A Little Less Conversation? Track II Dialogue and Transboundary Water Governance

Abstract

Foreign aid donors are increasingly investing in the good governance of freshwater resources in developing countries. One method used by many such programs is Track II Dialogue-informal discussions between government and non-government stakeholders facilitated by a neutral third party.There are many merits to participatory and discursive governance; however, there are also some limitations. This article considers the advantages and disadvantages of Track II Dialogue in transboundary water governance. It examines the relationship between discursive governance and water justice and analyses the role of the neutral third party facilitator. It also considers to what extent trust and cooperation must be present between riparians for deliberative processes to succeed.These observations are based on an analysis of foreign-led initiatives in the GangesBrahmaputra-Meghna basin. Foremost among these is the World Bank-funded South Asia Water Initiative, which aims to improve cooperation between riparian states by facilitating Track II Dialogue.

Vízügyi konfliktusok és együttműködések a nemzetközi kapcsolatokban : Hidropolitika és vízdiplomácia II.

“…o.). A valódi multi-stakeholder érdekérvényesítési folyamatokhoz tehát a következőkre van szükség: az állami szereplők politikai szándékára, nyitottságra, transzparenciára és demokratikus viszonyokra (Hanasz, 2017;Barua, 2018).…”

Water Governance Performance Assessment of Riparian Communities: A Case Study of the Volta River Basin

“…Scholars and international organizations have attempted to assess the level of good governance by employing a set of criteria. Pre-requisite conditions of good governance for some scholars included inclusiveness, consensus-making arrangement, accountability, participation, transparency, responsiveness, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and lawfulness [8], [14]. The UNDP (1997) proposed that good governance should be assessed by 10 criteria: public participation, consensus orientation, strategic vision, responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability, transparency, equity, and rule of law [20].…”

“…Kaufmann et al [13] reported strong causal relationships between better governance and better development outcomes. Hanasz [14] maintained that good water governance encourages stakeholder participation in decision-making and engenders accountability. Rogers and Hall [8] argued that effective or good water governance can be achieved when all relevant sectors actively participate in decision-making.…”