and Yamyin (in June 2007) have caused havoc in the coastal region of Indus basin and ... the later part of May and passes the 1,400 m3/s mark in June. A high ...
Appendix 3 Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources in the Indus River Basin1
1
By: Aldrin A. Rivas, Water Engineering and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. This report is included as Appendix 3 of the CD version of the report: Babel, M. and Wahid, S. (2008). Freshwater under threat: South Asia: Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources to Environmental Change. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. ISBN: 97892-807-2949-8. This report on Indus River Basin had been reviewed by experts from riparian countries who attended the Review Workshop on Vulnerability Assessment of Freshwater Resources in South and Southeast Asia held at Asian Insitute of Technology, Thailand on 12-14 September 2007.
1
ACRONYMS ADB BOD CCA COD CSO CV CWC DA DO FBS GDP IBIS IDIS IRSA IUCN IWMI IWRM KPU MOWR MWP NWFP ODA OSU Pak-EPA PMIU RSC SCARPS TDS UNDP UNEP UNEP.RRCAP UNESCO USA USD USGS VI WAPDA WB WCD WHO WRI WWDR WWF
Asian Development Bank Biochemical oxygen demand Canal Command Area Chemical oxygen demand Central Statistics Office Coefficient of variation Central Water Commission Development Alternatives Dissolved oxygen Federal Bureau of Statistics (Pakistan) Gross Domestic Product Indus Basin Irrigation System Integrated Database Information System Indus River System Authority The World Conservation Union International Water Management Institute Integrated Water Resources Management Kabul Polytechnic University Ministry of Water Resources, India Ministry of Water and Power, Pakistan North West Frontier Province Official Development Assistance Oregon State University Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency Program Monitoring and Implementation Unit Residual sodium carbonate Salinity Control and Reclamation Projects Total Dissolved Solids United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United States of America US dollars United States Geological Survey Vulnerability Index Water and Power Development Authority of Pakistan World Bank World Commission on Dams World Health Organization World Resources Institute World Water Development Report Worldwide Fund for Nature
2
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
asl BCM cm DPd DPs EHe EHp ha kg km km2 kWh m MCe MCM MCs MCt mg/l Mha mm mt m3 RSs RSv USD °C
Above mean sea level Billion cubic meter Centimeter Safe drinking water parameter Water resource exploitation parameter Ecosystem deterioration parameter Water pollution parameter Hectare Kilogram Kilometer Square kilometer Kilowatt hour Meter Water use efficiency parameter Million cubic meter Improved sanitation accessibility parameter Conflict management capacity parameter Milligram per liter Million hectare Millimeter Metric ton Cubic meter Water scarcity parameter Water resource variation parameter US dollars Degree Celsius
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ 2 ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ........................................................................ 3 LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 6 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 7 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUS RIVER BASIN ............................................... 7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Physiography...................................................................................................... 8 Climate and Hydrology .................................................................................... 13 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 16 Socio-economic State....................................................................................... 17
3. STATUS OF WATER RESOURCES IN INDUS BASIN ................................. 20 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Water Resource State and Trend...................................................................... 21 Development and Use of Water Resources ..................................................... 25 Ecological Health ............................................................................................. 29 Water Resources Management ........................................................................ 36
4. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES IN INDUS BASIN ....................................................... 40 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5
Salinization and Sodification of Agricultural Lands ....................................... 40 Declining Groundwater Level due to Groundwater Mining ............................ 42 Degradation of Indus Delta Ecosystem............................................................ 43 Low Efficiency of Water Use in Irrigation ...................................................... 45 Lack of Integrated Watershed Management especially in the Upper Indus .... 46
5. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR INDUS BASIN ................................ 48 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Water Resource Base ....................................................................................... 48 Water Resource Development and Use ........................................................... 50 Ecological Health ............................................................................................. 51 Management Capacity ..................................................................................... 53 Basin Vulnerability Index (VI) ........................................................................ 56
6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 59 7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 61
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Share of area and population (2004) among Indus Basin riparian countries . 7 Table 2.2 Stratigraphic classification of beds within the Kabul basin ......................... 10 Table 2.3 Summary of Hydrogeology of Indian States in Indus basin ........................ 11 Table 2.4 Average annual flow of the Indus River and tributaries .............................. 15 Table 2.5 Area under Different types of Freshwater Bodies in Pakistan..................... 17 Table 2.6 Socio-economic indicators of Indus River Basin riparian countries ........... 19 Table 3.1 Characteristics of Indus sub-basins.............................................................. 20 Table 3.2 Long-term average of annual rainfall in selected stations in the Indus basin .................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.3 Twenty-year (1983-2005) average of River inflows at rim stations of Pakistan ...................................................................................................... 23 Table 3.4 Country-wise sub-basin wise annual available water resources in the Indus basin ........................................................................................................... 25 Table 3.5 Features of the Indus Basin Irrigation System in Pakistan .......................... 25 Table 3.6 Annual sectoral (domestic, industrial and agricultural) water use in Indus Basin .......................................................................................................... 28 Table 3.7 Indus basin population with access to safe water ........................................ 29 Table 3.8 Area under forest cover, other vegetations and wetlands in Indus basin ..... 30 Table 3.9 Outputs of major Forest Products in Pakistan ............................................. 31 Table 3.10 Water Quality of Indus River and its Tributaries ...................................... 33 Table 3.11 Generation of industrial and domestic effluents in selected cities in Indus basin and their disposal .............................................................................. 35 Table 3.12 Annual wastewater discharges in Indus basin by sector, country and subbasin ........................................................................................................... 35 Table 3.13 Indus basin population with access to improved sanitation ....................... 36 Table 3.14 Shares of Indus water for Pakistan Provinces according to Water Accord of 1991 ....................................................................................................... 37 Table 3.15 Shares of Indus water for Indian States according to 1981 Inter-State Agreement on Ravi-Beas Waters ............................................................... 37 Table 4.1 Extent of salt affected lands in Pakistan (in 1000 ha).................................. 40 Table 4.2 Extent of salt affected lands in selected states in India................................ 41 Table 4.3 Changes in freshwater flows in the lower Indus River ................................ 43 Table 4.4 Environmental impacts of reduced flow in the lower Indus River .............. 44 Table 5.1 Conflict management capacity parameter for Indus basin........................... 56 Table 5.2 Vulnerability Index calculation for Indus Basin .......................................... 57
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Indus River Basin .................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.2 Hydrogeological Map of Pakistan .............................................................. 12 Figure 2.3 Land cover classes in the Indus basin......................................................... 16 Figure 3.1 The sub-basins of Indus .............................................................................. 20 Figure 3.2 Trend of precipitation in selected stations in Indus basin .......................... 22 Figure 3.3 Trend of Indus river inflows at rim stations of Pakistan ............................ 23 Figure 3.4 Schematic Diagram of the Indus Basin Irrigation System in Pakistan ....... 26 Figure 3.5 Irrigation system in Indus basin in India .................................................... 27 Figure 3.6 Forest area of Pakistan for the period 1996-2005 ...................................... 31 Figure 3.7 Annual outflows to Indus delta below Kotri barrage ................................. 32 Figure 4.1 The Upper Indus River basin ...................................................................... 46 Figure 5.1 Water scarcity in Indus basin ..................................................................... 48 Figure 5.2 Variation of Precipitation in Indus Basin ................................................... 49 Figure 5.3 Water stress indicator for Indus basin ........................................................ 50 Figure 5.4 Proportion of population without access to safe water in Indus ................. 51 Figure 5.5 Water pollution parameter for the Indus basin ........................................... 52 Figure 5.6 Ecosystem deterioration parameter for Indus basin ................................... 53 Figure 5.7 Water use efficiency in Indus basin ............................................................ 54 Figure 5.8 Proportion of population without access to improved sanitation ............... 55 Figure 5.9 Vulnerability indexes of sub-basins of Indus ............................................. 57
6
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Indus River basin is one of the largest river basins in Asia covering an area of approximately 1.2 million km2 in five countries namely, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, China, and Nepal. Its river, which originates from the Himalayan mountain ranges and terminates in the Arabian Sea, functions as the lifeline of Pakistan affecting its main agriculture, economy, social and cultural values in many ways. The Indus supports a total population of around 215 million through providing the needed water resource for the extensive agricultural activities and in maintaining the health of ecosystems by which many people depend on the goods and services they provide. Apart from the highlands, the Indus basin is essentially a semi-arid to arid region hence allocation of water is a critical issue. Previous conflicts on water allocation were somehow addressed through agreements and infrastructure developments. However, measures to address past problems also led to the emergence of other problems. With an ever increasing population, the basin is under enormous stress and future actions of responsible governments will have huge impacts on its sustainability. In line with the above background, this report provides an account of the status and trend of water resource parameters of the Indus basin and an overall assessment of the vulnerability of its freshwater resource. The assessment is based on considerable detail of data from Pakistan but with data limitations from India and Afghanistan in which in some instances general figures from published reports were used. Based on the interrelationships of the state and trend of water resources parameters, the most significant issues, and the vulnerability assessment of water resources in Indus basin, the needed measures and policies are presented at the end of the report to provide guidance to policy makers and stakeholders in their future undertakings so as to ensure the sustainability of basin’s resources and subsequently improve the quality of human life depending on it.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUS RIVER BASIN
The Indus River basin is a transboundary river basin and one of the largest in Asia covering an area of approximately 1.2 million km2 with catchments falling in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, China and Nepal (Table 2.1). At present, Indus is estimated to be home to more than 215 million people. It is most important to Pakistan as it covers around 80% of the country’s area where approximately 121 million people are living. Table 2.1 Share of area and population (2004) among Indus Basin riparian countries
Country Pakistan India China Afghanistan Nepal Total
Total, km2 632,954 374,887 86,432 76,542 23 1,170,838
Area % of Indus 54.06 32.02 7.38 6.54 0.00 100.00
Population % of Country 79.51 11.40 0.90 11.74 0.02
Total (1000) 121,454 87,210 7,174 215,837
% of Indus 56.27 40.41 3.32 100.00
% of Country 78.46 8.02 25.11 -
Source: UNEP, 2006a ; UNDP, 2006; UN, 2004 ; USGS, 2006 ; Favre and Kamal, 2004 Note: The total area of the basin as reflected above differs from that of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (1,138,810 km2) as the former relies only on the digital source, HYDRO1k (USGS, 2006), while the latter also considered hardcopy sources, such as air photos and topographic map sheets, which results 2.74% deviation from HYDRO1k alone. Total may not tally due to rounding off of numbers.
7
Some details on the physiography, climate, hydrology, land-use, and socio-economic information of the Indus basin and its riparian countries are provided in the following subsections. 2.1
Physiography
The Indus basin is bounded by China in the north-east, India in the east, Afghanistan in the north-west and covers vast majority of the plains of Punjab, Sindh and North West Frontier Province in Pakistan as well the plains of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in India (Figure 2.1).
Tajik ist an
China
Af gha nist an
Nep al
Pa kistan India
Country Boundaries Indus Basin 600
0
600 Kilometers
Figure 2.1 The Indus River Basin The basin’s main river, the Indus River, has a length of about 3,200 km making it one of the longest rivers in the Indian subcontinent and has given the country India its name. It is also the longest and most important river in Pakistan. The Indus River originates in Tibet in the northern Himalayas, beginning at the confluence of the Sengge and Gar rivers that drain the Nganglong Kangri and Gangdise Shan mountain ranges. The Indus then flows northwest through Ladakh-Baltistan into Gilgit, just south of the Karakoram range. It gradually bends to the south, coming out of the hills at Tarbela. Prior to that, the Indus passes gigantic gorges 4,500 – 5,200 m high near the Nanga Parbat massif. It swiftly flows across Hazara, and is dammed at the Tarbela Reservoir. A few kilometers downstream of Tarbela, the largest western tributary, the Kabul River, joins it near Attock and Indus enters again into narrow gorges of Attock and emerges into the plains at Kalabagh. The remainder of its route to the sea is in plains of the Punjab and Sindh, and the river becomes slow-flowing and highly braided. It is joined by Panjnad River at Mithankot. Beyond this confluence, the river, at one time, was named as Satnad River (sat = seven, nadi = river) as the river was now carrying the waters of Kabul River, Indus River and the five Punjab rivers. Passing by Jamshoro, it ends in a large delta joining the Arabian Sea in Indian Ocean near the port city of Karachi (Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, 1910). The Indus River has a number of major tributaries of which Kabul, Jhelum, Chenab, Beas, Ravi and Sutlej Rivers are prominent. Five main rivers that join the Indus from the eastern
8
side are Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. These five tributaries have given the present name to the land: Punjab (punj = five & ab = river), the Land of Five Rivers. The total length of tributaries of Indus is 5,600 km (Jain et al., 2007). On the western side, a number of small rivers join Indus the biggest of which is River Kabul. Several small streams such as Kurram, Gomal, Kohat, Tai, Tank, etc. also join the Indus on the right side (WAPDA, 2001). The catchment of the Indus at elevations above 1,500 m consists of rock formations, which is the same for the catchment of the Jhelum and Chenab. The upper part of the basin, which lies in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, is dominated by mountain ranges and narrow valleys (Jain et al., 2007). The vast Indus plains stretch south of the Himalayas. This constitutes three distinct zones in Pakistan: Peshawar valley constituting 5,665 km2, Bannu basin extending to an area of 4,755 km2 and Sulaiman Piedmont of 19,900 km2. Next to these zones is the Punjab province of which 17,720 km2 is included in the Potowar plateau. In the Punjab, the Himalayas Piedmont and Salt Range Piedmont constitute 2,730 km2 and 10,190 km2, respectively. South of this region extend the vast Indus plains, spreading to parts of the Punjab and Sindh. In the Indian part, particularly in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan the basin consists of vast plains, which are the fertile granary of India (Jain et al., 2007). The Indus plains are largely made up of fertile alluvium hundreds of meters thick, transported and deposited by the pre-historic river system. The Indus plains are about 1,600 km in length. The breadth of the plains varies at different sites – in the Punjab, the broadest portion is about 320 km in breadth and the narrowest portion is 130 km wide (WAPDA, 2001). Together with the rivers Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, Jhelum, Beas and the extinct Sarasvati River, the Indus forms the Sapta Sindhu ("Seven Rivers") delta in the Sindh province of Pakistan. The fan-shaped Indus delta is the 6th largest delta in the world covering an area of some 5,000 km2, of which 2,000 km2 is a protected area (IUCN, 2007a). Satellite images taken in 1991 showed the Indus delta as being covered by 50,000 ha of dense mangrove, 210,000 ha of normal mangroves, 140,000 ha of sparse or no vegetation and 40,000 ha of sand (Khan and Khan, 2007). The delta is a highly productive area for freshwater fauna and an important region for waterbirds. Hydrogeology The Indus Basin is formed by alluvial deposits carried by the Indus River and its tributaries and is underlain by an unconfined aquifer covering about 6 million ha in surface area. Regionally, the Indus aquifer is single contiguous of homogeneous and isotropic nature with local lithological variations as finer sediments exist at depths which have only localized effects and do not obstruct the regional movement of groundwater (Ministry of Water and Power, 2005). The hydrogeology of Indus basin, divided per information gathered in riparian countries is presented as follows. The Kabul basin, which comprises most of the portion of Indus basin in Afghanistan, is a basin structure which arose as a result of plate movements during the Late Palaeocene (Tertiary). It is surrounded and underlain by largely metamorphic rocks, which are part of the Kabul block and are intersected by the faults of the Heart-Bamiyan main fault in the west, the Sorobi fault in the east and the Chaman fault system in the southeast (Tunnermeier et al., 2005). Detailed in Table 2.2 below, the stratigraphic sequence of the basin fill is: Miocene conglomerate and sandstone (Butkhak Formation); Pliocene clays, lacustrine siltstone, and lenses of very fine sand (Kabul Formation); and Quaternar sediments of middle to upper Pleistocene age (Broshears et al., 2005).
9
Table 2.2 Stratigraphic classification of beds within the Kabul basin Stratigraphic group
Description
5b
Youngest alluvial deposits
5a
Youngest basin sediments
4
Talus slopes, debris fans, from the basin margin Basin deposits
3
2b
2a
Mainly fluviatile sediments, localized channel-like distribution Basin sediments
1
Older basin sediments
Basement
Kabul crystalline
Rock type Coarse gravel, gravel, sand, reworked loess Reworked loess with locally interbedded sand and gravel banks and lenses Talus slopes, reworked loess, gravel Reworked loess with interbedded sand and gravel banks and lenses, gravel and sand, partially hardened to form sandstones and conglomerates Gravel, sand, reworked loess, gravel and sand frequently hardened into sandstones and conglomerates Reworked loess with interbedded coarse gravels and sands Marl, clay, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate Metamorphites etc.
Source: Adopted from Homilius, 1966 as cited in Tunnermeier et al., 2005
The thickness of basin-fill sediments has not been accurately determined as no known boreholes have penetrated the full thickness of sediments to the underlying bedrock (Broshears et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the greatest thickness of the basin fill sediments is in the center of the basin where in some areas, it is in excess of 600 m. The thickness decreases towards the range-front faults, but is still on the order of tens of meters adjacent to the outcrops of bedrock bordering and within the basin, wherein the sediments consists of coarsegrained alluvial fan deposits. From the basin-bounding and interbasin mountains toward the center of the basin, the size of sediments decreases to sand-, silt-, and clay-sized (Broshears et al., 2005). The aquifers of Kabul basin (Logar, Kabul, Paghman) consist mainly of sand and gravel which become slightly cemented, particularly with increasing depth. They extend laterally from both sides of the river courses and can be classified as permeable to very permeable (Tunnermeier et al., 2005). More particularly, the stratigraphic groups 2a and 3 are significant aquifers from which large quantitites of groundwater can be extracted. They consist of sand and gravel beds, but are only of localized extents. The deeper layers have much lower porosity as a result of secondary mineral precipitation. Shallow (perched) groundwater occurs in stratigraphic groups 4, 5a and 5b, but these usually only have low productivity. The quaternary alluvial deposits within the major rive basin channels are the most productive deposits in the basin, as evidenced by a number of municipal production wells drilled in these areas. In India, large part of Indus plains in Punjab and Haryana are of unconsolidated porous formations, while in the western parts of the Rajasthan desert, semi-unconsolidated porous formations can be found and consolidated fissured formations in the eastern part (Pathak, 1988). Table 2.3 provides the summary of hydrogeology of Indian states in Indus basin.
10
Table 2.3 Summary of Hydrogeology of Indian States in Indus basin State Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Hydrogeology Quaternary formations comprising fluviatile and aeolian deposits of considerable thickness occur in most of the area; southern part is underlain by consolidated formation of Delhi System and in the northern part older rocks such as the Siwalik group are present. Unconsolidated sediments comprising sand, clay, silt and calcareous concretions cover almost whole of the area. The most important groundwater reservoir of the state is contained almost exclusively in the alluvial deposits occurring in the plans. Quaternary deposits in general act as a single groundwater body down to a depth of 150 m below which leaky confined conditions are observed. Purely confined conditions occur in the aquifers below a depth of 270 m. The mostly hilly terrain comprises fissured formations with a few intermontane valleys occupied by quaternary alluvium. The sub-montaneous tract is part of piedmont plain. Kandi belt and adjoining hill slopes are underlain by boulders, gravels and clay.
The consolidated sediments occurring in the intermontane valleys and in the sub-montaneous tract constitute the principal groundwater reservoir. The hard rock terrain does not hold much promise for large scale development of groundwater. Jammu and Occurrence of groundwater is primarily confined to alluvial regions which has Kashmir been classified into piedmont deposits of outer plains of Jammu, Dun belt in the outer Himalayas, isolated valley fill deposits in lesser Himalayas, FluvioLacustrine deposits in Kashmir valley, and moraines and fluvioglacial deposits of Laddakh.
Punjab
Rajasthan
The major part of Jammu is made up of hard rocks ranging in age from PreCambrian to Pliocene. Groundwater occurs under water table conditions in the weathered mantle. The Punjab plain is characterized by quaternary alluvium of considerable thickness deposited on semi-consolidated rocks or on a basement of metamorphic and igneous rocks. The unconsolidated sediments are broadly divided into i) piedmont deposit confined to a narrow belt consisting of poorly sorted san, gravel and boulders near the hills grading into clayey sand and silt, and ii) aeolian deposits mostly confined to the semi-arid tracts in the south west. The most important groundwater reservoir of the area is contained almost exclusively in the alluvial deposits which consist principally of fine to medium sand, silt, and clay. Nearly 40% of the area is occupied by hard rocks. Unconsolidated and semiconsolidated formations occupy major part. Wind blown sands form moderately potential aquifer at places in the western Rajasthan. The aeolian sediments form the potential deeper aquifers.
Source: Pathak, 1988; CGWB, 2006
In Pakistan, based on the hydrogeological map (Figure 2.2), the northern and western parts of Indus basin in Pakistan are almost entirely comprised of consolidated material, whereas the middle and southern parts are comprised of unconsolidated materials.
11
The aquifer underlying the Indus plains is composed of unconsolidated alluvial deposits of fine to medium sand, silt, and clay. Fine grain deposits are generally discontinuous, that makes up 65 to 75% of the alluvium, forming a unified aquifer under confined conditions. The aquifer also has very favorable physical characteristics so that groundwater can be pumped from it quite economically (Ministry of Water and Power, 2005).
Figure 2.2 Hydrogeological Map of Pakistan Source: Geological Survey of Pakistan, 2007
In Punjab about 79% of the area and in Sindh about 28% of the area is underlain by fresh groundwater, which is mostly used as supplemental irrigation water and pumped through tube wells. Some groundwater is saline and water from the saline tube wells is generally put into drains and, where this is not possible, it is discharged into the canals for use in irrigation after diluting with the fresh canal water (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). The main groundwater reservoirs of NWFP are the alluvial plans and valleys. The basins are filled with unconsolidated alluvial deposits, the coarse grained layers which form the aquifer (Ministry of Water and Power, 2005). In Northern Areas the potential for groundwater exploitation is virtually none. Both the groundwater potential and use is very limited in Azad Jammu & Kashmir as compared to other provinces. The potential for groundwater exploitation in Azad Jammu & Kashmir is only 20.74 MCM (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). In the study carried out for preparing `The Framework For Action` in February 2000, Pakistan Water Partnership (PWP) has estimated the groundwater storage capacity in Pakistan at around 67.8 BCM (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). On the other hand, groundwater use
12
is nearing the upper limit in most parts of Pakistan. The groundwater table in most of the fresh water areas is falling; therefore the potential of further groundwater exploitation is very limited. For future projections it is estimated that the additional contribution by groundwater may increase at best by 1.2 to 2.4 BCM (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). 2.2
Climate and Hydrology
Climate The climate of the Indus Basin varies from subtropical arid in lower parts (Sindh) and semiarid in central basin (Punjab) to temperate sub-humid in the foothills of Upper Indus, and alpine in the mountainous highlands of the north. The magnitude of rainfall in Indus is markedly variable which results into two distinct seasons: Kharif (wet), which runs from April to September, and Rabi (dry) which runs from October to March. Almost two-thirds of the rainfall is concentrated in the three summer months of July – September, when the monsoon is active in the basin, more particularly in Pakistan. During the monsoon season, the rainfall runoff is added into the discharge due to snow melt so that the total discharge increases manifold. Rainfall in Indus basin is also highly variable in its aerial distribution. Annual precipitation ranges between 100 mm and 500 mm in the lowlands to a maximum of about 2000 mm on mountain slopes, with high intensity rainfall occurring at elevations between 600 and 1500 m, above which the rainfall decreases. The upper basin of the Indus receives 100 - 200 mm of rainfall (higher in the west) in the winter months owing to northwestern winds. Higher elevations in Kashmir and the Northern Areas receive a large amount of precipitation in the form of snow, but the lower valleys are extremely dry and quite warm in the summer. Snowfall at higher altitudes (above 2500 m) accounts for most of the river runoff. The active hydrologic zone lies between elevations 2500 m and 5500 m (a.s.l), and snowfall in the mountains accounts for a large portion of the total runoff into the river. Within this zone, snow and glacial melt contribute towards river runoff from March to September. In the upper Indus catchment, the snow line is at an elevation of 5500 m (a.s.l); above this elevation it is the process of snow accumulation that dominates rather than melting of snow even during the summer months. Some hill stations receive considerable rainfall from the summer monsoon: at Abbottabad the average annual rainfall is around 1,200 mm and at Murree around 1,700 mm with as much as 730 mm in July and August alone. The Indus Plains receive most of their rainfall from the Monsoons. The mean annual precipitation ranges from over 750 mm in the Upper Indus Plain near the foothills to less than 100 mm in parts of the Lower Indus Plain. The entire Indus Plains (canal command areas) receive average seasonal rainfall of 212 mm and 53 mm in the Kharif and Rabi seasons, respectively. The relative contribution of rainfall in most of the canal commands is lower when compared with the other two sources of irrigation water supply i.e., canal water and groundwater. More than sixty percent of the Kharif season rainfall is concentrated in the month of July for almost all of the canal commands. The Indus delta is one of the driest in the Indian subcontinent and rainfall is extraordinarily erratic owing to the passage of cyclones from the Arabian Sea. Recent cyclones namely Gona and Yamyin (in June 2007) have caused havoc in the coastal region of Indus basin and Balochistan. Temperature in Indus also varies widely spatially and temporally. Annual temperatures fall below freezing in the northern mountainous regions in the winter, while exceeding 38 °C in
13
the plains of Punjab and Sindh in the summer. Jacobabad, which is one of the hottest spots in the world, lies to the west of the river in Sindh, with maximum temperature around of 50 °C. An example of temporal variation of temperature is at Srinagar in India which is located in the upper part of the basin in the Kashmir valley: the minimum temperature in the month of Jan. is −6.7 ºC while the maximum temperature in July climbs up to 35 ºC (Jain et al., 2007). Hydrology The mountains with unbroken snow cover are the primary source of water for the Indus (Ahmad, 1993) making Indus as one of the few rivers in the world that exhibit a tidal bore. The Indus system is largely fed by the snows and glaciers of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Himalayan ranges of Tibet, Kashmir and Northern Areas of Pakistan. The flow of the river is also determined by the seasons - it diminishes greatly in the winter, while flooding its banks in the monsoon months from July to September. There is also evidence of a steady shift in the course of the river since prehistoric times - it deviated westwards from flowing into the Rann of Kutch. The details of the major tributaries of Indus are described as below. The River Chenab originates in the Kulu and Kangra districts of Himachal Pradesh state of India. Fed by innumerable tributaries on the long journey from its headwaters, the river gains immense power and momentum on entering Jammu & Kashmir region. With a total length of 1240 km, the Chenab flows through the alluvial plains of the Punjab province and further downstream until it meets the Indus at Mithankot. The discharge of the river starts rising in the later part of May and passes the 1,400 m3/s mark in June. A high flow above 1,400 m3/s continues till the middle of September, the peak discharge months being July and August (IUCN, 2007b). The River Sutlej originates in Western Tibet in the Kailas mountain range, near the source of the Indus, the Ganges and the Bhramaputra. It flows through the Panjal and Siwalik mountain ranges and then enters the plains of Indian Punjab. The total length of the river is about 1,550 km (IUCN, 2007b). Generally the high discharges or floods are observed in the months of July and August and these are essentially due to heavy rain in the lower part of the basin, whereas the minimum streamflow is observed during winters, because no melting takes place due to lower temperature regime (Jain et al., 2007). The Ravi River is the smallest of the five main eastern tributaries of the Indus. It rises in the basin of Bangahal at an elevation of about 1,500 m above sea level and drains the southern slopes of the Dhanladhar. Below Bangahal, the Ravi flows through the valley of Chamba in a northwesterly direction parallel to the Dhanladhar range. The river leaves the Himalayas at Baseeli in India. In the mountainous area, the Ravi flows at 210 km with a total drop of 4,600 m at about 22 m per km (IUCN, 2007b). The Jhelum River is a large eastern tributary of the Indus. It drains areas west of Pir Panjal separating Jammu and Kashmir. The Jhelum rises from the spring of Verinag, on the northwestern side of Pir Panjal and flows in a direction parallel to the Indus at an average elevation of 1680m. It drains about 6,000 km2 of alluvial lands in the Kashmir Valley and gets water from various important sources including glaciers located in the north of the valley (IUCN, 2007b). The Beas River rises at an elevation of 3,960m in the Rohtang Pass in the Punjab Himalayas in central Himachal Pradesh in India. Subsequently, it flows south through the Kulu valley, receiving tributaries from the flanking mountains, and then enters the Punjab plains to meet the Sutlej at Harike. The total length of Beas Rvier is 460 km and catchment area is 20,303 km2. The annual fluctuation of water flow is very high. The variability of high flow in the summer months is remarkable. The river flowing summer mainly consists of monsoon runoff combined with snow-melt discharge. The low flow in winter is more or less constant. Neither
14
high nor low flow nor annual average of discharge follows any significant trends whatsoever (Jain, et al., 2007). The Kabul River originates from the eastern side of the Paghman Mountains from the Jalrez district of Wardak province and Paghman district of Kabul province. From Paghman district, numerous small streams gather west of Kabul and join the Kabul River near Deh Mazang. Some of these streams refill the Qargha reservoir, supplying part of the water to Kabul city. When the Kabul River reaches Kabul city it has little or no water. The Kabul River flows mainly from the contributions of other rivers. The most important are the Logar Rod, the Panjshir, the Alingar and the Kunar rivers. At Dakah, the discharge of Kabul river is recorded to be very minimal (200 m3/s or less) from October to March, at which time it increases until reaching the peak of 1,600 m3/s in June. Kabul River finally joins Indus River at Attock, Pakistan (Favre and Kamal, 2004). The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) compiles the river flow data of Indus River and its tributaries in Pakistan. Annual average flows are calculated by averaging the daily flows. A summary of river flow data collected for 40 years before the Indus Water Treaty (1922-61), ten years after the treaty (1985-95) and recent years (2001-02) depicting drought conditions, is provided as below (Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Average annual flow of the Indus River and tributaries
River Indus Chenab Jhelum Ravi Sutlej
Location of Measurement Tarbela Marala Mangla Balloki Sulemanki
Average Annual Flow (1922-61) MCM 114,792 32,092 28,389 8,641 17,281
Average Annual Flow (1985-95) MCM 77,392 33,944 32,833 6,172 4,444
Average Annual Flow (2001-02) MCM 59,248 15,281 14,627 1,814 25
Source: IUCN, 2007b.
The average annual flow of Kabul River based on a 25 years’ data (1921-1946) is reported to be 34,000 MCM (Rangachari, 2006), whereas a decrease is observed in the period 1969-1978 in which the flow records at a gage station in Dakah, near the border with Pakistan, are at an average of 19,168 MCM (data provided by Prof. MH Hamid of Kabul Polythechnic University). The significant decrease of flows in Ravi and Sutlej since the time of the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty is due to the allocation of the waters in these rivers for the use of India. Though the Indus river system is mainly snow-fed it also carries major floods during monsoons. The floods are a regular phenomenon with losses running into millions. Essential hydrological information which is useful for the planning, design and management of Indus River came from a study (Archer, 2003) which showed that the precipitation measurements at standard valley climate stations can be used as basis for forecasting the volume of flow originating in the upper Indus with a lead-time of three months or more.
15
2.3
Land Use
The World Resources Insitute’s (2003) classification of land cover in the Indus revealed that a huge portion (46.4%) of the area is under grassland, savanna and shrubland. Figure 2.3 also clearly shows that croplands comprise a significant portion (30%) of the area, which indicates the extent of agricultural activities in the basin. On the other hand, wetlands account for only 4.2%, urban and industrial area 4.6%, and forest cover for only 0.4%. For its part, Kabul basin has two agro-ecological zones: the intensively irrigated area in Figure 2.3 Land cover classes in the Indus basin Source: WRI, 2003 mid/high elevations, and the intensively irrigated area in low elevations. Recent agricultural surveys show that the valley floor irrigated areas surrounding Kabul province are one of the most diverse and intensive agricultural areas in Afghanistan (Favre and Kamal, 2004). Freshwater Bodies in Pakistan Indus basin has a complex feature of freshwater bodies as inland waters, which extend over about 8 million ha, include a network of canals, dams, lakes and water-logged areas (Table 2.5). Dominant features of the Indus River system are the reservoirs which constitutes the world’s largest man made canal irrigation system and interconnecting water ways. The system comprises of three major reservoirs i.e., Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma and many small reservoirs, e.g., Warsak, Khanpur, Simly, etc. River Indus and its canals are about 61,000 km long whereas link canals are 600 km long. These are 44 principal supply canals and 89,000 water courses and drainage canals over an area of 55,000 ha. Barrages and head works numbering to 16 are water regulatory structures to divert water flow into various man-made canal systems. The extensive irrigation and dam projects provide the basis for Pakistan's large production of crops such as cotton, sugarcane and wheat. The water stored in reservoirs is also used to generate electricity for heavy industries and urban centers and amounts to 4045% of generated capacity of Pakistan. Beside man-made reservoirs, there are 4 major natural lakes in Sindh i.e., Manchar, Bakar, Kinjhar. Halijee: Patisar and Hina in Balochistan, Saiful Mallok in Kaghan Valley; two lakes in Neelum Valley (Azad Jammu and Kashmir) and a number of lakes in Sakardu and other number of small lakes in other parts of northern areas (Akhtar, 1991). Besides these sweet water lakes, there are a number of moderately saline freshwater marshy lakes which although receive sweet waters from streams but later change into saline water. The examples of such lakes are Thar, Kar and Paghhar lakes. In Salt Range (Punjab) freshwater lakes are quite saline. These lakes are charged from aquifers lying in the salt mountains. Prominent lakes of this kind are Nammal, Khabeki, Ucchali, Jhalar and Kalar Kahar (Akhtar, 1991).
16
Table 2.5 Area under Different types of Freshwater Bodies in Pakistan
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Description River and Major Tributaries Irrigation canals Natural lakes Water storage reservoirs Ponds, Dhands and Fish farms Indus delta marshes Water logged areas, saline waste and seasonally flooded plains Area under coastal mangroves swamps
Area (ha) 3,100,000 56,000 110,000 92,000 108,000 300,000 4,000,000 260,000
Source: Akhtar, 1999.
By virtue of climate variations, physical differences and other abiotic factors a variety of freshwater habitats are existent in Pakistan. 2.4
Socio-economic State
The Indus River and its tributaries have a very significant socio-economic importance particularly to the three riparian countries namely, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. The Indus river system forms the backbone of agriculture and food production in the Pakistan and thus critical for the country’s 165 million people (year 2007 figure as provided by M. Tariq of Pakistan Water Partnership). It provides the key water resources for the economy of the country - especially the breadbasket of Punjab province, which accounts for most of the nation's agricultural production, and Sindh. The river is especially critical as rainfall is meager in the lower Indus valley. The Indus river irrigates 80% of Pakistan’s 21.5 million ha of agricultural land. Along with its tributaries, it provides nearly 60% of the water utilized for irrigation; most of the remainder is groundwater, which is recharged by various basin streams. Irrigated lands account for 85% of all cereal grain production (mainly rice and wheat), all sugar production and most of the cotton production. Most of these products are utilized for both internal consumption and export. Rice, cotton, sugar and wheat exports provide the bulk of the foreign revenues of Pakistan. The Indus river system in India is one of the two (the other being Ganges-Brahmaputra) most important in terms of water provision and their impact on Indian society. In India, the culturable area of the basin is 9.6 Mha, which is about 4.9% of the total culturable area of India. The small portion of irrigated area (about 25%) in Jammu & Kashmir produces 70% of the total food grain production of the Indian state (Jain et al., 2007). Moreover, Punjab and Haryana provinces, both located in Indus basin, together account for more than a third of the total wheat production in India. Also, the highest productivity with respect to rice crop in India is that of Punjab. During the period 1996-2000, Punjab’s contribution alone to the central rice procurement was around 40% of the total while the corresponding wheat contribution was around 60% (Rangachari, 2006). Aside from supporting agricultural production, Indus also supports many heavy industries and provides the main supply of potable water in Pakistan. The river is the main source of domestic and industrial water at both the city and the village levels. The estimate is that at least 80% of all the water consumption comes from streams, canals, reservoirs and wells recharged by the river or its tributaries.
17
By law, water supply for irrigation is the first priority in Pakistan, however, the Indus river’s waters are also used for hydroelectric power generation. Dams on the main stem of the Indus River and its tributaries produce most of the electrical energy for Pakistan (45%). It has been reported that the Indus system has over 30,000 MW of economically developable hydropower potential. At present, the hydropower generating capacity of the Indus River system in Pakistan is 6,000 MW as reported in WAPDA Annual Report 2003-04. In India portion, the hydropower potential of the basin has been assessed as 19,998 MW at 60% load factor (Jain, et al., 2007). Similarly, the waters of Kabul River and its tributaries in Afghanistan support the economy of the country as they are utilized for hydropower generation and agricultural production (Favre and Kamal, 2004). Moreover, Indus is also significant in terms of fisheries. Pakistan produced 665,000 metric tons (mt) of fish and related products in the year 2000 including 185,000 mt from inland waters (Government of Pakistan, 2001) and 480,000 mt from marine fisheries. Although the share of fisheries in the GDP is small its contribution to national income through exports is substantial. During the same period 84,693 mt were exported with a value of Rs. 7.9 billion. Fisheries industry is however under threat. Fish stocks in most of the rivers have declined due to over harvesting and disposal of untreated industrial and municipal sewage. The reaches of rivers nearest the cities are heavily polluted with municipal and industrial wastewater. The impact of pollution on aquatic life becomes acute during periods of low flow in the rivers, when dilution factors are low. Reasons for fish decline also include introduction of invasive species and limiting of river reaches due to barrages and dams, especially without properly functioning fish ladders. A summary of the socio–economic indicators of all Indus River riparian countries is shown in the Table 2.6. Indicator values for the two main riparian countries of Indus, namely Pakistan and India, are comparable. It can be observed, however, that the highest population growth rate is observed in Pakistan (2.8%) and this trend needs to be brought down (estimated at 2.2% for 2004-06; FBS, 2006), so as it will not create more pressure on the basin’s resources. Sustainable access to improved water source (% of population) is quite high for all riparian countries except Afghanistan, but a lot more needs to be done to provide more people with access to improved sanitation.
18
Table 2.6 Socio-economic indicators of Indus River Basin riparian countries Indicators Percentage of country in Indus basin Population (millions), 2004 Annual population growth rate (%), 1975-2004 Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births), 2004 Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births), 2004 Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births), adjusted 2000 Sustainable access to improved water source (% of population), 2004 Sustainable access to improved sanitation (% of population), 2004 Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 & above), 2004 Female (as % of labor force) a, 2004 Arable landa (hectare per capita), 2001-2003 Per capita commercial energy used: annual (kg of oil equivalent) a , 2003 Per capita electricity consumption (kWh), 2003 Population (%) below: - national poverty line - 1 USD per day latest from 1990-2004 Per capita GDP (USD), 2004 ODA received per capita (net disbursements) (USD), 2004 Source:
Pakistan 79.51 154.8
Afghanistan 11.74
India 11.40
China
Nepal
0.90
0.02
28.574 1087.1 1308.0*
26.6
2.8
1.9
1.9
1.2*
2.3
80
168 (1990) a
62
26 b
59
101
257
85
31 b
76
500
1900 a
540
56 b
740
91
39
86
77 b
90
59
34
33
44 b
35
49.9
28.1
61.0
90.9 b
48.6
26.5
28.4 (1990)
28.3
44.6c
40.3
0.14
0.31
0.15
0.11d
0.09
467
--
520
1,094c
336
493
594
1,440 b
91
32.6 17.0
28.6 34.7
4.6 b 16.6 b
30.9 24.1
640
1490b
252
0.6
1.3 b
16.1
632 9.2
201.62 a 1285 M (total 2002) e
United Nations Development Programme, 2006; unless otherwise indicated. a World Bank, 2006 (230 USD (2004)– ADB Key Indicators covering 1998-2005) b Data for the entire PR China, from UNDP 2006. c Data for the entire PR China, from WB 2006. d Data for the entire PR China including Taiwan, from WB 2006. e World Resources Institute, 2005 *Population estimates include Taiwan, province of China
19
3.
STATUS OF WATER RESOURCES IN INDUS BASIN
Analysis for the status of water resources in Indus basin was conducted based on available data at the finest resolution as possible and country wise assessments were focused on the three most significant riparian countries (based on area and population) namely, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.. In order to provide a spatial distribution of water related parameters of the basin, Indus basin was subdivided into six sub-basins as shown in Figure 3.1 based on topography as well as on availability of data. The Indus basin boundary was based on USGS HYDRO1k basins data set for Asia, while the delineation of sub-basins was based from Integrated Database Information System (IDIS)Text> of GeoNetwork with due consideration of 16 76 60-375 > 16 419 132 > 16 774 160 > 16 670 127 > 16 694 580 > 16 E. Coli. Turbidity TDS (MPN/100 (NTU) (mg/l) ml) 24 302 4-1,200 7 194 2-10 22 340 3-41,800
Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) > 16 > 16 > 16 > 16 > 16 > 16 Total Coliform (MPN/100ml) 13-16,600 7-400 13-142,500
Source: Pak-EPA, 2005; Jain, et al., 2007; CPCB, 2004; IUCN, 2007b; Ahmed and Ali, 1999 *In the upper reaches of Indus
The above information on the water quality of Indus River and its tributaries reveals that the quality of water is generally considered suitable for irrigation purposes. However, the contamination of irrigation water by coliforms exceeds the limits set by WHO for unlimited irrigation and therefore exceeds the limits for drinking water (Pak-EPA, 2005). Studies conducted in 2000 and 2003 in selected cities of Pakistan including Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Faisalabad which are all within Indus basin, revealed that almost all samples (with exception of few) tested for water quality parameters, none could meet the health safety standards that are required for human consumption (Pak-EPA, 2005). This case is also true in India as the above table also indicates that organic and bacterial contaminations still continue to be critical sources of aquatic resources in the country. For instance, Sutlej River has been classified as suitable for propagation of wildlife and fisheries as well as for irrigation and industrial cooling, but not suitable for drinking even after conventional treatment (UNEP.RRCAP, 2001). In Kabul basin, more particularly in Kabul, several districts have open sewers which eventually flow into the Kabul River the water of which is used for drinking and washing of clothes. This results to the cross-contamination of drinking water with sewage. Samples taken revealed high levels (ranging from 18 to above 100 counts of bacteria in 100 ml of water) of contamination with coliform bacteria. This also suggests that groundwater wells only 10-25 m
33
deep throughout the city are at risk of contamination from surface sewers, damaged septic tanks, and wastes deposits (UNEP, 2003). This is really a concern since at the management level no connection is being made between waste management and drinking water management in Afghanistan (UNEP, 2003). In addition, pollution in the Ravi River is observed the highest compared to all rivers, particularly in terms of DO and BOD, where at some points the parameter reaches at alarming levels. The river presently receives 47% of the total municipal and industrial pollution load discharged into all the rivers of Pakistan. Ravi River is a transboundary river and 10 months of the year it reportedly brings only polluted drain water contaminating groundwater near Lahore, Pakistan (M. Tariq, personal communication). This is supported by an assessment of Hudiara Drain of River Ravi which found the quality of its water to be highly unsatisfactory for irrigation and domestic purposes (WWF, 2007). Moreover, there is also a continuing threat from disposal of wastewater from agriculture. The disposal of saline drainage from various irrigation projects has been a major factor in the increased TDS in the lower reaches of the rivers in the Punjab showing a progressive deterioration downstream. It has been reported that in Punjab in Pakistan all drains were carrying saline and sodic waters due to high values of TDS and residual sodium carbonate (RSC) and all of them also had very high values for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and BOD. The data for Sindh and Balochistan showed that majority of drains had very high saline waters due to high values of TDS, reaching as high as 13,187 ppm. In addition, the COD values were higher than the permissible limits and at some sampling points these even surpassed those high levels recorded for Punjab and NWFP (Pak-EPA, 2005). As indicated above, sources of pollutants mainly come through the direct disposal of large quantities of untreated industrial and municipal waste as well as saline drainage effluent from agricultural lands. With the current state and trend of use of water resources in Indus basin, there is a great need to consider the protection of the quality of its water resources. In Pakistan, reports have shown that the total number of registered industries is 6,634, of which 1,342 are considered polluting and 502 are located within Indus basin (Kahlown, et al., 2005). The industrial and domestic wastes vary widely in composition and contain high organic loads and toxic materials. Table 3.11 shows that a daily total of 2.5 MCM of effluents, generated from 12 major cities of the country, are being discharged into the rivers of Indus basin. A bigger picture of wastewater generation and discharges in the Indus basin is presented in Table 3.12, which shows that the domestic and industrial wastewater from 12 cities above accounts for about 41% of total wastewater discharges for such sector in Pakistan. Due to lack of data on wastewater, quantities of wastewater in Indus basin were computed based on widely reported and accepted proportions: 80% from domestic and industrial use, and 30% of agricultural water use previously shown in Table 3.6 (page 28 ), except in Pakistan portion of the basin in which quantities of drainage effluents were based on published report on the Drainage Master Plan of Pakistan (WAPDA, 2005) and also considering the presence of drainage canals in Sindh province which dispose the saline drainage effluents directly to the sea. Though this drainage set-up appears not to have negative impacts on the freshwater system of Indus, its effects on the receiving seawater are most likely not favorable. As shown, an estimation of wastewater discharges within the Indus basin puts the value at 19% of the total annual water available.
34
Table 3.11 Generation of industrial and domestic effluents in selected cities in Indus basin and their disposal
Cities Hyderabad Multan Faisalabad Kasur Lahore Rawalpindi/Islamabad Attock Mianwali Bhakkar Layyah D.G.Khan Peshawar TOTAL
No. of Polluting Industries 37 200 72 121 22 50 502
Effluent (m3/day) Industrial 219,530 302,800 52,990 348,220 60,560 109,765 3,785 3,785 3,785 15,140 30,280 1,150,640
Sink
Domestic 94,625 227,100 253,595 1,514,000 264,950 18,925 11,355 7,570 11,355 22,710 113,550 2,539,735
River Indus River Chenab River Chenab River Ravi River Ravi River Soan River Indus River Indus River Indus River Indus River Indus River Kabul
Source: Adapted from Kahlown, et al., 2005
Table 3.12 Annual wastewater discharges in Indus basin by sector, country and sub-basin Wastewater Discharges, MCM Country
Domestic and Industrial
Afghanistan 118 India 3,638 Pakistan 3,304 Total 7,060 Sub-basin Lower Indus 557 Southwestern 164 Indus Jhelum & Chenab 725 Southeastern 1,707 Indus Middle & Upper 1,608 Indus Ravi & Sutlej 2,298 Total 7,059 Total may not tally due to rounding off.
Total Irrigation 1,404 28,199 18,070 47,674
1,522 31,837 21,374 54,733
% of Available water resource 0.60 43.92 11.20 19.08
808 1,132
1,365 1,296
2.76 8.22
5,038 15,593
5,763 17,300
18.23 34.46
6,909
8,517
11.84
18,194 47,674
20,492 54,733
30.16 19.08
MCM
Pakistan and India each contributed around half of almost all of the wastewater in Indus. Most of this wastewater is coming from irrigation (87%), while only around 13% from domestic and industrial activities. This has impacts on the water resources as it has been found in the analysis of groundwater and surface water quality the presence of significant levels of pollutants including agricultural runoff, pesticides, insecticides, salinity and pathogen (Tariq, 2007).
35
Sub-basin wise, Southeastern Indus is observed to produce the most proportion of wastewater (34%) whereas Lower Indus the least with only 3% of available water resource due to direct discharge of agricultural drainage effluents to the sea through a separate canal as Indus River is flowing over a ridge. Access to sanitation Using the same procedure used in determining the proportion of population with access to safe water, the proportion of population with access to improved sanitation was computed. Of the total Indus population, only about 52% have access to improved sanitation (Table 3.13). Though Pakistan population has relatively good access, the needs of a large population in India (77%) and Afghanistan (66%) for improved sanitation need to be addressed. Table 3.13 Indus basin population with access to improved sanitation Population with access to improved sanitation Sub-basin
Afghanistan Total (1000)
% of Afghanistan pop. in subbasin
India Total (1000)
Lower Indus 0 759 Southwestern 0 Indus Jhelum & 0 Chenab 856 Southeastern 0 Indus 7,305 Middle & 2,439 34 Upper Indus 1,439 Ravi & Sutlej 0 9,397 Total 2,439 34 19,757 Total may not tally due to rounding off of numbers.
3.4
Pakistan
% of India pop. in subbasin
14
22 20 20 28 23
Total (1000)
% of Pakistan pop. in sub-basin
Total (1000)
12,443
83
13,202
4,775
71
4,775
15,197
71
16,054
10,078
72
17,384
30,720
73
34,598
16,462 89,675
71 74
25,859 111,872
Water Resources Management
Policies and Legislations The most significant policy agreements affecting the management of water resources in the Indus basin are the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 between Pakistan and India, the Pakistan Water Apportionment Accord of 1991, and the 1981 Inter-State Agreement on Ravi-Beas Waters. The Indus Waters Treaty, which was signed on 19 September 1960 in Karachi, settles water allocation problems from the Indus Basin rivers between Pakistan and India and thus enables the exploitation of the basin’s economic potential for optimal benefit of India and Pakistan. Article II in this treaty provides that all the waters of the eastern rivers (Sutlej, Beas, Ravi) shall be available for the unrestricted use of India, with a transition period until 31 March 1970 in which Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use the waters of the eastern rivers which are to be released by India. Whereas Article III provides that Pakistan shall receive for unrestricted use of all those waters of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) which India is under obligation to let flow under some provisions.
36
To compensate the loss of water from the eastern rivers, Pakistan is entitled to implement system of works to transfer waters from the western rivers to the affected areas. By this, India agreed to make a fixed contribution of around 62 million Pounds Sterling towards the cost of these works. The World Bank and other international agencies also provided US$ 870 million to Pakistan and US$ 200 million to India to defray infrastructure costs. Unfortunately, the Indus Waters Treaty reportedly does not cover transboundary pollution of water, air and over-extraction of groundwater aquifers (M. Tariq, personal communication). The Water Accord of 1991 is an agreement to share waters of the Indus River reached between the four provinces of Pakistan namely, Punjab, NWFP, Sindh, and Balochistan (Table 3.14). This accord is based on the water supply of both the existent and future needs of the four provinces and has two important features: i. it protects the existing uses of canal water in each province; ii. it apportions the balance of river supplies, including flood surpluses and future storages among the provinces. Table 3.14 Shares of Indus water for Pakistan Provinces according to Water Accord of 1991 Province Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan Total
Provincial Water Share, MCM Kharif Rabi 45,756 23,292 41,893 18,293 4,295 2,839 3,518 1,259 95,462 45,683
Total 69,048 60,186 7,134 4,777 141,145
Source: IUCN, 2007b
Moreover, balance river supplies (including flood supplies and future storages) are to be distributed as follows: Punjab: 37%; Sindh: 37%; Balochistan: 12%; and NWFP: 14%. Like Pakistan, India also has internal agreements for the allocation of waters from its rivers. With the waters of Sutlej already allocated for the Bhakra-Nangal Project, the 1981 Agreement on Ravi-Beas Waters stipulates that the surplus flows of rivers Ravi and Beas (21,195 MCM) shall be allocated as shown in Table 3.15 below. Table 3.15 Shares of Indus water for Indian States according to 1981 Inter-State Agreement on Ravi-Beas Waters State Punjab Haryana Rajasthan Jammu & Kashmir Quantity earmarked for Delhi water supply Total
Annual allocations, MCM 5,210 4,320 10,615 800 250 21,195
Source: Rangachari, 2006
In case of any variation in the figure of 21,195 MCM in any year, the shares shall be changed pro-rata of the allocations subject to the condition that no change shall be made in the allocation of Jammu & Kashmir which shall remain fixed as 800 MCM and the quantity of 250 MCM for Delhi water supply also stands as already allocated (Rangachari, 2006).
37
Other major policies and legislations which could also influence water resources management in the Indus basin are the nationally proposed or enacted ones, such as: Pakistan National Water Policy (draft) Pakistan Water Sector Strategy 2002 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Policy (draft) Indus River System Authority (IRSA) Act of 1992 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997 Canal and Drainage Act of 1873 India
National Water Policy 2002 Water Policy of Indian States Environmental Protection Act of 1986 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 River Boards Act 19556 Water Cess Act 1977 Inter-States Water Disputes Act 1956
Institutional and Transboundary Management In order to implement and monitor the activities of the Indus Waters Treaty, the Treaty provides for the creation of the Permanent Indus Commission which is composed of a Commissioner from each party. The purpose and functions of the Commission shall be to establish and maintain co-operation between the Parties in the development of the waters of the Rivers and, in particular, (a) to study and report to the two Governments on any problem relating to the development of the waters of the Rivers which may be jointly referred to the Commission by the two Governments: in the event that a reference is made by one Government alone, the Commissioner of the other Government shall obtain the authorization of his Government before he proceeds to act on the reference; (b) to make every effort to settle promptly, in accordance with the provisions on settlements and disputes, any question arising there under; (c) to undertake, once in every five years, a general tour of inspection of the Rivers for ascertaining the facts connected with various developments and works on the Rivers; (d) to undertake promptly, at the request of either Commissioner, a tour of inspection of such works or sites on the Rivers as may be considered necessary by him for ascertaining the facts connected with those works or sites; and (e) to take, during the Transition Period, such steps as may be necessary for the implementation of the provisions on transitional agreements. During the period 2006-2007, the Commission held its 98th meeting in Pakistan in June 2006. India has also been compliant to provisions in the Treaty by providing Pakistan with the daily data of 280 hydrological sites on six basins namely, Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej every month. Flood warning communications were also made by India to Pakistan during the period 01 July – 10 October 2006 for the rivers of Indus system (MOWR, 2007). In addition, National government institutions relevant to the management of water resources in Indus basin are as follows: Pakistan Ministry of Water and Power
38
India
Ministry of Environment Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) Indus River System Authority (IRSA) Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authorities (PIDA)
Ministry of Water Resources Ministry of Environment and Forests National Water Resources Council National Water Board
Within Pakistan, the IRSA, WAPDA and the provincial irrigation departments are the three public sector organizations that manage surface water resources and delivery. The IRSA, which has five members, one from the Federal government and one each from the provinces, enforces the Water Accord quite rigidly. IRSA coordinates and oversees the distribution of water of the Indus and its tributaries among provinces, and water allocations among the provinces are made on a five daily basis as per provisions of the Water Accord (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). The provinces are authorized to modify system-wise and periodwise uses within the provincial allocations. However, in periods of shortages, problems still arise on sharing of shortages and interpretation of the Accord. In such case when a province is not satisfied with the decision of IRSA, it can appeal to the Council of Common Interest (Presently to the Chief Executive). Any proposed development in the water sector has to be reviewed by IRSA to ensure conformity to the Water Accord. On the other hand, enforcement of environmental regulations relating to discharge of effluents into water bodies is not effectively enforced. This weak enforcement is due to the lack of technical staff as well as resources and skills among the available staff. Currently, a large portion (40%) of Pakistan’s Annual Development Budget is earmarked for the water sector with special focus on water conservation (such as improving irrigation efficiency) and reduction of negative impacts of variability of water availability (M. Tariq, personal communication).
39
4.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES IN INDUS BASIN
The ever growing demand and use of the water resources of Indus basin which is getting scarce has led to many issues and problems. The following sections describe the causes and impacts of the most significant issues and problems as well as the responses made on them. 4.1
Salinization and Sodification of Agricultural Lands
The previous policies and projects on infrastructure development, especially on irrigation, contributed to Pakistan’s economic development by addressing the increasing growing demands for water and in increasing the availability of water resource in water scarce areas (Majeed, 2005). However, irrigation has disturbed the hydrologic equilibrium between recharge and discharge of groundwater within the Indus basin. In addition to seepage from canals, distributaries and water courses, deep percolation from irrigated lands have increased natural recharge rates. As a result, groundwater levels have risen at a rate of 15 to 75 cm annually. In Punjab province (16% of total basin area) of Pakistan, groundwater levels have risen by 20 to 30 meters in the middle of the doabs (land between two rivers) (Aslam and Prathapar, 2006). This has resulted to shallow water tables in which capillary up-flow and evapotranspiration concentrate the salt and salinizes the soil and water. In other areas where canal water supplies are inadequate and unreliable (especially at the tail end of distributaries and water courses) and change in cropping patterns from low-delta-crops to high-delta-crops, farmers depend on marginal quality groundwater for irrigation. The use of groundwater that is rich in sodium and bicarbonates leads to the sodification of soils. The Indus Basin System overlays large salt formations, to which some 10.8 million tons of salts are added each year (Khan and Khan, 2007). Hence, the rising of water table and the use of marginal quality groundwater result to salinization of a large extent of lands. An earlier assessment (1979) of salt affected area within the Indus Basin Canal Command Area (CCA) in Pakistan showed the extent of salt affected land as follows: Table 4.1 Extent of salt affected lands in Pakistan (in 1000 ha)
320 14
7,891 1,614
5,351 1,532
Total Indus Basin (Pakistan) 13,562 3,160
4.3% 502
20.4% 1,129
28.6% 1,019
23.3% 2,650
516
2,743
2,551
5,810
NWFP Total CCA Salt affected area within CCA Percent Salt affected area outside CCA Total
Punjab
Sindh
Source: Adopted from Khan and Khan, 2007.
Recent estimates of losses due to salinization are 28,000 to 40,000 ha of land and about USD 230 million of revenue per year. An area of about 2 Mha is estimated to be salinized at present (Aslam and Prathapar, 2006). Moreover, due to expansion of canal irrigation, waterlogging and salinity have also caused permanent degradation of land and reduced productivity in India. The area affected by salts is reported as high as 3.3 Mha (Kumar, 2003) including the states of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajashtan which are wholly or partly located in Indus basin. Table 4.2 below provides the extent of salt affected area in those states.
40
Table 4.2 Extent of salt affected lands in selected states in India Name of State Punjab Haryana Rajasthan Total
% of State in Indus basin 100 62 47
Area affected by salts (1000 ha) 490 197 70 757
% of State affected by salts 9.73 4.46 0.20
Source: USGS, 2006; UNEP, 2006a; Kumar, 2003
Due to the extent of salinization of lands in Pakistan, a closer look on its actions was made. It has been found that researchers, policy makers, agency personnel, and farmers in Pakistan have continuously devised strategies to mitigate salinization. These strategies which were categorized into on-farm and off-farm strategies are as follows: On-farm strategies:
Improved irrigation practices Deficit irrigation Change in crop selection Agroforesty and biological drainage Mechanical reclamation Use of chemical amendments Use of skimming wells for irrigation water Conjunctive use of water
Off-farm strategies:
Participatory irrigation management Improving reliability of canal water Selective maintenance of irrigation and drainage infrastructure Revision of water allocation rules currently in place Drainage measures at sub-regional and regional levels
The Water and Power Development Authority of Pakistan (WAPDA) has also completed 57 Salinity Control and Reclamation Projects (SCARPS) at a total cost of USD 435 million covering a gross area of 7.81 Mha. These projects, which include surface drains and installation of tile drains and tube wells to control the groundwater table, initially proved quite effective but with the explosion of shallow tube wells in the private sector, performance of SCARPS deteriorated (IUCN Pakistan, 2007; Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). The above strategies and actions, which are either preventive or curative approaches, have provided beneficial results with preventive measures paying rich dividends at a much less cost and effort compared to curative measures. Farmers have also learned to deal successfully with salinity, but they are not succeeding in the same way with respect to sodicity (Kijne and Kuper, 1995), which is a more serious problem as it causes formation of an impermeable hard pan below the surface and needs to be chemically treated with gypsum. On the other hand, salinity control measures adopted by farmers and irrigation system operators may only improve land and water productivity up to a certain limit at which point, labor productivity – income to the farmer – may not be above the poverty line. This will result in reduced investments at the farm level to mitigate salinity and, finally, threaten environmental sustainability of the Indus Basin Irrigation System, in particular, and the food security of Pakistan, in general. Moreover, farmers alone cannot solve salinity problems in the IBIS. There are measures that they (farmers) can adopt, but actions in a large scale, such as management of voluminous drainage of high salt concentrations certainly requires government interventions.
41
In this light and considering that the ever increasing demand for water is expected to lead to further increases in the use of marginal water for crop production, Aslam and Prathapar (2006) suggested that the following are needed to meet the challenge of controlling and mitigating salinization and sodification in the Indus Basin: Significant input of human and financial resources Cost-effective management interventions to the improved irrigation systems management Technically and economically effective and sustainable conjunctive water management strategies Investment in strategies to reduce the reliance of Pakistanis on irrigated agriculture for poverty alleviation Measures to address knowledge gap in controlling and mitigating salinization, e.g. effect of different parameters on the development of salinity and sodicity (Kijne and Kuper, 1995), etc. Indeed, salinity or salt management in Indus basin is a major challenge and thus requires major changes in policies for agriculture (M. Tariq, personal communication). 4.2
Declining Groundwater Level due to Groundwater Mining
The previous focus of groundwater policy on the control of waterlogging and salinity in agricultural lands and the availability of technology of deep pumping have resulted to the spectacular increase in the number of private tubewells all over Pakistan and subsequent groundwater mining. In 2002, the total population of private tubewells in Pakistan is estimated to be 629,602 with total groundwater extraction of 47.14 BCM (Qureshi et al., 2003). The province of Punjab is taking the lead with approximately 90% of this total. This growth of the number of tubewells is continually increasing since the 1960s. As a result, in several fresh groundwater areas in the Indus plain, there has been a complete volte-face. Where 30 years ago high groundwater tables were the major threat, groundwater levels have declined due to intense pumping posing other threats to soil and water quality. In particular, Punjab suffers from a paradox of having areas with high water tables and areas where tubewell development has been so intense that water tables are declining. Localized overexploitation in fresh groundwater areas has already lowered groundwater tables 2 to 4 m in some places (van Steenbergen and Oliemans, 1997). With this lowering of groundwater tables, there have been reports on deteriorating groundwater quality due to intrusion of water from saline groundwater zones. The problem of declining groundwater tables still continues with recent data showing that, on average, groundwater table in Punjab fell about 15 cm from 2003 to 2004 as reported by the Directorate of Land Reclamation of Punjab. The case of Pakistan is also true in India, more particularly in the state of Punjab where the degree of over-development is most severe. Particularly, the Central Ground Water Board has reported that the stage of groundwater development in the states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab is more than 100%, with Punjab registering the highest at a whopping 145% (CGWB, 2006). During the period from 1979-99, nearly 31% of the area of Punjab experienced a water level drop in the range of 0-3m, 21% in the range of 3-5 m, 20% in the range of 5-10 m, and 0.2 % beyond 10 m (Gulati, 2002). More recent information has also revealed that the water table in the central districts of Punjab State in India producing paddy, having about 70% of the tube wells, is receding at an alarming rate of 0.6m to 0.76m annually (MOWR, 2006). It thus appears that over pumping of groundwater has still not been controlled. The government and farmers in affected areas have had made some efforts to address the issue but
42
then these efforts need to be increased to halt the worsening situation. There is also a need for the Department of Irrigation to strictly enforce its powers on licensing and control of groundwater wells as provided in the Punjab Soil Reclamation Act of 1952. In addition, groundwater exploitation coupled with drought conditions during the period 1999-2003 resulted to the significant drop of groundwater table throughout Afghanistan. In Kabul, the groundwater level has fallen by 1.7-4.6 m from 2000 to 2003 (UNEP, 2003). 4.3
Degradation of Indus Delta Ecosystem
The Indus delta is being subject to pressure due to competing demands for water. Due to a growing population which is coupled with extremely low rainfall, the supply of irrigation water for food production has been considered a top priority, as is water for industrial and domestic. Several storage dams and barrages have been built on the Indus River and a complex network of canals transfers this water to around 12 million hectares of agricultural land. As a result, less freshwater reaches the delta. In fact, it has been reported that virtually no freshwater flows into the delta during the rabi or dry season from October to March (Leichenko and Wescoat, 1993). Historically, as shown in Table 4.3 below, the amount of water flow in the lower Indus has decreased dramatically, from around 185 BCM in 1892 to 12.3 BCM in the 1990s (IUCN, 2007a). Table 4.3 Changes in freshwater flows in the lower Indus River Year 1892 1932 1960 1970 1990s
Comments From historic maps and data Following the construction of the Sukkur Barrage Construction of the Kotri Barrage in 1996 Developments following Indus Water Treaty Following the agreements of the Indus Water Accord
Flow Rate (MCM per year) 185,000 105,000 79,581 43,000 12,300
Source: Adopted from IUCN, 2007a.
Both Sindh and Punjab have carried out separate studies, which were not available for review. There remains no consensus on the escapage needs. Therefore, the Indus water balance is not agreed and water sharing for surpluses, as per provisios of the Accord, remains undefined. As a result the development of new projects in the Indus basin, including much needed new storage such as the Kalabagh Dam, remains stagnant (Ministry of Water and Power, 2002). Recently, environmental impact studies have been carried out to determine the environmental flow requirement to regain the health of river downstream of Kotri Barrage (M. Tariq, personal communication). The Government of Pakistan launched three studies in October 2004 to establish the minimal escapage needs downstream of Kotri to check seawater intrusion and to address environmental concerns of Sindh province. The study found that an escapage at Kotri barrage of 142 m3/s throughout the year is required to check seawater intrusion, accommodate the needs of fisheries, environmental sustainability, and to maintain river channel. This escapage translates to about 4,500 MCM per year, but the study also recommended a total volume of 30,858 MCM in any 5 year period be released below Kotri as flood flows. This means the yearly releases can be adjusted so that the average of 6,172 MCM is maintained (Ministry of Water and Power, 2007). Records of WAPDA (2007) as shown in Figure 3.7 (page 32) shows that the above requirement is being met with an average flow of about 42,800 MCM for the period 1976-
43
2004 except during the drought years of 2000-2003 in which the flow fell to as low as 913 MCM. In contrast, other scientific evidence suggests that the minimum level of freshwater flows to the delta area set by the Indus Water Accord is inadequate to maintain effective ecosystem functions of the wetlands of the Indus delta. According to the Sindh Forestry department, about 33,430 MCM is required to keep the existing mangroves in a reasonably healthy condition (Khan and Khan, 2007). This requirement was not meet in several years during the period 1980-1990 and most during the period 1997-2004. This could be the reason that a significant deterioration in the natural resources of the delta has been observed. A summary of environmental impacts of reduced flow in the lower Indus is provided below. Table 4.4 Environmental impacts of reduced flow in the lower Indus River Component Mangrove forests
Fisheries
Water quality
Sea encroachment
Observed impact Reduction in size of forests Decrease in biodiversity (loss of five species in the last 20 years) Desertification due to loss of forests Decrease in reproductive success of fish and shrimp due to loss of mangrove habitat, change in seasonal water availability and modified water quality. Reduction in water quality following the use of pesticides and fertilizers from the irrigation plots. Effects are exacerbated as flows are reduced, since the concentration of pollutant increases. Accumulation of agricultural chemicals in the soil Growth of filamentous algae on the mudflats as a result of increased nutrient and organic enrichment. Increased salinization of the lower Indus has resulted in a decline of fish species sensitive to changes in temperature and salinity. The reduction in freshwater flow has led to severe encroachment of the sea into the delta area. Saline water has intruded 64 km inland and around 0.5 million ha of farmland have thus far been lost.
Source: Adopted from IUCN, 2007a.
The above information clearly suggests that degradation of the Indus delta ecosystem and loss of biodiversity is already a highly visible phenomenon. It has also been reported (Khan and Khan, 2007) that the present level of silt discharge, estimated at 100 million tons per year, is four-fold reduction from the original level before the dams were blocked. The combination of salt water intrusion (some reports show this as 30 km inland), and reduced silt and nutrient flows has changed the geomorphology of the delta considerably. Moreover, the impacts of decreased flow on the delta ecosystem could also be worsened by the effects of climate change, more especially considering development activities in the upstream (Leichenko and Wescoat, 1993). On the other hand, it has also been argued that more reservoirs are required to provide water in the delta sustainably throughout the year. In order to arrest the degradation of the delta region, IUCN cited a suggestion that the federal government should conduct a comprehensive, independent study of social and environmental impacts of the present irrigation system on the delta ecosystem. The studies launched in 2004 could be considered as a respond to this but it could not be verified whether all the social and environmental impacts were considered. To lessen the impact of climate change on the delta a need to incorporate climate impact assessment into water development planning was also pointed out.
44
A recent workshop organized by Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) brought together stakeholders to develop a common vision for the Indus delta. This is a step towards developing a formal management strategy of the Indus River System without which, and under the current management regime, the delta is believed to likely suffer irreversible change, with severe implications for the biodiversity and future inhabitants of the region. 4.4
Low Efficiency of Water Use in Irrigation
Irrigation water use efficiency is an important concern in Indus basin, more particularly in Pakistan which utilizes 149,255 MCM (60% of total irrigation use) of Indus water for irrigation. This amount corresponds to 97% of water withdrawn for Pakistan. The current irrigation water efficiency is estimated at 35.5% in Pakistan which is low by all standards (IUCN Pakistan, 2007). It has been reported that the water released from river to canal and onward to farmers’ fields sustains conveyance losses of 40-50% due to seepage, spillage, topping of the water channels, etc. as most infrastructure are in poor repair. On-farm irrigation efficiencies is also placed between 23 and 70% as farmers generally apply water to unleveled bunded units, resulting in long irrigation events, poor water uniformity and over-irrigation (Kahlown, et al., 2007). Although, from a basin perspective, much of wasted water is reused, significant amount of water is wasted primarily due to irrigation inefficiencies which results to degradation of agricultural fields. In India, the conveyance and network losses are very high for surface irrigation systems and it is believed that the losses are in the order of 45-55 percent for many of the large irrigation systems with extensive distribution networks consisting of several hundred kilometers of unlined canals (Kumar, 2003). An IWMI report (Amarasinghe et al., 2004) shows that the overall irrigation efficiency is at 43%, while the Ministry of Water Resources (1999) reported that losses in irrigation in India are estimated at 45% due to seepage and excess application, while storage losses are estimated to be about 15%. In addition, the farm level efficiency in surface irrigation systems is very poor due to very high field evaporation, evapotranspiration, percolation, and runoff losses due to flood irrigation and the poor on-farm water management practices being adopted by farmers (Kumar, 2003). In terms of physical efficiency of use of irrigation waters, Kumar (2003) reported that cereal production per m3 of irrigation water in Pakistan (0.13 kg) and India (0.39 kg) are far below compared to other countries such as China (0.82 kg), USA (1.56 kg), and Canada (8.72 kg). Differences in the planning of water use in irrigation were found to be the main factor for such difference in the figures. Despite enormous losses in the irrigation system and reduced supplies due to prolonged drought and reduced river flow, the farmers are still using highly inefficient and obsolete methods of irrigation. For example, irrigation practices followed in the Balochistan Province are primitive and highly inefficient. Orchards and Fruit Farms in particular are irrigated by flooding entire fields, which reduces water use efficiency to less than 40 percent from water source to crop use. In India, government policies hardly provide incentives to encourage efficient usage resulting to conventional consideration of water as a free commodity (UNEP.RRCAP, 2001). Modern irrigation technologies for field crops and orchards can help increase water use efficiencies to 90%. For instance, the study of Kahlown et al. (2007) revealed that sprinkler irrigation of rice could produce 18% more yield while reducing consumption of water to 35% of that used in traditional irrigation systems. Benefit-cost analyses based on water saved indicated that investing in rain-gun system to irrigate rice and wheat is a financially-viable option for farmers. It has already been adopted in Potohar plateau of Pakistan to provide supplemental irrigation to dryland farming but wide scale adoption of such system in canal
45
irrigated areas of the Indus basin is not expected in the near future due to the present low level of water fee (Average water charge per hectare: Pakistan: 7.4 USD; India: 10 USD; compared to China: 46.5 USD; Vietnam: 59.5 USD) (UNESCO, 2006). Though capital intensive, the future of irrigated agriculture depends on adopting these technologies for crop production as water is becoming an ever-increasing hard-to-get resource and the gap between demand and supply widens. Hence, promotion of such technologies needs to be pushed, probably with incentives and other types of support from the government. In addition, the role of policies concerning the value of water is also very essential in order to be successful in efforts of improving water use efficiency. 4.5
Lack of Integrated Watershed Management especially in the Upper Indus
The water resources of the upper basin of Indus River (Figure 4.1) with an area of approximately 158,000 km2 is collected at the Tarbela Dam, which is the largest earth and rockfill dam of the world. The main objective of Tarbela Dam is to regulate the flows on Indus River for the benefit of irrigation and to generate electricity and provide flood control. In order to prolong the life of Tarbela reservoir, the Tarbela Watershed Management Project was launched in 1971 to promote improved methods of land use and implement watershed management practices in the catchment area above the Tarbela and Mangla dams. Watershed management activities in this project include reforestation of bare and denuded lands, development of rangelands, improvement of cultivated fields, etc. (IUCN, 2007b). These management activities which has already cost many millions are conducted in areas (e.g. in Jhelum and Tarbela) where interventions are possible since other parts of Upper Indus basin are covered with ice and glacier and, due to this characteristics, there is not much that can be done.
Figure 4.1 The Upper Indus River basin Source: Ali and De Boer, 2007
46
Recent reports, however, showed that Tarbela Dam is still collecting large amounts of sediments, most during extreme events (Ali and De Boer, 2007). The storage capacities of Tarbela and other two key reservoirs of Pakistan (Mangla and Chashma) have depleted to almost 80% of their original capacities as a result of sedimentation. Moreover, these large dams are operated separately and unrelatedly (WCD, 2000). The increasing population in the basin is also putting more pressure on the basin’s resources and environment. With the pace of sedimentation of Tarbela and other dams, there is a need for more efficient and an integrated management of the upper Indus basin. However, to be successful in such efforts would need the involvement of other riparian countries, more importantly India and China, as well as with Afghanistan for the other parts of upper Indus. One such specific endeavor would be to conduct a comprehensive study on the basin’s characteristics so as to identify measures on how the upper Indus would be best managed. But this depends on how Pakistan would be able to convince Afghanistan, China and India the benefits they can get from such joint undertakings. In the face of rapidly growing population and food requirements, the benefits from managing upper Indus as a single system would be substantial. And unless the problem is properly addressed, the downstream areas will be badly affected as continued sedimentation of reservoirs would cause irrigation water shortages in the future especially during the Rabi season and early part of Kharif. It must be also noted that there is no existing integrated management of the entire Indus basin and thus the need is not only true for Upper Indus but for the whole basin.
47
5.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR INDUS BASIN
This chapter presents the in-depth assessment of the vulnerability of freshwater resources in Indus basin according to group of parameters selected in this study namely, water resources base, water resources development and use, ecological health, and management capacity. The last section presents the overall vulnerability of the basin through the Vulnerability Index (VI). 5.1
Resource Stress
Water Scarcity The amount of available water resource will either support or limit the development of the basin and the quality of life of the population. Availability is thus a main factor in the assessment of the vulnerability of freshwater resources in a basin. For Indus basin, the available water resource was determined as discussed in section 3.1. The results, as presented in Figure 5.1 showing the ratio of the difference between the water stress threshold value of 1700m3/person and per capita water available in the sub-basin to the threshold value, indicate that the lowest portion of Indus, including the delta region, has sufficient available water in terms of per capita requirement. However, with different values reported for the required flow to the delta, it would be difficult to conclude that the sufficiency of water (in terms of per capita) in lower Indus is indeed also sufficient to support a healthy delta ecosystem, especially of the mangroves considering also the huge variability of flow in an annual basis. Moreover, the figure obtained in this study is an average and it does not mean to be true for all time as it is also clear that during extensive drought very less water goes out to the delta thus affecting its ecosystems. In fact, it has been reported that one of the main problems of the population downstream of Kotri Barrage is lack of drinking water (Tariq, 2007), more especially during dry periods.
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Water Scarcity < 0.2 0.2 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.40 > 0.40
Southwestern Indus Southeastern Indus
Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.1 Water scarcity in Indus basin
48
On the other hand, in the middle part of the basin (sub-basins of Jhelum & Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej, and more especially Southeastern Indus), especially those in the largely populated provinces of Punjab in Pakistan, Rajasthan in India, and Jammu & Kashmir, water scarcity is a real and pressing concern. Precipitation Variation A long record (38-59 years) of annual precipitation data from selected stations in Pakistan which cover most part of the basin were obtained from several issues of Pakistan Statistical Yearbook published by the Federal Bureau of Statistics. The latest of which is the 2006 yearbook. These data were then used to determine the variation of precipitation in the basin to reflect the variation of the water resource. For sub-basin not represented with the selected stations (Southeastern Indus), global rainfall dataset for the period 1950-99 from the Tropical Land-Surface Precipitation database of Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware were used. In order to provide a spatial characterization of precipitation variation in the Indus basin, the coefficient of variation (CV) of precipitation in each sub-basin was determined. This was done by calculating the average of CV computed from stations located in each sub-basin. At least two stations were located in a sub-basin while some have four stations. On the other hand, the CV of Southeastern Indus sub-basin was determined from a global data on precipitation covering the portion of India.
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Precipitation Variation < 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.9 > 0.9
Southwestern Indus Southeastern Indus Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.2 Variation of Precipitation in Indus Basin As shown in Figure 5.2, CV values in the lower part of Indus basin are higher compared to those of sub-basins in the upper portion. This entails that precipitation in the lower part varies more and thus the water resource that could come from the precipitation in the region are less predictable. This condition corresponds to the fact that variation in precipitation and water resource in semi-arid and arid regions are highly variable. Moreover, this could also be partly due to the effect of cyclones in the coastal area.
49
On the other hand, the lower CV values in the upper portion of Indus indicate that the volume of water resource from the highlands is less variable and thus more reliable in terms of its consistency. This could also be because rainfall in the upper basin is mainly from monsoon which is less erratic. It must be noted that significant portion of the water resource in Indus originate from the highlands. Hence, this information on variation is very much helpful in the planning and management of the use of water resource of Indus. An exception to the above observation is the value for the southeastern Indus sub-basin and the difference could be attributed to different data source (global dataset). This case could not be verified due to the absence of data from weather stations in India. 5.2
Development Pressure
Water Resource Exploitation Water availability will not provide a conclusive picture without considering how much of water available in the basin is exploited. The amount of water being used for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses will give indication on the stress to the water resource. Based on data obtained for amount of water use in the basin, Figure 5.3 presents the spatial variability of the ratio of annual total water use to total water available.
N
Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Water Stress < 0.58 0.58 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.98 > 0.98
Southwestern Indus Southeastern Indus Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.3 Water stress indicator for Indus basin In general, water resources in the Indus basin is under much stress, especially in the eastern parts of the basin shared by Pakistan and India due to extensive use of the resource to support agricultural production. The value of the indicator (1.0) for these parts suggests that the available resource is completely consumed for different purposes. In fact, under the Water Accord, the required commitments to the Pakistan provinces in this region are higher than the available in some years, which is due to the fact that allocations are made on average water available during 1982-87 which may not be representative of all times. The stress indicator value (0.564) for the Middle and Upper Indus sub-basin is the least, which is understandable being the significant source of water resource in the basin, yet this should not be taken for
50
granted as the value also indicates that more than half of the water available is being utilized and further increase on its use has significant impacts to the downstream communities. Access to Safe Drinking Water The proportion of population with access to safe drinking water indicates the state of social adaptation of freshwater use, i.e. how freshwater resource development facilities address the fundamental livelihood needs of the population. An assessment of Indus by sub-basin (Figure 5.4) reveals that the populations with least access to safe water supply (79%) are those located in Middle and Upper Indus sub-basin covering major portions of the provinces of NWFP and Northern Areas of Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir (northern portion), while the populations that enjoy good access to safe drinking water are those located in sub-basins Jhelum & Chenab and Ravi and Sutlej (93-96%) that mainly covers a large portion of Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir (mainly southeast portion), and Himachal Pradesh. In general, around 87% of Indus basin population has access to safe drinking water. Though this proportion appears satisfactory, a closer look may not be so since Indus has a big population and the remaining 13% access to safe drinking water accounts for approximately 28 million people.
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Southwestern Indus
No Access to Safe Water < 0.1 0.1 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.25
Southeastern Indus Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.4 Proportion of population without access to safe water in Indus 5.3
Ecological Insecurity
Water Pollution Scarcity of available water resource is also exacerbated by water pollution due to wastewater discharges from domestic, industrial and agricultural activities. Hence, the total wastewater produced from such activities within the basin is another important factor influencing the vulnerability of water resource, with a value of 15% of water resource considered critical in affecting the resource. The results (Figure 5.5) of the assessment for Indus show that water quality particularly in the eastern parts shared by Pakistan and India, is in alarming condition. This is based on this
51
study’s framework as the three sub-basins produced wastewater more than 15% of the total water resource. Although the assessment does not provide accurate quantification due to estimation procedure used (particularly for India portions of the basin), the result has nevertheless indicated the need to greatly consider the quality of Indus waters due to the consequences of the huge usage. More detailed studies of the specific sources and extent of wastewater discharges are urgently required so as to properly address water quality issues in the basin. As substantiated in section 3.3, one important aspect to investigate is the extent and impact of wastewater discharges from agricultural lands as Indus waters are widely used for agriculture and considering that Pakistan and India uses large amounts of chemical nutrients and pesticides per year. For fertilizer alone, Pakistan uses around 3,700,000 tons of nutrients in 2005, which is a 47% increase from the amount 10 years back (FBS, 2006), while recent reports on pesticide use in India placed it at 52 million tons and fertilizer use was over 14 million tons in 1996-97 (DA, 2001). Continued protection of the water quality of Indus is important as the unsystematic use of synthetic fertilizers with improper water management has affected the groundwater quality in many parts of India (UNEP.RRCAP, 2001), while it is estimated that 40 million residents in Pakistan depend on irrigation water for their domestic use especially in areas where groundwater is brackish (Pak-EPA, 2005).
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Water Pollution < 0.2 0.2 - 0.70 0.7 - 0.90 > 0.90
Southwestern Indus Southeastern Indus
Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.5 Water pollution parameter for the Indus basin Ecosystem Deterioration The health of the ecosystem is an important indicator on whether the freshwater resource of the basin is vulnerable. Removing vegetation from landscapes would change the hydrological properties of land surface, and could cause severe problems in support functioning of ecosystems in terms of water resource conservation and contribute to the vulnerability of water resources in the basin. Thus, the amount of vegetation cover of Indus basin was
52
assessed considering land areas under forest cover, other vegetations (rangelands and shrublands) and wetlands as positive indication of ecosystem health. The assessment for Indus basin indicates that more than 61% of the basin area is without forest or sufficient vegetation cover and wetlands. The areas with least vegetation coverage (sub-basin Ravi & Sutlej) are those that are widely developed for agricultural activities such as Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan. The lower Indus also has more than 65% without vegetation and this correlates to the issue of the vulnerability of Indus delta to variability of climatic conditions and to extreme conditions such as flooding and drought. The portions which are relatively less vulnerable are those that cover the highlands of Indus and the northeastern portion of Pakistan’s Balochistan province (Southwestern Indus subbasin). These parts of the basin, particularly the Indus highlands, need to keep good vegetation coverage as further forest degradation would have huge impacts to the downstream areas.
N
Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Southwestern Indus
Ecosystem Deterioration < 0.35 0.35 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.65 0.65 - 0.85 > 0.85
Southeastern Indus Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.6 Ecosystem deterioration parameter for Indus basin 5.4
Management Challenge
Water Use Efficiency Water use efficiency is an indicator of the efficiency of water management system in the basin. It is presented as the GDP value produced from one cubic meter of water used compared to the average value of world’s top food producer China, USA, Mexico, Brazil and France (India not considered for the purpose of comparison). Figure 5.7 below shows the subbasin values of the ratio of the difference between the average of selected countries and the sub-basin value to the average of selected countries. The figure clearly shows that in general, water use efficiency in the Indus basin is much less compared to the average of selected countries. Provision of appropriate policies and implementation of concrete actions for increasing the efficiency of water uses are much needed so as to get the most value from the goods and services of every cubic meter of water.
53
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Southwestern Indus
Water Inefficiency 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.85 0.85 - 0.9 0.9 - 1
Southeastern Indus
Lower Indus
200
0
200
400
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.7 Water use efficiency in Indus basin Access to Improved Sanitation The national status of access to improved sanitation is also reflected in the sub-basin scales of Indus. As shown in Table 2.6 (page 19), Pakistan has the least proportion (41%) without access to improved sanitation, whereas India has the highest (67%). In Indus basin, three subbasins Southwestern Indus, Lower Indus, and Jhelum & Chenab have the least proportion of people without access to sanitation, 20.6, 36.0, and 36.2%, respectively. Southwestern subbasin is entirely located in Pakistan, Lower Indus sub-basin is 70% in Pakistan, whereas Jhelum & Chenab sub-basin is almost two-thirds within Pakistan. On the other hand, Southeastern Indus sub-basin has the most population without access to improved sanitation (66%), in which 77.5% of this population is within India. The above figures may indicate that the threat on the quality of water resources of Indus basin from domestic is relatively less considering that the portion with least access to sanitation is located in the lower part of the basin. However, efforts are still significantly needed to improve the situation so as to ensure the sustainability of the quality and use of water resources especially in the downstream and delta areas, which is home to tens of millions of people.
54
N Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Southwestern Indus
No Access to Sanitation < 0.3 0.3 - 0.45 0.45 - 0.6 > 0.6
Southeastern Indus Lower Indus
300
0
300
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.8 Proportion of population without access to improved sanitation Conflict Management Capacity The assessment of conflict management capacity for the Indus basin was based on analysis of existing institutional arrangements for transboundary river basin management namely, institutional, agreement, communication and implementation capacities. The Indus Waters Treaty is regarded as one of the few successful settlements of a transboundary water basin conflict. Although there was significant dialogue regarding historical right usage of water versus inappropriateness of using historical use to set future allocation, a compromise was reached by Pakistan and India, through the mediation by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development of the World Bank, after approximately nine years of negotiations. However, one deficiency is that the Indus Waters Treaty does not cover transboundary pollution of water resources which this study has found to be significant in terms of vulnerability of freshwater resources in the basin. On the other hand, although Pakistan has a clear agreement with India on the use of water resources on Indus, there is no agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan concerning water resources of Kabul River which is a sizeable tributary of the Indus (Favre and Kamal, 2004). The riparian issues on the Indus basin are convoluted with the dispute over the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The government of Afghanistan is planning to reinforce irrigation, fishing and hydropower generation along the Kabul River, but unless an agreement is made, further developments could trigger tensions between the two countries. Hence, the rating of Indus Basin for agreement capacity was placed at 0.075 (on a scale of 0-0.25, with 0.25 representing the absence of concrete and detailed agreement), which basically still reflects good rating for the agreement category. Other categories on institutional, communication and implementation capacities are influenced by established or absence of concrete agreements. As for institutional capacity, the Permanent Indus Commission is tasked for the implementation and monitoring of activities of the Indus Waters Treaty. However, the institution is weak in performing the various research studies needed to prepare a scientific response to water resource development on both sides of
55
the border (IUCN Pakistan, 2007). The Pakistan Commissioner of Indus Treaty maintains a minimum of two meetings with the Indian counterpart – one each in Pakistan and India. Moreover, several infrastructure projects have been planned and implemented in the water sector during the post-treaty period. Reservoirs and a network of inter-river link canals were constructed in the Indus basin under the Indus Basin Settlement plan (Khan et al., 2000). For the above-mentioned factors, the rating for institutional, communication and implementation capacities were placed at 0.10 which is above moderate. A summary of the above assessment of conflict management capacity for the Indus basin is presented in the table below. The total score of 0.375 (on a scale of 0-1, with 1 indicating more vulnerability of water resources due to management capacity inadequacies) is fairly good in terms of conflict management capacity with several aspects still need to be strengthened. Table 5.1 Conflict management capacity parameter for Indus basin Category of capacity Institutional capacity
Agreement capacity Communication capacity
Implementation capacity
5.5
Description Transboundary institutional arrangement for coordinated water resource management Writing/signed policy or agreement for water resource management Routine communication mechanism for water resource management (annual conferences, etc.) Water resource management cooperation actions Total
Score (0-0.25) 0.100 0.075 0.100 0.100 0.375
Basin Vulnerability Index (VI)
Using the parameters above (except the basin-wide parameter for conflict management capacity), the variation of vulnerability index among sub-basins of Indus were computed and shown in Figure 5.9. It clearly shows that the most vulnerable basins (Ravi & Sutlej and Southeastern Indus) are those that are highly stressed due to the demand of agricultural activities and of huge population, as well as the current state of water pollution and ecosystem deterioration. These areas of Indus then may need to be prioritized in implementing appropriate policies and immediate actions - more particularly on demand management, increasing efficiency, proper disposal of wastewater and conservation of ecosystems - to halt further degradation and to support its sustainable development. Considering that these sub-basins are jointly shared by Pakistan and India, the coordination of riparian countries to implement integrated management is thus paramount.
56
N
Middle & Upper Indus Jhelum & Chenab
Ravi & Sutlej
Southwestern Indus
Vulnerability Index 0.40 - 0.45 0.45 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.55 0.55 - 0.60 > 0.6
Southeastern Indus
Lower Indus
200
0
200
400
600 Kilometers
Figure 5.9 Vulnerability indexes of sub-basins of Indus Looking at Indus basin as a whole, a summary of vulnerability of freshwater resources of Indus basin according to the selected indicators is provided below: Table 5.2 Vulnerability Index calculation for Indus Basin Category Parameter Calculated Weight in category Weighted Component total Weight Weighted Overall Score
Resource Stress RSs 0.22
RSv 0.76
Development Pressure DPs DPd 0.89 0.13
Ecological Insecurity EHp EHe 1.00 0.61
Management Challenge MCe MCs MCt 0.86 0.48 0.375
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.110
0.380
0.445
0.065
0.500
0.305
0.284
0.158
0.124
0.490
0.510
0.805
0.566
0.25 0.122
0.25 0.128
0.25 0.201
0.25 0.142
0.59
The overall VI score of 0.59 indicates that the river basin is under high stress, and great efforts should be made to design policy for providing technical support and policy backup to mitigate the high pressures. A longer term strategic development plan should be made accordingly with focus on rebuilding up of management capacity to deal with the most threatening issues (interpretation based on Appendix 1, Section 3.3.3). Looking closer at the values in Table 5.2, it can be observed that ecological insecurity contributes the highest (33.9%) to the vulnerability of freshwater resources in the Indus basin due to the continuing discharge of wastewater to the rivers as well as the degradation of vegetation and wetlands. It is then followed by management capacity (23.9%), water resource development pressure (21.6%), and resource stress (20.6%). It must be noted, however, that the ecological insecurity indicator does not stand alone. It is also a result of complex interaction of other factors such as the development and use of water resources and the overall
57
management of the basin. Nevertheless, this assessment also suggests that policy measures focused on improving ecological health and water use and management efficiencies could contribute more towards preventing the Indus basin water resources from being more vulnerable to socio-economic development and changes in the environment. The needed measures are presented in the next section with due consideration to the interrelationships of the current state and trend of water resources parameters, the most significant issues and the results of vulnerability index assessment.
58
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Indus River Basin is one of the most important river basins in Asia. It currently supports a very large population of more than 215 million people who depend largely on agriculture. Its water resources originate from the melting of snow and glaciers in Karakoram and Himalayan ranges while the Indus plains and delta are essentially semi-arid to arid. This hydrological nature of Indus prompted the development of a large and complex irrigation system to address water needs especially for agricultural development resulting to the development of the Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) which is the largest contiguous irrigation system in the world. As this study shows, the water resource of Indus is currently under stress to support the ever increasing population. The Indus basin has become a water-stressed basin from being a waterrich one. In this study, the annual water availability per capita is found to be 1,329 m3, which is below the generally accepted water stress level of 1,700 m3 per capita. Pakistan and India are particularly experiencing this stressed situation. In addition, the basin’s water resource is almost being completely utilized with annual sectoral water use estimated at 256,757 MCM, approximately 90% of 286,925 MCM available. This scenario has been confirmed with reported instances of very low or no flow toward the Indus delta, especially during dry seasons and droughts. Reducing resource stress and increasing use efficiency Considering the water-stressed condition in the basin and with the current disagreements on the benefits of constructing additional reservoirs within Indus basin, the immediately needed additional water supplies to meet with the increasing demand could then be addressed through savings in existing losses in water infrastructures especially in irrigation systems, noting that agricultural water use accounts for 96% of total water use in Indus basin. Therefore, there is a great need for promoting water demand management and more efficient use of water resources, particularly in the agricultural sector which has low water use efficiency. This low efficiency in irrigation subsequently contributes to the low economic efficiency of water use in the basin as compared with other countries. It should be noted that the economic efficiency factor contributes the most to the management capacity component, which is the second highest contributor (24.5%) to the VI of Indus. There are many ways to increase irrigation efficiency, and for Indus basin these include improving physical conditions of canals in irrigation systems to improve conveyance efficiency and the adoption of modern on farm irrigation systems to increase water productivity. These efforts need to be coupled with supporting policies such as on providing incentives to encourage farmers to adopt such technologies. The implementation of such measures would result to getting the most value from the goods and services of every cubic meter of water in which riparian countries of Indus are still lagging behind other countries. Minimizing negative impacts of development and protecting ecological health Like other basins, Indus basin has its share of inter-related problems. The previous policies and projects on water infrastructure development have contributed to addressing the demands of agriculture and socio-economic development. However, this has also resulted to over exploitation of water resources for agricultural purposes with its adverse impacts on Indus basin ecosystems – including the lowering of groundwater tables, the salinization and sodification of agricultural lands, and the degradation of Indus delta ecosystem affecting the lives of many people depending on it. Consideration of this aspect is important as ecosystem insecurity gives the highest contribution (33.7%) to the overall vulnerability of Indus basin. In spite of this state of ecosystems in Indus, there have been no comprehensive ex post evaluations of environmental effects of completed water projects in Indus basin (Wescoat et al., 2000). The governments need to do more than just expanding the scope and detail of
59
environmental assessment of proposed development plans in Indus. There is also a need to vigorously push forward on ecosystem management in the Indus basin so as to protect forest cover especially in the upper Indus and to finally settle the environmental flow requirement to sustain the Indus delta. In addition to the above environmental concerns, the present practice of direct disposal of large volumes of untreated domestic, industrial and agricultural wastewater is also threatening the quality of Indus water and the aquatic life depending on it. Wastewater management, through treatment, recycling and reuse, needs to be vigorously implemented. There are currently existing regulations to protect the health of the environment from pollution yet its strict enforcement is still to be seen. Studies on the sources and extent of impacts of wastewater, particularly the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural lands would also be very helpful in controlling and mitigating water pollution and its impacts. Improving governance and investing on much-needed water infrastructures In terms of water supply and sanitation, Indus basin population has relatively good access to safe water (87%) but still around 28 million people do not have access. Moreover, about half of the populations do not have access to improved sanitation. Water supply and sanitation has been regarded essential in achieving other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to raise the quality of human life, yet domestic water supply and sanitation still largely remain outside the water and power sector, especially in Pakistan (Wescoat et al., 2000), and are therefore not well integrated with mainstream water management. Apart from necessary infrastructure investments, there is thus a need to put more importance on water supply and sanitation in water governance. Strengthening cooperation towards implementing integrated basin management It is also important to note that the sustainability of the availability of water resource in Indus critically depends on the management of the upper Indus region as precipitation widely varies spatially and temporally throughout the basin and the basin’s water resources mainly depend on the melting of snow and glaciers in these areas. On the other hand, it has been shown that half of the water resource in upper Indus is already being consumed before it reaches other parts of the basin. Policies are then essential to control the demand and regulate of use of water resources in the upper Indus so as to ascertain sufficient supply to the downstream areas. In addition, there is also a need for integrated watershed management for upper Indus and in particular, an agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan concerning the management of water resources of Kabul basin would be one of the important concrete actions that can be pursued.
Based on the above assessments and on the overall vulnerability index (0.597) for Indus basin which indicates that the basin is under high stress (VI range 0.4-0.7), there is thus an urgent call for pursuing and implementing the above-mentioned policies and concrete actions in an integrated manner. Pakistan and India are moving from water resources development toward water resources management with attention to river basin management and participation of stakeholders as stipulated in their respective National Water Policies, but a well coordinated and integrated management among its agencies and between the two countries is still lacking. The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, the Water Appropriation Accord of 1991, and the 1981 Agreement on Ravi-Beas Waters look mainly on water allocation and sharing of information, but not much about water quality management neither on coordinated planning and management resulting to cases of local conflicts especially during low flow periods. The riparian countries and their respective agencies therefore need to increase its efforts in setting aside differences, strengthening its institutions, and opening its doors for a more integrated management of the water resources of Indus basin.
60
7.
REFERENCES
ADB (2006). India: Jammu and Kashmir Urban Sector Development Project Environmental Assessment Report. August 2006. Ahmad, N. (1993). Water Resources of Pakistan. Miraj-ud-Dn Press, Lahore, Pakistan. Ahmed, K. and Ali, W. (1999). Evaluation of Water Quality of Rivers in Pakistan. Proceedings of National Workshop on Water Resources Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for Next Millennium, pp. 406–16. Akhtar, N., (1991). Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Fisheries profile, feasible sites for trout culture. Report for Project PAK/88/048. Rome, FAO. 25p Akhtar, N. (1999). Freshwater Biodiversity in Pakistan. Current Status, issues and implementation of CBD. Report for Lead-Pakistan. Ali, K. and De Boer, D. (2007). Spatial patterns and variation of suspended sediment yield in the upper Indus River basin, northern Pakistan. Journal of Hydrology 334, 368-387. Amarasinghe, U., Sharma, B., Aloysius, N., Scott, C., Smakhtin, V., and de Fraiture, C. (2004). Spatial variation in water supply and demand across river basins of India. Research Report 83. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Archer, D. (2003). Contrasting hydrological regimes in the upper Indus Basin. Journal of Hydrology 274, 198-210. Archer, D. and Fowler, H. (2004). Spatial and temporal variations in precipitation in the Upper Indus basin, global teleconnections and hydrological implications. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8(1), 47-61. Aslam, M. and Prathapar, S. (2006). Strategies to mitigate salinization in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: a selected review. Research Report 97. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Broshears, R., Akbari, M., Chornack, M., Mueller, D., and Ruddy, B. (2005). Inventory of groundwater resources in the Kabul basin, Afghanistan. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5090, 34 p. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) (2006). Dynamic Groundwater Resources of India (as on March 2004). Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, Faridabad. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (2004). Water Quality of Rivers in Indus Basin 2004. Central Pollution Control Board. Retrieved online from http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Water/Indus-2004.html. Central Statistics Office (CSO) (1972). 25 Years of Pakistan in Statistics, 1947-1972. Government of Pakistan. Central Water Commission (CWC) (2005). Water Data Book 2005. Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Available online at http://cwc.nic.in/cwc_website/main/downloads/Water_Data_Complete_Book_2005.pdf
61
Development Alternatives (DA) (2001). The characteristics of water in India. Retrieved online in July 2007 from http://www.devalt.org/water/WaterinIndia/characteristics.htm. Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh edition (1910). Encyclopaedia Britannica Favre, R. and Kamal, G. (2004). Watershed Atlas of Afghanistan: first edition-working document for planners. Kabul, Afghhanistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics (1977). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1977, Statistics Division, Government t of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics (1982). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1982, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics (1990). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1990, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics (1995). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 1995, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics (2001). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 2001, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, April 2001. Federal Bureau of Statistics (2005a). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 2005, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics, (2005b). Compendium on Environment Statistics of Pakistan – 2004. Islamabad. Federal Bureau of Statistics (2006). Pakistan Statistical Yearbook 2006. Retrieved from http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/yearbook2006 on 29 March 2007. Fekete, B. M., Vorosmarty, C. and Grabs, W. (2002). High-resolution fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated water balances, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16 (3): 15-1 to 15-10. Fowler, H. and Archer D. (2005). Hydro-climatological variability in the Upper Indus Basin and implications for water resources. In Regional Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change – Impact Assessment and Decision Making: Proceedings of symposium S6 held during the 7th IAHS Scientific Assembly in Barzil, April 2005. Geological Survey of Pakistan (2007). Ground Water and Environmental Geological Studies. Retrieved from http://www.gsp.com.pk/pakistan/ground_water.html in September 2007. Government of Pakistan (2001). Economic Survey 2000-2001. Islamabad. Gulati, S. (2002). Energy implications of groundwater irrigation in Punjab. Paper presented at the International Workshop “Forward Thinking Policies in Energy-Irrigation Nexus,” 2-6 September 2002. Hong Kong Observatory (2003). Climatological Information for Asia. Retrieved online from http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/world/eng/asia/asia_e.htm.
62
Hussain, I.; Marikar, F.; Jehangir, W. 2000. Productivity and performance of irrigated wheat farms across canal commands in the Lower Indus Basin. IWMI Research Report 44. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Indus River System Authority (IRSA) (2001-02). Partial data acquired on Flows of Rivers in Pakistan. IUCN (2007a). The Lower Indus River: balancing development and maintenance of wetlands ecosystems and dependent livelihoods. Retrieved on 03 July 2007 from http://www.iucn.org/themes/wani/flw/cases/Indus.pdf IUCN (2007b). Pakistan Water Gateway. http://www.waterinfo.net.pk/index.cfm
Accessed
online
in
June
2007
at
IUCN Pakistan (2007). Pakistan Water Situational Analysis. Retrieved online on 05 May 2007 from www.waterinfo.net.pk/pwsa.htm Jain, S., Agarwal, P., and Singh, V. (2007). Hydrology and water resources of India. Netherlands: Springer. Kahlown, M., Raoof, A., Zubair, M, and Kemper, W. (2007). Water use efficiency and economic feasibility of growing rice and wheat with sprinkler irrigation in the Indus basin of Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management 87, 292-298. Kahlown, M., Khan, A., and Azam, M. (2005). The world’s largest contiguous irrigation system: developments, successes and challenges of the Indus Irrigation system in Pakistan. History of Water, vol 1, 35-54. Khan, A., Ullah, M. and Muhammad, S. (2000). Water availability and some macro level issues related to water resources planning and management in the Indus basin irrigation system in Pakistan. Retrieved on 02 July 2007 from http://www.inbonews.org/ag2000/pakistan.htm. Khan, S. and Khan, S., (2007). Pakistan: Some environmental issues. Retrieved on 29 June 2007 from http://iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/art-mono/envir.doc. Kijne, J. and Kuper, M. (1995). Salinity and Sodicity in Pakistan’s Punjab: a threat to sustainability of agriculture? Water Resources Development, 11(1), 73-86. Kumar, M. D. (2003). Food security and sustainable agriculture in India: The water management challenge. Working Paper 60. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Leichenko, R. and Wescoat Jr, J. (1993). Environmental impacts of climate change and water development in the Indus Delta region. Water Resources Development, 9(3), 247-261) Majeed, R. (2005). Impact of water policy on socio-economic development in Pakistan. Unpublished Master Thesis. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Memon, A. (2005). Devastation of the Indus river delta. In Proceedings, World Water & Environmental Resources Congress 2005, ASCE, Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Anchorage, Alaska, May 14-19, 2005. Memon, A. (2004). Evaluation of Impacts on the lower Indus basin due to upstream water storage and diversion. In Proceedings, World Water & Environmental Resources
63
Congress 2004, ASCE, Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 27 – July 1, 2004. Ministry of Water and Power (2002). Pakistan Water Sector Strategy: National Water Sector Profile. Volume 5. Office of the Chief Engineering Advisor/Chairman Federal Flood Commission. Ministry of Water and Power, Pakistan. Ministry of Water and Power (2005). Environmental Concerns of all the Four Provinces. Final Report. Volume 1. Federal Flood Commission. Ministry of Water and Power, Pakistan. Ministry of Water and Power (2007). Salient features of the findings of studies on escapages below Kotri Barrage. Report of the International Panel of Experts. Retrieved online from http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/ministries/water-power-ministry/media/sailentkotri1.htm. Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) (1999). Water resources development plan of India: policy and issues. New Delhi: Ministry of Water Resources. 26 pp. Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) (2006). Report of Sub-committee on More Crop and Income per Drop of Water. Advisory Council on Artificial Recharge of Ground Water, MOWR, Government of India. Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) (2007). Annual Report 2006-07. Retrieved online from http://wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?subsublinkid=755&langid=1&sslid=747. Oregon State University (2007). Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Accessed at http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/projects/spatial_database/ Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA) (2005). State of Environment Report 2005. Draft for Consultation. Ministry of Environment. Retrieved online in July 2007 from http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/environmentdivision/media/state_of_Environment.htm. Pathak, D. (1988). Hydrogeology of India. Central Board of Irrigation and Power, Government of India. Program Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU) (2007). Actual and Tentative Distribution Programme. Punjab Irrigation and Power Department. Available online at http://203.215.180.41/ipd/kharif.aspx. Qureshi, A. (2002). Water Resources Management in Afghanistan: the issues and options. IWMI Working Paper 49, Pakistan Country Series No. 14. International Water Management Institute. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Qureshi, A., Shah, T. and Akhtar, M. (2003). The groundwater economy of Pakistan. IWMI Working Paper 64, Pakistan Country Series 19. Rangachari, R. (2006). Bhakra-Nangal Project: Socio-economic and environmental impacts. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Shobair, S. and Alim, A. (2004). The effects of calamities on water resources and consumption in Afghanistan. A country paper presented at the Tsukuba Asian Seminar on Agricultural Education (TASAE), Japan, October 2004.
64
Siddiqui, K. (1997). Country Report – Pakistan. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, Working Paper Series No. 11. FAO, August 1997. Tariq, M. (2007). Indus Basin Pakistan: Social implications of denial of environmental flows. A poster presentation. Tunnermeier, T., Houben, G. and Himmelsbach, T. (2005). Hydrogeology of the Kabul Basin. Part I: Geology, aquifer characteristics, climate and hydrography. Federal Insitute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Germany. Uhl, V.W., and Q.M. Tahiri. (2003). Afghanistan, a Country Wide Overview of Groundwater Resources and Challenges. Lambertville, New Jersey: Uhl, Baron, Rana & Associates, Inc. UN (2004). Demographic Yearbook 2004. UN Statistics Division. Retrieved online from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2004.htm. UNDP (2006). Human Development Report 2006. United Nations Development Programme. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-230-50058-7 UNEP (2003). Afghanistan – Post Conflict Environmental Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Switzerland. UNEP (2006a). Global Environment Outlook Data Portal. Retrieved online from http://geodata.grid.unep.ch/. UNEP (2006b). South Asia Land Cover. UNEP Environment Knowledge Hub. Retrieved online from http://ekh.unep.org/?q=node/2219. UNEP.RRCAP (2001). India: State of Environment 2001. UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO (2006). World Water Development Report 2. World Water Assessment Programme. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. USGS (2006). USGS HYDRO1k Basins data set for Asia. Retrieved online from http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/gtopo30/hydro/asia.html. van Steenbergen, F. and Oliemans, W. (1997). Groundwater resource management in Pakistan. In Proceedings of the (first) Wageningen Water Workshop, 13-15 October 1997, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Vörösmarty, C., Leveque, C., and Revenga, C. (2005). Chapter 7: Fresh Water. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Volume 1: Conditions and Trends Working Group Report. Island Press. Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan (2001). “Annual Report 19992000” Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan (2005). Drainage Master Plan of Pakistan. Main Report (Volume II). Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan (2007). General Facts – Water Management. Retrieved online in July 2007 from http://www.wapda.gov.pk/htmls/water-index.html.
65
Wescoat, J, Halvorson, S., and Mustafa, D. (2000). Water management in the Indus basin of Pakistan: a half-century perspective. Water Resources Development, 16(3), 391-406. World Bank (2006). World Development Indicators 2006. World Bank. Retrieved in January 2007 from http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006/contents/cover.htm. World Commission of Dams (2000). River basin management: its role in major water infrastructure projects. WCD Thematic Review V.3. International Processes. World Resources Institute (WRI) (2003). Watersheds of the World-CD. IUCN, IWMI, Ramsar Convention Bureau and World Resources Institute. ISBN 1-56973-548-8 World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank (2005). World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor—Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington, DC: WRI Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), 2007. Hudiara Drain River Ravi. WWF Freshwater Programme. Retrieved online on 20 July 2007 from http://www.wwfpak.org/hudiara_drain.php.
66
