Transboundary Water Management and the Climate Change Debate

Earle, Anton

doi:10.4324/9780203098929

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If successful, these institutions can possibly shift the focus from disconnected and short-term interactions of the riparian countries into a continuous relationship that has scope for future routine gains.' (Earle et al 2015) When foreign aid donors and international organisations are accepted as neutral third parties, they may be able to facilitate dialogue between in-basin actors who may otherwise be distrustful of each other. As PetersenPerlman and Wolf (2015) point out, '[t]hough it is not possible for third parties to create a conducive, political environment alone, they can provide incentives both directly and indirectly to cooperate through playing a brokerage role: 1.…”

Section: Jones Shows Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…'Considering the enormity of the climate change challenges in South Asia', claim Earle et al, 'there is at present no paucity of collaborative efforts to explore effective response strategies' (Earle et al 2015). Asthana and Shukla (2014) show that a range of water governance strategies and policies have been suggested by various epistemic communities, NGOs, civil society groups and, of course, international actors like the World Bank.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ADD was intended to be a neutral forum for open conversations among participants, and statements are non-attributable, and there is no requirement for a consensus outcome (South Asia Water Initiative 2015a). Earle et al (2015) describe the ADD as 'the only 301 Hanasz: Track II Dialogue multilateral framework involving all the riparian countries of the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin that is engaged in an informal and consultative process', and they point out that it aims to build trust between riparians primarily through information exchange and the co-management of development projects. This is an important undertaking because transboundary water governance is a politically sensitive topic in South Asia, yet one that is not necessarily a top political priority for all riparians.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Hanasz

2017

Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Jones Shows Thatmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Hanasz

2017

Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus states, as represented by politicians, are not the only actors possessing agency; they are but part of a range of actors that play a role in water governance frameworks (Earle et al 2010 ). By better understanding the interests of these non-state actors, it may be possible to better understand some of the choices articulated by states at the international level (Earle and Bazilli 2013 ;Earle et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Fig 81mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inclusive Transboundary Water Governance

Earle

Neal

2016

Freshwater Governance for the 21st Century

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transboundary watercourses, including rivers, lakes and aquifers (confi ned and unconfi ned), shared between two or more countries, are home to over 70 % of the world's population and supply water for roughly 60 % of global food production. It is no surprise that the management of these watercourses has been entrusted to national states, which have the power to take sovereign decisions over their management, use and conservation. State sovereignty is mitigated through the existence of a global institutional framework comprised of customary international water law (the norms dictating how states behave), global and regional conventions, basin-level agreements and basin management organisations. The good news is that there is a large body of joint institutions between countries with transboundary watercourses, the UN estimating that around 3600 exist. This in part explains the relative lack of military interstate confl icts. Less good news is that despite the existence of international-and basin-level agreements and basin organisations, the benefi ts to be expected from international cooperation around transboundary watercourses have in most cases not materialised. Acute, persistent and seemingly intractable problems persist, with ecosystem degradation not being reversed, joint investments in water infrastructure not materialising and joint management organisations failing to attract signifi cant long-term support from the respective basin states. Despite at least two decades of concerted support by the international development community, the impacts of enhanced interstate cooperation are noticeable through their absence. This chapter investigates why this may be so and introduces a starting point which moves beyond the state-centric approach to transboundary water management. In doing so it does not challenge the sovereign right of states to manage their watercourses; instead it shows how a range of non-state actors do in fact infl uence state practice through a variety of mechanisms. As these mechanisms are frequently covert, it becomes diffi cult to assess the integrity of the relationships between actors, in turn making public engagement and participation diffi cult. Needed is a governance paradigm which opens the decision-making arena to non-state actors all in support of the national governments and their respective mandates. This chapter ends with an indication of what such a governance arrangement

show abstract

“…The impact is evident in over‐abstraction, pollution (Ref , p. 19), fragmentation, and ecosystem collapse . The effects are expected to change along with shifts in the strains, with a rapid rise in ‘thirsty’ middle‐class lifestyles globally, altered physical water scarcity due to changes in climate, and greater social water scarcity with inequitable distribution of the clean water that remains…”

Section: Challenges Of Transboundary River Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and future challenges facing transboundary river basin management

Zeitoun

Goulden

Tickner

2013

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review employs academic and policy literature to gage the relative importance and concerns associated with the main challenges facing the management of transboundary river basins: increasing pressures; management and policy that has not kept pace with a broadened set of actors; the influence of climate change; and the politics of reconciling political borders and basin boundaries. The persistence of the supply-side management philosophy within current political economies is also reviewed, along with infrastructure and institutional responses to the challenges (e.g., IWRM, dams, treaties). An analytical frame developed from the review is applied to three basins where there has been successful, considerable, or no effort at transboundary basin management: the Rhine, the Nile, and the Euphrates. International politics and national self-interest are found to be the key challenge facing international basins, though each of the challenges is interconnected and should be considered in combination. If transboundary basin management is to confront the challenges successfully, it should develop along two paths: away from a supply-side management paradigm toward adaptive management, and away from sovereignty and unilateralism to multilateralism. While infrastructure built under a paradigm of reducing uncertainty is found to reduce the adaptation options set, adaptive management that can make the most of the increasingly diverse governance and confront the supply-management philosophy is seen as best-suited to meet future challenges. The disabling effect of sovereignty and international politics may best be addressed by confronting resistance of the promotion of 'shared sovereignty' and fair water-sharing. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Transboundary Water Management and the Climate Change Debate

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Inclusive Transboundary Water Governance

Current and future challenges facing transboundary river basin management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About