Pathways to water conflict transformation: Comparing North Crimea Canal and Kabul River Basin

The ongoing water conflicts between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the transboundary Kabul River Basin are narrowly focused on quantitative water distributions, which lead to winlose situations. This study proposes a novel idea of using the biodiversity and ecosystem services (BESS) concept to bring together multiple stakeholders across the KRB and transform the water-sharing conflicts. The study redefines the water management problem in the context of a green water economy and evidence of shared environmental benefits. The study found that the BESS provided by the Kabul River are vital for the livelihood of the residents and the natural flow of water is a win-win situation for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The study recommends designing PES schemes for the sustainability and shared prosperity of the region. A new perspective on transboundary water conflicts in the KRB is needed, one that focuses on shared environmental benefits and the BESS of the river basin. This new perspective could lead to more cooperative and sustainable water management solutions.

New global challenges, such as the intense desire for development and climate change, can exacerbate water conflicts among stakeholders (at local, regional, national, and international levels). Material interests are often regarded as effective tools for resolving conflicts and fostering a spirit of cooperation among riparian countries in transboundary river basins. However, discourses and narratives produced by the media, alongside material factors, play a decisive role in shaping water interactions, a topic that has received less attention. The primary objective of this study is to examine the impact of media on transboundary water interactions. To achieve this goal, a systematic review of existing research across various databases was conducted, alongside an analysis of library resources on the influence of media on water interactions. The findings indicate that conflict is an inherent and natural feature of water systems, particularly in shared river basins. However, most media articles and reports tend to intensify water conflicts in shared basins, with limited coverage dedicated to pathways for cooperation that could bring riparian stakeholders together. The use of media to advance the interests of states within a basin often strengthens the potential for water conflicts. Therefore, constructive changes in water diplomacy and conflict transformation require an understanding of the media's role in water cooperation and disputes. This understanding is essential for shaping the water policies of riparian countries.

New global challenges, such as the intense desire for development and climate change, can exacerbate water conflicts among stakeholders (at local, regional, national, and international levels).  Discourses and narratives produced by the media, alongside objective factors, play a decisive role in shaping water interactions, a topic that has received less attention. The primary objective of this study is to examine the impact of media on transboundary water interactions. The use of media to advance the interests of states within a basin often strengthens the potential for water conflicts. Therefore, constructive changes in water diplomacy and conflict transformation require an understanding of the media's role in water cooperation and disputes. This understanding is essential for shaping the water policies of riparian countries.

This paper investigates the collaborative and benefit-sharing approaches to conflict management in the management of cross-border water resources for the sustainable development of the Kabul River Basin riparian states of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The study offers an understanding of water management strategies concerning peace, progress and development, and sustainability. Using an interpretative social science approach, this paper investigates the impacts of water scarcity and stress, hydro-politics, water diplomacy, and water issues among co-riparian countries. It also investigates how cross-border river management impacts river water sustainability and sustainable cross-border water management strategies. The paper finds that the most significant factor in resolving and managing cross-border water disputes is to employ a collective and combined method of water management based on cooperation and benefit-sharing. This is in addition to providing an immediate cost-effective benefit of improving water supply, hydroelectric generation, and agricultural production, as well as future communal and monetary benefits for the public who reside and work the river basin. The paper proposes establishing a combined cross-border basin authority for both Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to effectively realize the benefits of the Kabul River Basin.

Diplomacy is the art and skill of managing international relations through negotiations between representatives of states or agencies. Water diplomacy is an innovative approach and strategic tool to resolve water issues at local and trans-boundary scales when water conflicts rise in sharing water resources. Complex water supply and sharing issues arise from the existence of multiple stakeholders such as agriculture, industry, urban and domestic users, environmental use, and others competing for scarce water. Water diplomacy may contribute to solving a variety of water conflicts and in this sense is a tool for sustainable water resources management. This paper presents a review of water diplomacy focusing on various themes such as the vitality of water as a resource, virtual water, water conflicts, international water law, and management of trans-boundary waters that are reviewed in this paper in the context of searching for cogent water diplomacy strategies. This work’s findings show that conflicts about trans-boundary waters are more common in developing countries than in developed countries. The latter countries have developed trans-boundary agreements, which may serve as guidelines to developing countries in some cases. Virtual water may prevent future water conflicts by reducing water demand and water stresses and providing suitable conditions for negotiation between countries. Capacity building, training in cooperation, and negotiation are means of averting water conflicts.

The Kabul River Basin is a shared transboundary resource by Afghanistan and Pakistan, serves as a vital source for water supply necessary for irrigation, hydropower generation, and domestic consumption. However, the lack of a binding water-sharing agreement has resulted in geopolitical tensions and issues in resource management. This study aims to analyze the legislative deficiencies and explore feasible frameworks for collaborative governance of the Kabul River Basin. This research employs a doctrinal legal analysis method to assess international water law, including the UN Watercourses Convention, the Helsinki Rules (1966), and customary international law, emphasizing principles such as equitable utilization, harm prevention, and cooperation. In bridging theory with practice, the research further incorporates comparative insights from established transboundary agreements, notably the Indus Waters Treaty (1960), to identify adaptable mechanisms. The results suggest that despite ongoing legal and political obstacles, compliance with international legal standards and collaboration with entities such as the International Court of Justice and the World Bank can facilitate conflict resolution. These findings highlight the potential for a bilateral agreement grounded in legal precedent and cooperative principles. Ultimately, the study contributes to the discourse on transboundary water governance by outlining legal pathways for sustainable, cooperative water governance in the KRB.

In this article, we revisit the special issue, ‘Power in Water Diplomacy’, published in Water International in 2020, and reflect on critical issues around water conflicts in the past five years. We have argued that the concept of water diplomacy has struggled to remain relevant with escalating water disputes and shifting political realities. Water diplomacy has grown into an industry, with expanding conferences and publications; for it to remain relevant, it should grapple with power asymmetries and project transboundary water governance within the realm of ‘low politics’.

In media, donor reports and research articles that address gender and water management, the focus is usually on water supply and sanitation at household level or local management in the agricultural sector. Transboundary water governance, water diplomacy and conflict prevention at an interstate level is seen as a man's world. Indeed, numbers show that women are under-represented in decision-making positions in transboundary river basin organizations. Often, this is not further reflected, as political processes and decisions are assumed to be neutral. What does the gendered nature of water diplomacy mean for reporting on water conflicts and water cooperation? Across the world women are increasingly taking up spaces which previously were dominated by men, also in water diplomacy. However, often women are not portrayed as leaders, experts and agents of change, but as victims or vulnerable groups. Gender-sensitive reporting can change this - by representing female decision makers in their professional roles, but also by pointing to their absence - e.g. pointing to all-male delegations or expert panels. Another aspect is to concentrate reporting not only on the (male) leaders, but to show the variety of actors who contribute to any negotiation or agreement - which automatically brings a more diverse picture of the relevant actors. Finally, it is crucial to question seemingly 'neutral', 'usual' and taken-for-granted practices and ask if there wouldn't be alternative ways to address water conflicts if other actors were to be given a voice.

A growing body of evidence suggests that domestic water conflicts are not only more prevalent and violent than water conflicts at the international level, they can also have regional and international implications. Using India and Pakistan as a case study, this chapter explores how water conflicts within these two countries affect water relations between them. The chapter uses two forms of research. First, it employs event databases to provide a general overview of the frequency and intensity of water conflict and cooperation both between and within India and Pakistan from 1948 to 2014. Second, it draws on expert perspectives to provide more context and analysis of how water conflicts at these two scales—domestic and international—interact. The chapter concludes that water conflicts within India are largely self-contained and have no bearing on its water relations with Pakistan, whereas water conflicts within Pakistan are closely tied to India’s actions upstream and therefore have a tendency to irritate water relations between them internationally.

The article examines corporate responsibility in the context of conflicting environmental and economic interests, which are exacerbated by the inadequacies of the legal framework. It emphasizes the importance of considering environmental factors in corporate decision-making and the necessity of developing a balanced legal framework that promotes sustainable development. The research also focuses on analyzing situations where legislative shortcomings lead to conflicts between environmental and economic interests. Based on comparative analysis, experience generalization, and the application of an eco-economic approach, the article provides recommendations for improving the legal framework to enhance corporate responsibility and ensure a balance between economic benefits and environmental preservation. This study specifically examines the situation in Azerbaijan, considering its status as an oil-producing country, and assesses the issues related to the environmental and ecological aspects of economic activities.

Water diplomacy and conflict transformation are dominated by an interest-based paradigm, where attention is given solely to achieving security and peace. We intend to critically challenge this paradigm – which is mainly dominated by the views of the Global North – by emphasising two other important but often overlooked elements: equity and identity. We argue that diplomacy within the contemporary paradigm is easily manipulated by the broader security and peace interests of foreign powers in a manifestation of global and regional geopolitical rivalry. We conclude that pro-security-peace water diplomacy is an inefficacious remedy, and posit instead that equity and particularly identity should be placed at the heart of water diplomacy and conflict transformation. While introducing a new alternative definition, we call for a paradigm shift, from security-peace to equity-identity orientation, to give space for the voice of the Global South in the analysis of hydropolitical relations. This approach affords additional insights into and explanations for hydropolitical patterns, and helps us to define new strategies for decolonising water diplomacy in practice.

Comprehensive analysis of water interactions enhances understanding of the dynamic and complex conditions in transboundary river basins. The Basin at Risk (BAR) method is among common methods to analyze water interactions. The integrated Basin at Risk (iBAR) method has recently enhanced BAR. As an extension of BAR, iBAR emphasizes hidden drivers of water conflict and cooperation, whereas BAR includes visible ones. The novelty of iBAR is grounded in Johan Galtung’s theory of violence and the concept of positive peace. This method emphasizes the importance of capturing the hidden aspects of water conflicts as well as the concept of positive peace in water interactions. While iBAR has made significant improvements in addressing water conflicts, some challenges remain. This paper provides a review and theoretical analysis of iBAR. Initially, the iBAR development phases are reviewed in terms of positive peace conceptualization and contextualization in water interactions. Following this, the theoretical background of this method is discussed. The results suggest that the iBAR method could be further enhanced by revising concepts of positive peace, social justice, and environmental justice in water interactions.

Growing evidence within nexus research has highlighted the importance for sustainable governance of considering the interdependencies between water, energy, food and the environment, whereas water diplomacy has provided the necessary tools to address water conflicts of a transboundary nature. This paper therefore identifies and evaluates unrealised complementarities between nexus governance and water diplomacy, and discusses the benefits of integrating both for improved transboundary basin management. Two case studies - a wastewater treatment plant within the Jordan's nexus vision and a research project into management of the transboundary Zambezi River Basin - illustrate the identified complementarities and their contribution towards collaborative transboundary natural resources management. On one hand, the consideration of synergies and trade-offs between water, energy and food systems and beyond the river basin scale within nexus governance engages a larger diversity of stakeholders and can help realise more balanced agreements between sectors and hence complement water diplomacy goals. The enriched negotiations arising from a nexus approach can facilitate benefits-sharing in water diplomacy due to the broader exchange of experiences across several natural resources systems. Likewise, international nexus development projects involving a diverse range of sectors and stakeholders can ultimately facilitate peace building through inter-state cooperation and reduce the focus on disputed natural resources. On the other hand, water diplomacy provides tools to address complexity and capture political contexts that overcome the traditional technical and ‘most-rational-solution’ methods. With the application of joint fact finding, value creation and collaborative adaptive management, the added value includes the generation of a shared understanding that embeds politics in decision-making and promotes mutual gains. Further collaboration and on-the-ground experiences between researchers, policy makers and the private sector are needed, to acknowledge and act upon the complementarities of nexus governance and water diplomacy, with the final outcome of promoting cooperation in the management of transboundary resources.

This article explores the evolving dynamics of human – water interactions within the displaced southern Zimbabwe’s Tugwi-Mukosi community. The study is situated within the broader context of escalating global water challenges. Key concerns include declining rainfall, river desiccation, and water-induced displacement of communities. Guided by cultural ecological theory and John Rawls’ ‘Difference Principle’, a core component of justice as fairness theory, this article investigates the socio-hydrological dynamics shaping human – water relations. It explores how these dynamics arise from the interplay of ecological change, technological adaptation, climate variability, and evolving governance systems. A qualitative methodology was employed, with data collected through observations, in-depth and key informant interviews, and focus groups. The data were analysed thematically. Findings reveal that the decline in natural human – water interactions in Tugwi-Mukosi was driven by a combination of factors, including recurrent droughts, river siltation, and changing rainfall patterns, which were further intensified by dam construction and policy-induced displacement. In the Chingwizi resettlement context, the deterioration deepened due to the absence of natural water bodies and the salinity of the underground water. The study advocates for the prioritization of socio-hydrological interventions and policies that are context-sensitive and designed to reinforce, rather than disrupt, sustainable human – water relationships.

Water crises fuel conflicts that confound efforts to solve the underlying water crises. Water diplomacy is more effective at defusing such conflicts when the parties involved share at least a common understanding of the water involved. We argue that basic, but still up to date knowledge of where water is and how it moves is so important for finding common ground in water conflicts that this knowledge deserves a name of its own—the Water Intelligence Quotient or Water‐IQ. Science has advanced, and what people learn about the water cycle needs to reflect that. Two keystones of Water‐IQ are awareness of how profoundly people have influenced the water cycle and the atmospheric teleconnections that move water between geographic regions. Given the importance of evidence‐based knowledge of the water cycle when trying to overcome water conflicts and seek a basis for water cooperation, Water‐IQ knowledge needs to be spread widely.This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented