2.1 Contextualizing benefit sharing in Asia

Conceptually, conserving rivers and protecting riparian community interests are established environmental activities that have been widely recognized around the world in policy practices over water management. Even before the theorization of benefit sharing, the international community has focused on developing and refining principles of shared management in the world’s international waterways in the 20^th century [5]. Since Sadoff and Grey [13] first proposed an analytical framework describing the various benefits from cooperation on international rivers, optimistic views advocate that benefit sharing serves the protection of ecosystem at its core, which is beneficial to livelihood of communities across shared river. The actual label of benefit-sharing in this context could be traced to the term used in the realm genetic resources and biodiversity [7]. The concept of benefit sharing has been defined as any action designed to change the allocation of costs and benefits associated with cooperation, which requires some sort of redistribution or compensation in most cases [14].

However, competing and potentially conflicting interests may be derived from water resources, which often determine the nature of interaction and extent to which benefits derived from rivers could extend to the riparian users [15]. Environmentally conscious scholars have strongly argued for prioritizing the ecosystem over state interests in managing transboundary river basins [16]. For countries in the Global South, in particular, exploring economic interests from water is often preferred by state actors, while considerations of the ecosystem sometimes become of secondary importance [17–19]. For some, water exists as an integrated part of the ecosystem, which represents an extended system that includes other natural systems such as wildlife habitat, and biodiversity [20, 21]. In contrast, others are concerned over livelihood security as millions of residents rely on fisheries for their livelihood [22], especially the livelihood of the poor [23]. Hence priority in water management emphasizes the protection of biodiversity, with an aim to protect productivity, such as ensuring fish habitats and their migration and breeding cycles not to be irreparably altered and possibly destroyed [24, 25]. Incidentally, government’s focuses on exploiting the economic values of water resources are often identified in China [11] and India respectively [26–28]. Conflicting views exist domestically and internationally on how water resources should be used [29, 30], which in turn afford much importance to hydrodiplomacy.

Hydrodiplomacy refers to ‘a process that promotes and relies on mutual cooperation and the idea of shared-benefits’, and it ‘can be seen as an operative end-product of the process of water diplomacy, with the very aim of the cooperation defined by the diplomatic process’ [31]. Benefit sharing is viewed as the cornerstone in promoting hydrodiplomacy [31]. Commentators indicate that various benefits are to derive from different sectors in relation to water, the idea of sharing then allows countries to develop water sharing regimes [32, 33]. In Asian regions where riparian countries display dependence of water resources for energy, food and livelihood, which extend beyond water ecology, collectively exploring water’s inter-sectoral interests such as hydropower presents an appealing option [30, 34, 35]. Nevertheless, the practical approach of developing hydrodiplomacy, based on the consent of sharing benefits from various water related sectors, remains undefined. In regions that experience power relations conflicts, it is often observed that power remains an identified obstacle that impact countries’ efforts of seeking fairness or justice in realizing their right over shared water, especially when they experience different social, economic and political systems [9].

Furthermore, it is observed that international law currently offers very little help to countries’ effort in the development of hydrodiplomacy or framework of benefit sharing, especially in this part of Asia. Of all the countries of East, Southeast and South Asia in this discussion, only Vietnam is a signatory to the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses of the United Nations. Although the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, which started as a regional treaty under the auspice of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, is now a global instrument that attracted the accession of several Central Asia countries, it has made little impact in this region. Meanwhile, not only do criticism of the 1997 Watercourses Convention of it being full of vague, broad and general terms that made it difficult for countries to arrive at mutually acceptable understanding still hold much influence [36], developments such as the concept of benefit sharing in the past two decades also mean that the international legal instruments often represent an overly narrow approach to the construction of rights, obligations and benefits of riparian states, which further limits their practical effectiveness.

Existing scholarship emphasizes that different stakeholders play significant roles in determining the distribution of benefits [17, 18, 33]. Analysing the management of transboundary river basins in the developing world, Mirumachi [18] opines how individual actors influence policy outcomes and diplomatic cooperation in transboundary water sharing, such as politicians, civil society, academics, the media and so on. However, gap exists as to how individuals perceive water benefits and how to share them among nation states. Both normative and objective mind frames exist when viewing how shared water resources should be managed and how inter-governmental cooperation can be conducted [37].

In conceptualizing benefit sharing principle, two key elements can be found that specify how the principle is defined and implemented. These are the types of benefits to be shared and ecological compensation as a mechanism that facilitates the practice of sharing these benefits.

2.2 Definitions of ‘benefits’ in shared rivers

In the context of sharing international rivers, the four types of benefits first identified by Sadoff and Grey [13] are widely used as the basis for discussion. These include environmental benefits to the river, direct economic benefits from the river, political benefits from reducing costs because of the river, and indirect benefits beyond the river. More specifically, environmental benefits promote the sustainable development of river basins; direct economic benefits from the river emphasizes water as an output, but not an input, by providing such commodities as electricity, food, and environmental services [7]. The maximization of economic benefits is legitimate only when environmental damage and disruption are avoided. Political benefits represent both symbolic and actual advantages for countries when they reach agreements on how best to benefit from collectively using the shared water resources. Indirect benefits beyond the river include a range of benefits often surpassing environmental and economic gains, including for instance, trade and regional development [7, 13, 38, 39].

Among these different types, environmental benefits underpin all other benefits that can be derived [9, 13]. Yet developing countries have the tendency to prioritize economic gains while sacrificing ecological benefits [8, 40]. Questions remain as to whether all these benefit types are accepted in practice, whether environmental benefits are perceived to form the basis of other benefits as envisaged by theorists, or whether nuance is needed in finding common ground for countries to establish benefit sharing mechanisms. Any commonly agreed benefit sharing principle will be particularly valuable to the development of hydrodiplomacy in the Global South [4, 33], where conflicting interests exist over the use of shared water resources and where countries have already shown disagreements over whether to adopt international water norms [11].

2.3 Ecological compensation

To facilitate the implementation of benefit sharing principle, ecological compensation is introduced as a mechanism encapsulating financial compensation, material compensation and policy support, that offers conditional payments to resource providers for their environmental gain services and focuses on achieving the goal of ecological environmental protection by incentives [41]. It should be noted that scholarship has placed strong emphasis on the application of benefit sharing principle, recognizing a potential trade-off between different services and profits desired from shared water resources [42]. Under the ecological benefit compensation principles, beneficiary countries that have paid compensation will further appreciate the preciousness of such resources and the ecological environment that they had to pay to preserve [43]. At the same time, ecological compensation principle also serves to resolve potential generational injustice that may occur in individual states when they contribute to the protection of ecological resources for the collective benefits across the region [43].

4.1 Supporters

The first stream of views firmly supports the key principles of benefit sharing, as well as international law and hydrodiplomacy more generally. These participants see as imperative the need to consider all water stakeholders as a whole, in order to ensure the maximization of benefits in transboundary rivers and that all stakeholders will get the best benefit (S14). They strongly reject the notion that benefit sharing has not become an explicit obligation of any party in the context of international water law (S23). They firmly support the ‘no significant harm’ rule of international water law in transboundary water projects (S12), and incidentally disagree with most of the criticism against the current law and the Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UNWC), such as that the no-harm rule favours downstream countries (S8), the failure of the UNWC in upholding fairness by favouring downstream countries and imposing excessive obligations on upstream countries (S9), and the lack of reciprocity in the UNWC (S10). This stream would most readily dismiss any attempt to emphasise the disparity between the rights and obligations of riparian states due to the regional particularity of transboundary rivers (S1).

In terms of the details of benefit sharing, this stream of views prefers a positive-sum game, rather than a zero-sum game where only water quantity is allocated (S16). These participants agree with most types of benefits, including environmental benefits to the water itself (S17), direct economic benefits such as hydropower or navigation convenience (S18), and political benefits such as reducing conflicts and enhancing collaboration (S19). However, they strongly reject the inclusion of indirect benefits beyond the water sector, such as growth in trade or the development of infrastructure (S20). This group are also the least supportive for prioritizing environmental benefits above the other types (S21). They strongly believe that contribution to the transboundary river resources should include both active measures of protecting the environment, such as forestation (S29), and refraining measures, such as withdrawing construction or reducing logging activities (S30). This stream believes that any ecological compensation mechanism will incentivize further protection activities (S34). This group are the most confident in establishing an operable index system of water benefit distribution (S25). However, they are also the least supportive of any suggestion that disputes could be resolved by the International Court of Justice if these are not settled by multilateral discussion and negotiation (S37).

Overall, supporters largely agree with the current theories and values of international water law and the main conceptions of benefit sharing and ecological benefit compensation. People with such views are more inclined towards mutual gains for all water stakeholders that take into account multiple types of benefits, but without necessarily emphasising environmental benefits as of paramount importance; though they are against the inclusion of non-water sector indirect benefits into the calculation. The belief here is that different benefits can be managed in an index system, with ecological benefits compensation to take into account various contributions by riparian states and to motivate further protection activities.

4.2 Idealists

The second stream of views appear far less approving of some of the current theories than those supporters in the first stream. In sharp contrast to the other groups, participants from this stream disagree with the basic notion that benefit sharing requires the consideration of all water stakeholders as a whole to maximize benefit and to ensure that all stakeholders can obtain the best benefits (S14). Again, unlike the other groups, they do not disagree with the criticism that benefit sharing currently only achieves hollow ‘win-win’ rhetoric due to the lack of uniform standard or understanding (S26). They strongly disagree with the close association of allocation of water rights with a country’s national strategy (S2). They also object to the suggestion that international water rights are dependent on specific sharing schemes negotiated by states rather than being a set of well-documented, regulated and predictable kind of right or interest (S4).

The most notable differences for this stream of views as compared with the others lie in the understanding of the details of benefit sharing. In sharp contrast to the other groups, people sharing this stream of views are firmly against the inclusion of direct economic benefits from use of water resources into water benefits, such as those derived from hydropower, irrigation and navigation (S18). At the same time, they strongly advocate the inclusion of indirect benefits such as the development of infrastructure and growth of trade, which the other groups clearly reject (S20). Combining with the fact that this is the only group which support the understanding that environmental benefits should form the basis of all other types of benefits (S21), the environmentally focused approach to the conception of water benefits becomes a prominent distinction for this stream of views.

The environmental focus of this stream is further evidenced in that this is the only group that support ecological compensation to be paid by countries who utilize water resources and receive ecological benefits to countries that protect these resources and the environment (S27). It is believed that not paying compensation would dampen the enthusiasm of countries that protect the environment (S31). Nevertheless, the intention here is not to change the “polluter pays” approach (S32), but to make countries better appreciate the preciousness of the resources they have to pay to utilize (S35).

It may be observed that this stream of views seems highly idealistic in its focus on the environment above all others. Participants in this stream show little support for the practicality of contribution or measurement of contribution. Neither positive actions such as forestation (S29) nor refraining decisions such as withdrawing construction (S30) are viewed as contribution to ecological resources by this group, in contrast to others. Unlike supporters in the first stream above, idealists of this second stream do not agree with the establishment of any index system for water benefits distribution (S25). Even more notable is their belief that benefit sharing do not form the explicit obligations of any party under the current international law (S23).

Overall, idealists see environmental benefits as the basis of all types of water benefits. Utilizing ecological resources should entail compensation for those who contribute, to avoid dampening enthusiasm for protection as well as encouraging appreciation of the preciousness of the resources. There is the firm belief to exclude direct economic benefits from the calculation of water benefits, despite that, conceptually and practically, synergies can be developed to understand how best to harvest benefits from water, which serve industry, agriculture and households as well as ecological protection [53]. Idealists appear less concerned by the practical measures to contribute to ecological resources or the observation that benefit sharing is not an explicit obligation of any party. The belief seems to be that the fundamental importance of environmental benefits and the preciousness of ecological resources would be sufficient to persuade users of such resources to compensate those who made contribution.

4.3 Pragmatists

The third and final stream of views tend to be more pragmatic and often occupy the middle ground between supporters and the idealists. Participants in this stream most firmly reject the suggestion that international water rights are dependent on specific negotiation rather than being well-documented and predictable (S4). They clearly see the value of cooperation mechanisms in coordinating interests among conflicts over international rivers (S7). At the same time, they are the least resistant against any criticism of the current international law, such as that the principles of equitable uses and no significant harm benefit upstream and downstream countries differently (S8). On the fundamental perception of benefit sharing, this stream is largely undecided as to whether it is a part of the explicit obligations of any party under international law (S23), while practical implementation of the concept is seen with the greatest difficulty amongst all groups due to the lack of uniform cognition and establishment (S13). This has not stopped people holding views in this stream to continue to believe that benefit sharing should at least be seriously considered under the principle of good-faith cooperation (S24), or that benefit sharing could achieve more than hollow ‘win-win’ rhetoric (S26).

As to the practical details of benefit sharing, this stream is much closer in line with the supporters rather than the idealists. Environmental benefits, direct economic benefits and political benefits are all included in the calculation (S17, S18 & S19), but indirect benefits are excluded (S20). Unlike the idealists, environmental benefits are not afforded any special significance above other types of benefits (S21). This stream is much less pronounced with regard to the purposes of mechanisms of ecological compensation, whether to avoid dampening the enthusiasm for environmental protection (S31), or to promote the appreciation of the preciousness of the resources through having to pay for the usage (S35). They are the only group to seriously doubt whether ecological benefit compensation could facilitate the maximization of collective interests among all riparian states (S36). Nevertheless, this group has the clearest preference for ecological benefit compensation to take various forms, including financial compensation, material compensation and policy support (S33).

Overall, the pragmatists believe in the value of international cooperation and benefit sharing in general. Yet they see great difficulty in many of the practical aspects for the recognition and implementation of such conception, especially the less established idea of ecological benefit compensation. This dual perception of soundness in principle and difficulty in practice seems to be the drive behind much of the preference for well-intentioned cooperation and consideration as well as the reticence on issues such as whether benefit sharing is an obligation of parties or the exact objectives behind ecological benefit compensation.

4.4 Impact of geographic locations

An important finding of this study after factor analysis is that the geographic association of the participants have significant impact on their views, even though they were not distinguished by such characteristics in the earlier part of the study. As illustrated by Table 1, the three streams of views represented by the three relevant factors of the Q-Method survey display strong geographic associations. Using the labels employed by the analysis above, all pragmatists are from China. 67% of the supporters are from Southeast Asia, while 60% of the idealists are from South Asia.

Such information of geographic association could make some of the interpretation easier to align with the existing hydrodiplomacy of the countries concerned. Take pragmatists in this study as an example, all of whom come from China as we now know. Their strong preferences for cooperation mechanisms would make sense given the efforts of China in promoting such cooperation in the region, such as the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Mechanism (LMCM). Here, a ‘win-win’ rhetoric in relation to transboundary water sharing has been a favoured narrative of China [54], which also explains why the pragmatists would strongly disagree with any dismissal of the value of such cooperation. Indeed, China’s approach in exploiting Mekong resources has long been criticized both for their environmental impacts on the local sustainability and for their lack of transparency in decision-making process [55]. Within the LMCM, the priority areas of cooperation cover a broad range of issues apart from water management, including “connectivity, production capacity cooperation, cross-border economic cooperation as well as agriculture and poverty-reduction cooperation”. These are aligned with areas of cooperation among the ASEAN countries, which address how human needs can be satisfied by utilizing shared water resources. It is also noticeable that a strong emphasis on political stability in the region from China’s side parallels with China’s commitment to providing dedicated financial transactions within member countries for regional development [56].

4.5 Consensus and contention

Despite the analysis above of the three different main streams of views, there is notable commonality in the views of the majority of participants in this exercise, indicating an encouraging level of consensus on several general issues (Tables 4 & 5). Most notably, the notion that the right to access and use international rivers should be regarded as a part of sovereignty rather than water rights [57, 58] is universally and fiercely rejected by all, including experts from China. This is despite the debate as to whether China claim absolute or limited territorial sovereignty in transboundary waters as an ‘upstream controller’ [59]. Water rights have endowed the countries better form when seeking to secure profits from the shared water resources, hence a common ground when nation states aim to develop hydrodiplomacy. Therefore, in terms of the detailed understanding of benefit sharing, such agreement supports the idea that states act as lead representative in hydrodiplomacy when defining key benefits in water sharing. Participants disagree with the assertion that more cooperation mechanism render it harder to coordinate interests among countries [58, 60], though to varying extents among the three streams of views. Furthermore, there is consistent level of support for principles such as ‘no significant harm’ under current international law and UNWC among the participants. Some of the criticism against UNWC, such as that it failed to uphold the principle of fairness by favouring downstream countries over upstream countries [58, 61] are rejected by most.

To some extent, consensus is also seen in participants’ agreeing with ecological compensation mechanism when practising benefit sharing principle. Ecological compensation, though may appear in various forms, essentially serves to compensate economic loss when countries contribute to ecological protection activities. Although this is seen by idealists to potentially burden countries’ economy and development agenda (S35, S27), there is flexibility for it to take various forms, including financial compensation, material compensation and policy support (S33). Moreover, both supporters and pragmatists agree with adopting ecological compensation mechanism as an approach to compromise to maximise profits in the sharing of desired benefits (S30).

However, there are significant differences on the crucial issues of what should be included as benefits to be shared in transboundary rivers and what mechanisms facilitate the fair implementation of the principle. Participants generally agree on some of the basic understanding, such as that water benefit sharing is more about sharing economic and other benefits of water and national development rather than dividing a fixed quantity of water itself, which represents a narrow focused of the sustainable development of shared rivers [62]. As explained above, both supporters and pragmatists reject indirect benefits beyond the water sector, such as infrastructure development or growth in trade. Yet this type represents the most keenly desired benefits by idealists, who in turn strongly reject direct economic benefits such as hydropower or irrigation, which are comfortably accepted by others. Although current scholarship often promotes environmental benefits as the basis of all other types of benefits [9, 13], this turns out to be one of the most controversial topics among all participants (Table 5). There is considerable disagreement as to whether refraining activity, such as withdrawing from construction project or reducing mining or logging operations, should be seen as contribution to the ecological resources of transboundary rivers [43].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Most and least controversial Q statements among all participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280625.t005

In addition, disagreements also exist on how to share the desired benefits, including mechanisms that facilitate the fair distribution of benefits as well as institutions for conflict resolution. Despite the understanding that distribution of benefits could take various forms such as equal distribution, proportional distribution according to cost or equitable distribution of different types of benefits [63], it may be observed that the equitable use of water resources pose challenge to countries because of their different water needs shaped by social and economic development and the regional particularity of transboundary rivers [64]. Some disagreement exists as to whether the existing international norm facilitates countries to forming effective cooperative mechanisms. Participants fundamentally disagree on whether disputes arising out of benefit sharing and ecological benefits compensation could be resolved through the International Court of Justice, as suggested by some [43].

5.1 Regional perspectives in sharing international rivers

The most significant insight to be gained from the findings of this Q-Method survey is the starkly different perspectives with regard to the types of benefits to be shared over international rivers. Such novel understanding based on empirical evidence highlights concerns raised in the implementing of benefit sharing principle. In Southeast Asia and South Asia, the features of geopolitics in the region strongly impact their understanding of the practice of benefit sharing while obscuring the underlying reasons that affect the reaching of agreements between states on benefit sharing. Power asymmetry is recognized to be significantly affecting the nature of international cooperation and tensions in the management of river basins in Asia [10], hence it is likely to constitute an important factor affecting countries’ adopting preferred mechanism when practising the sharing of benefits from shared water resources. Concerns are raised how political power affects the reaching of just outcomes for each country to secure their rightful interests in the shared water resources, although both pragmatists and idealists agree that water rights can be negotiated through inter-state bilateral or multilateral discussion (S4). Similarly, the low economic development level in Asia and the underdevelopment of key democratic institutions as well as limited knowledge in water management have posed challenges to the region in setting up efficient institutional arrangements to promote sustainable development [65]. Those who are equipped with material power is more likely to be well-positioned when promoting ecological compensation mechanism that features the provision of financial or material compensation.

Indeed, political and economic asymmetry have obscured the understanding of Asian states’ negotiating for governance arrangements over shared rivers, especially on powerful actors and their interactions with neighbouring states. For its sheer size and economic and political power, China is an influential actor impacting on the uses and governance of the shared water resources. With China’s engaging with the Mekong countries mainly through economic profits rather than environmental protection in the river basin, the ‘empirical neglect’ of environmental benefits had been a major criticism against China’s policy in the Mekong River [9]. This Q-Method survey results would indicate that such position may well be reciprocated downstream in Southeast Asian countries. Although they disagree on a number of other issues, both supporters, predominantly from Southeast Asia, and pragmatists, exclusively from China, agree on including environmental benefits, direct economic benefits and political benefits into the calculation of water benefits, but not infrastructure or trade related indirect benefits. Indeed, it may be argued that such largely compatible views among Chinese experts and their Southeast Asian neighbours on the practically significant issues of what to share, what not to share, and whether environmental benefits should be prioritized, potentially contribute to the advancement and progression in the cooperation of these countries, most clearly illustrated by the LMCM [56].

Such a level of compatibility may be far more difficult to achieve when working with the group of idealists identified in the present study, most of them from South Asia. Idealists focus on environmental benefits, as advocated by the leading theories. However, they also reject direct economic benefits such as hydropower generation or navigation convenience in the sharing of international river benefits. It may be inferred that idealists want to see countries voluntarily give environmental concerns the highest priority without being obliged, to pay for usage of such precious resource without having its contributions recognized, and to exclude direct economic benefits from their understanding and calculation. Such position has also been found in domestic water management in India, where the impact of environmental movement, which sees the involvement of a prominent idealist perspective, is significant in the policy process [27]. Some opine that environmental activism challenges national government’s role to promote the management of water resources in a centralized fashion [27]. It seems highly doubtful whether any cooperation or sharing of international rivers so far could satisfy such high expectations of the idealists. Given the small sample base of experts from South Asia, this present study by no means indicates that this is a dominant stream of views in the region. It is nevertheless a notable and distinct perspective that deserve attention and scrutiny by future studies.

5.2 Framework of benefit sharing

Existing scholarship has placed more emphasis on the construction of benefit sharing than the importance of agreed benefit sharing principle in the development of hydrodiplomacy. As discussed above, the four types of benefits in sharing international rivers are widely accepted by international scholarship, and this paper has no intention to challenge such construction. Indeed, the latest literature often seeks to develop these four types further, for example by including ‘social-cultural cooperation’ into the category of indirect benefits ‘beyond the river’ [33]. Yet acceptance of such theoretical development by many expert participants in this study seems to lag behind, given that many would even disagree with including indirect benefits into water benefit sharing in the first place. At the same time, while few in this realm would explicitly question that environmental benefits should underpin all other benefits in the context of international rivers, it seems legitimate to investigate whether that belief is widely shared or firmly held by experts and officials in practice. As illustrated in this study, when placed alongside other competing values and priorities, the foundational role of environmental benefits is readily downgraded by many.

Such subjective and regionally-associated perspectives of experts uncovered in this present study pave the way for further theorization of the concept of benefit sharing that takes into account the more practical and more localized aspects, in the complex context of the great varieties of international river sharing in the world. Without changing the typological framework first introduced by Sadoff and Grey [13], it is nevertheless sensible to take into consideration of new variables such as regional differences and economical and developmental status. Countries in different parts of the world may have very different social, economic, political and cultural understanding and expectation of using water resources [66]. In order for benefit sharing to thrive as a concept and a practical approach of international water governance, its theoretical basis should encapsulate the level of awareness and flexibility that would accommodate considerably different perspectives, such as those of regional experts identified in this study.

The accommodation of such perspectives will enhance the role and significance of the theory of benefit sharing, in explaining and analysing the success or difficulty of reaching agreements on international cooperation over water resources. With the increasing recognition of the importance of benefit sharing on the international stage, a more comprehensive, adaptable and multi-faceted theory of benefit sharing could offer invaluable insights that greatly enrich the current focus on considerations such as power or geopolitics.

5.3 Benefit Sharing in Hydrodiplomacy Process

The findings of this present study have shown that, compatible with outcomes of hydro- diplomatic practices, when countries have developed similar views on benefit sharing, they are likely to achieve positive cooperation on the sharing of international rivers. This is the case of the Mekong River basin, where views between the Chinese and the Mekong groups are closely aligned. In contrast, disagreement on benefit sharing principle among nation states, especially those in the Global South, constitutes an important factor to their failing to develop institutional mechanisms for water sharing. The starkly different views between Chinese and Indian experts on benefit sharing help to explain why hydrodiplomacy between China and India is fraught with difficulties. It is argued that countries’ agreement on the conceptual framework of benefit sharing principle is an essential element in successful hydrodiplomacy.

While open discussion of the conceptual framework of benefit sharing is evidently helpful, often it is not placed on the top of political agenda in hydrodiplomacy, possibly because of countries’ lacking appreciation of its importance. Nevertheless, for countries in the Global South, benefit sharing underlies their approaches in water management, which orients toward garnering material interests while achieving sustainable goals for the river basins. Neglecting or shying away from discussion of benefit sharing is obviously detrimental to any effort to reach consensus. This is a particularly pertinent concern because current international law has not placed clear obligations of incorporating benefit sharing on countries that intend to cooperate. Therefore, it is important for countries to address the basic issues of benefit sharing early in the process of hydrodiplomacy, such as the types of benefits to share and the acceptance of sharing mechanisms including ecological compensation.