This special section is a supplement to an earlier special issue, ‘Transboundary River Cooperation: Actors, Strategies and Impact’ (Water International 42:2, February 2017). It continues the theme of examining how state and non-state actors cooperate in managing shared river resources, the problem with some of these arrangements, and the various solutions that riparian stakeholders undertake to plug the shortcomings. The addition of these articles to the earlier special issue is aimed at covering some of the most significant transboundary rivers in Asia that were not covered or only partially covered there: the Mekong, Indus, Brahmaputra and Heilongjiang (or Amur). These articles are valuable not only in providing original empirical data to enhance our knowledge of each of the river basins, but also for theoretical debates surrounding riparian cooperation and river basin management.
The article by Sebastian Biba, on benefit-sharing in the Mekong River basin, provides useful insights into how the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation (LMC) is progressing. Officially launched by China in 2016, the LMC is the only Mekong multilateral initiative, apart from the Greater Mekong Subregion, that includes all six riparians of the Mekong. The LMC was created as an alternative China-led governance institution to the other existing Mekong institutions and as a response to the United States’ Lower Mekong Initiative, which excludes China. It is aimed at creating synergies with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Biba compares China’s policies towards the Mekong before and after the creation of the LMC, using a benefit-sharing framework. The LMC signals a new Chinese approach that shows greater willingness to embrace water resources management, but it has significant deficiencies, at least as it now stands. Critically, China has continued to emphasize the economic benefits to be derived from the river and beyond while neglecting ecological benefits that would ensure sustainability. Still, Biba sees it as positive that China has agreed to put the topic of water resource management on the table. Although real progress has yet to be made, experts in China are increasingly making themselves heard on the need to manage water resources sustainably.
Yumiko Yasuda et al. continue with the idea of benefit-sharing but from the perspective of multitrack water diplomacy with respect to the Brahmaputra River. The authors advocate an all-inclusive approach, encompassing multiple actors, using both formal and informal (customary) institutions of cooperation. They propose the idea of a Zone of Possible Effective Cooperation, which combines future action situations that facilitate mutual gains through cooperation. This is a political economy approach that looks at how multiple layers of cooperation through trade routes via waterways, basin development, hydroelectricity generation, agricultural land, and aquatic resources could lead to benefit-sharing among different stakeholders.
Neda Zawahri and David Michel’s article provides a comparative perspective on the Indus Water Treaty (IWT). The IWT is significant because it survived wars between India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, it is subject to many criticisms. For instance, it has been criticized for being unable to deal with increasing demand, climate change, water quality issues, mismanagement of water supply, and fragmented governance. The main charge is that the IWT in its current form is unable to deal with the mounting challenges that could lead to future violent water conflicts between India and Pakistan. By comparing the IWT with other river treaties, Zawahri and Michel find that while many of the criticisms of the IWT are legitimate, it is not significantly different from other treaties that govern river basins in the Middle East or other parts of Asia. Instead of revising or revisiting the IWT, India and Pakistan could consider using memoranda of understanding or other accords outside the IWT to deal with climate change and water quality issues. This would avoid reopening questions of rights and allocations in the IWT, which could drag negotiations into a quagmire.
Wan Wang and Xing Li’s article examines the extent of cooperation and conflict in the management of the Heilongjiang (Amur) River between China and Russia. Historically and at present, Wang and Li find that cooperation between the two countries on the river tends to follow the broad contours of relations between them; there is more cooperation when overall relations between the two are good. Using the Basins at Risk scale, the authors find that between 1951 and 2016 there are more cooperative incidents than conflictual ones. Of the 221 water-related incidents that were found, 89.14% were cooperative, 10.41% were conflictive, and the remaining 0.45% were neutral. While China and Russia currently have a cooperative relationship regarding the river, the authors also point out some of the problems related to current cooperation, such as the lack of a comprehensive plan for developing and protecting the river, and a weak legal basis for cooperation. China and Russia also have different priorities when it comes to the river, with China focusing on development and Russia on protection.
In addition to original empirical data and theoretical concepts, the value of the four articles in this special section lies with the interesting insights they offer policy-makers. They show that managing transboundary river basins is an exercise in foreign policy-making and diplomacy that goes beyond the technical details of river basin management.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.