<h3>Why water diplomacy?&nbsp;</h3>
Water diplomacy is sometimes misunderstood or hailed as a panacea for resolving tensions and conflicts over shared water resources. The concept of water diplomacy does not provide a universal blueprint for reaching agreements on shared waters, its main attribute rather lies in providing diverse dialogue tools for stakeholders sharing a water resource. Water diplomacy, in an ideal scenario, serves to connect, share information, foster inclusion, and design solution spaces by linking different dialogue platforms, engagement tracks and scientific communities. These range from platforms for technical cooperation, including joint technical studies and fact-finding missions, to civil society networks and political dialogues. Technical cooperation can, for example, include joint basin-wide modelling on how much water will be available and needed in coming decades, taking into consideration population and industry growth in all basin countries and future infrastructure investment needs. Countries sharing the Euphrates and Tigris rivers attempted such an exercise in the Collaborative Programme Euphrates and Tigris (CPET) (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Some experts argue that connecting technical tracks and civil society engagements with political dialogues, both formal and informal, can lead to politicization and a stalemate, while others argue that sharing information across different tracks helps to enlarge a possible solution space. Transboundary basins in fragile and conflict-affected and/or geopolitically contested regions, without a framework agreement on management of shared water resources, very often need solutions that are outside of the water sector. More specifically, water-scarce regions where water security is a matter of national security require a political will for building a regional mechanism for sustainable water cooperation. Such a mechanism will enable dialogue and implementation of joint technical solutions, as well as economic investments into water infrastructure.&nbsp;
The question thus remains, can shared water and climate-related risks also come with shared opportunities for basin-wide cooperation? Can cooperation and investment on environmental issues represent no-regrets actions/win-win solutions which can benefit polities across borders and (optimally) build trust and momentum in the political track? Or is political trust a prerequisite to creating a safe space for dialogue on technical cooperation and ultimately for joint investments?&nbsp;
<h3>Glimpse into transboundary water cooperation in the MENA region&nbsp;</h3>
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is home to 12 out of the 17 most water-stressed countries in the world (Hofste et al., 2019). Impacts of water scarcity have further implications on food and employment security and wider human security at large, with vulnerable communities being most affected. The Nile and Jordan River Basin political conflicts and geopolitical rivalries hinder opportunities for a fruitful technical dialogue on basin-wide solutions to increasing water scarcity. For example, the negotiation process over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), formally led by water-line ministers, has been afflicted by many &ldquo;intruding&rdquo; issues and grievances that go beyond the purely technical points related to filling and management of the dam. This should be seen in the context that there is no safe space, no dialogue platform, for non-water actors from Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt for discussions on regional security, economic cooperation, and resilience to climate threats.&nbsp;
Political and security cooperation does not always extend to other important issues such as water. For example, there is no established dialogue mechanism focused on shared water and climate challenges between Iran and Iraq in the Euphrates and Tigris basin, despite advanced political and security cooperation between the two countries. Progress has been made between Turkey and Iraq of the same basin, following ratification by Turkey of a joint Memorandum of Understanding from 2014 on capacity building and scientific exchange in March 2021. This is happening amid growing water insecurity in the region, unprecedented droughts in Iraq and up to 50% decrease in water flow in the Euphrates and Tigris (Abu-Hussein, 2021). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
Transboundary basins in geopolitically contested regions, where the relations between the riparian countries are marred by underlying historical and political grievances, would benefit from additional dialogue platforms focused on discussing the issues that technical water dialogues cannot address. Water dialogues can in fact present entry points for talks beyond water. At the same time, they cannot be automatically expected to also address historical and political grievances. Well-functioning communication across various dialogue tracks is needed, but efforts should be made to prevent the derailing of processes due to over-politicization. Therefore, when analysing a dialogue process, it is important to ensure that the process design assigns the right people to the right dialogue tracks. This includes individuals who can make decisions and create the political will needed for sustainable water cooperation, as well as technical experts who can work towards a viable technical solution.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h3>Building political will vs politicization&nbsp;</h3>
The art of diplomacy is about finding sustainable solutions based on cooperation and reframing of zero-sum thinking about the conflict narrative.&nbsp; One of the most pressing issues in water diplomacy is therefore how to build sufficient political will to support necessary compromises needed for cooperation without politicizing the disputed issue. This means ensuring effective communication between the technical and political tracks without the negative influence of political disagreements beyond water. In contrast, a strictly technical framing of a transboundary dispute limits the focus on underlying political and power dynamics (Aggestam, 2018).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Furthermore, political will to support sustainable agreements and long-term cooperation is necessary to carve out space for joint technical studies, data sharing and exploring of shared benefits from joint management of shared water resources. The ongoing negotiations about filling and management of the GERD need a safe space in the form of a dialogue platform where negotiating parties can discuss non-water related issues such as political and historical grievances, regional cooperation beyond water, regional trade, climate resilience and shared economic benefits from water cooperation. Such a platform could also serve as a discussion platform on newly emerging challenges such as increasingly climate-vulnerable small farmers. Similarly, the over-politicization of water cooperation in the Jordan River Basin hinders effective collaboration on finding basin-wide solutions for mitigating current and future climate-related crises, including increasing water scarcity. The question thus arises: how can polities talk about and support building political will without politicizing and/or securitizing the water issue?&nbsp;
<h3>Connecting the tracks &ndash; expanding the pie? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>
Different stakeholders can expect different outcomes from water diplomacy processes depending on their perception of the dispute. While some see the main benefit of water diplomacy as raising awareness about a situation related to a particular stakeholder group, others see water diplomacy as an opportunity to pave the way to an agreement. Water diplomacy tools can also support galvanizing public support for transboundary water cooperation, highlighting the benefits of cross-border cooperation.&nbsp;&nbsp;
What happens relatively rarely is overall coordination and connection of various tracks, which could be aided by external actors who often finance parts of different dialogue initiatives. This would encourage information sharing as well as highlight the impacts of water scarcity on the most vulnerable groups, and prevent escalations of political tensions or violence at the local level. The dispute between Eastern Nile countries is often described as a dispute about anything but water. It is therefore worth exploring if the technical water dialogue would benefit from the existence of a different dialogue platform to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to discuss issues related to regional cooperation, security and shared benefits from regional trade in a safe space, in the form of confidential dialogue platforms and similar forums.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h3>Finding the right fit for external actors &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h3>
All water diplomacy processes are very context specific, and external actors &ndash; ranging from dialogue facilitators, mediators, support to technical fact-finding missions, observers, monitors and countries and organizations providing development &ndash; should tailor their engagement based on what is needed and what each external actor can deliver. Negotiating parties should be asking which actor is best placed to play an active role in dialogue facilitation and which actor is better placed for technical support. This can range from directing countries away from zero-sum thinking, dealing with power asymmetries between actors, evidence-based decisions and helping countries identify joint benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp;
In the political dialogue track, it is ultimately up to the negotiating parties what mandate they give to a dialogue facilitator. This should be clearly defined, together with the main objective of the process. This does not necessarily mean reaching a framework agreement on management of shared water resources, but a goal could be to determine a cooperative mechanism on how to navigate an uncertain future for all basin countries. Such a mechanism could provide a platform for early warning drought and flood monitoring, strategic planning for basin-wide investments, climate migration flows&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and a shared strategy for resilience strengthening.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
There is also a wide range of roles for external actors in the form of supporting informal tracks that create an enabling environment for water cooperation. This can include tracks focused on public awareness by working with journalists and other opinion builders, as well as support for creating research networks, cross-border youth engagement groups and networks for women. Negotiating countries can benefit from these types of groups and networks. Relations and sometimes also trust built in these platforms can assist in supporting the high-level processes. At the same time, all water diplomacy tracks would benefit from citizen empowerment and greater public engagement in strengthening regional resilience against climate change. It will be easier for track-one negotiators (of diplomacy within official government channels) to gain public support for cross-border water dialogues if citizens are well informed about and prepared to face upcoming climate and water challenges.&nbsp;
<hr>
References&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>
Abu-Hussein, H. (2021). Analysis: Is environmental change driving political change in Iraq? BBC Monitoring. Retrieved on 18 June, 2021 from <a href="https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/">https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/</a>&nbsp;
</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;">
Aggestam, K. (2018). Depoliticisation, water, and environmental peacebuilding. In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Conflict and Peacebuilding (pp. 97-107). Routledge. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315473772">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315473772</a>&nbsp;
</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;">
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2016). Collaboration programme Euphrates and Tigris. <a href="http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/445077/">http://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/445077/</a>&nbsp;
</li>
<li style="font-size: 10pt;">
Hofste, R.W., Reig, P., &amp; Schleifer, L. (2019). 17 countries, home to one-quarter of the world's population, face extremely high water stress. World Resources Institute. <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/17-countries-home-one-quarter-worlds-population-face-extremely-high-water-stress">https://www.wri.org/insights/17-countries-home-one-quarter-worlds-population-face-extremely-high-water-stress</a>
</li>
</ul>

آراء

Commentaries

إدارة الموارد المائية

Read Also