What's new

Pakistan to challenge UN decision in world court

Gautam

BANNED
Aug 19, 2011
2,197
-21
3,328
Country
India
Location
India
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has
decided to challenge in the
international court of arbitration
a decision of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) to grant carbon credits
to India on a controversial
hydropower project without
mandatory clearance of its trans-
boundary environmental impact
assessment.
Simultaneously, the water and power
ministry has sought the opinion from
the establishment division if Pakistan’s
former commissioner for Indus Waters
(PCIW) could be proceeded against
after his retirement for not vigorously
pursuing cases to stop India from
construction of the controversial
project and getting carbon credits from
the UN forum, a senior official told
Dawn on Sunday.
Earlier, the law ministry had informed
the establishment division and the
water and power ministry that a
former retired government official
could only be proceeded against if his
actions were found to be of criminal
nature. The water and power ministry
has now asked the establishment
division to determine the nature of the
case so that proceedings could be
initiated if these were of criminal
nature.
The government has stopped the
payment of retirement benefits to
Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, the former
PCIW, pending an inquiry. An official
said the pension and retirement
benefits were now being released to
the former official who had served as
the PCIW for 18 years.
Officials said an enquiry conducted by
Mohammad Imtiaz Tajwar, secretary
of Wapda, as inquiry officer appointed
by the ministry of water and power,
confirmed a Dawn report of July 2010
that India had secured carbon credits
for the controversial 45-MW Nimoo-
Bazgo hydropower project from the
UN agency without mandatory
clearance from Pakistan. It was,
however, strange how India could
secure carbon credits when Pakistan
had not seen, let alone clear, the
cross-boundary environmental impact
assessment report.
Therefore, Pakistan has now decided
to challenge the UNFCC’s decision in
the international court of arbitration
because legal requirements were
allegedly not fulfilled by the UN
agency. These officials said either the
Indian government misled the UN
agency through fake and fictitious
documents that might have shown
Pakistan’s consent to the project
because there was no such record
available in Pakistan.
India applied for carbon credits for the
project which was a “long-term
process and must have spread over
4-5 years”, the inquiry officer wrote.
“It is still not established how India
was able to get carbon credit benefits
for the Nimoo-Bazgo project which is
located on trans-boundary water and
for which ratification of the parties
concerned should have been procured
before hand by it under clause 37(b) of
UNFCC. Although it is too difficult to
get carbon credits on a trans-boundary
project such as Nimoo-Bazgo, due to
lack of contest by PCIW, India was
able to get carbon credits on this
project,” he said.
The inquiry report available with Dawn
suggests the former PCIW insisted
that the matter relating to the carbon
credits or environmental impact “was
not covered under the Indus Waters
Treaty 1960, therefore, the issue can
be taken up with India by the ministry
of environment”.
He is reported to have told the enquiry
officer that he had been vigorously
pursuing with his Indian counterpart
Pakistan’s technical and engineering
related objections and reporting its
feedback to the government of
Pakistan. The issue was discussed
several times at various forums of the
government without a major decision
being taken to take the matter to the
international court of arbitration.
The inquiry officer held that
information about the project was
received in Pakistan in 2002 and
Pakistan’s PCIW had repeatedly
sought information from his Indian
counterpart and its inclusion in the
agenda items, but it took several
years till 2009 when the project was
finally taken up by the Permanent
Indus Commission (PIC) because India
kept on dodging Islamabad through
stereotype responses and delaying
tactics. “These letters indicate that
PCIW was in the knowledge of the
issue and could have approached
authorities to approach the court of
arbitration/neutral expert at that
stage, however, that initiative was not
availed and opportunity was missed
(sic).”
In December 2010, the ministry of
foreign affairs said there were enough
credible ground to refer the project to
a neutral expert or court of arbitration,
but it was obvious that the project
was at the stage of fait-accompli, not
due to the India’s design but careless
attitude from Pakistan side and it was
difficult to get a favourable outcome
from the arbitration. It remained,
however, unclear why ministries of
law, foreign affairs and other related
institutions failed to know about the
Indian success at the UNFCC during
4-5 years of carbon credit approval
process.
The inquiry officer, while suggesting
strengthening of the PCIW office,
concluded that it was astonishing that
“disputes/differences on design/carbon
credit benefits were handled in a
casual manner” when the media and
intelligence reports were carrying
sufficient information to raise objection
with India.
Attempts to contact Mr Jamaat Ali
Shah, the former PCIW, could not
materialise as informed sources said
he had already travelled abroad to
spend time with his family in Canada.
Officials said the issue was of an
institutional lapse in raising objections
over India’s aggression on the
country’s water rights and securing
international carbon credits on
hydropower projects disputed by
Pakistan and could not be shelved
after completion of an inquiry against
an individual.
They said the ministry of water and
power had said it was not responsible
for the lapse because it was the job of
the Pakistan Environmental Protection
Agency to conduct an environmental
impact assessment. The ministry said
it had no role in ratification of trans-
boundary impact assessments, whose
documents had not been shared with
it.
On the other hand, the environment
ministry washed its hand of the
matter, too. It said that since the
Indian projects were of a strategic
nature, it could not have intervened
unless its attention had been drawn to
the issue and professional advice
sought.
The project was approved by the
UNFCCC in August 2008 and India had
applied for it in March 2006.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

Pakistan to challenge UN decision in world court | Business | DAWN.COM
 
There are no holy cows in international politics, Pakistan has the right to challenge anything and every thing it deems challengable!
 
I don't even care about the merits of the case but the aggrieved (even though it may seem silly to us) party has all the right to go to the court!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom