Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Transborder water woes are affecting South Asian riparian countries (Salman and
Uprety 1999; Lamballe 2000; Chatterjee 2008). In addition to international conflicts,
such as between India and Pakistan over territorial issues, disputes also exist among
individual Indian states because water resources are shared between the national
and the state government. When water resources are shared among several states,
the national government retains the overall management authority albeit with an
active local involvement in the management. The Indian states of Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu are in conflict over access to water in the Cauvery River. India con-
trols the headwater of Indus, and the conflict between India and Pakistan may esca-
late because of the shared water. Yet, the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 has remained
remarkably stable (Sahni 2006; Giordano et al. 2002). Indeed, India and Pakistan
have thus far demonstrated willingness to keep apart the border issues from the
water issues. India's relations with Nepal and Bangladesh have also been overall
favorable. The Farakka Barrage, constructed a few kilometers upstream from the
Bangladesh border, has been an issue of concern (Salman 1998; Giordano et al.
2002), and a long-term treaty was concluded in 1996 (Nakayama 1997). A similar
bilateral treaty (the Mahakali Treaty) was finalized in 1996 between India and Nepal
(Shah 2001). Most of these bilateral treaties, especially those with Pakistan, have
demonstrated resiliency despite the border-related hostilities. However, the effective-
ness of these treaties can be enhanced by also involving the following entities (Crow
and Singh 2000): (i) looking beyond diplomacy and involving private economy;
(ii) encouraging third parties such as local governments, nongovernmental organiza-
tions, and corporations; (iii) sharing the costs and benefits emerging from environ-
mental improvements (e.g., payments for ecosystem services); and (iv) promoting
multilateralism to bring in new resources to address the problem.
8.7 WATER GOVERNANCE
Water governance is defined by “the political, social, economic, and administra-
tive systems that are in place, and which directly or indirectly affect the water use,
development, and management” (Anand and Easwaran 2010). The strategic options
of harnessing the benefits of South Asia's rivers necessitate an effective governance
(Tyler 2004). Water governance must adopt a problem-solving approach to look
beyond the polarizing debates, create polycentric coalitions, promote community
involvement or comanagement, encourage private sector and institutional diversity,
and create water markets (Bruns 2010). In addition to being ill governed, the scarce
resource is colossally underpriced (Economist 2003; Anand and Easwaran 2010),
which leads to overuse of water, wastage, and adverse environmental impacts.
The resource stress caused by water scarcity can lead to three possible scenarios
(Warner 2004): (i) Malthusians: scarcity leading to war, honey pot argument, or
scramble of gold diggers; (ii) Cornucopians: scarcity leading to adaptation; and
(iii) Rousseauian antiglobalists: severe scarcity as a consequence of the structural
violence of an inequitable global system. Adaptation to the scarcity of the public good
is evidently the most desirable scenario. As a public good, it is difficult to price it using
economic principles. Furthermore, water policy also interacts with health, education,
and environment, especially the climate. Anand and Easwaran (2010) proposed that
