Commentaries

Transboundary Rivers in Central Asia: Geography, Geopolitics and Hydro Diplomacy

AVILASH ROUL
August 20, 2013

The strategically significant Central Asian region, which feeds by two historically important river systems- Amu Darya and Syr Darya with credible hydrocarbon and oil resources, quite often attracts theories of 'resource conflict', 'water war' and 'great game'. However, cooperative management of strategic rivers to cater to the needs of riparian countries remains an unresolved issue.  Presently, the UN is organising a two-day (August 20-21) High-Level International Conference on Water Cooperation (HLICW) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Will the UN-sponsored Conference encourage Central Asian countries to accelerate resolving the elusive water cooperation along the Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers?

With the backdrop of the US-led NATO force withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, the international focus has squarely been placed on potential water problems in the region. On July 25, the US Congressional House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats held a hearing on the 'emerging threat of resource wars' in Central Asia. Interestingly, US government officials did not testify.  On July 15, the Security Council issued a statement on the UN's role in preventive diplomacy to defuse regional and bilateral disputes in Central Asia. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) Council adopted its commitment to water diplomacy for Central Asia at its Foreign Affairs Council meeting on July 22. 

As 2013 was declared by the UN as the 'International Year of Water Cooperation’, Tajikistan, an upper riparian country, is hosting the Conference. Tajikistan has been leading from the front at the UN by putting transboundary water issues into the UN's priority agenda, as in 2003 declared the International Year of Water, Decade of Water for Life (2005-2015) and 2013 as water cooperation years. While making every effort at the UN to highlight the grave water situation, Tajikistan's effort to forge regional cooperation has been negligible.  

Perception and dependency on rivers in the region varies among riparian countries. While Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, upper riparian countries (Water Towers), seek harnessing hydropower to meet domestic energy demands for all seasons, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, as lower riparian countries, squarely depend on irrigation.  The geographical positioning of countries is adding more difficulties to forging a common but accepted solution to transboundary water disputes. By zeroing in, the fertile Fergana valley, its massive irrigation facilities, and the legacy of Stalin's whimsical demarcation of borders with overlapping ethnicities is the bone of contention, spilling and fuelling regional water complexities.

Functioning under coercive centralised Moscow to distribute energy and irrigation demand, suddenly, in 1991, the intra rivers of Central Asia became international rivers. Compelled with geographical limitations and uncertainties of unhindered energy production and water flow for irrigation as well as a vivid example of drying the Aral Sea, countries signed an agreement on 'cooperation in joint management, use and protection of transboundary water resources' in line with 'Panchsheel'. Consequently, the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC) was established in 1992 as a regional structure to address the complexity of water and energy on transboundary rivers. Immediate post-Soviet compulsions and voluntarism quickly vanished among countries trying to uphold the ICWC in the face of growing domestic demand, fluctuating and volatile barter systems for energy needs, and unilateral ambitions for the right to development. Even after its two decades of existence, ICWC is not a legally enforceable institution.

Meanwhile, international treaties, frameworks and declarations on transboundary water have negligible impact on Central Asian countries due to their unique regional, geographical and economic complexities. The less hyped and much talked about 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses is almost dysfunctional due to the adamant nature of upper riparian countries. Central Asian countries have predictable reservations about their provisions, which resulted in only the signing of Uzbekistan's (2007) date.

To substitute this General Assembly adopted least legally binding 1997 Convention, in November 2012, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 'Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lake (1992)' has made open to all UN member countries to sign and ratify for lessening the friction on shared river water. Similarly, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are parties to the 1992 Convention as the lower riparian countries. However, the UNECE, as a regional institution, has the potential to intervene in resolving the regional water and energy complexities.

An ineffective regional conflict resolution mechanism has allowed countries to enter bilateral agreements to protect their interests. In 2000, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan agreed on the consumptive use of the Chu River and Talas River. In July, villagers of Kok-Say in Kyrgyzstan’s Talas Region blocked water flow to Kazakhstan for ten days by affecting irrigation of 4000 hectares of adjacent land in Kazakhstan.  With the timely intervention of both countries' leadership, the situation was diffused on July 17, 2013. Interestingly, in June 2013, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, both lower riparian countries, signed a strategic agreement in Tashkent emphasising the development of a 'fair system of water management', including constructing hydropower structures. This results from growing Russian renewed support for constructing hydropower in the upper Naryn River (a major tributary of the Syr Darya River) in Kyrgyzstan. Since 2007, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have jointly managed the transboundary Isfara and Khodzha-Bakirgan Rivers through inter-ministerial working groups.

Despite recently growing truncated concepts of a water-energy-food nexus focusing on and maximising the exploitation of transboundary rivers, Central Asian rivers are the only such examples to rationalise these nexus. Prevailing views against large dams across the Southern Hemisphere have not deterred Central Asian leaders and citizens from accepting the construction of hydropower to meet the dire need for energy. Barring Uzbekistan's opposition to large dams, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have pursued ambitious hydroelectricity production.

International financial institutions such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, with a battery of bilateral agencies like USAID, GTZ, SDC, Chinese EXIM Bank and countries like China, Russia and India, have been engaged in extending their support in resolving water and energy problems. The rehabilitation of existing hydropower plants and their feasibility impact studies taken by the World Bank on Rogun Hydropower (Tajikistan) and ADB on Toktogul Hydropower (Kyrgyzstan) would not only help Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to increase their energy production but remove the apprehensions of Uzbekistan on downstream impact. 

The problem lies in the quantum of water flow in specific seasons throughout the river systems from the Tian Shan and the Pamir Mountains to the Aral Sea, intending to maximise hydropower production and protect irrigation in downstream countries. In addition, with the fast melting of glaciers from Water Towers and increasing water disasters, Central Asian countries need to rethink their hydro politics and hydro diplomacy.

From harnessing and facilitating other renewable energy sources, diversifying water-intensive cropping systems, rehabilitating existing hydropower plants, and minimising inherent corruption, they must be considered in the atmosphere of trust building and uninterrupted information sharing across the region. Other difficult choices, such as 'balancing reservoir', 'dynamic storage', or downstream 'cascading power system', must be discussed among riparian countries to resolve irrigation demand and energy production effectively.  With its financial clout and cutting-edge technological advantage, the UNCEC must be considered a Secretariat to negotiate, monitor, implement and enforce any regional transboundary water and energy framework. 

Author Note
Avilash Roul (Ph. D.), Senior Fellow, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, New Delhi