Water and Security in Central Asia

Solving a Rubik's Cube

Virpi Stucki, Kai Wegerich, Muhammad Mizanur Rahaman, Olli Varis

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780415826921
• eBook ISBN: 9781134923250
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Biological Sciences

Examining the water, development and security linkages in Central Asia can feel a bit like solving a Rubik's cube. The Rubik's cube starts to usually find structure and the different pieces find their places when its solver adopts a systematic approach. Still, solving the whole cube takes time and perseverance. This is also the case with water and security in Central Asia as demonstrated by the chapters in this book. In the case of water and security in Central Asia, there are many "faces", including not only the Central Asian states but also the neighbouring countries and other players of global geopolitics; "stickers" such as policies, practices, causes, and impacts; and "colours" such as the different stakeholders, ranging from the micro and meso levels to the macro level. Understanding all these, or getting clarity on the nexus, can seem extremely challenging. Even though none of the chapters alone answers the question of what constitutes water and security in Central Asia, each of them gives thoughtful ideas and information on the complexity of the issue.

This book was published as a special issue of the International Journal of Water Resources Development.

Introduction: Water and Security in Central Asia—Solving a Rubik’s Cube

VIRPI STUCKI*, KAI WEGERICH**, MUHAMMAD MIZANUR RAHAMAN* & OLLI VARIS*

*Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland; **International Water Management Institute, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Examining the water and security linkages in Central Asia can feel a bit like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube. As with the cube’s six faces, each covered by nine stickers of six different colours, the mosaic formed by the components of water and security in Central Asia can seem difficult to solve at a first glance. With a Rubik’s Cube, moving one face can easily bring disorder to all the other faces; just when you thought you were getting one face in order, you discover another face in disorder. In the case of water and security in Central Asia, there are many “faces”, including not only the Central Asian states but also the neighbouring countries, the US, China, and the EU; “stickers” such as policies, practices, causes, and impacts; and “colours” such as the different stakeholders, ranging from the micro and meso levels to the macro level. Understanding all these, or getting clarity on the nexus, can seem extremely challenging.

The Rubik’s Cube usually starts to find structure, and the different pieces find their places, when the solver adopts a systematic approach. Still, solving the whole cube takes time and perseverance. This is also the case with water and security in Central Asia, as demonstrated by the articles in this special issue. Even though none of the papers alone answers the question of what constitutes water and security in Central Asia, each of them gives thoughtful ideas and information on the complexity of the issue.

This special issue consists of 10 articles. The first five papers examine water and security in Central Asia from a macro-level perspective. Water and security are examined in relation to energy, food security, vulnerability, virtual water flows, and water-related agreements. This diversity of study angles demonstrates the vast number of variables and issues that can be understood as parts of water and security in Central Asia. For example, security can be understood as a purely politico-military issue or as the security of the supply of natural resources—or, as in many cases, a combination of both. The last five papers examine water and security from a meso-or micro-level perspective, including case studies from the Ferghana Valley, the Zerafshan River basin, the Aral Sea basin, the Hi River, and the Chu and Talas Rivers. These cases show that even though collaboration in Central Asia as a region has room for improvement, fruitful collaboration takes place at the smaller scales, often crossing national boundaries.

Stucki and Sojamo (2012) point out that Central Asia is relatively secure with respect to water and energy if one looks only at quantities of natural resources. Insecurity in the region’s water and energy nexus is brought by factors related to institutional setting and the complex global political economy context.

Granit et al. (2012) examine water and energy resources from the food security perspective and conclude that there are major opportunities and demand in the region for the formation of a regional regime that can address cooperation coherently.

Varis and Kummu (2012) calculate a “river basin vulnerability index” for 6 major Central Asian river basins and compare these with 10 major river basins in Asia-Pacific. The authors reveal that in addition to the well-known Aral Sea catastrophe, several other basins in the Asia-Pacific are facing equal or more severe threats.

The concept of virtual water is questioned in today’s research literature. Yet, it is still relatively widely applied when examining water resources in the global context because it allows taking into account water included in imported and exported products. Porkka et al. (2012) calculate the impact of virtual water trade on water scarcity in Central Asia and conclude that the problem in the region is not the quantity of water available but its uneven distribution and excessive local use. Those areas that are currently using too much of their water resources are also exporting large amounts of virtual water.

The macro-level paper by Rahaman (2012) examines the region’s water management framework from a legal perspective. The author reveals that many of the regional agreements incorporate internationally recognized transboundary water resource management principles, but that there is room for improvement in many fronts, such as including Afghanistan as a party to these agreements and in other regional organizations.

Olsson et al. (2012) examine water quantity and quality issues within the Zerafshan basin that is shared by Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The point of departure is the situation in which the upstream riparian (Tajikistan) can be considered a late developer of the river, while the downstream riparian (Uzbekistan) is an early developer. As the basin is already closed, any development of the river in Tajikistan will influence Uzbekistan, but not the other way round. This asymmetry brings challenges to the applicability of policy instruments such as the international water conventions, as this analysis clearly shows.

The paper by Yakubov (2012) finds that there are currently multiple approaches and modalities informing water (and especially irrigation-related) policies in most Central Asian countries. This has led to fragmented reform efforts and a lack of clarity on what works and what does not. Therefore, the author proposes a systematic categorization and sector-wide analysis of existing approaches to guide further policy making.

In Central Asia, administrative boundaries became national boundaries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result, irrigation infrastructure historically built within one country became transboundary. Wegerich et al. (2012b) analyze cooperation at the province and district levels in the Ferghana Valley, which is shared by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The authors conclude that despite the national borders, cooperation has to continue because of the existing water and electricity infrastructure which cuts across districts and provinces.

Wegerich et al. (2012a) also concentrate on the Ferghana Valley. In this paper, the authors question whether it is possible to introduce hydrological boundary management in the case of indigenously constructed (informal) irrigation systems. The conclusion is that a careful assessment has to be made as to whether implementation according to hydrological boundary management is possible or even useful.

Libert and Lipponen (2012) summarize the findings of the regional assessment under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Water Convention, concluding that transboundary water cooperation in the region is difficult but that the balance between the use of water for hydropower and for irrigation leaves room for constructive collaboration. The paper goes further by presenting five case studies where grounds for transboundary collaboration are being built in practice.

Many of the papers in this special issue attempt to increase understanding of the nexus formed by water, energy, food, security, and vulnerability. Some of the papers conclude, however, that these issues are complex and that keeping track of the multiple connections and cause-effect relationships requires computerized approaches. Many of the papers call for more research and a systematized approach. All of the papers also provide recommendations for future research. Therefore, we believe that our Rubik’s Cube is not yet solved. As with the Rubik’s Cube, where there is no single solution, we believe that there are various ways to interpret and understand water and security interrelations in Central Asia. This heterogeneity is reflected in this special issue’s papers, which were written by authors from a variety of disciplines and institutional backgrounds and which call on micro-, meso-, and macro-level approaches.

References

Granit, J., Jägerskog, A., Lindström, A., Björklund, G., Bullock, A., Löfgren, R., de Gooijer, G. & Pettigrew, S. (2012) Regional options for addressing the water, energy, and food nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 419–433.

Libert, B. & Lipponen, A. (2012) Challenges and opportunities for transboundary water cooperation in Central Asia: findings from UNECE’s regional assessment and project work, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 565–575.

Olsson, O., Wegerich, K. & Kabilov, F. (2012) Water quantity and quality in the Zerafshan river basin – only an upstream riparian problem?, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 495–506.

Porkka, M., Kummu, M., Siebert, S. & Flörke, M. (2012) The role of virtual water flows in physical water scarcity: the case of Central Asia, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3). pp. 455–476.

Rahaman, M. M. (2012) Principles of transboundary water resources management and water related agreements in Central Asia: an analysis, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 477–494.

Stucki, V. & Sojamo, V. (2012) Nouns and numbers of the water-energy-security nexus in Central Asia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 399–418.

Varis, O. & Kummu, M. (2012) The major Central Asian river basins: an assessment of vulnerability. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 435–454.

Wegerich, K., Kazbekov, J., Mukhamedova, N. & Musayev, S. (2012a) Is it possible to shift to hydrological boundaries? The Ferghana Valley meshed system, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 545–564.

Wegerich, K., Kazbekov, J., Kabilov, F. & Mukhamedova, N. (2012b) Meso-level cooperation on transboundary tributaries and infrastructure in the Ferghana Valley, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3), pp. 525–543.

Yakubov, M. (2012) A programme theory approach in measuring impacts of irrigation management transfer interventions: the case of Central Asia, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(3). pp. 507–523.

Nouns and Numbers of the Water–Energy–Security Nexus in Central Asia

VIRPI STUCKI & SUVI SOJAMO

Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

ABSTRACT Water, energy, and security form a complicated nexus in Central Asia, where domestic, regional, and international interests intertwine in numerous ways. A relatively large amount of literature exists on these three issues, either separately or in different combinations, yet it is difficult to see how the three intertwine and what their macro-level impacts might be on sustainable development, security, and the five Central Asian countries. This paper aims to understand what constitutes the water–energy–security nexus in Central Asia on the basis of definitions, indicators, and data. The nexus is also examined in the context of the broader global political economy, and gaps in current knowledge and suggestions for future research are pointed out.

Introduction

Water, energy and security are frequently discussed in the context of Central Asia (see e.g. Granit et al., 2010; Wegerich, 2008; Weinthal, 2006). Each of the three can be discussed on its own—yet, their combinations and interlinkages provide a particularly interesting and pressing research topic. It is increasingly acknowledged that the multiple global crises with local implications, ranging from economic recession to climate change, must be managed in a water-energy-food-environment interface in a political economy and security context (e.g. World Economic Forum, 2011; Hellegers et al., 2008). At the operational level, for security and sustainability assessments and policy proposals it is necessary to look at specific layers of the complex system with country and river-basin examples (McCornick et al., 2008). Even though much literature exists, especially on the water-energy linkages in Central Asia, surprisingly few define exactly what water and energy mean in relation to security and how the three are interlinked.

This paper aims to increase knowledge on the water-energy-security nexus in Central Asia and has the following objectives:

• Conceptualize water security, energy security, and the water-energy-security nexus in the context of Central Asia.

• Collect indicators as well as qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the above for the five Central Asian countries.

• Examine the global political economy context to identify external drivers.

• Identify gaps in current knowledge and formulate future research questions.

Definitions

“Water Security”, “Energy Security”, “Water, Energy, and Security”

The research topic can be approached from two different angles. Either the issues of “water security” and “energy security” can be examined, or the combination of the three: “water, energy, and security”. The difference between these comes from the notion of security, which in the latter case is understood as an issue in the wider political economy context and includes topics such as internal security and external threats (e.g. Buzan et al., 1998; Allan, 2001; Zeitoun & Warner, 2006). In the former case, the notion of security does not refer to geopolitical security issues but merely to the security of water and energy supplies. The difference between these approaches is illustrated in Figure 1.

Water Security

A number of definitions for water security exist. In a review of the recent literature, these range from narrow, purely politico-military security to broad umbrella definitions, which cover issues such water scarcity, food security, climate change, and water supply and sanitation in a wider context of political economy and environmental flows. In addition to the national, international, and civil society spheres, securitization of water is rising on private-sector agendas. A relatively new phenomenon in relation to water security is private-sector companies which emphasize the threat aspect of water security—such as water pollution and terrorist attacks—and provide tailor-made solutions to cope with such threats (e.g. Whitewater Security, 2011; Water Security Corporation, 2010). On the other hand, private-sector actors are awakening to the physical, reputational, litigational, and regulatory risks related to water as they share the resource with other stakeholders in basins (e.g. EIRIS, 2011; WWF, 2009; UNEP Finance Initiative, 2006).

The above examples demonstrate the difference between two angles...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• 1. Introduction: Water and Security in Central Asia—Solving a Rubik’s Cube
• 2. Nouns and Numbers of the Water–Energy–Security Nexus in Central Asia
• 3. Regional Options for Addressing the Water, Energy and Food Nexus in Central Asia and the Aral Sea Basin
• 4. The Major Central Asian River Basins: An Assessment of Vulnerability
• 5. The Role of Virtual Water Flows in Physical Water Scarcity: The Case of Central Asia
• 6. Principles of Transboundary Water Resources Management and Water-related Agreements in Central Asia: An Analysis
• 7. Water Quantity and Quality in the Zerafshan River Basin: Only an Upstream Riparian Problem?
• 8. A Programme Theory Approach in Measuring Impacts of Irrigation Management Transfer Interventions: The Case of Central Asia
• 9. Meso-level Cooperation on Transboundary Tributaries and Infrastructure in the Ferghana Valley
• 10. Is It Possible to Shift to Hydrological Boundaries? The Ferghana Valley Meshed System
• 11. Challenges and Opportunities for Transboundary Water Cooperation in Central Asia: Findings from UNECE’s Regional Assessment and Project Work
• Index