ISLAMABAD, Jan 29: The World Bank appointed neutral expert arbitrating the lingering India-Pakistan dispute over the Baglihar hydroelectric project in occupied Kashmir will give his final verdict on February 12 in Switzerland.

The verdict of the Swiss neutral expert, Raymond Latiffe, will be conveyed to heads of diplomatic missions of the two countries in either Geneva or Berne, it is learnt.

“The verdict will be relayed on February 12 to either our permanent representative in Geneva or our ambassador in Berne from where it will be electronically transmitted to the Foreign Office,” a senior Foreign Ministry official told Dawn.

The neutral expert would invite the diplomats of the two countries to his office and hand them each a written copy of his final verdict, the official said. The verdict would be binding on both the parties.

The Baglihar verdict acquires special significance in India-Pakistan context given that it would be the first bilateral dispute to be settled through third party mediation in a transparent process with consensus of both parties.

So far the two countries have failed to resolve any outstanding dispute bilaterally despite numerous rounds of talks over the past few decades. Also, the ruling on Baglihar would determine the course of action Pakistan would take on another water dispute that it has with India over its plan of constructing 330mw Kishanganga dam on the Jhelum river in Kashmir.

With exactly two weeks left before the much-awaited verdict on Baglihar is issued, there are conflicting signals on which way it is likely to go. While there is no official word yet, there are some media reports that suggest a favourable outcome for India and others that claim the verdict would uphold Pakistan’s contention.

Pakistan’s position is that the design of the Baglihar dam is in breach of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. It maintains that the 450mw dam project on the Chenab river in the disputed Jammu and Kashmir would allow India far more water storage than agreed under the bilateral water-sharing treaty.

Pakistan’s main concern is that the gated structure in the design would provide India the capability to manipulate flow of water to Pakistan’s disadvantage. However, India maintains that the design is in accordance with the stipulated provisions of the treaty. The Baglihar dam project is seen in India as crucial for meeting the electricity needs of power-starved Jammu and Kashmir.

A major worry in official circles here is that if the verdict supports the Indian contention, it would amount to a carte blanche for India to build more dams. It is feared that this could potentially be a source of more tension between the two neighbouring countries. The government is mindful of other creeping violations by India on rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty, specifically river Jhelum and New Delhi’s plan to build several other dams.

The verdict was scheduled to be issued in December 2006 but the expert deferred it to January 2007 after his final meeting with Pakistani and Indian delegations in Washington in November. He sought more time to review the matter in the wake of certain new elements brought to his notice by Pakistani experts.

The neutral expert had shared his preliminary assessment with the two parties in Paris in October and had instructed them to submit their ‘written comments’ on it before the final round of a meeting in Washington on November 7, 2006. Written submissions by the two parties were later discussed at a three-day meeting in Washington. Both the delegations also made detailed presentations to support their respective positions.

Informed sources said the expert had observed in an initial tentative determination that Pakistan’s contention was valid when seen strictly in the context of the treaty but the modern-day technology provided ways of addressing Pakistani concerns regarding the project.

Pakistan first raised objection to the Baglihar project design in 1992 but India kept dragging its feet. Pakistan finally decided to seek the third party intervention after wavering for several years and when negotiations through all bilateral channels failed to resolve the dispute.

Although the government had first declared its intention to refer the case to the World Bank in June 2003, Pakistan formally approached the bank for appointment of a neutral expert on January 18, 2005. The option was strictly in accordance with article 9(2) (a) of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty brokered by the bank. The article provides for settling disputes through a neutral expert or arbitration if they cannot be resolved between the two Indus waters commissioners.

The World Bank appointed a neutral expert in May 2005 and the first hearing in arbitral proceedings was convened in Paris in June 2005. The Washington meeting in November 2006 was the fifth and the last round of hearings.

Last month Pakistan said it expected the neutral expert to give his verdict on the Baglihar dam dispute strictly in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty. Noting that the neutral expert had been appointed by the World Bank under the provisions of the treaty to which the bank was a guarantor, Pakistan Foreign Office Spokesperson Tasnim Aslam underscored: “Therefore he has to give his determination and his judgment within the context of the Indus Waters Treaty because his mandate flows from provisions of that treaty and we expect him to abide by the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty.”

The treaty has been a major confidence-building measure between Pakistan and India that has stood the test of turbulent times. It has held good for over 46 years, survived two wars and extended periods of conflict and tension between the South Asian rivals.