Hydro-hegemony in the Amu Darya Basin

Abstract

The water allocations in the Amu Darya Basin reflect the colonial legacy of the Soviet Union: the downstream riparian states, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, were utilized to produce cotton while upstream Tajikistan used water for energy production and it was anticipated to increase its reservoir capacity further to provide water storage and facilitate agricultural production downstream, Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan were considered simple producers of water without having a real claim to it. Independence manifested inequitable water allocations, giving rise to the perception that especially Uzbekistan is the hydro-hegemon in the Amu Darya Basin. But the post-Soviet basin may be, in fact, without a hydro-hegemon. Data presented in this paper suggest that the riparian states are currently engaged in strategies of resource capture, by increasing their water demand without renegotiating agreements. In addition, while during the Soviet hegemony the increase of reservoir capacity upstream was perceived as 'integration' into the larger framework, today the re-emergence of these plans are perceived as a threat. The analysis of different aspects of hydro-hegemony, such as control over data, current discourses and control over provision infrastructure, demonstrates that Uzbekistan's control over the flows is hardly consolidated.

Essentials of Endorheic Basins and Lakes: A Review in the Context of Current and Future Water Resource Management and Mitigation Activities in Central Asia

“…The dam will provide upstream Tajikistan with hydropower, while the downstream countries fear that it could negatively impact their irrigated agriculture [99,110]. In addition, tensions between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are not uncommon as the water storage infrastructure providing water to Uzbekistan is located in Turkmenistan [100,111]. These countries have considered switching from cotton to wheat production for food self-sufficiency, which could lead to water savings if the irrigation systems were efficient [111].…”

“…In addition, tensions between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are not uncommon as the water storage infrastructure providing water to Uzbekistan is located in Turkmenistan [100,111]. These countries have considered switching from cotton to wheat production for food self-sufficiency, which could lead to water savings if the irrigation systems were efficient [111]. Wegerich [111] demonstrated that, given the current situation, the riparian states of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan will follow the strategy of resource capture, without consideration of the water requirements of neighboring countries.…”

The Water-Energy-Food Nexus and the Transboundary Context: Insights from Large Asian Rivers

“…Water 2016, 8,193 6 of 28 cotton) and provided fossil fuel for heating, while upstream states stored water to facilitate agricultural production downstream as well as to produce hydropower energy [26,67]. The Amu Darya and Syr Darya Rivers were seen as resources to be utilised to allow development, in what has been described as a "hydraulic mission" [68].…”

“…Unsustainably high water use, particularly for irrigation, has led to high water stress and resulting environmental consequences, most visibly on the Aral Sea [27,[69][70][71][72]. Today, key aspects and challenges of the nexus in Central Asia are linked to the historic infrastructural interdependences via water storages, dams and power grids, and high profile competition over the water resources [26][27][28]67] (Figure 3). After becoming independent, the Central Asian countries were left in a state of high level interdependency with the individual states increasing their focus on national interests [26].…”

“…The view of the nexus shifted to emphasise agricultural development and food security. The expansion of irrigation has resulted in demands by all to increase the historic water quotas [67,71], despite already unsustainably high water use. Water availability for agriculture is also affected by infrastructural interdependencies.…”