Two alarming developments in transboundary governance over the past few weeks underscore the fragile nexus of water, food and energy security.
First, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty as tensions flare between riparian neighbours India and Pakistan and second, the publication of the latest Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) snow update report by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, as reported by Attracta Mooney (“Himalayan glacier given ‘funeral’ as more ice sheets disappear”, Report, May 12).
The latter, which has received limited coverage, provides a bleak assessment for regional snowmelt, which, coupled with glacier melt, serve as natural “water towers” for nearly 2bn people and 12 major river basins. While interannual variability is common, what is of concern is a third consecutive year of below-average seasonal snow, record declines over the 2024-25 winter compared with the preceding two decades, and stark basin-level deficits in the Tibetan Plateau (down 29 per cent), Brahmaputra (down 28 per cent), Amu Darya (down 19 per cent), Indus (down 16 per cent) and Helmand (down 15 per cent). The relative importance of meltwater to river flows is higher in the western HKH than in the eastern region where the monsoon plays the more dominant role; nevertheless, several of these basins (eg Mekong, Yangtze, Ganges) also registered significant deviations.
While the majority of water resources are siphoned off for agriculture in all regions, hydroelectric dams along shared river basins generally provoke the most ire and discord given their visibility, externalities and scale. Case in point: China’s recent announcement of a planned mega-project on the Yarlung Tsangpo river in the Tibetan Plateau stoking consternation in downstream countries. So too, with India’s proposed Siang Upper multipurpose project.
Already complex in a localised environment, building consensus across borders on equitable allocation faces economic headwinds and historical mistrust.
This is particularly relevant as climate change serves as a risk multiplier in amplifying variability in the hydrological cycle.
In an era of unilateralism, hydro-politics threatens to morph into hydro-hegemony with the ever-present risk of water-related conflicts. Recognition of such collective vulnerability should drive adaptive governance, enhance integrated water resource management and bolster contingency planning.
Mark Eisinger
Washington, DC, US
