Send message to Authors

Abstract

This project examines Central Asian cooperation on transboundary water governance through the lens of water diplomacy and political communication. Shared river basins, particularly the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya, remain vital for agriculture, energy production, and human security across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Yet competing national priorities, climate change, glacier melt, and growing water demand continue to strain regional coordination.

The central argument of this study is that Central Asian water cooperation should be analysed not merely as a technical or hydrological matter, but as a negotiated diplomatic process in which communicative practices, media visibility, and stakeholder perceptions shape political outcomes. Drawing on water diplomacy theory (Islam & Susskind 2012; Wolf 2007), framing and agenda-setting approaches (Entman 2007; Iyengar 1987), and image and perception theories (Holsti 1970; Hermann 1995; Soroka 2015), the paper conceptualizes water governance as a multidimensional arena of negotiation embedded in both formal diplomacy and public discourse.

Empirically, the study applies a qualitative and quantitative comparative design. It combines document analysis of main agreements, semi-structured interviews with regional expert stakeholders conducted during the Regional Environment Summit (Astana, April 2026), and media content analysis in Kazakhstan (Kazinform.kz), Kyrgyzstan (24.kg), Tajikistan (Asiaplustj.info), Turkmenistan (Turkmenportal.com) and Uzbekistan (Kun.uz) from the period of the first Consultative meeting of Central Asian states in 2018 to 2025. The analysis integrates political discourse in regional documents with qualitative insights from experts and quantitative assessment of local media framing.

Preliminary findings suggest that while water diplomacy is emerging as a constructive mechanism capable of accelerating regional cooperation, its public visibility remains limited due to the local media bias predominantly framed within official, top-down narratives reflecting governmental positions. This controlled communicative environment constrains broader societal engagement and reduces public awareness of transboundary water governance processes. At the same time, interviews reveal the process is also seen as strategically blurred, lacking a clearly articulated and consistently communicated regional water policy identity.

These findings contribute to the literature on international environmental governance by demonstrating that the effectiveness and legitimacy of transboundary water cooperation depend not only on institutional design and resource allocation, but also on communication structures and perception dynamics. By bridging political science, communication studies, and environmental diplomacy, the project underscores that successful water diplomacy in Central Asia requires both negotiated institutional mechanisms and enhanced public visibility to foster trust, awareness, and long-term sustainability.

Send message to Author

Abstract

In this article I examine the persistence and transformation of the hydraulic mission--the drive to control and modify natural water flows to meet human needs--in post-independence Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. My central argument is that large-scale water development remains central to processes of state-building and territorialization. Contrary to claims that the hydraulic mission has declined, I show that in Central Asia it has endured, not despite political and economic ruptures, but through its capacity to be rearticulated in new discursive forms. While fiscal and institutional constraints have limited implementation, ruling elites have consistently maintained a strong commitment to hydraulic development.

Conceptually, I view the hydraulic mission as both a driver and outcome of state territorialization. Infrastructure such as dams, canals, and irrigation systems materializes state power by transforming abstract territorial claims into concrete control over biophysical space. In this sense, the state is not only an actor directing water development but is itself constituted through these infrastructural interventions.

Drawing primarily on document analysis supplemented by interviews with farmers, development practitioners, and government officials, I trace the evolution of the hydraulic mission from its Soviet origins to its contemporary reconfiguration. I demonstrate how Soviet-era irrigation and hydropower projects established enduring hydrosocial territories that continue to shape governance in both countries. In the post-independence period, the mission has been sustained through overlapping discourses: a productivist logic that frames water as an underutilized economic resource; hydronationalist narratives that cast water infrastructure as a symbol of sovereignty; neoliberal reforms that enable private-sector participation; and more recent "green" framings that align hydropower development with climate agendas.

Finally, I show that, despite being justified in terms of the national interest, the hydraulic mission frequently facilitates elite capture and accumulation. Through case studies from irrigation and hydropower sectors, I demonstrate how infrastructure is selectively mobilized to benefit politically connected actors, reinforcing uneven access to water and energy.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper analyzes the dynamics of water diplomacy in Central Asia, focusing on institutional models of water diplomacy, compares the UN, the EU and World Bank’s approaches as well as assesses Uzbekistan’s changing strategy since 2016.

This paper examines how renowned international bodies form the practice of water diplomacy through their governance structures, mandates, and operative tools. I aim to develop a comparative analytical framework for understanding how these institutional models approach transboundary water cooperation and solve this acute problem in the region.

First of all, my research advances the preliminary argument that water diplomacy is not a unitary practice, but assumes institutionally specific forms. It indicates that they operate under different logics, framework that affect the method water-related challenges are defined and tackled.

For instance, the UN prioritizes multilateral diplomacy, dialogue, and international norms whilst the EU approach is towards regulatory alignment and conditional cooperation. On the other hand, the World Bank tends to financing perspective of water diplomacy, with investment projects and technical assistance as main instruments!

This paper combines document-based research and qualitative comparative institutional analysis; it comprises policy strategies, program documents, reports, evaluation papers, supported by academic literature on water governance, international establishments and environmental diplomacy. Notably, Central Asian river basins illustrate the institutional approach in a preliminary stage of the dissertation. It presents an analytical framework in which global and regional institutions influence on environmental cooperation.