Transboundary Water Institutions in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Afghanistan

142 Pages·2016·2.22 MB·English

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Idrees Malyar for the degree of Master of Science in Water Resources Policy and Management
presented on June 8, 2016.

Title: Transboundary Water Institutions in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Afghanistan

Abstract approved:
_____________________________________________________________________
Michael E. Campana

This study addresses the questions: 1) What kind of transboundary water management
institution is needed for Afghanistan; and 2) what expertise is required for the institution and
which stakeholders should be involved?
The establishment of a transboundary water resources management institution/unit is an
essential step for Afghanistan in order to tackle the transboundary waters issue with its co-
riparian states. The research also indicated the primary challenges and obstacles (ranging from
political matters to technical issues) that a developing country like Afghanistan should anticipate
while creating a transboundary waters institution.
This study also focused on the perceived risks of cooperation over transboundary water
resources from the Afghan standpoint. Furthermore, it reviewed the experience of cooperation
between Afghanistan and Iran over the Helmand waters negotiation in 1973. To address the
aforementioned questions, I Interviewed transboundary water experts of Afghanistan, applied
the risk and opportunities to cooperation framework, used the available literature and secondary
data on the topic, and used the situation mapping tool for the Helmand Basin case.

At present, lack of technical knowledge, data gaps, weak bargaining and negotiation skills relative
to co-riparian states, lack of public support to transboundary waters negotiations – due to lack
of awareness of the topic - doubts on faithfulness of co-riparian states on delivering benefits, and
the existence of various stakeholders of transboundary waters in the Afghan government are the
main concerns. On whether Afghanistan should cooperate or not, the study found that none of
the interviewees opposed transboundary water negotiations. However, there were two camps
regarding the timing of dialogues with co-riparians. The first group of participants was in favor of
dialogue initiation with co-riparian states for now, and the eventual negotiation of water treaties
or agreements in the future. The second group opposes current negotiations - this camp wants
Afghanistan’s government to start preparing and enhancing its technical knowledge and capacity,
bargaining skills, and institutional arrangements for future negotiations.

Study results showed existing political will toward transboundary water cooperation and the
availability of abundant funding from the donor agencies, as well as from the government of
Afghanistan to transboundary waters. Recommendations were made for the design and structure
of a transboundary water resources management unit, believed to be the first of its kind in the
world. In addition, this study identified the perceived risks to cooperation, and, based on those
identified risks, offered risk reduction strategies as well.
©Copyright by Idrees Malyar
June 8, 2016
All Rights Reserved
Transboundary Water Institutions in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Afghanistan

by
Idrees Malyar

A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of

Master of Science

Presented June 8, 2016
Commencement June 2017
Master of Science thesis of Idrees Malyar presented on June 8, 2016

APPROVED:

Major Professor, representing Water Resources Policy and Management

Director of the Water Resources Graduate Program

Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State
University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon
request.

Idrees Malyar, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am really grateful of my committee members for their guidance, patience and support during
this process. I am indebted to my major adviser, Dr. Michael E. Campana, for giving me the
freedom to pursue my interests and yet always being there to give support and advice when
needed. I would like to thank Dr. Aaron Wolf for his continuous support. Through him I learned
far more than what I had hoped to acquire in my academic program. I would also like to thank
Dr. Gregg Walker for serving on my committee, and teaching me the use of situation maps in my
study. In addition, I want to offer a special thank-you to Dr. Emily Shroyer for serving as my
graduate representative. Without the insightful feedback of the committee members I would not
have been able to complete my thesis.
I would also want to thank Dr. Mary Santelmann for her encouragement and guidance from the
initiation to the end of my Master’s program. I would also like to thank Dr. Todd Jarvis, all of my
Water Resources Policy and Management Program cohort, and friends in Corvallis for their
support and motivation.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Fulbright Scholarship Program for their support that allowed
me to pursue this degree. My sincere thanks to Tom Koerber from Institution of International
Education (IIE) for his assistance and support in the last two years.
Finally, and certainly not the last, I want to express my very profound gratitude to my parents,
my brother Mohammad Qais Stanikzai and every single member of my family for their love,
unfailing support and continuous encouragement. In addition, to my uncle Fahimullah Ziaee who
has always been an inspiration for me – following his footsteps was one of the reasons for
pursuing a Master’s degree. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them.
Thank you all.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Background/Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 4
Shared Rivers and Aquifers ................................................................................................................. 8
Kabul River/Indus River .................................................................................................................. 9
Helmand River .............................................................................................................................. 9
Amudarya .................................................................................................................................. 11
Harirud and Murghab Rivers .......................................................................................................... 13
Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 14
Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 16
I. Institutional Arrangements ................................................................................................... 16
II. Perceived Risks to Cooperation .............................................................................................. 16
Research Questions: ........................................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 18
Definition of Institutions .................................................................................................................. 18
The Importance of Transboundary Water Institutions ............................................................................ 19
Available Literature ......................................................................................................................... 22
Existing Transboundary Water Institutions .......................................................................................... 26
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 26
Mekong River Commission ............................................................................................................ 26
Danube River .............................................................................................................................. 30
International Boundary and Water Commission of the United States and Mexico .................................... 33
Indus River Basin – India, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan .................................................................. 37
Amudarya .................................................................................................................................. 37
Bellagio Draft Treaty .................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 42
Secondary Sources/Literature Review................................................................................................. 42
Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 4. Application of Framework: Risks and Opportunities to Cooperation ......................... 46
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 46
Perceived Risks .............................................................................................................................. 47
Cooperation Enhancement ............................................................................................................... 49
Justification ................................................................................................................................... 50
The Helmand River Basin.................................................................................................................. 52
Background ................................................................................................................................ 52
Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 54
Postscript .................................................................................................................................. 57
Situation Map ................................................................................................................................ 61
The Present Level of Cooperation ...................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 5. Results ......................................................................................................................... 74
Part I ............................................................................................................................................ 74
Importance of the issue ................................................................................................................ 75
Stakeholders’ Involvement in the Unit ............................................................................................. 76
Obstacles ................................................................................................................................... 79
Funding and Third Party Assistance ................................................................................................. 81
Part II ........................................................................................................................................... 85
I. Capacity and Knowledge ....................................................................................................... 88
II. Accountability and voice ....................................................................................................... 91
III. Sovereignty and autonomy ................................................................................................... 94
IV. Equity and access ............................................................................................................ 97
V. Stability and support ............................................................................................................ 98
Chapter 6. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 102
Challenges ................................................................................................................................... 104
Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 106
Perceived Risks ............................................................................................................................ 108
Donor Assistance .......................................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 7. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 111
I. Transboundary Waters Management Unit ................................................................................. 111