Suchergebnisse

"This book examines the political economy that governs the development and management of international transboundary river basins"--

"This book examines the political economy that governs the development and management of international transboundary river basins"--

The paper examines the ways in which environmental threats are socially constructed, and the implications of such environmental securitisation. Specifically, the paper focuses on the issue of river development and water allocation between states of international transboundary river basins. Building on recent studies that attempt to refine securitisation theory of the Copenhagen School and applying hydropolitical power analysis, the paper takes a sociological understanding of the securitisation of shared waters. Using the case study of the Tanakpur Barrage project on the Mahakali River between Nepal and India in the Ganges River basin, it is shown how securitisation discourse framed the shared river as a threat that posed detrimental flooding to both territories. It is argued that the Indian government effectively utilised its technical and institutional expertise to frame the discourse. Hydropolitical power analysis helps explain how compliance to the project agreement-- a necessary measure to avert hydrological crisis, as argued by the Indian government-- was gained from the Nepali government. The implications of securitising shared rivers on water resources management and basin-wide governance are discussed.

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to examine the research advanced in the journal, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics that represents key insights into international agreements on water and their political, legal, economic and cross-disciplinary dimensions for water governance. The article analyses evidence and lessons learnt over the last twenty years to inform policy through a review of theoretical advances, innovations in principles and policy instruments, outcomes of problem-solving and knowledge gained regarding water agreements and associated institutions. Important international agreement principles of no significant harm and economic frames of water as a 'commons' advance equity and community of interest in relation to water. The studies on water, sanitation and hygiene point to the ways the role of the state can be advanced in achieving Sustainable Development Goals and in complex contexts of water scarcity and public private partnerships. Cross-disciplinary learnings substantiate the existence and utility of multiple water frames in legal arrangements and use of multiple policy instruments. Cross-disciplinary insights are significant in addressing equity, whether through the nascent development of water indicators or in advancing social learning. Water governance frameworks increasingly focus on adaptation by incorporating multiple stakeholders. These findings that advance equity and inclusivity are tempered by crucial lessons in our understanding of the very contested, power-laden nature of water governance that impact agency at multiple scales and policy coordination across sectors of water, food and energy.

The purpose of this article is to examine the research advanced in the journal, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics that represents key insights into international agreements on water and their political, legal, economic and cross-disciplinary dimensions for water governance. The article analyses evidence and lessons learnt over the last twenty years to inform policy through a review of theoretical advances, innovations in principles and policy instruments, outcomes of problem-solving and knowledge gained regarding water agreements and associated institutions. Important international agreement principles of no significant harm and economic frames of water as a 'commons' advance equity and community of interest in relation to water. The studies on water, sanitation and hygiene point to the ways the role of the state can be advanced in achieving Sustainable Development Goals and in complex contexts of water scarcity and public private partnerships. Cross-disciplinary learnings substantiate the existence and utility of multiple water frames in legal arrangements and use of multiple policy instruments. Cross-disciplinary insights are significant in addressing equity, whether through the nascent development of water indicators or in advancing social learning. Water governance frameworks increasingly focus on adaptation by incorporating multiple stakeholders. These findings that advance equity and inclusivity are tempered by crucial lessons in our understanding of the very contested, power-laden nature of water governance that impact agency at multiple scales and policy coordination across sectors of water, food and energy.

Water Conflicts applies cutting-edge thinking to identify pathways that can transform complex water conflicts. It challenges existing power-blind and politics-lite analysis that is very deeply-held and recurring in debates that suggest causal links between scarcity and violence-or peace. This book presents a much needed revision of transboundary water analysis, leading to a rethink on the way water is used and contested, with a focus on harm experienced both by the most vulnerable water users and the environment. Recognizing that conflicts are never static, Mark Zeitoun, Naho Mirumachi, and Jeroen Warner's "transformative analysis" provides multi-disciplinary tools and perspectives to understand and address the complexities involved. The approach is stress-tested through dozens of examples around the globe, and it incorporates collective evidence and knowledge of the London Water Research Group. The insights on water diplomacy will be most welcome by analysts, activists, diplomats, and all others tackling water conflicts. Seeking to motivate improvement of transboundary water arrangements towards further equity and sustainability as a practical agenda, the book is a fresh antidote to the detached role that researchers and policymakers often play.

In debates of climate action, low carbon development has been widely advocated as an opportunity arising from climate change. This paper problematizes low carbon development, arguing that there are undesirable, unintended or perverse effects that give rise to distinct and serious security concerns. The literature on climate security has addressed the effects of climate threats on conflict but there is a notable paucity of research analysing the security implications of responses to climate change in the form of low carbon development. The paper presents critical analysis of the ways low carbon development yields new security concerns as well as entrenching existing ones. Five dimensions of security are examined: spatially uneven effects of low carbon development; violent imaginaries of the global south and the production of 'ungoverned spaces'; non-violent yet harmful instances of conflict; marginalization and dispossession; depoliticized, techno-managerial effects of resilience. The paper shows that climate (in)security manifests in variegated ways between different populations and spatial scales. Consequently, how, when for whom low carbon development becomes a threat or opportunity is socially constructed and deeply political.

This paper seeks to broaden the analysis of transboundary water interaction, by examining and interpreting the influence of 'soft' power therein. The 'soft' power of persuasion is understood to be exercised through discursive and to a lesser extent ideational means, and is interpreted in terms of compliance related to distributive (conflictual) or integrative (consensual) ends (after Scott (1994)). The focus is on inter-state water conflicts in hegemonic political contexts, where, it is found, the 'first among equals' has a greater ability to exploit 'soft' power and to determine the outcome. 'Soft' power is also seen to influence the choices states make or avoid in their transboundary water interaction, which explains in part how treaties intending to manage conflict may in fact delay or perpetuate it. For example, 'soft' power can be used by the basin hegemon to frame inequitable forms of cooperation in a cooperative light, such that unfair and ultimately unsustainable transboundary arrangements are replicated by the international donor community. Non-hegemonic riparian states also employ their capacity of 'soft' power, though may find themselves with little choice other than to comply with the arrangement established by the basin hegemon. The findings stress the importance of analysts questioning claims of interaction promoted as 'cooperative', and of examining the 'soft' power plays that underlie all transboundary water arrangements. Exemplification is provided through transboundary river basins and aquifers around the globe. Adapted from the source document.