‘Abeyance’ of IWT
Discussing the “abeyance” of IWT by India in a unilateral action, the UN experts highlighted its significance for Pakistan.
They noted that rivers irrigate 18 million hectares of farmland in the country (about 80 percent of Pakistan’s arable land), particularly in the food bowl provinces of Punjab and Sindh, contributing 24 per cent of Pakistan’s gross domestic product.
“The rivers are thus vital in providing food security and livelihoods within Pakistan’s population of 240 million people. Limited water storage in Pakistan means that it relies on the unimpeded flow of river water.
“Any disruption of the flow of water under the Indus Waters Treaty (such as by filling large pondage pools and reservoirs, opening dam gates to flood downstream, or the mass release of sediment) could have serious impacts onistan, human rights in Pak including the right to work and livelihood, the right to an adequate standard of living (including the right to water and the right to food), the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the right to development,” they said.
The experts further stated that Pakistan was “already a water-stressed country and is one of the ten countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including water scarcity”.
They said they were “deeply concerned” that any disruption of the flow of water to Pakistan a a consequence of India holding the IWT in “abeyance” could “severely affect the human rights of millions of people […] who rely on the river for agriculture, industry, drinking water and sanitation and healthy ecosystems”.
They emphasised that the “obligation to respect rights requires states to refrain from directly or indirectly interfering in the enjoyment of the right, including where state conduct has foreseeable transboundary effects”
In this connection, they also cited the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which says: “States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right [to water] in other countries. International cooperation requires states parties to refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries.
“Any activities undertaken within the state party’s jurisdiction should not deprive another country of the ability to realise the right to water for persons in its jurisdiction”. States must not prevent the cross-border supply of water and water should never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure”.
The experts further said that the duty to respect the right to water required refraining from any activity that denied or limited equal access to adequate water, and maintaining access to existing water supplies.
“We note further that there is a strong presumption against retrogressive measures and that if any such measures are taken, the state must prove that they were introduced after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and that they are duly justified by reference to the totality of ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) rights in the context of the full use of the state party’s maximum available resources,” they added.
