A Way Forward: Applying the Water Diplomacy Framework
About this Article
Article last edited 12 May 2014 by Amanda
Article originally added by Jchun02
What is an ASI Article? Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case by linking a case to an ASI article. These ASI articles are protected, so that each person who creates a section retains control of their own content. Please use the discussion page for commenting on this article. Learn More
This article is linked to The Syr Darya River Basin Upstream Downstream Disputes
The given value was not understood.
Involving all the relevant stakeholders
One of the most critical problems identified in this case study is the absence of relevant stakeholders. As the basin-wide decisions made by Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan affect the lives, livelihoods, and futures of their neighboring countries, energy and water service providers, farmers, and even individual households, they shouldn’t be left out of the negotiation process. In the near future, as a part of the IFAS or EC IFAS, the riparian countries should conduct a comprehensive study on the entities that are causing the problems in the basin and those who are most severely impacted by the ecological problems in the basin. Identifying the stakeholders and taking their concerns into account is the most urgent need. Due to the innate legacies of the Soviet Union, the process seems very difficult for the republics. Without the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, the riparian countries will not be able to continue the process of synchronized regional action.
Joint-Fact Finding
Until now, it is quite clear that joint-fact finding has not been done. Each of the riparian countries put forth their argument based on their own data. The research bodies in the current institutional structure that are responsible for data collection and analysis are not transparent and therefore are not doing its intended function. In order for joint-fact finding to be possible, the countries should reform the current institutional structure, particularly the BWOs. The BWO needs new delegations and the oversight of the BWO should be done in one of two ways. One is to have a third party, such as the World Bank oversee the BWO. The second possibility is to create an entirely independent BWO, composed of experts, scientists, and engineers in addition to government representatives. The independent structure of the BWO will enable joint-fact finding.
Non Zero-Sum Approach
As demonstrated above, the upstream countries and downstream countries have contradicting interests, and therefore are playing the game of who gets more. The countries failed to create a shared benefit or mutual benefits in the SDR Basin. In order to move a step closer to creating a non-zero sum game, the countries need to think about what was done well during the Soviet system and improve that system to better suit the current geopolitical dynamics. The Soviets made both sides happy by providing goods and services when they are needed. Some ideas have been raised to continue the barter trade system by simply exchanging water with other sources of energy. This has become difficult because of distrust and continuous finger pointing by the governments. One possible solution to promote a non zero-sum game approach is to create a regional political institution that sets a base price for water services to be paid by the downstream countries. [1] Once the prices are set, electricity and other energy sources can be traded at market price, as opposed to being done at an artificial price (as a compensation for water). [1] The agreement should be made in several phases, so that it can be modified according to fluctuations in price, demand, or supply. Supplementing this agreement, the countries need to establish a clear enforcement mechanism under the supervision of the international donor group. The role of the international donor group is to make the enforcement mechanism as transparent and clear as possible.
Value Creation
One of the unique and important principles in the water diplomacy framework is creating additional values from mutual cooperation. In addition to minimizing the tensions between upstream and downstream interests, value creation can create gains through technology and innovation. The current state of the SDR Basin and the Aral Sea is devastating; it is imperative that the countries find a regional solution to offset the negative consequences. Some of the projects in the ASBP-3 incorporate rehabilitation of infrastructure in the riparian countries to increase water efficiency. This particularly emphasized in the irrigation infrastructure. By replacing the current infrastructure, studies have shown that 60% of the water can be saved. International donors are also very interested in investing into such projects which can be in the long term and applied to other parts of the world with similar conditions. For example, Alternate Dry Furrow (ADF) irrigation would increase water productivity by 57%. [1] Drip irrigation, although incurring high initial investments, is one of the most water efficient and economical techniques that can be used. [1]
