The Costs of Benefit Sharing: Historical and Institutional Analysis of Shared Water Development in the Ferghana Valley, the Syr Darya Basin

Abstract

Abstract:Ongoing discussions on water-energy-food nexus generally lack a historical perspective and more rigorous institutional analysis. Scrutinizing a relatively mature benefit sharing approach in the context of transboundary water management, the study shows how such analysis can be implemented to facilitate understanding in an environment of high institutional and resource complexity. Similar to system perspective within nexus, benefit sharing is viewed as a positive sum approach capable of facilitating cooperation among riparian parties by shifting the focus from the quantities of water to benefits derivable from its use and allocation. While shared benefits from use and allocation are logical corollary of the most fundamental principles of international water law, there are still many controversies as to the conditions under which benefit sharing could serve best as an approach. Recently, the approach has been receiving wider attention in the literature and is increasingly applied in various basins to enhance negotiations. However, relatively little attention has been paid to the costs associated with benefit sharing, particularly in the long run. The study provides a number of concerns that have been likely overlooked in the literature and examines the approach in the case of the Ferghana Valley shared by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan utilizing data for the period from 1917 to 2013. Institutional analysis traces back the origins of property rights of the transboundary infrastructure, shows cooperative activities and fierce negotiations on various governance levels. The research discusses OPEN ACCESSWater 2015, 7 2729 implications of the findings for the nexus debate and unveils at least four types of costs associated with benefit sharing: (1) Costs related to equity of sharing (horizontal and vertical); (2) Costs to the environment; (3) Transaction costs and risks of losing water control; and (4) Costs as a result of likely misuse of issue linkages.

Reframing for Sustainability: Exploring Transformative Power of Benefit Sharing

“…this respect, availability and transparency of reliable data across the board will be crucial to prevent destructive opportunistic behavior [52,118]. We believe it is important to emphasize further this lesson related to the time perspective, that transformation through benefit sharing is likely to lead to losses first, before resulting in a positive sum (Figure 2).…”

“…However, as the complexity of socio-ecological system increases and we move toward more complex mechanisms of benefit sharing, transaction costs will be higher, as number of actors and size of the resource system will require greater awareness, learning, and coordination [39]. In this respect, availability and transparency of reliable data across the board will be crucial to prevent destructive opportunistic behavior [52,118].…”

“…The main criticism of the benefit sharing approach has been that although it might augment the total benefits through cooperation, it does not solve the distributional dilemma, when the increased benefits will have to be shared (e.g., [51][52][53]). However, Wolf [54], for example, argues that historical and existing cooperative experience helps to build confidence in achieving cooperation in new areas.…”

“…Global debate of benefit sharing within the transboundary water cooperation and conflict discourse concentrates on whether benefit sharing can help avoid the conflict between the two principles. A number of studies [51][52][53]69] have emphasized that when focus is on benefits some cost categories tend to be overlooked. Such costs include costs to the environment, transaction costs, costs related to equitable sharing, and political costs when a riparian party with a more favorable position might take advantage of the weaker one.…”

Essentials of Endorheic Basins and Lakes: A Review in the Context of Current and Future Water Resource Management and Mitigation Activities in Central Asia

“…In addition, unlike Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan faces no population pressure in the rural regions. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is creating a water storage system within its territory to reduce its dependency on the reservoir operations located upstream in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan [107,108]. Uzbekistan has followed the same strategy but it is much more vulnerable to potential water shortages than Kazakhstan.…”