as under:

1. Pakistan needs to improve water management , and
2. The drop in flow is because of overall pattern of receding glaciers.

As far as the first point from the Indian side is concerned, water management improvements have remained main focus of Pakistan for last four decades or so. However, there is a lot of room for improvement and any good suggestions in this area should be seriously considered like more focus on watershed management is needed. For the second point, it makes Pakistan’s proposal even more meaningful that both countries should establish a joint commission for conducting environmental studies. If glaciers are receding, they must be receding because of excessive snow melt. As reason given for drop in flow is quite confusing, it will make sense and improve trust between the two states by conducting such environmental studies to let scientific data support or reject such ongoing arguments.

In parallel to the Indian concern about water management, the referred Dikshit’s report points to Pakistani concerns about deforestation and water pollution on Indian side. Moreover, Pakistani officials always have complaints about the non-responsiveness of Indian to their concerns raised in the Indus water Commission.

In the given context, if both countries wish to follow the Indus Water treaty of 1960 in its true letter and spirit, both must whole heartedly support to this proposition adding all necessary confidence building measures to ensure a transparent, honest and fair water transactions as agreed in the treaty. Asking to revisit this treaty would be opening a Pandora box that may become too difficult to manage. We need to keep reminding us that it took India and Pakistan more than 12 years to strike a deal; it is better for regional peace and security if our emphasis stays to demand all potential confidence building measures to ensure its implementation in intended real letter and spirit; if sanity prevails on both sides, it is a doable option whereas alternative of revisiting or reinventing this treaty is too dangerous even to contemplate for both states.

After the most recent, March 2010 to be precise, meeting of the Indus Basin Commission in Lahore, Pakistani representative has hinted about an agreement to install telemetry system to monitor water levels at different points along the western rivers of the Indus Basin. At this time, details of such agreement are not made public but this is an important and encouraging development. However, it remains to be seen if both parties have also agreed to jointly operate and maintain this monitoring technology or they plan to hire third party to operate and manage this appreciable confidence building measure. It goes without saying that if fool-proof arrangement is not agreed to operate and manage such system, mere installation of such devices will turn out to be a gimmick of window-dressing only. Both parties have to review the failure of telemetry systems that were installed in Pakistan and Egypt for flow monitoring and then decide a mutually satisfactory arrangement to make such technology based CBM to work and work to satisfy both sides.

As the remaining three western rivers of the Indus Basin are virtually life-lines for Pakistan and its people and hence this water issue has a real potential to turn this beautiful sub-continent into Hiroshima and Nagasaki as both India and Pakistan are nuclear states; any threat to very survival of even one state got seeds for total destruction all around. All sane elements of both countries sincerely cannot even start contemplating such dreadful scenario to emerge. So, if both countries wish to implement this Indus Water Treaty in its original letter and spirit, India and Pakistan should remain focused to keep on adding mutually verifiable CBMs to eliminate all sources of mistrust on trans-boundary water management agreement as agreed.

If there is no hidden agenda to hurt each other, let us think of stationing representatives from Pakistan at each dam site and control point as Egypt, being lower riparian country, has been allowed to do so for monitoring purposes. Without such institutional arrangement in place, even telemetry system is not going to deliver desired results.

However, Egypt, the lower riparian of the Nile River, is a dominating regional power whereas Pakistan does not enjoy such status. In the South Asian Sub-continent, India is dominating regional power as well as non-friendly upper riparian state too. This presents double jeopardy and extremely uneven playing field for Pakistan. Virtually, all cards are in the Indian hands and it is playing these cards blatantly.

By allowing India to have sluice gates for the removal of silt, a virtual reinterpretation of the Indus Water Treaty by a “neutral arbitrator” in case of Baglihar Dam, a devastating precedent has been set, without assigning pre-conditions to safe guard original spirit of the treaty to ensure water quantity and timing, to make an already bad situation even worse. Like the recent filling of Baglihar Dam at a time when river flow is too low and it is also a critical time when crops are planted on Pakistani side, it does not require rocket-science to foresee what the others dozens of planned dams can do to Pakistan and its main economy of agriculture.

Needless to say that water is not just an ordinary issue for Pakistan, it is the only lifeline for its survival; its existence depends upon the implementation of the Indus Water Treaty not according to mere letter sense but according to its real spirit. Obviously, Pakistan would like this treaty to address all possible hindrances and potential manipulations in terms of quantity and timing of all allocated flows from the three western rivers to its territory.

In such a stated scenario, there is real potential for getting things out of control for both nuclear states. People from both sides have to realize the potential dangers and force their decision-makers to stop playing games with the survival of more than one billion people of India and Pakistan and start devising solid confidence building measures to calm this emotive and combustible situation down. Being India in the driving seat, it has all levers of control to avoid a train-wreck on the Indus as Professor John Briscoe has cautioned.

D3. Additional Confidence Building Measures for Implementing Water Apportionment Accord of 1991: What a strange irony of fate that the measures that we demand from India as lower riparian country, at national front, all stake-holders are hesitant to practice. As a matter of fact, Accord of 1991 provides unique opportunity and challenges all national stakeholders to demonstrate that they are capable of thinking creatively for coming up with new and effective confidence building measures on their own. At the next step, they should be courageous enough to put in place and implement all such new confidence building measures to eliminate fears and reservations regarding water distribution among the four units of Pakistan to end the ongoing blame game against each other.

At national level, Punjab being an upper riparian entity for Sindh and relatively dominant province of Pakistan, it replaces India in the local context while taking driving seat to operate water train with most control in its hands. Here is litmus test for Punjab to set a good example by avoiding train wreck as stated before. What Professor John Roscoe proposed to India as a dominant upper riparian state while explaining feelings in Pakistan, I repeat the same, with appropriate alterations, to the People of Punjab that there must be some courageous and open-minded of Punjabis – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this (Water) is not just an issue for Sind, but why it is an existential issue for Sind. Similar statement goes for the people of Sind when their role as upper riparian entity is considered for some parts of Baluchistan. Perhaps this could help to create conducive environment for rational discussion among all concerned.

To be fair with all stakeholders in Pakistan, water is equally a matter of existential issue for Punjab too. As a matter of fact, such desperation for water by all concerned stakeholders in Pakistan could be made a positive factor to understand concerns and reactions from the lower riparian provinces. However, history does not support this positive approach. Instead, narrow but emotional, self-serving alternatives are being cashed in to promote parochialism for political gains. However, such self-destructive politicization of technical issues of water acquisition and distribution has not helped at all in facing water crisis and if we continue to follow the same irrational path in the future, I am afraid that we will be playing in the hands of those people who wish that Pakistan, California of Asia, to be converted into Somalia of Africa. If that happens, we will not be able to blame only outsiders as we keeping on claiming more and more, even un due, rights but always refuse to shoulder corresponding responsibilities for averting such water crisis.

`As stated before, Water Apportionment Accord of 1991is a great achievement in securing consensus among four provinces of Pakistan where discard is a common phenomenon but accord is an unheard commodity. This was based on brute give and take and hence this consensus based agreement must be adhered and strengthened as a way out to plan and implement water projects as per allocated water resources for each province.

On one hand, there are people in Sindh who cry foul over this agreement and claim that Punjab took undue share of Indus water under this agreement. On the other hand people in Punjab have their own grievances. For many Punjabis, in the Indus Valley, where, as per accepted and implemented principle of basic design for its irrigation system, water must have to be distributed equitably based on area irrigated; is it fair that with 75.5% of total irrigated area of Pakistan in 1990-93, Punjab only gets 47.67% of total water allocation? This is especially causing severe heart-burning when Punjabis see that Sindh got only 15.5 %of total irrigated area at time of this Accord but it received 41.55% of total water allocation from the Indus River System. In their view, as agriculture sector was using 97% of total water available, this operational rule must have been followed instead of historic claims which lost relevance with the establishment of modern weir-controlled canals designed for equitable water distribution based on area irrigated instead of inundation canals of the past and then partitioning of the Indus Valley and singing of Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan changed all previous precedents. Had the water allocations for 97% amount been made equitably based on area irrigated and remaining for remaining 3% amount on population basis, it would have been an agreement based on fairness.

However, above stated thoughts are either suppressed feelings in view of the potential threats to the federation of Pakistan or just after thoughts as water crisis keeps becoming alarming every day. As Punjab signed this Accord, as a law abiding people of Pakistan, such after thoughts are alright to demonstrate the extent of compromise and sacrifice made by the majority group for minority group of one country, no second thoughts be allowed to unsettle an already settled issue on consensus basis. As a matter of fact, we should remind ourselves that a consensus building process always requires some give and take and politically sharp people with proper home-work usually extract maximum benefits.

For Sindh, securing more than fair share based on consensus in the emerging scenario of severe water scarcity is a monumental success. At present, instead of crying foul to claim more, it would make much more sense if they invest their extra efforts for devising and implementing credible confidence measures to have their share of water distributed as per the Accord of 1991.

In line with similar argument, Baluchistan should be given the same right to have all such CBMs put in place in Sindh for getting their agreed water share as Sindh wishes to have such measures to get its due share from Punjab and Khyber -Pakhtunkhwa. Some arrangements are already put in place but either they are not very effective or their functionality is questionable.

For example, as informed by a former irrigation secretary of Punjab, Sindh has its representatives appointed at critical control points of Indus River System to monitor actual water distribution as it happens. I am sure that such arrangement must have been on reciprocal basis. My proposal will be that we spend less time on criticizing a well-intended arrangement but invest more time and efforts to find root-causes and suggest additional adjustments or changes to make the existing arrangement as an excellent CBM.

Other case in view is the expensive telemetry system that has been installed to provide real time flow data at critical control points along the Indus River System. Only thing functional in this context is the ongoing blame game and not the telemetry system. Why did all investment go waste without producing intended positive results? No neutral or local entity has been made to study the failure of this excellent real-time monitoring system. My proposal would be that we set up a time-bound independent judicial commission or ask International Water Management Institute to study its real causes and suggest ways and means to make it work as per the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

IRSA, Indus River System Authority, is itself an excellent CBM between beneficiaries as far as this arrangement for water distribution is concerned. As compared to the Indus Water Commission, IRSA is much more effective in allocating water among all four contending provinces. In a natural environment of smaller provinces versus Punjab phenomenon, Mushraf put a Sindh based federal representative to the four members from all four provinces. In Punjab, such arrangement is perceived to be unfair for a province that produces almost 80% of granary of Pakistan.

For any arrangement to succeed and be sustainable, it has to be fair for all. In this context, a third party should be hired to study about the weaknesses of IRSA and propose measures that make this body a fair institution instead of a sort of inter-provincial semi-political game club where all dices are loaded against one province only. As cliché goes, only fair games produce fair results; let us ensure a fair and honest game for the sake of all concerned for all the times. If we wish to have non-controversial institutions, let there be more honest and transparent efforts be invested to make IRSA itself a confidence building measure for all four provinces.

In view of disharmony and discontent over water distribution, we have a long way to go before getting a satisfactory and functional system by putting all intrusive safe-guards in place at national level. If we manage to do so, our success at home will provide a clue to demand similar measures at the regional level under Indus water Treaty. In other words, if we are not fair and transparent in our dealing within one country, how can we demand a fair and transparent implementation of the Treaty from a not-so-friendly upper riparian and regional power that holds all the cards in the given context?

D4. Agreed and Efficient Supply Side Water management: International literature provides the following definition of Supply-Side Water management: “Supply side management means developing new water sources, building additional water storage facilities, diverting water from one basin to another, or treating water that might not otherwise be potable (e.g. desalinization)”. Perhaps Pakistan is one country where surface and groundwater infrastructure is well developed except for developing storage facilities to tackle seasonal excessive unevenness in river flows and institutional arrangements for proper surface and groundwater management. At present, Pakistan is utilizing almost 75 % of renewable water resources; an indicator of severe water stress situation compared to many other arid and semi-arid countries.

According to some reports, total groundwater potential of Pakistan is around 66.8 MAF (82.4 BCM). At a time when total tube-wells installed were 575, 197, it was estimated that about 62 % of total potential was being exploited. With tube-well population getting almost doubled, the residual potential for groundwater extraction is hardly of any significance; rather, it is possible that many areas have already started over-extraction of groundwater causing groundwater mining as a common practice.

Like in many relatively more developed countries, we can treat wastewater (sewage plus industrial wastewater) for its reuse in agriculture and / forestry. Based on an estimate of wastewater from important cities of Pakistan, current quantity generated is about 2.3 BCM. At present, only one percent is treated and the rest is either used for growing vegetables within peri-urban areas and / or disposed off into the adjacent rivers and canals. Either case, such practice is a growing health hazard. Although the current status of wastewater is not that huge when we compare it with surface and groundwater availability but it is large enough to get treated and used for plantation like promoting forestry in this country.

Another source worth considering is the rain water harvesting. Reports suggest that Pakistan has total potential of rain water harvesting as 8.5 BCM (6.9 MAF) but not more than 0. 0.12 BCM (0.1 MAF) is being availed at this time. Main source for rainwater harvesting being used in Pakistan is mainly small and mini dams. Only in Pothwar area, there is a potential of 400 small dams and around 8000 mini dams. At present, however, only 30 small dams and 405 mini dams are built in this area. As construction of such small and mini dams are mostly built for meeting local water needs, they are not controversial and water resource development using these small and / mini dams can be pursued without going through lot many socio-political road blocks.

However, the most significant contributor towards finding a way-out for meeting water crisis in country is increasing water storage capacity at a very fast track. However, we as a nation are in bind: On one hand, without building new dams for storing Indus River supplies, we have no future for our agriculture based economy; and on the other hand, without securing consensus among all four provinces for building new dams, we fear to run a risk for endangering our federation of four provinces. Parallel to this statement, I just cannot stop myself saying that not trying to find alternatives and creative ways and means to develop water storages is a definite sign of no future of any kind for Pakistan.

Of course, it is interesting report that Colorado River that has annual yield only 18.5 BCM (15 MAF), the storage along the river is around 80.2 BCM (65 MAF); almost five folds of the annual yield. Whereas our even divided Indus River System delivers around 179 BCM (145 MAF) to Pakistan and our water storage is hardly 15 BCM (12 MAF) with the same number of dams. Comparing with other similar international achievements, our performance is simply a huge embarrassment to say the least. Why cannot we have water reservoirs with total capacity of 900 BCM, according to the storage ratio of Colorado River, instead of just few peanuts of 15 BCM?

According to a cliché, I strongly believe: “Yes, we can.” Of course, I am not trying to suggest that finally there is a magical way-out for developing a consensus to build dams across Indus or its other main tributaries; no, under the prevailing political environment, it seems very difficult to achieve such breakthrough. However, things are not as gloomy as either they are painted or made to appear. Quite contrary, there are already two important provisions in place to facilitate a significant alternative way-out of the bind that we are in. Here, I am referring to the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. If we decide not to build storages for irrigation across the Indus River or its main tributaries and devise a way-out based on these referred agreements; we have a win-win situation for all stakeholders in Pakistan.

As a clarification to above statement, I have only said that we should no more insist on building water storages for irrigation across the Indus River and / or its main tributaries. However, this does not stop us to have cascade of run-of-the-river hydro-power dams or even more than that hydraulic state to generate environmental-friendly and cheap electricity. With this rider, no sane person in the country will object as the energy dependency on imported fuel for producing many times more expensive power is suicidal for the economy in short as well as in longer run. As a matter fact, these alternatives were promoted to avoid or side-track efforts focused on building large multi-purpose reservoirs across our main river system. Once the bone of contention is removed, developing cascades of run-of-the-river or even more than the run-of-the river dams should not cause any significant opposition anywhere in Pakistan.

More than hydro-power, however, people are worried to death by the emerging threat to its irrigated agriculture because of severe shortages of water when required most and flood possibility when demand is low. This can be done either by design as India is planning and constructing dozens of dams on all three western rivers allocated to Pakistan and ignoring watershed management within its controlled region or because of on-going climatic change globally.

Yes, we can and we must work out joint projects and studies for effective watershed management both under Indian-control as well as those watershed regions that lie within Pakistan. We should also conduct research studies jointly with India to assess impacts of climatic change on our river flows and implement correct and proactive measures to deal with such potential changes. In addition, we must be more aggressive in making use of all mechanisms put in place under the Indus Water Treaty to ensure that the Treaty is implemented both in letter and spirit for the sake of people of this region.

However, a real success of such efforts will significantly depend on the conditions we create in Pakistan that help to handle all the emerging threats being made to disturb timing as well as river flows either by design through possible hostile actions of the upper riparian regional power or by the ongoing climatic changes. In this context, after forgoing option to build large reservoirs for irrigation on the Indus or its main tributaries, we are left with alternative of allowing each province of Pakistan take responsibility of storing its full or partial share as agreed in the Accord of 1991 off-channel storages.

In case of Khyber –Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, both sides of the Indus River and Pothwar region can provide sites for off-channel water storages. Since Sindh and Baluchistan do not have such convenient off-channel storage sites, either they can have their own but paid storages say in Gilgit-Baltistan or jointly, based on agreed terms of reference, with Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and / Punjab in Pothwar region. Because of the up-stream locations for off-channel sites, the present irrigation system can easily be connected with their respective canal system to augment flow during lean river flows. Since making use or storing water for its future use as per the Accord of 1991 is a provincial subject, provinces must be authorized to take necessary steps in this direction.

This proposed alternative is a significant component of the way-out from the emerging severe water crisis in the country. In a way, this presents a win-win situation to get of the hardened positions to a way forward as it caters to the most concerns of different stakeholders:

Ø Political stands of Sindh, Baluchistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provinces are accommodated by agreeing not to build multi-purpose dams on the main Indus or its tributaries ;

Ø Such an alternative will allow to build cascades of hydro-power dams on all main channels to generate cheap and environment friendly electricity;

Ø Inter-provincial tensions over water distribution during high demand periods should dissipate as the due quantity within season will take precedent as compared to weekly water distributions are practiced at present;

Ø Off-channel water storages in Pothwar area should provide convenient capacity to store flood water, under both natural as well as man-made scenarios, from all three western rivers in general and from the Jhelum and Chenab in particular; and

Ø This way-out helps to avoid blame game, right or wrong, against each other for water theft based on agreed water shares as defined by the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991.

Such alternative storages are must to make sure to face the emerging water crisis as well as trying to bypass the current standoff over building large dams on the Indus and its main tributaries. In view of the skewed nature of river flows, at present, our storage capacity is too limited. Based on 50% probability, flow data from 1937 to 67 reveal that almost 85% (144.5 BCM or 117 MAF) of total annual flow (173 BCM or140 MAF), occurs only during Kharif or summer season. In the absence of relevant data regarding the 2-3 months of Monsoon (15 June to 15 September), just to present a ground reality, we associate (based on IWMI’s data by Asim Rauf Khan, 1999) two-third or 96 BCM or 78 MAF flow during Monsoon. Even if we deduct 15 BCM required to fill the existing three dams, we still need to handle the remaining 81 BCM (66 MAF). Where do we have capacity to make use of this huge quantity of water, almost 47% of total annual flow of the Indus System?

Here I expect many challenges like how come that annual flows below Kotri are around 43 BCM or 35 MAF only? Of course, it is debatable but the same way someone else can point out that why the annual average of the Indus flow from 1922 to 1961 is reported to be about 115 BCM (93 MAF) and then we downgraded this average to about 77 BCM (62.7 MAF) from 1985 to 1995? Did India divert the Indus flow to cause such dramatic drop? Is there some explanation and account for 50 to 100% more quantity that every province is trying to push through their respective canal systems (based on data collected on three distributaries in Punjab, Sindh and NWFP in 1985 by a team of Colorado State University)? Of course, all such figures do not match Up; either our flow measuring means are incorrect or there are some other hidden agendas that we do not understand. In any case, we need to move forward and let each province be responsible for its own due share to get out of this hypocritical game that takes us nowhere.

One question that I have never been able to understand is as follows: Why the Colorado River System that has annual yield around 15 MAF but its storage is almost 5 times of its annual flow but the Indus System with annual flow being 10 times more than that of the Colorado River is cursed to restrict its storage capacity to only 10% of its annual yield? After securing the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, it does not make any sense to let the future of country be risked by not doing a doable as has been demonstrated along the Colorado River under similar semi-arid and arid environment and with same number of reservoirs. In view of the prevailing political logjam over constructing dams along our river system, it is proposed off-channel storages based on due shares of each province.

Do we have enough off-channel sites for such storages? Our hilly northern areas and plateau of Pothwar are ideally located options for such storages. Once people agree to seek off-channel alternative, surveys and studies can be conducted to find appropriate off-channel dam sites. In view of the topography of the referred areas, there will be no dearth of such sites. For example, as shown in Figure3, in Pothwar Area, some surveys have already been conducted to pin-point some locations that are suitable to store flows from the Indus River as well as Jhelum River. In case of Punjab, for explanation purposes only, 37% floodwater share amounts to 30 BCM or 24.5 MAF from all three western rivers.

Figure 3: Indus and Jhelum off-channel storage sites

Other provinces will construct their own storages to augment their water shortfalls during lean periods. Since all provinces will keep on claiming their routine share to meet their crop needs, these excessive off-channel storages, after augmenting lean periods in each province, should keep on increasing till we’ll have enough stored amounts to bring additional areas under irrigation and face drought incidents without stealing water from other stakeholders.

The proposed alternative is a significant way-out from the self-imposed and self-destructive political bind for technical problem. Based on signed agreements and water shares, without making anybody or any entity to lose face, we can move forward and start creating conditions in proactive manner to face off the emerging severe and horrifying water crisis in the country. It is quite late but still not too late to forget the past and starting finding way out from the suicidal impasse that we find ourselves in.

Of course, this is just a dream at present but by accepting this way-out will convert this dream into a shared vision of huge off-channel lakes and reservoirs, cascades of run-of-the –river or more than run-of-river hydro-power dams and consequently green north and south of the country without any fear of Indian manipulation of timing and quantity of river flows or internal wrangling over the distribution of water. Strangely, it sounds too good to be true but if we have determination, derive and dedication to make things happen; there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. Moreover, what other alternative options do we have to follow or implement? I am afraid, NOT many!!!

D5. Agreed and Enforceable Demand Side Water Management: Review of literature provides the following one definition: Demand side management means reducing the amount of water that customers (/ water users) use. Where solutions for water availability based on the supply side water management are usually very expensive and may take years to complete, solutions based on demand side water management are rather quick and relatively inexpensive to secure.

As an alternative of the supply side water management; or at least a parallel, pre-planned and well directed effort; demand side water management, along with water conservation and improvements in water use efficiency, provides solutions under water scarcity scenarios that can help to make additional water available for the immediate needs of the society. As the demand side water management focuses on reducing the amount of water use, a strategy (policies and initiatives) requires political courage to adopt water demand management to face serious emerging crisis of water scarcity.

Having high level of experience, access to technology and knowledge, under highly water scarcity environment of 300 m³/ person, Israel presents a well tested practical model of water demand management for others who are either already entered in this zone or ready to join this club. As reported by Engineer Saul Arlosoroff (2004), the following steps have been undertaken to secure set objectives of water demand management:

1. Legal basis, Prices and Economic Policies: In 1959, a public water commission was established to regulate, monitor and manage water resources. Total system is equipped with water meters and progressive water charging rates for every farmer, apartment, house and industry are automatically updated with a cost of living formula.
2. Re-use of Sewage Effluents: Laws have been passed to further improve quality of sewage water treatment plant for increasing its use potential in exchange of fresh water to meet mainly irrigation needs. Also, it helped to reduce health and environmental hazards associated with sewage water. By 2003, a 65 % reuse target has been achieved.
3. Water Conservation / Improved Efficiency of Water Use:

In addition to Point 1 and 2, efforts were focused on developing new efficient agronomic techniques like drip irrigation and changes in cropping patterns based on product value per unit of water. Parallel to this, technological improvements were introduced to improve water use efficiency and reduction in water consumption in the following sectors: urban, domestic, commercial and industrial.

1. Agriculture and Industrial Production Sectors – Water Allocation System:

In agriculture, water allocation is done based on potential economic gains by the introduction of new technologies, changes in cropping patterns and moving away from the crops that where the product value per unit water is low. A similar policy for the industrial sector was followed to have reduction in the water usage per unit of product as well as reduction in pollution caused by the industrial waste.

1. The Urban Sector Water Use: In this case, urban water supply system was equipped with water metering, older pipes were replaced with new once to check leakage and conducted electronic monitoring and retrofitting to make system more and more efficient.

1. Virtual Water Policy: In 1960, after realizing that available water resources were not enough to meet water needs, the Israeli Government decided to import most of grain needs instead growing in the country. Such a policy decision means that such import means importing 3 BCM of water which is almost twice the total fresh water available in the country.
2. Water Markets: Water Commissioner was already facilitating trading of treated sewage water with fresh water in the country. Recently, the Government has allowed the holders of temporary or permanent allocations to be traded and provided water transactions through the national water carrier.

Of course, Israel faces much more water scarcity as compared to Pakistan but main purpose is to demonstrate that Israel in 1948 had water availability of 300 m³per capita as compared to about 6000 m³per person in Pakistan at that time. After 55 years, per capita water availability stays almost same in Israel but we in Pakistan are witnessing a free fall to a figure around one-sixth of the referred quantity per capita in the same period. Why? In one case, Israel, there were water policies and initiatives that were implemented all along this period whereas in our case, Pakistan, water policies and initiatives for integrated water resource demand management are hardly in sight even today.

Although water conservation and improvements in water use efficiencies are integral part of demand side water management, we discuss these aspects in a separate section as Pakistan has a long history in undertaking such activities at national level since early seventies. Of course, the water conservation measures that we have introduced to save water do not seem to be enough; we need to take next logical steps to convert dry water savings (invisible savings) into wet water savings ( visible savings), a cliché coined by David Seckler and Jack Keller, two well-known water experts. By advancing a concept of global or effective water use efficiency, the referred experts mainly promoted an almost hands-off concept of water management when compared with those who associate themselves with improvements of local water use efficiencies described under demand side water management. I believe that by adopting an integrated strategy for water resource supply as well as demand side water management, simultaneously, we can benefit from both the concepts by producing visible and tangible water savings to contribute toward adequate water availability under water scarcity environment.

Difficulty with water demand management or demand side water management is that the practical experience related to concept is mainly confined to domestic, industrial and wastewater sub-sectors from the developed countries only. In the referred sub-sectors of the water use, we find in the literature, the following sort of water demand management strategy implemented:

Israel is one relatively well-developed country whose efforts covered all sub-sectors of water use including agriculture. In view of the level of entrepreneurship, knowledge and technological advancements of Israel, its experience may be an excellent guide for the developing world for selecting well tested option but for distant future only. In the near future or perhaps even for mid-term, differences in the infrastructure available and existing ground conditions may make difficult for a developing country like Pakistan to copy the integrated water resources management strategy adopted by Israel as such.

As Pakistan has its peculiar ground conditions, issues and options, our potential strategy for water demand management should be home-grown that covers , ideally, all the following three approaches: (1) Economic, (2) structural /operational and (3)social devices. Learning from the on-going water demand management in Israel and techniques applied for some water utilities in the developed countries, we can initiate a process to develop an integrated water demand management strategy for further deliberations and refinements that includes:

1. Economic Devices: The economic devices are mainly comprised of financial incentives or disincentives to encourage water users to reduce water use. In Pakistani case, agriculture is the most dominating sector for water consumption; almost 97% of total water consumed. Here examples for financial incentives could include subsidies in providing technical assistance in providing LAZER land leveling services, improving layouts and proper designs of surface irrigation systems aimed at reducing excessive water applications. Subsidies for installing pressurized / drip irrigation systems or delivering water in pipes within command areas of small dams should pave the way for higher economic efficiency of water use. Also these incentives can be extended to convert the resulting water savings because of the referred improvements into tangible or visible water savings (wet-water savings as discussed earlier) by encouraging on and off-farm water storages to facilitate adequate and readily available water during dry periods by individuals or by community on the lower levels.

In case of urban or rural water supply schemes, these incentives could take shape in providing rebates on changing new and improved fittings such as toilets, shower-heads and dishwashers to reduce water use or new pipelines and related fittings to check leakages to avoid water losses. Industrial sector can benefit from such incentives if units show significant reduction in water use in producing regular outputs.

Some examples of financial disincentives could include increasing water charges to make water users to reduce water use. In Pakistan, there exists huge disparity of water rates charged by the provincial irrigation departments within public canal commands and water charges that farmers pay to tube-well owners or expenses paid in pumping groundwater either to augment canal supplies or as a sole source for irrigation. In order to improve water use efficiency in canal commands, compatibility with local water market of tube-well water is a possibility for consideration. These financial disincentives in agriculture, as progressive water rate system opted in certain developed countries, can take many shapes of either management-free or management intensive depending upon local conditions but purpose remains to discourage excessive water use either with restructuring water charging rates or by putting penalties for over use of water. This stated principle also applies equally to other water use sub-sectors.

1. Structural and Operational Devices: In irrigated agriculture sector, one example of structural and operational device is making use of existing canal outlet as flow measuring structures with proper calibration and then using them as operational tools for supplying and charging water on volumetric basis as demand side (as well as supply side) water management without water measurement is just not possible. If such structural and operational devices are installed, we will be, in fact, putting in place a built-in mechanism to discourage over-use of water and incentives to produce more valued products with less amount of water. In this context, the ongoing institutional reforms in the irrigated sector with an institutionalized formal participation of water users at all level of irrigation system is another example that we need to take it to its logical end for having an organized access on ground to influence farmers for an efficient water use and to promote water allocation for crops with higher value outputs per unit of water.

For domestic and industrial sectors, these devices can include installing new and improved flow meters for accurate assessment of water use and fair basis for charging water delivered. Water supply agencies can consider programs for leakage detection, repair of old or leaky pipes and more efficient retrofits to reduce water use. Operational and structural arrangements for trading treated sewage / wastewater with fresh water is another way to do more with overall same quantity of water resource available.

1. Social Devices: Social devices are more tailored to influence the behavior of water users to reduce their water consumption. This approach is basically based on undertaking educational or awareness creating campaigns and providing enough data / information about potential scope by making them realize that same output or use can be accomplished but with less water used and lower price to be paid. In this context, following are few options that can be considered:

3.1 Sensitization Campaign: This campaign is focused on creating awareness among all stakeholders to motivate them to work for the same shared goal of water demand management. By providing water audit about current water use pattern and convincing the water users that by improving water use efficiency, they avoid negative externalities of over use of water and price to be paid also comes down. In a way, it is marketing of water demand management by selling its benefits to individuals and society at large. For example, the surface drainage that we observe in few districts of southern Punjab and Baluchistan, Punchoo system of water application in Sind and 3 to 5 times higher water allowances provided in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa compared to say original canal design in Pakistan, we can provide such water audit to motivate water users to reduce water use for their own sake as excessive use can cause water-logging and salinity and reduced water productivity. Of course, this campaign has to assure and present alternatives to the water users that their saved water can be stored either on-farm or off-farm reservoirs to meet water demand during lean periods or to increase cropping intensities or they can sell to othersar per market rates.

3.2 Capacity Building: For marketing the package of water demand management to beneficiaries, the roles of all institutions responsible for water distribution within their respective sub-sectors should be understood in an integrated manner and short-falls in their capacities to promote water demand management must be identified by assessing training needs in each case. All gaps regarding technical and management skills of all institutions of different water use subsectors have to be identified and training programs tailored accordingly to impart capacities to meet challenges of marketing water demand management.

If we find hardly any interaction among different institutions and stakeholders of different water use sub-sectors, integrated and focused capacity building would be difficult task to achieve. Leaving aside all subsectors, even within irrigated agriculture sub-sector, the main water user of water resources, there is no well-coordinated and focused training needs assessments being carried out to build capacity to support challenges of water demand management in Pakistan. At present, this is the most significant missing link in creating awareness and realization that there exists huge opportunity to increase water availability on fast track in agriculture sector just opting water demand management even if the new water development projects do not come on board soon.

3.3 Development of Institutional and Enforcement of Legal Framework: Our water institutions are mostly built around imperial mind-set. There is critical need to have new institutional framework in each water use sector to let the beneficiaries have effective say in policy making, planning and implementation. Fortunately, in irrigated sector, the desired institutional changes are being introduced in three provinces of Pakistan. However, the implementation of these reforms is too slow process because of those who stand to lose their long established imperial perks are asked to introduce such changes; it clearly points to real political will to bring such change. Be as it is, one thing is very clear, without effective participation of water users, it is awfully difficult to expect any water demand management. If intention is to make additional water available on fast track without heavy investment in structures and long gestation time in any subsector of water use, water demand management is an obvious way forward;. However, without effective involvement of users at every level, this dream of water demand management is expected to face a lot more resistance before it becomes reality.

3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation: Water entities should have in-built mechanism for monitoring and evaluation both in real time as well as on continuous basis to fix problems as they happen and those, if ignored, can effect desired water use performance in the future. For example, in irrigated sector, if relevant agency is properly funded and assigned to make use of Geographic Information System (GIS), we can pinpoint the areas where excessive water applications are routine practice. In such cases, corrective actions can reduce water demand for water without causing any damage to crops. Similarly, a telemetry flow measuring and transmitting systems are installed and controlled by a third party, water distribution related inter-provincial transactions can be made so transparent that the current deficit of trust among four provinces of Pakistan cannot stay an issue or source of conflict anymore.

3.5 Political Will: Most of water problems either keep on festering or become a serious source of conflict because of lack of political will to take issues head-on as they emerge. Isn’t it strange for an outsider that in Pakistan, there are two tiers of water pricing systems; one public that delivers excellent quality of canal water almost at nominal seasonal flat rates and other private groundwater extraction that is many times more expensive even if the charging of single irrigation is compared with seasonal water charges in the public sector. Similar case can be referred in the introduction of reforms in the irrigated sector; because of lack of political will, even after more than a decade, we are stuck at an unknown stage without any serious and positive outcome on ground so far. Had there been political will in implementing such reforms to bring water users on board, it would have brought social pressure to reduce water stealing and installation of unauthorized outlets causing impact on demand for irrigation water.

For people of Pakistan, lessons being learnt from managing the crisis of ongoing power shortages are good tools to be used for water demand management in the context of emerging serious water crisis. For the last many years, efforts remained focused on supply side management of power shortages. There have been efforts to start some hydro-power stations but got stuck because of many issues that needed to be addressed first. Even if those issues were resolved, everyone soon realized that supply of power was only possible after a long gestation period. Same can be said about coal powered alternatives that being contemplated now. International Power Plants are either out of order or made not to operate because the owners are not being paid. In addition and / in consequence, the owners of these plants are facing problems associated with imported fuel shortages. In such environment, rental power option was pushed forward but public perceptions and opposition to the more expensive mechanism made the owners and the government to rethink this option too. In short, it shows that supply side management in any sector is a time consuming and relatively expensive option. However, it cannot be ignored because without additional power supplies, it would be hard to manage additional demands.

While we work on supply side options, there is a need to consider managing demand to reduce the intensity of a crisis on hand. Although our government tried to manage power-shortages by distributing the available power by introducing a system of load-shedding from hour to hour and area to area, it could not stop street protest all over the country. Some efforts also directed to improve its end-use savings by replacing old bulbs with energy-saver lightings. As a matter of fact, consumers are already switching over to such better and efficient means of new technology.

After realizing that such measures did not help too much to satisfy the unrest among the public, recently (April 2010),the Prime Minister of Pakistan held a two session of provincial and federal top guns and experts to come up with measures to reduce demand for power to create some surplus for reducing the frequency of load-shedding. By enforcing and promoting measures like closing markets after 8:00 in the evening, reducing work days from 6 to 5, restricting use of air conditioners by the government officials, restricted road-side lights, stopping billboard lightings, reducing operational hours of wedding halls, staggering weakly holidays in the industrial sector, time adjustments for running tube-wells in agriculture sector, encouraging energy savers, reducing power subsidies, etc., it is reported that power demand from 600 to 900 mega watts has been reduced to extend some relief to the public, particularly for business sector, from too frequent and unreliable load-shedding hours. However, its sustainability depends on the degree of political will to enforce such measures to reduce power demand. Of course, this demand management is not promoted as an entire way-out or a solution but its cost effectiveness and immediate impacts can be counted as a significant part of the final solution to address ongoing power crisis.

As presented above, power demand management is mainly revolves around the end-users. Similarly, water demand management will also focuses on the end-users too. Like power demand management, we need all devices like economic, structural, operational and social to influence significant reduction of demand for water. As a consequence, there is huge potential that exists in irrigated agriculture to meet significant additional water needs of water users. Again, water demand is an essential part of the solution to address water shortages cheaply and in very short time span but whole solution will also include developing new sources of water supply that demand more time and more financial resources. In other words, we are bound to work on the water demand management and water supply management in tandem.

D6. Creation of Conditions Conducive for Effective Water Conservation Practices: Water conservation as defined in the literature is described as: it is minimization of water loss or wastage; the preservation, care and protection of water resources and efficient and effective use of water. In my opinion, when water is conserved either by active and effective watershed management or by constructing new dams to save water going waste to sinks, it is generally termed as a supply side water management. This aspect has been already discussed under supply side water management.

In general, efficient and effective use of water concerns with the end-users of water. We have huge knowledge base for water conservation at users’ level when we look at say domestic and industrial subsectors of water use. In these cases, new ideas and innovations have been practically implemented to show how surplus water can be secured within existing supplies for additional water users. For example, according to an internet based report, the City of Tampa Florida installed 15,300 low flow toilets between 1993 and 1999, resulting in a water savings of .44 million gallons per day (mgd).  That’s enough water to serve an additional 5,000 customers a day! Trading of sufficiently treated industrial wastewater and sewage water for freshwater in Israeli agriculture sector is another similar example of water conservation by the water users. In the industrial sector of our next door neighbor, according to an internet source, a fertilizer plant at Goa reduced water consumption by 50 percent in response to higher water prices. The Goa plant now uses 10.3 m³ to produce 1 ton of nutrient, paying $0.12 per m³. In contrast, a similar plant at Kanpur pays $0.01 per m³ but uses 24.35 m³ per ton of nutrient.

Of course, the irrigated agriculture sector uses by far the most available freshwater, around 90-97 % in Asian context. If proper conditions are created for effective water demand management for the end-users, there exists a huge potential of sparing huge quantities of freshwater for either bringing additional area under cultivation or increasing cropping intensities within limited landholdings.

Pakistan has made tremendous progress in creating conducive conditions for water conservation at the users’ end. Since early seventies, different improved water management projects have been undertaken. To improve water use efficiency, the following few important innovative activities have been tried:

• Watercourse lining / improvements to improve water conveyance efficiencies;
• Precision land leveling first by manual control and then by LASER to eliminate local undulations within fields to enhance irrigation efficiencies;
• By introducing better designed gravity irrigation application methods (like level basin-bordes, basin-furrows and bead-and -furrows) to avoid over irrigation that usually occurs under the traditional field flooding particularly at the start of irrigation season;
• Experiments are being conducted to introduce pressurized irrigation methods like drip water application technique for point irrigation aimed at further saving water by saving area to be watered;
• By promoting zero-tillage to save time, energy and water in areas such as wheat-rice zones;
• By demonstrating package of improvements like watercourse lining, land leveling, proper design of water application method, precision crop planting, use of high yielding seeds, proper fertilizer applications and irrigation scheduling for many times higher water productivity; and
• Treatment of dominantly sodic groundwater to either apply exclusively or to augment canal water supplies for a safer additional source for irrigation.

Of course, over the last four decades, there have been well-intended efforts to save water by improving water use efficiency at the lower-end of irrigation system in this country. Watercourse lining activity has been implemented at national level to reduce head-tail differences by increasing water supplies along the improved conveyance systems. Similarly, even at limited scale, precision land leveling controlled by LASER technology is making its existence felt too. Other stated activities could not go beyond testing and trial stages. These project based activities were administered as individual inputs and hence they were not introduced to assess for verifiable outputs as tangible water savings or as maximized water productivity.

In view of the awareness created and acceptance of new innovative ideas of efficient water use, there is need to move on to the next stage where water use projects or programs are designed to deliver outputs either in the form of visible water savings or enhanced productivity and profitability per unit of water allocated to the farmers. In the first case, we need to have either on-farm or off-farm water storages to see physical savings or adjustments of water rights where savings are traded to create market for delivering adequate amount of water for growing crops in the vicinity. Just hearsay of so much water saved will stay invisible or dry water saving unless we develop conditions to produce visible water savings.

In the second case, by implemented whole package of all required inputs of higher crop productivity, we secure results of improved water efficiency by the end-users to enhance profitability per unit water applied at a farm or field level. How can there be enhanced water productivity if we remain emotionally attached to old wild flooding irrigation system like Punchoo or where too much water applications require surface drainage? In short, water demand management by improving water use efficiency in agriculture must deliver tangible outputs that are very visible and solid for everyone to see and acknowledge.

There are other more sophisticated ways to reduce demand for water in our water scarcity environment; why cannot we think of importing virtual water as Israel did 50 year back? If Israel can decide in 1960 not to grow cereal crops by importing cereals to buy in virtual water (about double the amount freshwater available in Israel), why cannot we do the same and even going beyond that by either dropping or replacing tropical crops with those crops that suit to our arid environment and demand less water? Colossal challenges demand daring policies aimed at paradigm shift in a kind of agriculture that suits to arid and semi-arid environment and scarce water resources. If Israel can buy-in virtual water about twice the amount of freshwater available in the country, how about Pakistan if the stated water and crop choices are made part of new enforceable policy to meet the challenges of emerging water crisis? It would be mindboggling and amazing water savings that can result.

Wiser and proactive nations initiate activities that may materialize in years to come. For example, water demand management requires effective control for a measured amount of water to be delivered to water users. For domestic and industrial sub-sectors, it requires only flow meters to be installed to document quantity of water delivered to water Users. Water charges can be wither subsidized or real ones, they can then be assessed based on volume delivered just like electric power or natural gas supplied to for individual consumers or commercial entities. This assessment procedure is easier because pipe-system is already in place and we only need to install meters for measuring water that gets consumed within a specified period.

With a gigantic irrigation system that we have in our country, however, it seems very difficult and very expensive to install such pipe-delivery systems. Perhaps in the distant future, we may be forced to do as has been done in some developed countries with extremely scarce water resources. To meet this potential switch over, as sever water scarcity is already here to reckon with, it will be wiser to introduce this water delivery system within the command areas of small and medium dams and when we try to bring deserts under cultivation. The same experience and information generated can be extended to main canal areas if we are pushed to have necessary infrastructure for water demand management in the distant future. It sounds very crazy idea at this stage but struggle for survival under depleting and degraded water resources may force us to consider this option too. So, let this option to stay on the back of our minds while considering strategic options.

D7. Getting Rid of Ineffective Water Governance: UNDP defines water governance as follows: “The range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society”.    In any country, as good governance is critical for sustainable development; similarly, good water governance is pivotal in providing sustainable water development and management. Since water crisis is essentially a water governance crisis, addressing ineffective water governance becomes prerequisite to face looming water crisis for Pakistan.

What is ineffective water governance? United Nations’ Development Program (UNDP) has outlined the following traits of ineffective water governance:

• The lack of water institutions, fragmented institutional structures (sector-by-sector approach), unclear property rights, and overlapping and/or conflicting decision-making structures.
• Up-stream and down-stream conflicts regarding riparian rights and access to water.
• Strong tendencies to divert public resources for personal gain, unpredictability in the use of laws and, a number of regulations and licensing practices, which impede markets and voluntary action and encourage corruption and other forms of rent–seeking behaviour.

Water governance is essentially authority of formal and informal water institutions for developing, allocating and regulating water resources among all stakeholders. Like good governance at the national level, good governance for water includes conditions such as participation, accountability, inclusiveness, transparency and responsiveness in exercising authority for developing, allocating and regulating water resources among sectors of water use and water users. If such authority does not reflect such conditions described for the good water governance, the result is obviously ineffective water governance. Of course, the degree of ineffective water governance will depend upon the degree of absence of stated desired characteristic conditions.

Among other functions, as reported by UNDP, water governance focuses on the following main aspects:

• The formulation and adoption of sustainable legislation, policies and institutions;

• The way legislation, institutions and policies are being established, enforced and implemented;

• Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of all involved stakeholders – local and national government, private sector, civil society – regarding ownership, administration and management of water resources.

In view of the past and present record and experience regarding the lack of prerequisite conditions and functionality of good governance, we find poor water governance being real root-cause of water crisis. If this is not correct then how can we explain the following ground realities that are staring into eyes while very serious water crisis hovering around?

• How come that Egypt and USA can develop water resource equivalent to 3 to 5 times of their respective annual yields of the Nile River and Colorado River as compared to many times higher annual yield of the Indus River System but surface water development in term of storage is not more than 10 percent ?
• After Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, why there is still serious conflict between upper and lower riparian states and provinces?
• We do we listen many, documented or informal, stories of illegal canal outlets, seasonal renewal of widening or narrowing of outlets (dhikka tradition), more than designed flow at the head of secondary canals but still many canals remain dry towards lower ends; where is sustainable legislation to counter such acts?
• Where is effective water regulation regime to address unpredicted flows of canals and unreliable and inequitable water distribution in the country?
• When irrigation system in this country was designed for disposing off river on command area based principle of equitable irrigation water distribution; why did we allow water allowances per 1000 acres to swell to many times to create water-logging salinity problems?

Examples of above stated happenings and many more such issues; our water governance has turned out to be next to nothing. We are neither developing nor managing our water resources on sustainable basis. As consequence water crisis is getting bad to worse.

In order to have sustainable management of water resources, a comprehensive irrigation reforms program is being implemented to ensure or create all prerequisite conditions of good water governance since mid-nineties. This program is intended to do the following:

· Create autonomous Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authorities or PIDAs to manage irrigation water jointly with users;

· Formal entities of water users are being developed at secondary canal level, as Farmers’ Organizations (FOs); at main / branch canal level, Area Water Board and at provincial level as PIDA Boards. At canal and provincial level, farmers’ representatives and irrigation officials will jointly operate and maintain their respective systems and at secondary canal level the Farmers’ Organizations will mainly be responsible for irrigation water management.

Thus reform program has potential to make dysfunctional system very functional and vibrant system for water distribution as per rules of allocation and regulation regime jointly worked out by irrigation departments and representative of farmers. In case these reforms are not properly and effectively implemented by exercising strong political will, the same reforms have potential to create such a mess that even all other efforts of water supply side management and water demand side management will find most difficult to address the developing very serious water crisis.

So far, the implementation of reforms in irrigated sector is too slow and too casually handled that there is every possibility that it can easily be derailed or reversed. If that happens, it will kill all efforts over the last 15 years to bring in prerequisites of good water governance like participation, accountability, inclusiveness, transparency and responsiveness in exercising authority for developing, allocating and regulating water resources among the irrigation water users. As a matter of fact, every effort should be made to expand the scope of such reforms to encompass other water sub-sectors instead of sabotaging and slowing down this process altogether.

Of course, there are many problems in the way before all canals will have water boards and all secondary canals starts getting managed by elected members of Farmers’ Organizations. On one hand, we need to ensure that this reform process is not scuttled by few vested interest groups; they may be the influential farmers or irrigation officials who benefit from rent-seeking practices. Let us not allow these reforms to drag on for decades; there is serious danger that they can be reversed. Certain powerful sections are already declaring to do so once financial constraints are overcome.

On the other hand, farmers’ participation must has to be strengthened by providing them “home-base” to find transparent and fair ways for them to get elected. The current system is simply flawed and tailored to bring in cronies of the old masters. Let elected members from local government system to form these entities to manage their water resources. Moreover, at present, technical support at secondary canals comes from the old irrigation officials who are absolutely against such reforms. To build further accountability even on technical basis and to provide such assistance to elected bodies of farmers at secondary canal level, on-farm water management officials from agriculture department should be assigned to make new arrangement functional and sustainable as desired.

In short, if we wish to manage water crisis effectively, securing good water governance is a critical factor to be catered in. If we let the current crisis in water governance allowed to continue, even having dozens of dams will not blunt the incoming serious water crisis in the country.

D8. Potential Way Out at a Glance: A potential way out of serious water crisis comprises of the following components:

• Population explosion is the main cause of very low annual water availability per capita; without managing population pressure, it would be almost impossible to check a free-fall in the availability of surface water per person as an indicator to assess a status of water stress and scarcity in a country;
• Get out of rhetoric mode and avoid emotional opposition about the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 and focus on creating environment for directing joint energies and collaboration to develop Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) based on data to be collected on real time basis, transparent and effective mechanisms on reciprocal basis to ensure the implementation of the Treaty in both letter and spirit;
• Going beyond proclamations, India and Pakistan must undertake joint and /or exclusive studies and collaborative actions for watershed management and measures to counter potential effects of climatic change on the melting rates of glaciers in the Himalayan;.
• Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 is consensus based agreement; it is better to build future water plans for each province by catering in CBMs based on real time information and transparent mechanisms on reciprocal basis;
• Integrated water supply side management is an important component to manage water crisis at hand by considering: (a) rainwater harvesting, (b) proper groundwater management, (c) treatment of sewage and industrial waste water to grow crops like cotton or forestry; (d) constructing small and medium dams with delivery using pipes; and (e) desalinization of sea-water for domestic use in port cities as generally known options. However, there seems no consensus for constructing large multi-purpose reservoirs across main rivers of the Indus River System. Consider transferring authority to the provincial level for building off-channel large water storages as per legal share of each province according to the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991 and keep the main rivers of the Indus System for constructing a cascade of hydro-power dams either based on run-of-river or otherwise, as per consensus developed, by the federal government under the current terms of reference;
• Integrated water demand side management is an important component of this proposed package based on the following devices: (a) economic, (b) structural or operational and (c) social (as described in the main text). Main emphasis suggested is on the following aspects: (1) surface water pricing review, (2) policy review for growing cereal crops in the country, (3) policy review to disallow growing tropical crops to import virtual water or save water in a tangible way to replace tropical crops to their alternative crops that can be grown under arid and semi-arid zone with much less water consumption, (4) promoting water supply on volumetric basis, (5) retrofits for reducing water demanded in the domestic and industrial sectors , (6) replacement of Punchoo water applications (using legal and economic measures) and imposing financial disincentives for surface drainage of excessive applied water, (7) better designed surface irrigation water application techniques, (8) introduction of pressurized or point irrigation techniques to lower water required, (9) promotion of treated sewage / wastewater for agriculture to relieve pressure of surface water availability, (10) treatment of sodic groundwater for reducing demand for surface water, (11) allowing water markets, etc.
• Pakistan has long history of almost 40 years for promoting water conservation practices to create conditions for extra supplies and better water use efficiencies in irrigated sector. Now we need to promote necessary infrastructure or appropriate legal framework of water rights to convert invisible water savings into visible ones. This can dome by encouraging review of water use rights to water-ownership rights or developing on and off farm water storages for later use;
• Ineffective water governance is main stumbling block in the way of integrated water management; the ongoing irrigation reforms must be taken to its logical end as per original letter and spirit and its scope should be extended to cover other water use sub-sectors.