jumpstarting post-conﬂict strategic water resources ... · the water sector of afghanistan. we...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management 129 (2013) 244e259

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

Jumpstarting post-conflict strategic water resources protection froma changing global perspective: Gaps and prospects in Afghanistan

H. Habib a,b, A.J. Anceno a, J. Fiddes c, J. Beekma d, M. Ilyuschenko e, V. Nitivattananon f,O.V. Shipin a,*

aWHO Collaborating Center for Water Supply, Waste Disposal and Air Quality, Environmental Engineering and Management FoS, Asian Institute ofTechnology, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailandb Environmental Engineering, Kabul University, Kabul, AfghanistancDepartment of Geography, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerlandd Panj-Amu River Basin Programme, Landell Mills Limited, Kabul, Afghanistane Environmental Technology, Almaty University of Power Engineering and Telecommunications, Almaty, KazakhstanfUrban Environmental Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 23 February 2013Received in revised form13 July 2013Accepted 16 July 2013Available online 17 August 2013

Keywords:Water governanceIntegrated water resources managementStrategic environmental assessmentTransnational policy learningPost-conflict development

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ66 2 524 5632; fax:E-mail address: [email protected] (O.V. Shipin).

0301-4797/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.019

a b s t r a c t

Notwithstanding ambiguities, long-term economic resurgence in Afghanistan amidst water insecurityexacerbated by climate change decisively requires a water protection strategy that will complement amultitude of agroindustrial and socioeconomic activities in an environmentally sustainable and climateresilient manner. In this paper, we begin with a perspective on institutions, legislation, and key issues inthe water sector of Afghanistan. We then embark on linking the integrated water resources management(IWRM) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) approaches as a novel framework for strategicwater management and subsequently propose a strategy for post-conflict water protection based on thecoalesced IWRM and SEA. Context relevant good practices worldwide are presented to provide empiricalevidence for this approach whereas perceived opportunities and vulnerabilities in the Afghan context arediscussed. Examination of post-conflict water sector initiatives in Afghanistan reveals the critical role offoreign assistance in both water infrastructure rehabilitation and modernization of the institutionalaspect of water management. The introduction of IWRM as the basis for a progressive water sectorstrategy has been seen as a major milestone which is detrimentally matched by substantial deficiency innational capacity for implementation. Concurrently, the role of extra-national actors in relevant policyinterventions has been considered catalytic despite criticisms of proposed regulations as being anach-ronistic to field realities. Therefore the view is maintained to practicable policies by accelerating policylearning in the country’s water and environment sectors to encourage homegrown water strategy in-novations. Demonstratively, mainstreaming IWRM-SEA coalescence will bridge institutional gaps forbetter feedback between local and national water stakeholders, providing a venue for improved deliveryof water services to sustain post-conflict socioeconomic recovery and promote environmentalstewardship.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although water distribution is significantly uneven across thecountry, it is widely believed that Afghanistan maybe considerablyendowed in water resources given the average nationwide wateravailability of 2775 m3/cap.yr, ranging from 676 m3/cap.yr in theNorthern Basin to 7412 m3/cap.yr in the Panj-Amu basin (Favre and

þ66 2 524 5625.

All rights reserved.

Kamal, 2004). However, the country could be considered waterinsecure and increasingly water stressed in the sense that its mis-managed land and water resources has led to a general decline ofwater quality and availability. This is worsened by a combination ofclimate change and spatio-temporally unequal water distributionwhich causes floods and droughts (Beekma and Fiddes, 2011),exacerbating the mainly agriculture based populations’ vulnera-bility to poverty.

The socio-politics of water distribution and use in Afghanistan isalso complicated as water among its five river basins crossgeographical boundaries via the riverine systems, frequently

H. Habib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 129 (2013) 244e259 245

leading to transboundary contentions in water access and owner-ship (Yamin et al., 2008). There is however a clear recognitionamong Afghan policy makers of the potential negative impacts ofAfghan water development to neighboring countries (Klemm andShobair, 2010; CPHD, 2011; UNEP, 2011). With the apprehensionthat Afghanistan might regress from regional cooperation towardtackling transboundary water issues, the development of clearlydefined national water strategy which entails improved hydro-technical knowledge and capacity earned foremost consideration(King and Sturtewagen, 2010).

Concurrently, the dire state of the country’s environment whichintricately relates to water quality, water quantity, livelihoods, andhuman well-being also demands serious attention. Generallydecreasing biodiversity in Afghanistan has already drawn earlyrecognition of the benefits of conservation and sustainable use ofnatural resources (Adil, 2001). Noting the drying wetlands whichnegatively impacts on wildlife and the increasing vulnerability ofcommunities to drought, UNEP’s post-conflict assessment inAfghanistan highlighted the need for improved water resourcemanagement as an essential first step towards rebuilding ruralcommunities and improved human health (UNEP, 2003a,b). Amajor policy milestone, the Afghanistan National DevelopmentStrategy details on a framework that reflects the crucial role ofconservation, protection, and improvement of the country’s envi-ronment in achieving national socioeconomic development (GoA,2008a,b).

The three decades of conflict and instability in Afghanistanbrought a shortage of efficient institutions to address these con-cerns. In the case of its water sector, overlapping water manage-ment mandates between institutions led to poor coordination ofurgent interventions (Mahmoodi, 2008). With institutional mem-ory left in the hands of only few people, the legacy of weak ornonexistent institutions presented a major hurdle to achievingstrategic objectives while the very same impediment should beconfronted as water management policies are being established(Wegerich, 2009). The Afghan people nevertheless showed aremarkable resilience to ensuing difficulties and hardships,whereas the will and knowledge necessary to meet the enormousenvironmental challenges exists across the country (UNEP,2003a,b).

Post-conflict development in Afghanistan critically requiresstrategic planning for long-term multi-sector water use given theincreasing demand for sustainable water supply to complementagroindustrial production, reconstruction, and general economicrecovery. The immediate concern though is to halve the 75% ofpopulation without access to safe drinking water which will notlikely be met in two decades beyond the 2020 deadline of theMillennium Development Goals, not to mention the inequalities inaccess to water and livelihood opportunities (CPHD, 2011). Never-theless, early stages of national-level planning for water develop-ment provide an opportunity to incorporate strategic measures tocounterbalance the negative impacts it will likely cause to ecosys-tems, natural resources, and society as strategic plans translate intoaction plans and ultimately local-level projects.

The multi-decade global experience in water strategy in-novations provides a compendium of lessons and best practicesfrom which water stakeholders can learn to accelerate desired re-forms. Motivated by this belief, we promote the coalesced elementsof IWRM and SEA approaches as key to strategic water manage-ment during post-conflict. Originally from different domains ofpractice, IWRM tackles the socioeconomic and environmentalsustainability aspects of water management whereas SEA dealswith an anticipatory appraisal of environmental impacts of policies,plans, and programs at the strategic level (see Sections 3.1e3.3).Complementation of IWRM and SEA was previously proposed for

the identification of appropriate adaptation measures in farmingsystems to cope with climate change (Slootweg, 2008). Multilateralinvestors apply SEA in water sector programs as proper practicebenchmark (Hirji and Davis, 2009a,b). Presently, the crucial role ofcoalesced IWRM and SEA in strengthening water institutions of acountry at post-conflict like Afghanistan is presented for the firsttime. The subsequently proposed strategy design for water pro-tection highlights a feedback loop mechanism wherein local wateractors inform strategic water planning at the national level. Theinstitutional implications of this innovation in Afghanistan as wellas factors mediating relevant processes are discussed.

2. Afghanistan in perspective: water sector

2.1. Physiography and climate

A landlocked mountainous country, Afghanistan features a di-versity of climatic regions ranging from the glacial landscapes of thenortheast and hot lowland deserts of the southwest (Fig. 1a). Thecountry also features extremes of temperature, ranging from �50 �Con mountain peaks during winter and þ50 �C across its desertsduring summer (Azizi, 2002). Among the reasons for this extremetemperature range is the absence of large water bodies that couldhave ensured a more constant temperature through heat exchangeand is amplified by the correlation between decline in temperatureand incline in elevation (Pedersen, 2009). On average, Afghanistanhas sky cloud cover of 0e0.13 in summer and 0.5e0.63 in winter,average annual precipitation of 52 mm at Zaranj in southwest and992 mm at North Salang in northeast, 10e30 days per year withsnowfall in mountain valleys, average fog occurrence of 0 days permonth in summer (JuneeSeptember) and 4 days per month inwinter (OctobereApril), and average occurrence of blowing dust/sand of 1e2 days in winter and 6 days in July (NOAA, 2012).

As the basis for the IWRM initiative of Afghanistan InformationManagement Services (AIMS) and Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO), the national water atlas was edited in terms of hydro-logically dividing the country into five river basins (Fig. 1a). Theproposed hydrological division shows the Paj-Amu and Kabul ba-sins as the most water endowed during the drought frequentedyears of 2001e2004 (Fig.1b) and hydrometeorologically fluctuatingyears of 2008e2011 (Fig. 1c). Nationwide snow water equivalent(SWE) profiles for April of 2010 (Fig. 1d) and 2011 (Fig. 1e) showhighest density of snow water along the Panj-Amu basin andnorthern tip of the Kabul basin. The profiles highlight the strong2010e2011 interannual SWE variability. The map is computed froma distributed, physically based balanced model (Tarboton and Luce,1996) which inputs downscaled regional climatology and dailygridded precipitation data (Xie and Arkin, 1997). Although rainfallestimates are not calibrated from rain gauges on ground, themodels provide imagery that are useful for interannualcomparisons.

Most of the precipitation in Afghanistan occur during wintermonths and snow accumulates in the high mountains. Water be-comes available during the snow-melt in AprileAugust in differentparts of the country which also coincides with a portion of highestwater demand period (Beekma and Fiddes, 2011). An InternationalWater Management Institute (IWMI) report on water resources inAfghanistan indicated that the country has 55 km3 of surface waterand 20 km3 of groundwater while water availability is about2500 m3/cap.yr. The 20 km3 annual water volume for irrigationaccounts for 99% of total water use. About 15% of annual water usecomes from groundwater aquifers and springs and 85% comes fromrivers and streams. Recent groundwater use is around 3 km3 andcould increase to 8 km3 in a decade time due to an increase ofirrigation and domestic water demand (Qureshi, 2002).

Fig. 1. Afghanistan’s (a) climate regions among watersheds (updated from GEOKART, 1984; Kamal, 2004); (b) mean annual precipitation, 2001e2004; (c) mean annual precipitation, 2008e2011; and (d) snow water equivalent, April2010; and (e) snow water equivalent, April 2011. Sources: ERA reanalysis (Dee et al., 2011) for precipitation, FEWS NET (Tarboton and Luce, 1996; Xie and Arkin, 1997) for snow water equivalent.

H.H

abibet

al./Journal

ofEnvironm

entalManagem

ent129

(2013)244

e259

246


The Hindu Kush mountains which run across the country’snortheast to southwest divide Afghanistan into three main regions,namely the central highlands (60% of area) as part of Himalayas,southwestern plateau (25% of area), and fertile northern plainswhich form part of the Amu Darya Basin. Afghanistan is charac-terized by steeplands (56% of area) and slope inclinations (12% ofarea) (FAO, 2003), making agricultural cultivation challenging dueto the difficulty to irrigate and high susceptibility to soil erosion insteep slopes (ICARDA, 2002). Soil quality ranges from fertile loess-like soil in the northern plains to infertile sandy desert soil insouthern plateau. Rivers in the southwest are rich in alluvial de-posits which provide fertilization in riparian agriculture but areprone to frequent erosion in the steeplands (Azizi, 2002; ICARDA,2002). Without the use of irrigation and fertilizers, Afghanistanhas generally low potential for agriculture given the environmentalconstraints whereas the high dependency of irrigation to precipi-tation fluxesmakes crop cycles very susceptible to irrigation systemfailures (Pedersen, 2009).

2.2. Water institutions and legislation

Traditional water organizations in Afghanistan generallyrelate to the size of surface water system wherein management istiered with canal size (Rout, 2008). In Panj-Amu, Harirod-Mur-ghab, and Northern basins, system management is led by a wakilor mirab bashi whereas operation and maintenance of canals anddownstream secondary canals to farm turnouts is handled by amirab or chak bashi (Lee, 2006). A wakil or mirab bashi is typicallya landowner with system experience and of influence to localgovernment. A mirab or chak bashi is a landless sharecropperwho has the know-how of system operation and maintenance.This water institution, called the mirab system, follow centuries-old arrangements on representative election, service payment,and system maintenance contributions (Rout, 2008). Factorsidentified to influence the performance of this system includethe scale of irrigation system (i.e. more demanding operation formain canals than sub-canals), type of infrastructure (i.e. morechallenging operation in traditional than modern irrigationinfrastructure), water scarcity (i.e. cooperation is triggered bywater shortages), ethnic diversity and tension (i.e. competingmirab representation and composition), and proximity to gov-ernment and other actors (i.e. formal or informal links betweenwater management institutions and external power brokers)(CPHD, 2011).

Although the mirab system share common features among thecanal areas in different basins, the non-existence of single modelfor this system reflects a rarity of firm social structure for watermanagement in Afghanistan (Rout, 2008; Thomas and Ahmad,2009). This however underscores the opportunity for the systemto transform in response to the rapidly shifting contexts (Lee, 2003,2006; Chokkakula, 2009; Thomas and Ahmad, 2009). For example,parallel government-led engagements at the national level andinteractions among water users and mirab associations at the locallevel will forge a stronger community of water stakeholderswhereby inclusiveness will serve to catalyze institutional reformsin the water sector. While old challenges remain and new onesemerge during the course of transformation (CPHD, 2011), themuch anticipated institutional readiness will provide venue forknowledge transfer, capacity building, and resolution of inequityissues. However, despite the fact that the mirab system is diverse,complex, and under-researched, no future research on the system iscalled for by the Afghan government. Fundamental and long-termresearch on the mirab system could enhance the involvement of arange of stakeholders and facilitate the much needed water sectorinterventions.

The Afghanistan human development report (CPHD, 2011)highlights that the national water shortage is not driven by insuf-ficient water resources but rather by inefficient services due todecades of political and socioeconomic disruptions. As Table S1shows (see Supplementary Information), the first wave of initia-tives on water institution, legislation, and investments occurredduring the 1970e80s (pre-2000 Water Law era), coinciding withthe sugar and cotton boom at that time. After a major interruptionduring the 1990s, a second wave of initiatives with remarkableoutpouring of foreign funding occurred after 2000. On the otherhand, although the latest Water Law and Water Sector Strategyemploy modern approaches to water resources management, thereis an outstanding need to address the ambitious vision as incom-patible to the deficient water infrastructure, management capacity,and information capability. Hindered progress on several fronts hasbeen attributed in part to the lack of adequate, predictable, andsustained investment as well as absence of mechanisms to promoteaid effectiveness (CPHD, 2011).

2.3. Environmental issues

2.3.1. Then and nowFollowing the formation of interim administration in

Afghanistan during the 2001 Bonn negotiations, initiatives led bythe United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF) carried out a nationwide assessmentof the country’s post-conflict state of environment and biodiversity.Although the focus at that time was on war related damage, long-term environmental degradation due to the collapse of gover-nance was of major concern. Assessments held between Septemberof 2001 and 2002 covered air, soil, water, and biodiversity status.However, many locations of interest were inaccessible due topockets of armed conflict. A compendium of remote sensing datawas therefore crucial in investigating the extent of wetlanddegradation, desertification, and deforestation. Among a multitudeof findings (Adil, 2001; UNEP, 2003a,b), the environmental andbiodiversity assessment of 2001e2002 noted the severe impact ofdrought and unmanaged extraction to water resources and sup-ported ecosystems as well as widespread threat of contaminationand overexploitation of natural resources. Several wetlands driedout to the detriment of wildlife and decline of agricultural inputs.Loss of forests and vegetation due to excessive grazing and dry landcultivation led to soil erosion by wind and rain. Loss of stabilizingvegetation along riverbanks also increased flood risk. In urbanareas, poor waste and sewage management and lack of propersanitation are outstanding issues. In hinterlands, pervasive huntingfor bushmeat and fur as well as exploitative logging for timber andfuelwood worsened the already precarious situation of wildlife andecology. Overall, there was a remarkable decline of water qualityand quantity, agricultural productivity, wildlife populations, forestsand vegetation, and well-being of Afghan populace.

Recently Afghanistan has reached another milestone in that itsNational Assembly has approved the Environmental Law (GoA,2007). With the support of UNEP, the newly-established NationalEnvironmental Protection Agency (NEPA) was tasked to urgentlypromulgate The Law of 2007 which outlines the framework forprogressive improvement of governance for effective environ-mental management in the country. In the 2009 national report tothe Convention on Biological Diversity, the Afghan governmenthighlighted the ever-accelerating rate of national biodiversity losswhich is difficult to accurately assess when assessments relymainlyon opportunistic measurements, remote sensing, published statis-tics, intuitive interpretations, and anecdotal information (GoA,2009a). Concurrently, foreign aid has played a major in address-ing the environment as a theme that cuts across security,

H. Habib et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 129 (2013) 244e259248

governance, democratization, and socioeconomic development(Nixon, 2007; Tarnoff, 2010; CFR-USS, 2011). It was howeverpointed out that foreign development assistance must cater tohome-grown initiatives and move beyond relief and aid(Goodhand, 2002; WP-EFF, 2008). There was substantial legislativeprogress in conjunction with government spending and foreign aidin the past decade which brought gains in health, education, andliving standards in Afghanistan (CPHD, 2011). Despite that, majorenvironmental challenges still remain including unequal distribu-tion of water, continued deforestation and land degradation,desertification due to livestock grazing and water scarcity, reducedsoil fertility and other ecosystem services, and continued chemicalcontamination of environmental matrices which threaten healthand productivity of the Afghan workforce (UNEP, 2006; UNEP,2007; CPHD, 2011).

2.3.2. The northern basinsThere are two river basins in the Northern Afghanistan. First is

the Panj-Amu river basin in the Northeast that has tributary Kokchaand Kunduz rivers draining towards Amu Darya. Second is theNorthern river basinwith the ‘blind rivers’ of Khulm, Balkhab, Sar-ePul, and Shirin Tagab which discharge into Dasht-e Shortepathereby not reaching Amu Darya. Hydrographically, these two riverbasins are part of the Amu Darya basin which is separated frominner Afghan Indus and Helmand river basins by its southernwatershed boundary. Rivers of these two basins originate from theHindu Kush mountain range, flowing through the Northwest. Thenorthern basins are relatively endowed with water from snow andrainfall (see Fig. 1). Being situated along the left bank of Amu Darya,these areas of Afghanistan harbor fertile soils of which about 50% ispresently irrigated (Klemm and Shobair, 2010).

Due to the high potential for irrigated agriculture, the northernbasins were a focus of several development initiatives and havebeen particularly showered with investment into irrigation infra-structure and water resources management. A number of grants forthe Balkh and Mazar-e-Shariff areas (ADB, 2004; ADB, 2005; ADB,2008) catered to mainstreaming IWRM objectives, the rehabilita-tion and upgrading of traditional irrigation systems, strengtheningwater stakeholders including government officials and mirabsystem-based actors, and establishment of WUAs. An environ-mental assessment was also carried out in the Khulm area (FAO,2007; USAID, 2008) with an emphasis on the recognition of theroles of the mirab system actors in the operation and maintenanceof irrigational canals. Environmental impact assessment was alsoconducted for barrages and irrigation schemes in Kunduz andKhanabad districts (EU, 2006) with a view to hydropower devel-opment while minimizing impacts to the environment, local pop-ulation, and livelihoods. A similar initiative was also carried out foran irrigation and hydropower project in Lower Kokcha (WB, 2010)with a focus on mirab system-based WUAs and active interactionwith basin and sub-basin councils.

Concurrently, flow trends in some areas (e.g. lower Kunduz sub-basin) corroborate the concerns on water access downstream(Wegerich, 2010; CPHD, 2011). South of the confluence of Baghlanand Taleqan rivers in Kunduz, Jangharoq canal lies along thedensely cultivated Baghlan district and is home to a well docu-mented mirab system (Thomas and Ahmad, 2009). The Pol-e-Khomri district, upstream of Baghlan district, harbor dense settle-ments in addition to a stretch of highly irrigated Kokan and YakaPuta townships between these districts. There are eight off-takesbetween the Qelagai and Jangharoq weirs before water finallyreaches the Jangharoq canal. Crop distribution has markedlychanged along canal serviced area as determined by water accessacross shifts in governance regimes (Fig. 2a) over the past decades.Recent data suggest a dramatic increase of upstream-downstream

flow gap (Fig. 2b). As the country experienced hydroclimatic fluc-tuations since 2008, flow in Banghlan river has increased by about0.7 log10 m3/s between August 2008 and July 2012 while flow inJangharoq canal decreased by 0.2 log10 m3/s based on limited data.The flow gap between the river and Jangharoq canal has increasedfrom 0.4 to 1 log10 m3/s at same period. This condition could be areflection of poor performance in collective water management asattributed to competing interests among upstream and down-stream canal command areas, causing inequitable water sharing(CPHD, 2011).

2.3.3. The Afghan portion of Amu DaryaAmu Darya has attracted international attention due to its large

hydropower, irrigation, and water engineering projects thatresulted in the Aral Sea crisis. Historically, the river became ahighlight of research already early in 20th century due to a majordiscussion on progressing desertification in Central Asia. It came toa fore that over the previous millenia Amu Darya periodicallychanged its course, flowing either to Caspian or to Aral sea withthe latter drying up regularly. Gumilev (1987) explained thephenomenon by heterochrony in humidification of Eurasia due tothe changing pathways of Atlantic cyclones. On the other hand,Soviet Union experts has warned on the future disastrous effectsof the rapid and massive development of cotton monoculture inCentral Asia (UNEP, 2011) which requires enormous waterdemand.

Amu Darya is the lifeline and source of prosperity for over 25million people living in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan andTurkmenistan, and depending on its water for crop irrigation onover 6 million hectares of land. It is undisputed that the upper AmuDarya Basin urgently needs an investment program to restoreecological equilibrium to the Pamirs in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, andAfghanistan (Klemm and Shobair, 2010). Before the implementa-tion of large-scale irrigation system, the normal flow in the AmuDarya delta was 38 km3/yr at Nukus area. Irrigation developmentfrom 1950s to 1980s caused serious effects on water availability,especially in the downstream areas. Average specific water use wasas high as 7000e12,000 m3/ha and there were areas where usagewas twice as high (UNEP, 2011).

The latest wave of Afghan initiatives into new irrigation infra-structure and rehabilitation of old ones (ca. 2004) was anticipatedto even exacerbate the dire state of water availability in both AmuDarya and tributary rivers within Afghanistan (i.e. Kokcha, Kunduzrivers). Geospatial analysis of vegetation in the Panj-Amu basin inNorthern Afghanistan indicated spatially distinct vegetation pat-terns before (Fig. 3a) and during (Fig. 3b) the course of imple-menting the latest irrigation programs (e.g. Panj-Amu River BasinProgram, etc.). Although the average annual precipitation (Fig. 3cee) and snow cover (Fig. 3feh) did not change significantly, vege-tation in Ab-e-Rustaq and central Kunduz has conspicuouslyincreased whereas a wider expanse of vegetation cover in thenorthern parts of Kokcha, Khanabad, and Kunduz has attenuated.The increase of vegetation cover in some areas is strongly linked tothe diffusion of irrigational infrastructure and agricultural intensi-fication, while decrease in other areas could be diagnostic ofenvironmental degradation of anthropogenic nature. Water flowsfor the environment, nevertheless, must be a major concern inwater development planning both within Afghanistan and neigh-boring countries along Amu Darya.

Experts have been arguing that it is unnecessary to involveAfghanistan in post-Soviet water sharing agreements because itspast and upcoming water demands have been modest (Dukhovnyand Sokolov, 2003; Ahmad and Wasiq, 2004; Horsman, 2008).However, the development of irrigation schemes particularly inLower Qelagay, Lower Panj, and Kokchawill cause pressure on Amu

Fig. 2. (a) Changes in crop profiles along Jangharoq canal (based on Thomas and Ahmad, 2009; Wegerich, 2010; CPHD, 2011) and (b) flow rates in upstream (Qelagai Weir) and downstream (Jangharoq Weir, Jangharoq Canal) BaghlanRiver in 2008e2012 and log10 transformations of data in select periods. Source: Panj-Amu River Basin Program.

H.H

abibet

al./Journal

ofEnvironm

entalManagem

ent129

(2013)244

e259

249

Fig. 3. Panj-Amu basin’s (a) normalized difference vegetation index, 2001e2004; (b) normalized difference vegetation index, 2008e2011; (c) mean annual precipitation, 2001e2004; (d) mean annual precipitation, 2008e2011; (e)difference between (d) and (c); (f) snow covered area (% of days with snow cover), 2001e2004; (g) snow covered area, 2008e2011; (h) difference between (g) and (f). Sources: MODIS for vegetation index and snow covered area, ERAreanalysis (Dee et al., 2011) for precipitation.

H.H

abibet

al./Journal

ofEnvironm

entalManagem

ent129

(2013)244

e259

250


Darya and increase water demand in Northern Afghanistan. Atpresent, water from the Balkh, Khulm, Shirin Tagab, and Sar-e Polrivers is used for irrigation to full extent. It is estimated that by2020, three major planned irrigation projects will comprise anadditionally irrigated area of 200,000 ha. This will result in a totalirrigated area in the Afghan part of the Amu Darya Basin (withoutthe Northern Basin rivers not contributing water to Amu Darya) ofaround 600,000 ha, corresponding to an annual maximum of6000 million m3 water withdrawn from Panj, Amu Darya proper,and major ‘boundary’ rivers of Kokcha and Kunduz (Klemm andShobair, 2010). Although the water use from Amu Darya by theneighboring states far surpasses that of Afghanistan, collaborationand formalized regional cooperation of the five riparian countrieswould pave the way for joint sustainable management of sharedwater resources and climate adaptation strategies.

2.3.4. Benchmarking Amu DaryaAll arid regions are alike to a great extent, even in such coun-

tries of different history and socioeconomics as USA andAfghanistan. Offering surprising insights into relationships of manand water whilst cruelly mediated by human development, theColorado River basin story (Medellín-Azuara et al., 2007; Wheeleret al., 2007; Umoff, 2008) is nearly as ecologically poignant as theAral’s, although much less publicized. Agricultural and urban landuse patterns in the Colorado River basin have dramaticallychanged over the last decades. Driven to some extent by urbanareas growing over farmland and industrial activities, there hasbeen a general reduction in agriculture, deterioration of waterquality, and ecological impacts. Still the largest water user in thebasin, agriculture is a natural partner for the municipal sector tocourt in developing new water supplies. Similarly, water supply inthe Amu Darya basin is not keeping pace with agriculturalintensification and population growth. The clearing of riparianbushland along the northeastern Afghan stretch of Amu Darya foragriculture and livestock has been linked to loss of habitat for rareavifauna of wide migratory range stretching as far as Thailand,calling for urgent protection measures (Timmins et al., 2009).Most of ecosystems in the Amu Darya basin also prominentlyfeature salt cedar (genus Tamarix), an integral part of the Aralecosystem where it plays a major role in stabilizing sand and saltof the dried seabed. Ironically, once transplanted to the U.S.Southwest for sand erosion control, Tamarix unexpectedly turnedout to be a noxious weed, inflicting severe ecological imbalanceand water loss.

Although each of the river basin’s circumstance is unique, acomparison of strategic issues relative to geographic features(Table S2, see Supplementary Information) could yield interestinginsights. It can straightforwardly be generalized that both the riverbasins, even situated at the extremes of governance and socio-economic spectrum, share very similar predicaments. Commondenominators in both basins such as increasing water salinity andturbidity from a variety of runoffs, biodiversity threat from inva-sive animal and plant species, role of industries in changing pat-terns of water abstraction, water loss due to evaporation, andweak recognition of transboundary water issues are closelyintertwined with other global issues (e.g. environmentalaccountability, drug trafficking, etc.). The Colorado situation isclearly more advanced in terms of water management, level oftechnology, decision making mechanisms with respect to planneddevelopment, and strategy for water protection relative to watersupply and demand scenarios. A later section highlights recentinitiative for strategic water management in the Colorado RiverBasin as a point of reference for the state-of-the-art water gover-nance in the typically arid Afghanistan and countries of similarcircumstance.

3. Strategic protection of Afghan water

3.1. On sustainability: linking IWRM and SEA

Sustainability is closely associated with the concept of carryingcapacity, understood as environment’s maximum persistentlysupportable load (Catton, 1986). A concept in close associationwithsustainability is sustainable development. Since the UN GeneralAssembly’s acceptance of the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) andsubsequent elaborations during the Rio Summit (UNCED, 1992),sustainable development has proven yet too amorphous to beclearly defined (Drexhage and Murphy, 2010). A number ofcontextual interpretations reflect common guiding principlesincluding a critical recognition of the environmental costs ofdevelopment, poverty reduction and human development, and acommitment to intergenerational equity and fairness (WCED,1987;Daly, 1990, 2002; WWF, 1993; Kates et al., 2005). It is widelyrecognized that sustainability has three confluent domains: envi-ronmental, social, and economic. The environmental domain hasbeen gaining prominence since prior works on environmentaleconomics and management (Norton, 1992; Page, 1992; Pearce andWatford, 1993; Solow, 1993; etc.). Environmental sustainability (ES)is defined as the maintenance of natural capital (Goodland, 1995).Natural capital is a stock of natural assets that yields a flow ofvaluable goods (e.g. water, soil, forest, etc.) and services (e.g. wet-lands’waste assimilation, catchments’water supply) into the future(Constanza and Daly, 1987).

IWRM promotes the coordination of development and man-agement of water, land, and related resources as to maximize theresultant socio-economic welfare without compromising the sus-tainability of vital ecosystems and the ability of the future gener-ations to meet their water needs (GWP, 2004; Slootweg, 2008). Assuch, IWRM addresses the three domains of sustainability. Recog-nized as the best approach to maging water impacts of climatechange (GWP, 2007), IWRM uses a multisectoral approach to watermanagement, optimistically seeks stakeholder contribution anddevolution of responsibility, and utilizes economic mechanismsincluding private sector participation (ICWE, 1992; GWP, 2000;Hirji and Davis, 2009a). IWRM has also been the accepted para-digm for sustainable management of water resources (i.e. riverbasin planning) since the 1990s, although implemented in adisjointed manner among developing countries while its environ-mental water management area is in general addressed in anadvertisement approach (Slootweg, 2008; Hirji and Davis, 2009a).In principle however, environmental water allocation (i.e. envi-ronmental flows) should be accounted for under state-of-the-artIWRM (Fig. 4), along with other consumptive and non-consumptive water uses (see Kashaigili et al., 2005; Korsgaard,2006; WB, 2007; Bauer and Olsson, 2008; Berge et al., 2008).

Reportedly first used in the draft report to the European Com-mission, SEA is a terminology employed to describe a systematicand anticipatory process for environmental assessment (EA) at thestrategic level (Wood and Djeddour, 1989, 1992) such as those ofpolicies, plans, and programs (PPPs). SEA has been practiced in anad hoc manner (Marsden, 2008), in some cases a legislativerequirement, until the introduction of the legal frameworks inEurope between 2001 and 2003 in the forms of SEA Directive andSEA Protocol (EU, 2001; UNECE, 2003; ODPM, 2005). Based on theEuropean Directive, the SEA Protocol has been open to signatorycountries beyond the UNECE region and could catalyze the estab-lishment of multilateral frameworks in other regions (Dalal-Claytonand Sadler, 2005). Given the evolving nature of EA and appraisal,SEA is perceived as a second-generation paradigm (Dalal-Claytonand Sadler, 1999) which applies the principles of project-levelenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) but rather advantageous

Fig. 4. Integrated water resources management scheme of South Africa (updated from MacKay, 2000) featuring the inter-linkages of water use regulation (SDC) and water resourceprotection (RDM) which integrate environmental flows.

Fig. 5. Conceptual framework for strategic water protection in Afghanistan andbeyond (updated from Hirji and Davis, 2009a). Details on the IWRM-SEA integrationand Afghan river basin institutions can be found in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.


in that it is carried out upstream of the decision making process(Partidario, 1996, 2000; Sheate et al., 2003; Therivel, 2004; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; OECD, 2006a; Marsden, 2008; OECD,2012). Differences also exist regarding the nature and scope of SEA.While there is consensus on the lack of ‘blueprint’ approach to SEA,some practitioners advocate that SEA should focus on environ-mental concerns while others point that it should cover both so-cioeconomic and environmental concerns (Chaker et al., 2006).

In pursuing policy reform across development sectors, there isconsiderable drive worldwide to go beyond complying with stan-dards and rather integrate environmental, sustainability, andclimate change considerations. Within the water sector, there isincreasing acceptance of IWRM at the national policy and strategylevels, although implemented independently to suit requirementsand not being practiced in a comprehensive manner (Hirji andDavis, 2009a,b). As limited information suggests that provision ofwater for environmental purposes has not beenwidely practiced indeveloping countries, the application of SEA in thewater sector willprovide additional mechanisms to mainstream environmentalconcerns inwater resources management to anticipate andmanagethe environmental impacts of water development (WB, 2007).Potential opportunities that SEA can offer include developing anational or sector water policy, enacting water legislation, drawingup river basin plans, establishing a river basin institution, formu-lating and implementing a national water supply, and irrigation orenergy master plan, among others (Hirji and Davis, 2009b; Larsenand Kørnøv, 2009). Although SEA and IWRM originated fromdifferent professional interests, SEA can provide a legal vehicle andmore structured approach towards the practical implementation ofIWRM principles whereas IWRM can provide a comprehensive andintegrated understanding of water-sector issues for SEA to informdecision-making (Slootweg, 2008; Hirji and Davis, 2009a). Fig. 5illustrates the conceptual marriage of IWRM and SEA for strategicprotection of water resources in Afghanistan.

3.2. Gleaning from global practice

3.2.1. Actual cases of IWRM-SEA synergyThe use of SEA in water sector initiatives has mainly been an

‘environmental safety’ measure which multilateral investors adoptas a point of good practice (Annandale et al., 2001; Goodland, 2005)

whilst not a constitutional requirement in many countries. In theearly half of last decade, SEA became mandatory in the EuropeanUnion (EU), non-statutory in Canada, and being piloted in bothdeveloped and developing countries (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler,2005; Marsden, 2008). The SEA Directive of the EU requires thatplans and programs that could impact on water must be assessedby SEA which is closely related to the Water Framework Directive(Carter and Howe, 2006). These cases highlight the interplay ofIWRM and SEA (Slootweg, 2008; Hirji and Davis, 2009b), amongothers: (i) the EU SEA Directive contains many IWRM principlesincluding managing water quantity and quality for surface andgroundwater, treating water as having an economic value, andenhancing consultation and participation; (ii) SEA concepts havebeen influential in guiding IWRM (i.e. catchment management andplanning) in South Africa with the introduction of the NationalWater Act of 1998which entails a need for wider information frame


among decision-makers; and (iii) a SEA pilot study in Indian PalarBasin proved successful in developing an IWRM framework whichwas extended to sub-basins in the State of Tamil Nadu. Table S3 (seeSupplementary Information) lists a number of other cases amongthe arid countries and regions. So far, key SEA-IWRM synergieswere into river basin management plans as well as programs forwater infrastructure development (e.g. irrigation, hydropower, etc.)whilewater policy and legislation are hinged on the tenets of IWRMwith major considerations for environmental flows. Due to thecomplexity of water development with respect to water supplyscenarios, multi-sectoral water demand, and portfolio of otherstakeholder uses, the application of SEA toolkit into IWRM tend tofocus more on overall environmental impacts than exhaustiveevaluations of multi-part plans and detailed schemes (WB, 2007;Hirji and Davis, 2009a,b).

3.2.2. IWRM-SEA synergy in an arid milieu: the CRB studyThe Colorado River Basin (CRB) and its tributaries supply water

to municipalities (30 million population equivalent), irrigation (4million acres), and hydropower infrastructure (4.2 GW) in parts ofArizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, andWyoming (i.e. Basin States). Water supply and demand imbalancesin some CRB geographic areas are projected to increase due toclimate change whereas water and ecological quality in CRB hasbeen deteriorating (Hinck et al., 2007; Lellouch et al., 2007;Marshall et al., 2010; Judkins and Myint, 2012; Manghi et al.,2012). Water demands during long drought including the recentone were met by the capacity of CRB to store about four times theaverage inflow. Increasing demands with decreasing supplies giventhe fast growing urban and industrial areas in CRB will exacerbateimbalances in the future (USDI-BR, 2010; USDI-BR, 2012a). Autho-rized by the Secure Water Act of 2009, the U.S. Department ofInterior initiated the WaterSMART Program to address the chal-lenges to water supply in the 21st century including populationgrowth, growing competition for finite water supplies, and climatechange (USDI-BR, 2010). Under this scheme, the federal water andscience agencies collaborate with state and local water managersfor the CRBWater Supply and Demand Study (Study) in a bid to planand take action toward secure water resources (USDI-BR, 2011).

Case analysis of the Study indicated that it possesses the fea-tures IWRM and SEA. As a case of IWRM, the Study assessed thefuture water supplies and demands in the CRB and the adjacentareas of the Basin States that receive Colorado River water through2060 (USDI-BR, 2012bed) as well as develop and evaluate adap-tation and mitigation strategies to address future water supply anddemand imbalances. As a case of SEA, the Study assessed the reli-ability of the Colorado River system to meet the needs of Basinresources such as water allocations and deliveries consistent withthe apportionments under the Law of the River, hydroelectric po-wer generation, recreation, fauna and their habitats, water quality,flow and water dependent ecological systems, and flood control(USDI-BR, 2012e). The Study anticipates that the likely options toaddress future water supply and demand imbalances will includeincreased supply through importation, desalination, reuse, etc.;reduced demand via municipal and industrial conservation, agri-cultural water conservation, increase use efficiency in energysector, etc.; operations modification including groundwater stor-age, hydropower optimization, basin-wide water banking, etc.; andgovernance interventions such as control of development growth,funding of basin-wide programs, enhanced data and informationsharing, tribal water use and transfers, etc. (USDI-BR, 2012f,g).Meanwhile, a SEA-type procedure has been long-practiced in theU.S. in the form of programmatic EA (e.g. USDI, 2003, 2009).

The generalized approaches can be applied in arid countriessuch as Afghanistan but would require policy, institutional, and

technological readiness which intimately intertwine with thecountry’s biophysical and socioeconomic fundamentals. The Studyalso recognizes the critical role of environmental organizations,tribes, government, industrial, and municipal stakeholders asenvironmental stewards and sources of crucial information at theground level. As such, prime importance has been assigned onconsultations with these entities in drawing options to strategicallyaddress future supply and demand imbalances. A major differencebetween the CRB stakeholders and those in Afghanistan is the levelof capacity for policy learning, institutional management, andtechnical know-how which impacts the extent of involvement.Capacity building to bridge these gaps must be a priority inAfghanistan. Appropriate entry points for trainings include thelocal water actors (mirabs, etc.), government recognized WUAs, etc.Regarding the applicability of targeted interventions for CBR (USDI-BR, 2012c,d) in Afghanistan, practically all of the identified in-terventions are believed applicable as predicaments are similar.Cost-effective counterparts must be explored though given theground realities in Afghanistan. The Study, however, did notstrongly emphasize the transboundary water concerns shared withMexico which is critically important to biodiversity in ecosystemsdownstream (IBWC, 2001; Varady et al., 2001; IOA, 2002; Judkinsand Larson, 2010; Maddock et al., 2010). Afghanistan can learnfrom this deficiency and rather must address the likely impacts ofits water development initiatives to ecosystems in neighboring ri-parian countries as all of its major rivers are transboundary.

3.3. Models and strategy design for Afghan water protection

3.3.1. IWRM: the South African approachWater resources management in South Africa (see Figs. 4 and 6)

is based on the sustainability of use principle e by protecting theecological integrity of the resource, the level of utilization of thewater resource can be indefinitely sustained (DWAF, 1999). Basinmanagement strategy starts with visioning which provides an un-derstanding of the current and projected situation, serving as thefoundation for strategic action. The vision addresses the interre-lated objectives of sustainability and equity being the desired ob-jectives of subsequent strategies (DWAF, 2004a). The vision isusually set by a water management agency (WMA) which is taskedto achieve these objectives for a river basin. To achieve the vision,complementary key strategic areas of resource directed measures(RDM) and source directed controls (SDC) are then identified whichembody the South African IWRM strategies (DWAF, 2003a,b; DWAF,2004a,b; DWAF, 2005a,b; DWAF, 2006a). RDM comprises classifi-cation, the reserve, and resource quality objectives. These aredirected at protecting the water resources base by setting objec-tives for the desired condition of resources. The overall condition ofthe water resource (including quantity and quality) of in-streamand riparian habitats and aquatic biota is referred to as resourcequality. SDC are measures to control water use to limit the impactsto acceptable levels and cannot be undertaken without RDM. Thefacilitating strategies (DWAF, 2003a; DWAF, 2006b; du Toit andPollard, 2008) including plans for stakeholder engagement andcommunication, information management and monitoring, andfinance help achieve the IWRM objectives. Multiple institutions,public and private, are directly and indirectly involved in theseinterlinked processes (DWAF, 2003b). Some processes align withrelevant municipal water planning processes while other processescut across water management areas, provincial jurisdictions, andalso other sectors (e.g. mining, development, etc.).

3.3.2. SEA: the Canadian approachIt was pointed out that SEA in Canada is detached from regional

planning and downstream project-level EA, providing limited

Fig. 6. Conceptual integration of IWRM (updated from Pollard, 2008) and R-SEA (adopted from CCME, 2009; Gunn and Noble, 2009a,b) an approach to strategic water protection.


methodological guidance to take into account cumulative envi-ronmental effects (Gunn, 2009). Cumulative effects (CEs) generallyrefer to impacts that are additive or interactive in nature (i.e.synergistic) and result from multiple activities over time,including the project being assessed (ADB, 2003). CEs are definedas impacts on the environment that result from the incrementalimpact of the action when added to other past, present, andreasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions(US-CEQ, 1997). CEs are best considered at the level of PPPs wheredecisions about future developments are made (Duinker andGreig, 2006; Harriman and Noble, 2008) and can be appropri-ately analyzed by SEA as these occur at the temporal andgeographical scales (Sadler, 1996). Earlier, some workers notedthat CEs should be integrated for SEA to be effective (Cooper andSheate, 2004), whereas other workers suggest that cumulativeeffects assessment (CEA) maybe practiced more effectively in thecontext of regional or sectoral application SEA (see Colnett, 1991;Dubé, 2003; Noble, 2008; Noble and Harriman, 2008). In 2008, theCanadian federal government moved to consider and furtherdevelop the concept of regional strategic environmental assessment(R-SEA) as a re-conceptualization of SEA that incorporates theassessment of CEs (i.e. integrated SEA and CEA; see Noble andHarriman, 2008). As a process, R-SEA is designed to systemati-cally assess potential and cumulative environmental effects ofPPPs upon valued ecosystem components (VECs) for a particularregion. The spatial limits of a region are defined by natural orethnocentric boundaries (Gunn, 2009; Gunn and Noble, 2009a,2009b). While work on the methodological aspect of R-SEAcontinually progress despite the challenges (Sadler and Verheem,1996; Duinker and Greig, 2006; Noble, 2009; Gunn and Noble,2011), there is tremendous potential for a more strategic protec-tion of water resources via the application of R-SEA on river basinIWRM plans particularly in arid regions.

3.3.3. Proposed Afghan river basin management strategyThe proposed Afghan water strategy in Fig. 6 heavily subscribes

from the South African IWRM (du Toit and Pollard, 2008; Pollard,2008) and Canadian R-SEA (Noble, 2008; Noble and Harriman,2008a; CCME, 2009; Gunn and Noble, 2009a,b; Ketilson, 2011)approaches as external models which could serve to facilitatenecessary institutional changes (Evans, 2004) despite the unique-ness, complexities, and uncertainties of the Afghan setting. Thecombination of this two approaches arguably embodies the insti-tutional design principles articulated elsewhere (Ostrom, 1990;Huntjens et al., 2012) in the critically acclaimed work on themanagement of common-pool resources such as water. The designprinciples include clearly defined boundaries, proportional equiv-alence between benefits and costs, collective choice arrangements,monitoring, graduated sanctions, and conflict-resolution mecha-nisms, among others.

Extrapolating from benefits derived on the use of R-SEA in in-tegrated land management (Noble and Gunn, 2010) and interna-tional innovations on natural resources management forsustainable development (Pollard, 2008; Gunn and Noble, 2009b;Sadler, 2010; Seitz et al., 2011; etc.), the ‘marriage’ of R-SEA andIWRM is anticipated to yield the following benefits:

- structured yet flexible analysis of trade-offs among identifiedwater use scenarios and targets which guarantee that decisionsare based on explicit set of rules while addressing ambiguitiesat the regional and strategic levels;

- emphasis on vertical integration of management and assess-ment, that of regional to local tiers vice versa, in addition tohorizontal integration and coordination among developmentsectors;

- broader environmental, social, and economic objectives informwater development planning and assessment such that theidentified plan of action represents themost sustainable course;


- provision of the opportunity for public debate on regionalgoals, policies, alternative development options at the onset ofR-SEA to minimize conflict in subsequent project-basedassessments;

- assessment of cumulative effects at the most suitable level suchthat measures are built in to IWRM plans to avoid or minimizepotentially adverse cumulative environmental change;

- obtained targets and thresholds during the R-SEA process asinputs to project-based impact assessment and benchmarksagainst which the environmental performance of waterdevelopment can be evaluated and monitored; and

- better chance for data sharing on common indicators (i.e. ontransboundary river basins) and maintenance of the updatedbaseline information through shared regional and project-based environmental monitoring initiatives.

Within Afghanistan, R-SEA potentially offers complementarymeasures to IWRM to:

- integrate decentralization of water resources managementfunctions to basin councils to accommodate a range of socio-cultural peculiarities among basin areas and clarify theownership of water related decision-making process whichunderpin democratization,

- couple well-studied water use licensing scheme with the cre-ation of water finance system which caters to the moderniza-tion of water infrastructure and incentivizes good practices inwater delivery,

- build capacity among local water stakeholders on environ-mental stewardship as well remunerate for mainstreamingenvironmental objectives in both consumptive and non-consumptive water uses,

- provide financial and physical assistance to women for betterinvolvement in upholding ecological objectives throughappropriate agricultural practices,

- enhance the representation of traditional water actors in basincouncils, and

- encourage cyclical feedback solicitation from the grassroots onthe effectiveness and efficiency of interventions so farundertaken.

Externally, the strategy should trigger intensified engagementamong neighboring states to decisively address water sharing andmanagement issues. The strategy can be a basis for creating aplatform of shared and coordinated water sector interventionsaiming at environmental, social, and economic sustainability at theregional level. The emphasis on regional cumulative effects fromwater development will all the more compel concerned parties tomobilize resources toward this end.

4. Opportunities and challenges

Like many developing countries, Afghanistan has also adoptedIWRM as a new approach in setting up the institutional componentin water management in conjunction with water infrastructurerehabilitation and development. The critical role of IWRM as plat-form for a progressive national water strategy is provided for by theAfghanWater Law (GoA, 2009b) and articulated in theWater SectorStrategy (GoA, 2008b). The development of the river basin man-agement approach by the Ministry of Energy andWater (MEW) is afirst step towards IWRM. In implementing the strategy, MEW istasked to administer on-going and planned projects which areclustered into four programs: institutional building and capacitybuilding, national river basin management, emergency irrigationrehabilitation, and national water resources programs. These

programs address both the institutional (i.e. remodeling andmodernizing institutions) and technological (i.e. rehabilitating andimproving infrastructure) aspects envisioned appropriate for thewater sector. In the execution of the projects, ownership by allstakeholders through involvement in planning, design, andimplementation of the projects and also participation in newinstitutional set-up within the water sector is of central impor-tance. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has a traditional system for man-aging irrigation administered bymirabs (see Section 2.2). However,mirabs do not have the mandate to carry out marketing and oper-ations and management (O&M) activities to enhance their financialcapability. In contrast, the WUAs which are established by thewater users themselves serve as independent and legal entitywhich has full autonomy and authority with respect to O&M ac-tivities. Nevertheless, a study suggested that the existing mirabsystem can be transformed into a legal entity and formal institutionwith greater efficiency and organizational capability (DAI, 2006).The tiered interrelationships of actors involved in proposed Afghanriver basin organizational structure for IWRM is illustrated in Fig. 7.There have been a number of IWRM related initiatives inAfghanistan with foreign assistance (see ADB, 2004; ADB, 2005;ADB, 2008). Significant effort and resources were invested intowater infrastructure and training for institution building andstrengthening with emphasis on the involvement of traditionalcommunity-based water institutions (i.e. mirab system) concomi-tant to the promotion of WUAs.

Implementation of IWRM globally is beset by challenges. InAfghanistan, it has proven daunting. The Afghan Water SectorStrategy itself acknowledges the lack of institutional and financialresources to meet the required water services to populations;absence of water use regulation mechanism for irrigation, watersupply, sanitation, and hydropower purposes; and lack of inte-grated water sector governance (GoA, 2008b). As regards imple-menting IWRM in river basins, Varzi and Wegerich (2008) noted anumber of hindrances to the practicability from the Panj-Amu RiverBasin Program (PARBP) experience including the low interest andpriority on institutional change, lack of data and measurementinfrastructure, limited enforcement of rules, and questionablestakeholder representation in river basin working groups. Analysisof the recent Afghan WSS and irrigation sector initiatives alsooffered a number of valuable insights that are very much in linewith the findings of other workers (see Wegerich, 2009; Thomas,2012). Foremost is the fact that local water institutions still func-tion in a traditional way such that catering to the needs of indi-vidual canal communities on locally agreeable rules as facilitated bythe government could be more effective than adopting a new sys-tem based on WUAs which entails huge investment. There is also apotential conflict of interest between basin organizations andcanal-level administration on water allocation given the basinright-of-way clause in the 2008 Water Law draft, necessitatingdialog between government and canal-level administrators ascrucial to pursuing the basin approach. As regards the emphasis ofthe draft Water Law on water permits, absence of water gaugingstations points to the irrelevance of permits until the technologyhas been field deployed. On water works supported by foreignfunding, the government must mediate on future sharing of waterand maintenance tasks to prevent the weakening of collective ac-tion in canal communities and avoid the increase of existing re-quirements for maintenance work. Recurring concerns in literatureon the adoption of IWRM in Afghanistan include the non-implementability of the permit scheme on traditional irrigationsystems, limited enforcement capacity, and need for more flexiblesub-basin decision-making platforms other than the fixed sub-riverbasin councils (see Wegerich, 2010; Thomas et al., 2011, 2012;Thomas, 2012).

Fig. 7. River basin organizational structure in Afghanistan across tiers of governance (updated from CPHD, 2011).


Last decade’s initiatives into environmental assessment inAfghanistan such as those in impact of human population on nat-ural environment in Wakhan (UNEP and FAO, 2003), nationwidepost-conflict environment (UNEP, 2003a,b), and ground contami-nation in the Astana military waste storage (UNEP, 2006) werefacilitated mainly by international agencies. The coming into forceof the Environmental Law in 2007 was pivotal for Afghanistan interms of a progressive and binding governance for environmentalmanagement, creating a regulatory framework for sustainable useof natural resources as well as providing for conservation andrehabilitation of the environment (GoA, 2007; UNEP, 2007). Asprovided for under the same Law, a set of regulations was releasedin 2008, governing the EIA process (GoA, 2008c). The EIA policyvisions at that time were to protect the environment and com-munity well-being by providing assistance for sustainable devel-opment. EIA objectives include (i) the incorporation ofenvironmental considerations into the development decisionmaking process; (ii) anticipation, avoidance, minimization or off-setting the adverse significant biophysical, social and other relevanteffects of development proposals; (iii) protection of the produc-tivity and capacity of natural systems and the ecological processeswhichmaintain their functions; and (iv) promotion of developmentthat is sustainable and optimizes resource use and managementopportunities. Notable water-sector EIA and EIA-related initiativesinclude those on the feasibility study for the Qelagai storage damproject, feasibility study for the irrigation and hydropower projectin Lower Kokcha, environmental screening of irrigation projects inthe Kunduz River Basin Program, barrage and irrigation schemesrehabilitation in Khanabad, agricultural and irrigation developmentin Mazar, etc. (also see Section 2.3.2). Despite the weak technicalunderstanding and implementation capacity, EIA has been imple-mented in Afghanistan and allowed chance to organically developinto a country-level capacity. Accumulated experience in this areais desired to catalyze initiatives for SEA in the country. On the otherhand, post-conflict rehabilitation is characterized by ‘hyper-devel-opment’ which can lead to severe environmental impacts (OECD,2010). As true for Afghanistan, there is scope for SEA for bothpost-conflict PPPs and longer term national development. Sincepost-conflict development should endeavor to reduce state

fragility, SEA can help improve service delivery systems and pro-mote the wise management of natural resources as crucial forsustained recovery (OECD, 2006b, 2010).

5. Concluding remarks

Whilst gearing toward post-conflict development, Afghanistan’sbiophysical situation can be aptly characterized by water insecurityand environmental stress. More often, the focus in the early stagesof post-conflict development when institutions are yet to gainstrength is country-level programming (OECD, 2010). This iscurrently occurring in Afghanistan as championed by the govern-ment with strong international support. We believe this phaseunprecedentedly provides an opportunity for Afghanistan’s envi-ronment sector to reflect and learn from the best of practices andoutcomes in global water strategy innovations. Gleaning lessonsfrom most recent global paradigm shift in water resources man-agement is anticipated to integrate suitable coping mechanismsinto water governance approach in the face of uncertainty andcomplexity (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a,b) and allow for experimen-tation on allied strategies (Huntjens et al., 2012) as multi-sectordevelopment processes gain traction.

Afghanistan has recently adopted a modernistic water sectorstrategy based on the tenets of IWRM, although the governmenthas to address deficiencies in water infrastructure, capacity tomanage, capacity to enforce, and reliable information. While ca-pacity gaps are being addressed at the time when various wateractors (water users, irrigators, mirab association etc.) are increas-ingly involved in water governance structure building, thecircumstance is believed to be opportune for the adoption of SEAsupport to IWRM to effect a process whereby SEA facilitates stra-tegic decision-making in the water sector with in-depth sectorknowledge provided by IWRM (Slootweg, 2008). The near-termoutcome should be the strategic minimization if not avoidance ofimpacts on overstretched water resources and water related ecol-ogy as water development gradually achieves spread. The long-term objective would be to mainstream the renowned and glob-ally applicable institutional design principles for the managementof competing uses of common-pool resources such as water


(Ostrom, 1990). These, we believe, are crucial to the future of watergovernance and promotion of environmental stewardship in thewater sector of Afghanistan.

A major advance in the present work is the proposal to com-plement the South African approach on IWRM, featuring measuresfor water resource protection (i.e. classification, the reserve, etc.)and water use regulation (i.e. license application, water uselicensing, etc.), and the Canadian R-SEAwhich integrate cumulativeeffects from development activities in the application of SEA at theregional level. Although some workers (see Thomas et al., 2011;Thomas et al., 2012; Wegerich, 2009, 2010) have observed asharp contrast between foreign models which are integrated intoAfghan Water Law (i.e. IWRM, river basin management, multiplestakeholder platforms) and actual water governance practices inAfghanistan (i.e. in some instances incompatible and non-implementable), these predicaments could be viewed as ‘transi-tional hiccup’ in a system beset by competing interests which couldresolve by itself but can fall prey to the fluctuating socio-politicalmilieu. As regards assessing cumulative effects in the frameworkof SEA, some amount of confusion exist regarding the nature ofcumulative effects whereas a strategic approaches to assessingcumulative effects have yet to be demonstrated in practice (Gunnand Noble, 2011). It was also pointed out that SEA in a developedcountry such as Canada has considerable promise but at times fallsshort of its full potential, a typical issue during introduction ofstrategic innovations (Noble, 2009).

The prevailing situation in Afghanistan or setbacks in theapplication of IWRM and R-SEA do not nullify the innovation forstrategic water protection articulated herein. There certainly isscope for fundamental research to further elaborate the conceptualbasis and methodological framework for coupled IWRM and R-SEAin post-conflict water sector development. Nevertheless, this re-quires dialogue, education, and mindset broadening amongstakeholders. Alongside, environmental policy actors and practi-tioners in Afghanistan can embark on transnational and inter-jurisdictional learning by themselves but that will depend ontheir policy analytical capacities, the policy processes they areinvolved in, and nature of the issues which are dealt with (Howlettand Joshi-Koop, 2011). Eventual adoption of this innovation shouldideally result from the convergence of efforts by interest groups, thegovernment, and the civil society.

Acknowledgments

Research was supported by the British Council via the Devel-oping Partnerships in Higher Education programme (DelPHE).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.019.

References

ADB, 2003. Environmental Assessment Guidelines. Asian Development Bank (ADB),Manila.

ADB, 2004. Proposed Grant Assistance for the Balkh River Basin Integrated WaterResources Management. ADB in collaboration with the Japan Foundation forPoverty Reduction (JFPR), project no. JFPR-AFG 38096. ADB, Manila.

ADB, 2005. Capacity Development for Irrigation and Water Resources Management.Project no. 38252. ADB, Manila.

ADB, 2008. Capacity Building for Irrigation and Water Resources Management. ADBin collaboration with the Afghanistan Ministry of Energy and Water. Project no.TA-4716 AFG. ADB, Manila.

Adil, A.W., 2001. The Integration of Biodiversity into National EnvironmentalAssessment Procedure: National Case Study on Afghanistan. Prepared for theBiodiversity Planning Support Program in collaboration with GEF, UNDP, UNEP,and World Bank.

Ahmad, M., Wasiq, M., 2004. Water Resource Development in Northern Afghanistanand Its Implication for Amu Darya Basin. World Bank working paper no. 36.

Annandale, D., Bailey, J., Ouano, E., Evans, W., King, P., 2001. The potential role ofstrategic environmental assessment in the activities of multilateral develop-ment banks. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 21, 407e429.

Azizi, P.M., 2002. Special Lecture on Water Resources in Afghanistan. Ministry ofIrrigation, Water Resources and Environment, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.nourin.tsukuba.ac.jp/wtasae/2002/Azizi_2002.pdf (accessed 09.03.12.).

Bauer, M., Olsson, O., 2008. Integration of enhanced reservoir operation (enrop) intoIWRM in association with environmental and ecological aspects. In: The 13thWorld Water Congress, 9/1e4/08, Montpellier.

Beekma, J., Fiddes, J., 2011. Floods and Droughts: the Afghan Water Paradox. Centerfor Policy and Human Development, Kabul.

Berge, D., Barton, D.N., Dang, K.N., Nesheim, I., 2008. Environmental flows in IWRMe with reference to the hydropower regulated Glomma River in Norway andSesan River in Vietnam/Cambodia. STRIVER Policy Brief. 9, 1e9.

Carter, J., Howe, J., 2006. The water framework Directive and the strategic envi-ronmental assessment directive: exploring the linkages. Environ. Impact Asses.Rev. 26, 287e300.

Catton, W., 1986. Carrying capacity and the limits to freedom. In: The 11th WorldCongress of Sociology, Social Ecology Session 1, 8/18/1986, New Delhi.

CCME, 2009. Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment in Canada: Principlesand Guidance. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

CFR-USS, 2011. Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan. A Majority Staffreport prepared for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S.Senate, 6/8/11, Washington DC.

Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L., Hatjian, B., 2006. A review of strategic envi-ronmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev.26, 15e56.

Chokkakula, S., 2009. Interrogating Irrigation Inequities: Canal Irrigation Systems inInjil District, Herat. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU), Kabul.

Colnett, D., 1991. Integrating Cumulative Effects Assessment with Regional Plan-ning. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council, Hull, Quebec.

Constanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1987. Toward and ecological economics. Ecol. Model 38, 1e7.Cooper, L., Sheate, W., 2004. Integrating cumulative effects assessment into UK

strategic planning: implications of the European Union SEA Directive. ImpactAssess. Proj. Appraisal 22, 5e16.

CPHD, 2011. The Forgotten Front: Water Security and the Crisis in Sanitation.Afghanistan Human Development Report 2011. Center for Policy and HumanDevelopment (CPHD), Kabul.

DAI, 2006. Water Users Associations in Afghanistan Report. Prepared by Develop-ment Alternatives Incorporated for RAMP/USAID job order no. 44, Kabul.

Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 1999. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A RapidlyEvolving Approach Online. Environmental Planning Issues no. 18. InternationalInstitute for Environment and Development, London.

Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 2005. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Source-book and Reference Guide to International Experience. Earthscan, London.

Daly, H.E., 1990. Toward some operation principles of sustainable development.Ecol. Econ. 2, 1e6.

Daly, H.E., 2002. Sustainable Development: Definitions, Principles, Policies. InvitedAddress at the World Bank, April 2002, Washington DC.

Dee, D.P., Uppala, S.M., Simmons, A.J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U.,Balmaseda, M.A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A.C.M., van deBerg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A.J.,Haimberger, L., Healy, S.B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E.V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P.,Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A.P., Monge-Sanz, B.M., Morcrette, J.-J.,Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., Vitart, F., 2011.The ERA-interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the dataassimilation system. Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 137, 553e597.

Drexhage, J., Murphy, D., 2010. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio2012. A background paper prepared for consideration by the High Level Panelon Global Sustainability, 9/19/10. UN Headquarters, New York.

du Toit, D., Pollard, S.R., 2008. Updating public participation in IWRM: a proposal fora focused and structured engagement with catchment management strategies.Water SA 34, 707e714.

Dubé, M., 2003. Cumulative effect assessment in Canada: a regional framework foraquatic ecosystems. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 23, 723e745.

Duinker, P., Greig, L., 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment inCanada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ. Manage. 37, 153e161.

Dukhovny, V., Sokolov, V., 2003. Lessons on Cooperation Building to Manage WaterConflicts in the Aral Sea Basin. In: Technical Documents in Hydrology, PC CPSeries, vol. 11 of IHP-VI. UNESCO IHP, Paris.

DWAF, 1999. In: MacKay, H. (Ed.), Resource Directed Measures for Protection ofWater Resources: Integrated Manual. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry(DWAF), Pretoria.

DWAF, 2003a. Guidelines on the Inclusion of Disadvantaged Groups in CommunityParticipation Processes. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF, 2003b. Volume 2: Guidelines for Undertaking a Water Conservation andWater Demand Management Situation Assessment and Development of aBusiness Plan within the Water Services Sector. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF, 2004a. National Water Resources Strategy. DWAF, Pretoria.DWAF, 2004b. Resource Directed Water Quality Management Policies. Management

Instruments Series version 2.0, first ed. DWAF, Pretoria.DWAF, 2005a. Summary Policy on the Resource Directed Management of Water

Quality, Version 2.29. DWAF, Pretoria.


DWAF, 2005b. A Draft Position Paper for Water Allocation Reform in South Africa:Towards a Framework for Water Allocation Planning. Draft discussion docu-ment. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF, 2006a. Water Use Authorisation Redress Guideline: An Assessment Tool forSocio-economic Dedress and Equity. DWAF, Pretoria.

DWAF, 2006b. Waste Discharge Charge System: Implementation Strategy. Draftversion. DWAF, Pretoria.

EU, 2001. Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans an Programmes on the Envi-ronment. Directive 2001/42. European Commission (EU), Brussels.

EU, 2006. Environmental Impact Assessment of Khanabad Barrage and IrrigationSchemes Rehabilitation. EU Kunduz River Basin Program.

Evans, P., 2004. Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocroppingand the potentials of deliberation. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 38, 30e52.

FAO, 2003. Global Agro-ecological Zones System. Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion. http://www.fao.org/ag/agL/agll/terrastat/wsr.asp (accessed 09.09.12.).

FAO, 2007. Afghanistan Emergency Irrigation Rehabilitation Project, IDA Credit No.3845. FAO in collaboration with the Ministry of Energy and Water, Afghanistan.

Favre, R., Kamal, G.M., 2004. Watershed Atlas of Afghanistan: Working Documentfor Planners. Afghanistan Information Management Services, Kabul.

GEOKART, 1984. National Atlas of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Orga-nization for Surveying and Cartography (GEOKART), Warsaw.

GoA, 2007. Environmental Law. Official Gazette No. 91, 1/07. Government ofAfghanistan (GoA), Kabul.

GoA, 2008a. Afghanistan National Development Strategy 2008e2013: a Strategy forSecurity, Governance, Economic Growth, and Poverty Reduction. GoA, Kabul.

GoA, 2008b. Water Sector Strategy. February 2008 draft. GoA, Kabul.GoA, 2008c. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. Official Gazette no.

939. GoA, Kabul.GoA, 2009a. Afghanistan’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological

Diversity. Submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock,3/30/09. GoA, Kabul.

GoA, 2009b. Water Law. GoA, Kabul.Goodhand, J., 2002. Aiding violence or building peace? The role of international aid

in Afghanistan. Third World Q. 23, 837e859.Goodland, R., 1995. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Ecol.

Syst. 26, 1e24.Goodland, R., 2005. Strategic environmental assessment and the World Bank Group.

Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 12, 245e255.Gumilev, L.N., 1987. People and nature of the great steppe: experience explain some

details of the story of nomads. Vop. Istorii. 11, 64e77 (in Russian).Gunn, J., Noble, B.F., 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating

SEA and cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 31, 154e160.Gunn, J.H., 2009. Integrating Strategic Environmental Assessment and Cumulative

Effects Assessment in Canada. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Geography andPlanning, University of Saskatchewan.

Gunn, J.H., Noble, B.F., 2009a. Integrating cumulative effects in regional strategicenvironmental assessment frameworks: lessons from practice. J. Environ.Assess. Policy Manage. 11, 267e290.

Gunn, J.H., Noble, B.F., 2009b. A conceptual basis and methodological framework forregional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assess. Proj.Appraisal 27, 258e270.

GWP, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management Background Paper 4. GlobalWater Partnership (GWP), Stockholm.

GWP, 2004. Catalyzing Change: a Handbook for Developing Integrated WaterResources Management and Water Efficiency Strategies. GWP Technical Com-mittee, Stockholm.

GWP, 2007. Climate Change Adaptation and Integrated Water Resources Manage-ment e an Overview. GWP Technical Committee Policy Brief 5, Stockholm.

Harriman, J., Noble, B., 2008. Characterizing project and strategic approaches toregional cumulative effects assessment in Canada. J. Environ. Assess. PolicyManage. 10, 25e50.

Hinck, J.E., Blazer, V.S., Denslow, N.D., Echols, K.R., Gross, T.S., May, T.W.,Anderson, P.J., Coyle, J.J., Tillitt, D.E., 2007. Chemical contaminants, health in-dicators, and reproductive biomarker responses in fish from the Colorado Riverand its tributaries. Sci. Total Environ. 378, 376e402.

Hirji, R., Davis, R., 2009a. Strategic Environmental Assessment-improving WaterResources Governance and Decision Making: Main Report. Water Sector BoardDiscussion Paper no. 12. World Bank, Washington DC.

Hirji, R., Davis, R., 2009b. Strategic Environmental Assessment-improving WaterResources Governance and Decision Making: Case Studies. EnvironmentDepartment Paper no. 116. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Horsman, S., 2008. Afghanistan and transboundary water management on the AmuDarya: a political history. In: Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O. (Eds.), Central AsianWaters, pp. 63e74.

Howlett, M., Joshi-Koop, S., 2011. Transnational learning, policy analytical capacity,and environmental policy convergence: survey results from Canada. Glob.Environ. Chang. 21, 85e92.

Huntjens, P., Lebel, L., Pahl-Wostl, C., Camkin, J., Schulze, R., Kranz, N., 2012. Insti-tutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate changein the water sector. Glob. Environ. Chang 22, 67e81.

IBWC, 2001. Colorado River Delta Symposium. International Boundary and WaterCommission, United States and Mexico, Mexicali. September 2001.

ICARDA, 2002. Future Harvest Consortium to Rebuild Agriculture in Afghanistan.International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, sponsored byUSAID, Aleppo.

ICWE, 1992. The Dublin statement and report of the conference. In: InternationalConference on Water and the Environment: Development Issues for the 21stCentury, 1/26e31/1992, Dublin.

IOA, 2002. Implementing IWRM for the Western U.S.eMexico Border Region.Report of the Executive Round Table. Institute of the Americas, Scottsdale,Arizona, 12/3e4/02.

Judkins, G., Myint, S., 2012. Spatial variation of soil salinity in the Mexicali Valley,Mexico: application of a practical method for agricultural monitoring. Environ.Manage. 50, 478e489.

Judkins, G.L., Larson, K., 2010. The Yuma desalting plant and Cienega de Santa Claradispute: a case study review of a workgroup process. Water Policy 12, 401e415.

Kamal, G.M., 2004. River Basins and Watersheds of Afghanistan. Afghanistan In-formation Management Services, Kabul.

Kashaigili, J.J., Kadigi, R.M.J., Lankford, B.A., Mahoo, H.F., Mashauri, D.A., 2005.Environmental flows allocation in river basins: exploring allocation challengesand options in the Great Ruaha River catchment in Tanzania. Phys. Chem. Earth30, 689e697.

Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M., Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. What is sustainable development?Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy Sust. Dev. 47, 8e21.

Ketilson, S., 2011. Regional Strategic Environmental Assessment Roles and Stakes inArctic Oil and Gas Development. M.Sc. thesis. School of Environment andSustainability, University of Saskatchewan.

King, M., Sturtewagen, B., 2010. Making the Most of Afghanistan’s River Basins:Opportunities for Regional Cooperation. EastWest Institute, New York.

Klemm, W., Shobair, S.S., 2010. The Afghan Part of Amu Darya Basin: Impact ofIrrigation in Northern Afghanistan on Water Use in the Amu Darya Basin. Foodand Agriculture Organization.

Korsgaard, L., 2006. Environmental Flows in Integrated Water Resources Manage-ment: Linking Flows, Services and Values. Ph.D. thesis. Institute of Environmentand Resources, Technical University of Denmark.

Larsen, S.M., Kørnøv, L., 2009. SEA of river basin management plans: incorporatingclimate change. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 27, 291e299.

Lee, J.L., 2003. Water Resource Management on the Balkhab River and Hazhda NahrCanal Network: From Crisis to Collapse. Report, Northern Region, United Na-tions Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Central Asian Free Exchange, Kabul.

Lee, J.L., 2006. Water Management, Livestock and the Opium Economy: Social WaterManagement. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, Kabul.

Lellouch, M., Hyun, K., Tognetti, S., 2007. Ecosystem Changes and Water PolicyChoices: Four Scenarios for the Lower Colorado River Basin to 2050. IslandPress, Washington DC.

MacKay, H., 2000. Moving towards sustainability: the ecological reserve and its rolein implementation of South Africa’s water policy. In: Proceedings of the WorldBank Water Week Conference, 4/3e4/00, Washington DC.

Maddock, T., Serrat-Capdevila, A., Valdes, J.B., 2010. Modeling surface water de-pletions due to groundwater pumping in a transboundary basin. In: ISARM2010International Conference on Transboundary Aquifers: Challenges and New Di-rections, 12/6e8/10, Paris.

Mahmoodi, S.M., 2008. Integrated water resources management for rural devel-opment and environmental protection in Afghanistan. J. Dev. Sust. Agr. 3, 9e19.

Manghi, F., Williams, D., Safely, J., Hamdi, M.R., 2012. Groundwater flowmodeling ofthe Arlington basin to evaluate management strategies for expansion of theArlington desalter water production. Water Resour. Manag. 26, 21e41.

Marsden, S., 2008. Strategic Environmental Assessment in International and Euro-pean Law: a Practitioner’s Guide. Earthscan, London.

Marshall, R.M., Robles, M.D., Majka, D.R., Haney, J.A., 2010. Sustainable watermanagement in the Southwestern United States: reality or rhetoric? PLoS ONE5, e11687.

Medellín-Azuara, J., Lund, J.R., Howitt, R.E., 2007. Water supply analysis for restoringthe Colorado river delta, Mexico. J. Water Res. Plann. Manage. 133, 462e471.

Nixon, H., 2007. Aiding the State? International Assistance and the StatebuildingParadox in Afghanistan. Briefing paper series, 4/07. AREU, Kabul.

NOAA, 2012. Climate of Afghanistan. National Climatic Data Center, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate//afghan/afghan-narrative.html (accessed 10.24.12.).

Noble, B., Gunn, J.H., 2010. Regional strategic environmental assessment for inte-grated land management. Horizons 10, 106e112.

Noble, B., Harriman, J., 2008. Strengthening the Foundation for Regional ScaleStrategic Environmental Assessment in Canada. Research report prepared forthe CCME Environmental Assessment Task Group. CCME, Ontario.

Noble, B.F., 2008. Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: acase study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assess. Proj. Appraisal 26,78e90.

Noble, B.F., 2009. Promise and dismay: the state of strategic environmental assess-ment systems and practices in Canada. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 29, 66e75.

Norton, B.G., 1992. A new paradigm for environmental management. In:Costanza, R., Norton, B.G., Haskell, B.D. (Eds.), Ecosystem Health: New Goals forEnvironmental Management. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 23e41.

ODPM, 2005. A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Direc-tive. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London.

OECD, 2006a. Good Practice Guidance on Applying SEA in Development Coopera-tion. DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation, Organi-sation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.

OECD, 2006b. Workstream on service delivery phase 3 synthesis paper on goodpractice: the challenge for donors. In: The 7th Meeting of the Fragile StatesGroup, 10/17e18/06, OECD, Paris.


OECD, 2012. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Development Practice: a Re-view of Recent Experience. OECD, Paris.

OECD, 2010. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Post-conflict Development.DAC Network on Environment and Development Co-operation, OECD, Paris.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Col-lective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Page, T., 1992. Environmental existentialism. In: Costanza, R., Norton, B.G.,Haskell, B.D. (Eds.), Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Manage-ment. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 97e123.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., Taillieu, T., 2007a. Sociallearning and water resources management. Ecol. Soc. 12. Art. no. 5.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G., Cross, K., 2007b.Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning.Ecol. Soc. 12. Art. no. 30.

Partidario, M.R., 1996. Strategic environmental assessment: key issues emergingfrom recent practice. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 16, 31e55.

Partidario, M.R., 2000. Elements of an SEA framework-improving the added value ofSEA. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 20, 647e663.

Pearce, D.W.,Watford, J.J.,1993.Worldwithout End. Oxford University Press, NewYork.Pedersen, F.S., 2009. Sustainable Agricultural Production: Providing an Alternative

to Opium in Afghanistan. Masters thesis. Integrative Geography, AalborgUniversity.

Pollard, S., du Toit, D., 2008. Integrated water resource management in complexsystems: how the catchment management strategies seek to achieve sustain-ability and equity in water resources in South Africa. Water SA 34, 671e680.

Qureshi, A.S., 2002. Water Resources Management in Afghanistan: the Issues andOptions. Working paper no. 49. International Water Management Institute,Colombo.

Rout, B., 2008. How the Water Flows: a Typology of Irrigation Systems inAfghanistan. Issue Paper Series, 6/08. AREU, Kabul.

Sadler, B., 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: EvaluatingPractice to Improve Performance. Final Report, International Study of theEffectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental Assess-ment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Sadler, B., 2010. Spatial approaches to integrated management for sustainabledevelopment. Horizons 10, 95e105.

Sadler, B., Verheem, R., 1996. SEA: Status, Challenges, and Future Directions. Report53. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague.

Seitz, N.E., Westbrook, C.J., Noble, B.F., 2011. Bringing science into river systemscumulative effects assessment practice. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 31, 172e179.

Sheate, W.R., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J., Steen, U., 2003.Integrating the environment into strategic decision-making: conceptualizingpolicy SEA. Eur. Env. 13, 1e18.

Slootweg, R., 2008. Integrated Water Resources Management and Strategic Envi-ronmental Assessment e Joining Forces for Climate Proofing. Initiated by theCo-operative Programme on Water and Climate and the Netherlands Com-mission for Environmental Assessment.

Solow, R.M., 1993. Sustainability: an economist’s perspective. In: Dorfman, R.,Dorfman, N.S. (Eds.), Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings. W.W.Norton, New York, pp. 179e187.

Tarboton, D.G., Luce, C.H., 1996. Utah Energy Balance Snow Accumulation and MeltModel: Computer Model Technical Description and Users Guide. Utah WaterResearch Laboratory, Utah State University, Intermountain Research Station, USDepartment of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah.

Tarnoff, C., 2010. Afghanistan: U.S. Foreign Assistance. Congressional ResearchService Report for the U.S. Congress, 8/12/10, Washington DC.

Therivel, R., 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. Earthscan, London.Thomas, V., Ahmad, M., 2009. A Historical Perspective on the Mirab System: a Case

Study of the Jangharoq Canal, Baghlan. AREU, Kabul.Thomas, V., Mumtaz, W., Azizi, M.A., 2012. Mind the Gap? Local Practices and

Institutional Reforms for Water Allocation in Afghanistan’s Panj-amu RiverBasin. In: Case Study Series. AREU, Kabul.

Thomas, V., Osmani, A., Wegerich, K., 2011. Local challenges for IWRM inAfghanistan. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 68, 313e331.

Thomas, V., 2012. Imported Models of Good Water Governance in Afghanistan:Facing the Implementation Gaps. Discussion paper 1232. AREU, Kabul.

Timmins, R.J., Mostafawi, N., Rajabi, A.M., Noori, H., Ostrowski, S., Olsson, U.,Svensson, L., Poole, C.M., 2009. The discovery of large-billed reed warblersAcrocephalus orinus in north-eastern Afghanistan. BirdingASIA 12, 42e45.

Umoff, A.A., 2008. An analysis of the 1944 U.S.eMexico water treaty: its past,present, and future. Environs: Environ. Law Policy J. 32, 69e98.

UNCED, 1992. The Rio declaration and agenda 21. In: United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development, 6/3�14/1992, Rio de Janeiro.

UNECE, 2003. Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Conventionon Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva.

UNEP, 2003a. Afghanistan: Post-conflict Environmental Assessment. United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP), Nairobi.

UNEP, 2003b. Afghanistan: Post-conflict Environmental Assessment. UNEP, Nairobi.UNEP, 2006. Ground Contamination Assessment Report: Military Waste Storage

Site, Astana, Afghanistan. UNEP, Nairobi.UNEP, 2007. A Guide to Afghanistan’s 2007 Environmental Law. National Environ-

mental Protection Agency of Afghanistan and UNEP, Nairobi.UNEP, 2011. Environment and Security in the Amu Darya Basin. Environment and

Security Initiative, UNEP, Nairobi.UNEP, FAO, 2003. Afghanistan: Wakhan Mission Technoical Report. UNEP and FAO,

Geneva.USAID, 2008. Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Mazar Food Agricultural

and Irrigation Development. Prepared for the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment by Chemonic International and The Cadmus Group.

US-CEQ, 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. U.S.-Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of thePresident, Washington DC.

USDI, 2003. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Grid 3. Evaluation ofKerr-McGee Oil and Gas Corporation’s Development Operations CoordinationDocument, N-7624. Gunnison Project, Garden Banks, blocks 667, 668, and 669.U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Washington DC.

USDI, 2009. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for 80 Acre Infill Oil and GasDevelopment on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. USDI, Washington DC.

USDI-BR, 2010. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Fact Sheet. USDI-Bureau of Reclamation (BR), Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2011. Secure Water Act Section 9503(c) e Reclamation Climate Changeand Water. USDI-BR, Denver, Colorado.

USDI-BR, 2012a. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Executive Sum-mary. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012b. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Technical Reporta on Scenario Development. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012c. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Technical ReportB on Water Supply Assessment. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012d. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Technical ReportC on Water Demand Assessment. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012e. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Technical ReportD on System Reliability Metrics. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012f. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Public InputSought for Options to Resolve Water Supply and Demand Imbalances. USDI-BR,Boulder, Nevada.

USDI-BR, 2012g. Colorado River Basin Supply and Demand Study: Public OutreachMeeting. USDI-BR, Boulder, Nevada.

Varady, R.G., Hankins, K.B., Kaus, A., Young, E., Merideth, R., 2001. To the Sea ofCortés: nature, water, culture, and livelihood in the Lower Colorado River basinand delta e an overview of issues, policies, and approaches to environmentalrestoration. J. Arid Environ. 49, 195e209.

Varzi, M.M., Wegerich, K., 2008. Much ado about nothing sub-basin working groupsin Kunduz River Basin, Afghanistan. In: Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O. (Eds.), CentralAsian Waters, pp. 47e61.

WB, 2007. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Integrated Water ResourcesManagement and Development. Economic and Sector Work, EnvironmentDepartment, World Bank (WB), Washington DC.

WB, 2010. Environmental Impact Assessment of Feasibility Study for the LowerKokcha Irrigation and Hydropower Project, CR-3845-af. Environmental ImpactAssessment Report Emergency Irrigation Rehabilitation Project. WB, Wash-ington DC.

WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wegerich, K., 2009. Water Strategy Meets Local Reality. In: Issues Paper Series.AREU, Kabul.

Wegerich, K., 2010. The Afghan water law: “a legal solution foreign to reality”?Water Int. 35, 298e312.

Wheeler, K.G., Pitt, J., Magee, T.M., Luecke, D.F., 2007. Alternatives for restoring theColorado river delta. Nat. Resour. J. 47, 917e967.

Wood, C., Djeddour, M., 1989. Environmental Assessment of Policies, Plans andProgrammes. Interim report to the Commission of the European Communities.EIA Centre, University of Manchester.

Wood, C., Djeddour, M., 1992. Strategic environmental assessment: EA of policies,plans and programmes. Impact Assess. Bull. 10, 3e22.

WP-EFF, 2008. Aid Effectiveness: a Progress Report on Implementing the ParisDeclaration. Prepared by the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness, Third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, September 2008, Accra.

WWF, 1993. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources: Concepts, Issues and Criteria.World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Gland.

Xie, P., Arkin, P.A., 1997. Global precipitation: a 17-year monthly analysis based ongauge observations, satellite estimates and numerical model outputs. B. Am.Meteorol. Soc. 78, 2539e2558.

Yamin, N., Nakhapakorn, K., Bhaktikul, K., 2008. A Strategic response to the watercrises: examining the application of integrated water resource management inAfghanistan. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 6, 19e35.