Transboundary water security issues in South and Southeast Asia

Abstract

Water is integral to societies and states. Consequently, it is often politicised, subject to competition and can cause tension on a national and transboundary level. The major transboundary rivers in South and Southeast Asia are particularly contentious. Management is technocratic, characterised by large infrastructure projects and transboundary cooperation is often limited. Internationally accepted best practice paradigms, such as Integrated Water Resources Management, have made little empirical headway. The transboundary water situation in South and Southeast Asia is predicted to become pertinent in the near future due to changes in the geopolitical context, notably, China’s activity in the region and climate change. This research investigates why the technocratic management of transboundary water persists in the region and the potential implications of this within the changing geopolitical context. This is done by applying a discourse perspective to three rivers, the Ganges-Brahmaputra, Mekong and Indus. Discourse analysis allows insight into decision making processes and discourse often precedes policy decisions. Therefore, it indicates state priorities and likely courses of action. A survey of expert knowledge was conducted to assess the current and future factors impacting transboundary water governance and determine which factors are significant. The survey supported the findings from the case studies by highlighting the significance of China, climate change and increasing populations for the region. The concept of discourse inertia was formulated to further understand how and why certain discourses prevail. This is demonstrated by mapping the dominant discourses regarding the rivers from 1940-2017. Recent state discourse was considered to show how actors use discourse and potential motivations. This provides an alternative perspective of why policy approaches regarding these transboundary rivers have resisted meaningful reform. It is demonstrated that the dominant management approaches continue to favour the traditional engineering approach. The basins share narratives of the hydraulic mission, scarcity and co-opt environmental discourses. Securitisation and de-securitising narratives are prevalent. These narratives, and so the status quo, are actively and constantly maintained by states. States vie to institutionalise their discourse so that they become unquestioned. From the case studies and survey, scenarios were formulated to highlight possible areas of tension. The dominant discourse assumes that rivers are knowable and predictable. However, geopolitical changes mean that institutions and the discourse they encapsulate may be undermined and struggle to absorb these changes. Further, infrastructure projects are a contentious aspects of transboundary water management and are prominent across the cases. As such, findings indicate that the current management approach is unsustainable and the potential for conflict and tensions is increasing. The study also demonstrates that the international community’s approach to induce policy change is unlikely to be effective. While water ‘wars’ are considered unlikely, tensions could spill to other areas and create flashpoints. It is suggested that narratives concerning climate change, the environment and those surrounding natural disasters may be able to break discourse inertia. However, it would be beneficial to extend the approaches formulated and utilised within this study to other rivers to examine how discourse inertia can be challenged and more sustainable situations achieved.