Difference between revisions of "ASI:Lessons Learned in Lesotho HIghlands Water Project"
From AquaPedia Case Study Database
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
Mpritchard (Talk | contribs) (moved from old format to new format) |
Mpritchard (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Reflection Type=Analysis, Synthesis | |Reflection Type=Analysis, Synthesis | ||
|Reflection Text= | |Reflection Text= | ||
| − | == Lessons Learned == | + | === Lessons Learned == |
| + | *Even with power disparity, there is possibility for agreement over water resources through economic benefits. | ||
| − | + | :South Africa is a much more powerful nation than Lesotho, but Lesotho has abundant water resources, which, through the Highlands Project, will benefit both nations economically and through the provision of water to South Africa. It is possible even when there is such a wide gap between nations in terms of power, to collaborate for the mutual gain of both countries. <ref name="tfdd"> Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/ </ref> | |
| − | + | *It is more economically sound to begin impact studies before nations start to construct projects. | |
| − | + | :It was shown through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project that if impact studies are started after the initiation of a major hydro-project, the costs for the project go up as necessary components for the project may not have been considered pre-study. For the Phase II of the LHWP, studies are being conducted to judge the feasibility of a project that was designed more than 15 years to ago to investigate in a more comprehensive manner the possible impacts of the project. <ref name="tfdd" /> | |
| − | + | *Renegotiation clauses in an agreement can prevent issues from arising for the nations involved. | |
| − | + | :The LHWP treaty also exemplifies the importance of providing for renegotiation of project terms. In the absence of such a provision, the additional phases of the project might have been implemented without adequate consideration of their feasibility <ref name="tfdd" /> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | The LHWP treaty also exemplifies the importance of providing for renegotiation of project terms. In the absence of such a provision, the additional phases of the project might have been implemented without adequate consideration of their feasibility <ref name="tfdd" /> | + | |
== Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process == | == Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process == | ||
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project provides lessons in the importance of an integrated approach to negotiating the allocation of a "basket" of resources. South Africa receives cost-effective water for its continued growth, while Lesotho receives revenue and hydropower for its own development. <ref name="tfdd" /> | The Lesotho Highlands Water Project provides lessons in the importance of an integrated approach to negotiating the allocation of a "basket" of resources. South Africa receives cost-effective water for its continued growth, while Lesotho receives revenue and hydropower for its own development. <ref name="tfdd" /> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Case Study=The Lesotho Highlands Water Project | |Case Study=The Lesotho Highlands Water Project | ||
|User=Mpritchard | |User=Mpritchard | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:25, 9 November 2012
About this Article
Article Type(s): Analysis, Synthesis
Contributor Perspective(s): Academic
Article last edited 09 Nov 2012 by Mpritchard
Article originally added by Mpritchard
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 Lesotho Highlands Water Project
= Lessons Learned
- Even with power disparity, there is possibility for agreement over water resources through economic benefits.
- South Africa is a much more powerful nation than Lesotho, but Lesotho has abundant water resources, which, through the Highlands Project, will benefit both nations economically and through the provision of water to South Africa. It is possible even when there is such a wide gap between nations in terms of power, to collaborate for the mutual gain of both countries. [1]
- It is more economically sound to begin impact studies before nations start to construct projects.
- It was shown through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project that if impact studies are started after the initiation of a major hydro-project, the costs for the project go up as necessary components for the project may not have been considered pre-study. For the Phase II of the LHWP, studies are being conducted to judge the feasibility of a project that was designed more than 15 years to ago to investigate in a more comprehensive manner the possible impacts of the project. [1]
- Renegotiation clauses in an agreement can prevent issues from arising for the nations involved.
- The LHWP treaty also exemplifies the importance of providing for renegotiation of project terms. In the absence of such a provision, the additional phases of the project might have been implemented without adequate consideration of their feasibility [1]
Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project provides lessons in the importance of an integrated approach to negotiating the allocation of a "basket" of resources. South Africa receives cost-effective water for its continued growth, while Lesotho receives revenue and hydropower for its own development. [1]
- ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/
