Abstract
Since 2004, with the new premierships of Manmohan Singh, in India, and Abdullah Badawi, in Malaysia, India and Malaysia have been playing active roles in decision-making on many issues, regionally through regional blocks. Despite these positive developments, the area where there is a pressing need for the two countries to discuss and act upon concerns environmental security, mainly freshwater scarcity and security. Both India and Malaysia face worrying proportions of freshwater shortages, due to a number of reasons, including increasing individual consumption, industrialisation and poor agricultural practices. This article discusses how both India and Malaysia, as well as their roles in four regional organisations, can recognise the problem of freshwater scarcity and security and propose solutions for adaptation and mitigation. The theoretical framework within which this discussion is couched in is liberalism.
Introduction: Freshwater Scarcity within the Framework of Liberalism
This article focuses on how and why India and Malaysia, within the framework of liberalism, should pay more attention to the problem of freshwater scarcity in South and South-east Asia. We show that there is room for more actors other than the unitary state when dealing with the non-traditional security issue of freshwater scarcity. Issues of the environment are best analysed by the plurality in state actors such as the role of culture, the economic system, type of government and diplomacy. Both Malaysia and India must address this problem at regional-level organisations, mainly on how to mitigate and adapt to freshwater scarcity. Also, the analysis of freshwater scarcity and security between nations supports the concept of the use of low politics in adapting to and mitigating threats to security. The premise is to promote a world order which is sensitive to freshwater scarcity, through international organisations (IGOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and diplomacy (Baylis and Smith 2001). The levels of analysis define how countries like India and Malaysia can work together, through regional organisations, to overcome the problems brought about by freshwater scarcity.
The liberalist framework is best suited in the discussion of adaptation to and mitigation of freshwater scarcity regionally and globally. This is because liberal theorists see the rules of international relations evolving from the gradual build-up of international organisations and mutual cooperation (reciprocity). They try to explain how peace and cooperation are possible, contrary to the realist approach which is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. The latter is often defined as the ability to get another actor to do what it would not otherwise have done, because of the ability or potential to influence others in the international system. If influence fails, the potential for conflict will be high. For liberalism, the main focus is how peace and security can evolve because states develop and follow mutually advantageous rules, within regional and international institutions to monitor and enforce them. The ultimate aim, for example, is to provide answers that freshwater scarcity should not cause conflict, but instead promote collaboration of states. Liberalism argues that scarcity will encourage individuals, communities and states to seek alliances to escape imbalances in resource scarcity; in this case, freshwater scarcity (Johnson et al. 2011).
For the environment as a whole, liberalist cooperation by nations to protect it has nevertheless been significant, with an increased recognition of international law and the United Nations guidelines. Numerous United Nation Charters exist, such as the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention and the 1982 World Charter of Nature. These conventions prohibit damage to the environment that can affect the health and survival of human beings. Similarly, in 1997, the UN passed landmark principles for Shared International Waterways (including equitable water utilisation and obligations to share data). It is obvious that regional and international cooperation over water is essential, and is picking up (Winter 2011).
This article concentrates on a collaborative relationship between India and Malaysia, since 2004, and how this form of low politics could address the larger problem of freshwater scarcity in the South and South-east Asian regions, through four regional groupings. These are the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the ASEAN–India Summit, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Indian Ocean Rim–Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR–ARC). The year 2004 is significant because of Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s landmark visit to Delhi, to discuss various issues of cooperation. Both India’s Look East Policy and Malaysia’s renewed rapprochement with India can be used as a stepping stone to address and think more seriously about the crisis of freshwater scarcity with South and South-east Asian regional dialogue partners. Also, 2004 is one year after the UN officially announced the International Year of Freshwater. The two nations, India and Malaysia, are selected because both countries have healthy economic development, and are rapidly rising in terms of development status, not to mention that they also have strong historical and cultural ties. The independent variable discussed is the evolving cautious but progressive relations between India and Malaysia since 2004, while the dependent variables are the factors such as regional groupings that influence the success or failure of the relationship within the context of ensuring freshwater security.
Historical Ties between India and Malaysia
In the colonial era, India and Malaysia, or rather South-east Asia, established close relations. Going further back, from prehistoric days, India had trade and cultural relations with West Asia, Rome, China and South-east Asia. India sent its traders and missionaries to these regions and in some places Indians also settled in various parts of Indo-China and Malaya. During the reign of Darius the Great of Persia, Greece and India had their earliest contact in about 510 BCE. After the discovery of the monsoon by Hippalus in first century CE, Roman vessels plied directly across the Indian Ocean. The port of Palura on the eastern coast of India had an important role. The ships came here from Arikamedu, crossed the Bay of Bengal and went to the delta of the Irrawaddy, from where they proceeded to the Malay Peninsula. Demand for Eastern goods stimulated Indian trading along the Malay Peninsula. It is not surprising that Roman coins, pottery, amphora and other trade goods have been found in the Malay Peninsula originating from coastal regions of eastern India. Indo-Roman contact declined during the third and fourth centuries CE, but India’s relationship with South-east Asia continued.
Historically, ‘Indianization’ was the term generally used for the Indian cultural influence upon South-east Asia. Earlier scholars had regarded the process of ‘Indianization’ as an Indian initiative with large-scale migrants establishing colonies in South-east Asia. According to these scholars, the latter region was at the receiving end and played a passive role. Nevertheless, Malayan spices were the major attraction of Indian traders which explains why the two regions (South and South-east Asia) had a booming trading relationship.
The post–World War II relationship between India and Malaysia is said to have begun when diplomatic relations were established in 1957. During Indonesia’s ‘Crush Malaysia Plan’ or konfrontasi (1962–1965), India rallied behind the British, Australia and New Zealand in support of the formation of the Federated Malay States or ‘Malaysia’, which included peninsular Malaysia and the North Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysia reciprocated later, in 1965, when she gave diplomatic support to India at the UN during the India–Pakistan war. Since the late 1980s, the subsequent end of the Cold War and 9/11, many writings are scarce when it comes to India–Malaysia bilateral relations with respect to environmental issues, including freshwater security. For instance, the subjects that academics, government officials, corporate leaders and non-profit organisations concentrate on are India’s and Malaysia’s economic growth, defence capabilities, and the development of industries such as the information technology industry, engineering, machine tools, electronics, textiles and the iron and steel industry, but there is little focus on environmental issues. However, discussions and writings on Indian and Malaysian contact concerning these aspects are within the context of regional groupings of which both nations are members. Nevertheless, these discussions are not considered as pressing as the status of economies and defence strategy in the region.
Ensuring environmental security depends on transnational cooperation which is required in order to resolve common problems. Both India and Malaysia face alarming depletion of freshwater resources and through the ASEAN regional institutional process, problems could be shared and joint efforts established to help overcome the problem. The democratic peace thesis suggests that liberal states do not go to war with other liberal states. If states like India and Malaysia hold onto the idea that war is unthinkable between liberal states, and that there is less to gain by engaging in conflicts, then the process of integrating into regional relationships will help overcome pressing environmental disasters.
Freshwater Scarcity and Security in India and Malaysia since 2004
In India, discourse on water resources have been linked to either domestic or international violent conflict, such as some communal violence related to distribution of water from the Caveri River and political tensions surrounding actual and potential population displacements by dam projects, particularly on the Narmada River. Particularly serious environmental issues facing India, which could lead to conflict and insecurity, have to do with water scarcity (Shiva 2002). Millions of Indians currently lack access to clean drinking water, and the situation is only getting worse. A rapidly growing economy and a large agricultural sector stretch India’s supply of water very thin. Meanwhile, India’s supply of water is rapidly dwindling primarily due to mismanagement of water resources, although over-pumping and pollution are also significant contributors. As demand for potable water starts to outstrip supply by increasing amounts in coming years, India will face a slew of subsequent problems, such as food shortages, intra-state and international conflict.
India’s water crisis is predominantly a man-made problem. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available to be practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution. By 2050 demand is expected to double and consequently exceed the 1.4 trillion cubic meters of supply (Sengupta 2006a). Population growth has accelerated the water crisis in India, especially as more and more people move into the cities and become part of the middle class. Because the rivers are too polluted to drink from and the government is unable to consistently deliver freshwater to the cities, many urban dwellers are turning to groundwater, which is greatly contributing to the depletion of underground aquifers. Rural citizens face a similar crisis. Currently, 30 per cent of the rural population lack access to drinking water, and of the 35 states in India, only 7 have full availability of drinking water for rural inhabitants. The majority of water demand comes from agricultural needs (UNICEF 2002).
Between 1947 and 1967, India underwent the Green Revolution, which concentrated on expanding farm yields by double-cropping the existing farmland and using seeds with improved genetics. The result was a huge increase in agricultural production, making India one of the world’s biggest exporters of grain. The availability of canal water led farmers to adopt highly profitable, but extremely water-intensive crops, such as sugar cane. Unfortunately, this huge surge in agriculture required significant water resources for irrigation and accelerated the onset of present water shortages. India’s agricultural sector currently uses about 90 per cent of the total water resources. Irrigated agriculture has been fundamental to economic development, but unfortunately has caused groundwater depletion. Due to water pollution in rivers, India draws 80 per cent of its irrigation water from groundwater. As water scarcity becomes a bigger problem, rural and farming areas will most likely be hit the hardest. If India wants to maintain its level of food security, farmers will have to switch to less water-intensive crops.
Only 48 per cent of rainfall ends up in India’s rivers. Due to lack of storage and crumbling infrastructure, only 18 per cent can be utilised. Rainfall is confined to the monsoon season, June through September, when India gets, on average, 75 per cent of its total annual precipitation. The government is unable to store surplus water for the dry season. India’s water scarcity is a crisis that could have been largely avoided with better water management practices. There has been a distinct lack of attention to water legislation, water conservation, efficiency in water use, water recycling and infrastructure.
Unlike many other developing countries, especially those with acute water scarcity issues such as China, Indian law has virtually no legislation on groundwater. Anyone can extract water: homeowner, farmer or industry as long as the water lies underneath their plot of land. The development and distribution of cheap electricity and electric pumps have triggered rapid pumping of groundwater and subsequent depletion of aquifers. There are approximately 20 million individual wells in India that are contributing to groundwater depletion (Sengupta 2006b). The owners of these wells do not have to pay for this water, so there is no incentive to conserve or recycle it. India is in a conundrum; she needs to keep boosting agricultural production in order to feed its growing population, but to do so without jeopardising the amount of water available, farmers must switch to less water-intensive crops. However, this is not happening.
Every river in India is polluted to some degree. The water quality in underground wells violates the desired levels of dissolved oxygen and coliform, the presence of which is one measure of filth, in addition to having high concentrations of toxic metals, fluoride and nitrates (UNICEF 2002). India’s rivers also have high fluoride content, which affects 66 million people. The polluted water then seeps into the groundwater and contaminates agricultural products when used for irrigation. Over 21 per cent of transmissible diseases in India are related to unsafe water. Millions of the poorest are affected by preventable diseases caused by inadequate water.
In Malaysia, environmental scarcity and degradation are closely related to industrialisation and urbanisation, just like in India. The high rate of urbanisation in Malaysia contributes to environmental degradation and scarcity because the level and quality of natural resources are not enough to meet the needs and expectations of the population. One of the activities that has left a few parts of Malaysia in a state of environmental degradation and scarcity is land clearance. Exposed soils, especially in the tropics, erode rapidly, and in many cases, are subject to declining fertility and desertification. They also degrade the water quality of downstream communities, often contributing to flooding and silting of rivers and dams. Land clearance often extends to the coastal regions and into the sea itself. This in turn can upset the ocean ecology.
In a Malaysian newspaper article entitled ‘Stop Plundering Mother Nature’ (New Sunday Times 2005), comments by government officials were made about the rapid rate of deforestation that is taking place by Malaysia’s urban developers. Several other articles have been published by academics, private citizens and NGOs on the poor state of Malaysia’s environment as well as the lack of capacity-building programmes to overcome environmental degradation. But what good has come from this? From the 1960s onwards, Malaysia embarked on a series of industrialisation projects which resulted in the generation of large amounts of industrial waste. Rapid industrialisation encouraged rural migration into the urban areas. The expansion of cities led to an increase in the flow of household and human waste into rivers. To date, the most serious threat to Malaysia’s environment is to freshwater resources, as is the case of India.
Freshwater to the Klang Valley, the most populous urban centre in Malaysia, is supplied by the Klang River, which flows through the heart of Kuala Lumpur. Deforestation, dam construction, silt from construction sites, industrial discharges and dumping of solid wastes have undermined the capacity of Malaysian rivers like the Klang River, to carry excessive run-offs to the sea.
There are no less than 54 dams in operation in Malaysia. However, the amount of water restored by the dams constitutes only 2 per cent of the total run-off available in a year. With many more dry spells brought on by changing weather patterns (the El Niño weather pattern, for example), many of the dams may not be able to withstand prolonged dry periods. Being a tropical and lush country, one would expect Malaysia to have enough water for its needs, on an annual basis. However, this optimism is slowly being compromised by regular shortages, at certain times of the year. The regular flow of water out of domestic taps has diminished and become more precious. This is due to the condition of the sources of the water, that is, rivers in the highland forests. Rivers in these highlands supply much of the potable water in Malaysia, but the quality, quantity and timing of water is influenced by climate and land use. When land use is not properly managed, rivers are subject to pollution, such as eutrophication.
The Malaysian Environmental Quality Report, 2009, the Compendium of Environmental Statistics Malaysia, 2010, and the Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011–2015, put the number of rivers polluted as 45.5 per cent of the total number. Furthermore, the number of clean river water basins decreased from 76 in 2008 to 70 in 2009. Also, the number of slightly polluted and polluted river basins increased by two and four respectively (Government of Malaysia 2010a). This is widely due to population sewage. Chapter 9 of the Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011–1015, entitled ‘Valuing Our Environmental Endowments’ is only two pages long. The ‘environment’ is discussed in general. No special section is devoted to freshwater and how to improve the situation in Malaysia (Government of Malaysia 2010b). The Malaysian Department of Environment (DoE) has reported that 20 of Malaysia’s 116 major rivers are seriously polluted. Of the 119 rivers monitored for human and animal wastes, 34 rivers exceeded the standards for Escherichia coli (E. coli) and total coliforms (Government of Malaysia 2009).
Institutional Multilateral Frameworks: How India and Malaysia should Tackle Freshwater Scarcity
Freshwater is emerging as the most critical resource issue facing humanity. Today, we withdraw water faster than it can be recharged. The amount of freshwater withdrawn for human uses has risen nearly 40-fold in the past 300 years. One of the major factors contributing to this is the world’s rapid population growth over the last century. Demand for water is also rising because of urbanisation, economic development and improved living standards.
While keeping in mind how regional institutionalisation can contribute to managing freshwater scarcity in both India and Malaysia, disaster risk management needs to be motivated and based within governmental responsibilities, knowing that its success cannot be accomplished without the benefits of widespread decision-making cooperation and the participation of many others. This is where the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the ASEAN–India Summit, SAARC and IOR-ARC are crucial to spearhead a leading policy direction with respect to overcoming freshwater scarcity in India and Malaysia. Apart from these, the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) program, established in December 1999, is the secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and reducing the risks of disaster, which includes the depletion of natural resources such as freshwater. It aims to reduce socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster as well as dealing with the environmental and other hazards that trigger them, such as over-population and global climate change.
As part of the liberalist, multilateral process, both Indian and Malaysian governments, as well as NGOs, academics, the private sector and the general public must engage in decision-making activities to direct and coordinate activities in order to achieve results which could not be accomplished by one country or person acting alone. Here we are concerned with routine management which relates to those activities that occur during non-crisis situations, such as disaster mitigation and disaster reconstruction. Advanced planning activities, collectively called disaster preparedness, include strategic planning, contingency planning and forward planning (Kapoor 2010). Strategic planning consists of preparing the government or organisation to respond to disaster threats in locations that are not immediately threatened. Contingency planning is site-specific and recognises that a disaster could occur at any time. Forward planning occurs when a disaster is imminent and some details regarding the threat are known to the crisis manager. Preparing for imminent freshwater scarcity falls into these three categories, and introducing these concepts at regional forums will certainly help overcome future freshwater scarcity in South and South-east Asia.
Below, we look at four regional groupings of which both Malaysia and India are members, namely, the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the ASEAN–India Summit, SAARC and the IOR-ARC. We discuss how both India’s and Malaysia’s roles in these regional groupings can and should encourage multilateral approaches to solving problems that may face all members. It will also be obvious that there is a deficit in addressing problems associated with freshwater scarcity and degradation, let alone environmental problems in these multilateral organisations. Furthermore, we notice that both India and Malaysia do not explore the potential that they have to work together within these organisations, at finding solutions to their freshwater woes, both for each country in particular, as well as for the region of South and South-east Asia in general. It is time that both nations spearhead their continued influence to include this discussion of freshwater scarcity and security at the multilateral level.
ASEAN Dialogue Partners
The first ASEAN Dialogue Partners meeting was held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in 2003. The ASEAN Dialogue Partners include the 10 ASEAN nations, as well as Australia, Canada, the United States, China, the EU, India, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Pakistan. Of these partners, only three countries have explicitly stated that they should include issues of the environment in their dialogues. India expressed concern to address the impact of climate change (part of the Look East Policy goals). The United States has expressed interest to include under the ‘socio-cultural’ ambit the issues of the environment, climate change and food and energy security. Lastly, Pakistan has also shown interest in focusing on issues of the environment, among others. The other partners of the ASEAN Dialogue mention ‘human rights’, but do not spell out the agenda. Human rights also include the right to the availability of clean and safe freshwater resources, but this is not on the agenda. India and Malaysia can and should venture to establish this issue as a regular discussion piece at dialogue meetings.
At the 17th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, 2010, it was declared that, together with the dialogue partners, the issues of regional defence and non-traditional security challenges like epidemics, natural disasters, environmental protection and climate change would be addressed. The first ASEAN Defense Minister’s Meeting Plus, a new platform for strategic dialogue and consultation of regional security and defence issues, was also held in Hanoi, drawing 10 ASEAN members and 8 dialogue partners. Also, on the agenda was to gear up towards consolidating regional trade partnerships with the adoption of the ASEAN Framework for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AFRCEP) in 2011. The AFRCEP includes India as well as a few other dialogue partners, namely, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. Malaysia’s Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU was completed in 2012. In Hanoi, 2010, an ASEAN High Level Task Force was set up to develop the Master Plan to provide a framework for regional cooperation on connectivity and a foundation for further connectivity with other regions, such as East Asia and South Asia. This connectivity includes transportation, telecommunications, information and communication technology (ICT), energy infrastructure, as well as resource mobilisation. However, freshwater issues were not on the agenda. While environmental protection was mentioned, there was no serious attempt of the parties involved to discuss the water crisis or to establish a forward-looking platform for cooperation in water conservation.
ASEAN–India Summit
The first ASEAN–India Summit was convened in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in 2002. The 9th ASEAN–India Summit was concluded a year ago, in Bali, 2011. Part of the Chairman’s statement mentioned during that summit was that India has attached great importance to ASEAN–India relations, considering it as a pillar of India’s Look East Policy. Recently, India–ASEAN relations had been growing closer at a faster pace than ever before. Trade ties between the two have already crossed the 70-billion mark, and it is expected to reach 100 billion by 2015. India and ASEAN already have FTAs in goods in place, and now talks are on to finalise the ASEAN–India FTA in investments and services. This is expected to be signed in 2012. As a further boost to these growing economic ties, the ASEAN secretariat is processing projects worth $70 million to promote better people-to-people ties and also to increase institutional connectivity between India and the ASEAN grouping. According to some estimates, a 3,200 km trilateral highway linking India, Myanmar and Thailand will become a reality by 2016. A major part of the $500 million loan which India has given to Myanmar is expected to be mainly used to fund this project. Recognising the future importance of physical connectivity between the two regions, talks are also on to build a new India–Myanmar–Laos–Vietnam–Cambodia highway. Apart from this, other high value-ended projects are also being considered by a Land Transport Working Group set up for this special purpose. A four-day India–ASEAN summit to be held in December 2012 in New Delhi is expected to focus particularly on connectivity with ASEAN countries (The Korea Times 2012).
A good step forward in the direction of addressing freshwater issues in the ASEAN–India Summit is the meeting of senior officials in New Delhi, September 2012, on the Mekong–Ganga Cooperation grouping (MGC), also comprising Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. The meeting explored pathways of collaboration among the six countries. This meeting was to confirm the Mekong–Ganga foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, December 2012, which is expected to focus on spurring connectivity projects and explore ways to boost economic, cultural and tourism exchanges among ASEAN and India. Although not directly involved, Malaysia will be present with observer status.
The December 2012 summit will culminate in the adoption of the ASEAN–India Vision Statement 2020, which would map out the future direction of ASEAN–India relations. However, little attention will be given to environmental issues (
Enhancing India’s relations with ASEAN has been the cornerstone of India’s Look East Policy. As part of India’s Look East Policy, India has an important vehicle to develop a consensus of the possible disaster in freshwater availability to the platform of all four regional groupings, mentioned above. It was initiated by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in 1993, with Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister. However, a glaring omission in the policy is that it does not address environmental issues, such as how to deal with growing environmental problems regionally, as well as the scarcity of freshwater, which both Malaysia (and ASEAN) and India face.
The Look East Policy of India is an attempt to build closer relations with East Asian countries, which includes the regional block of ASEAN. India’s Look East Policy re-defines the concept of ‘Asia’ to include India as a force to reckon with. The policy states that there has been a long-held perception that Asia consists of countries from Japan, to Thailand, Myanmar, and the other nations of East and South-east Asia. Under this perception, India does not come to mind when one speaks of ‘Asia’. The Look East Policy has changed that perception. ASEAN nations have been transforming their economies, opening up to Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean and Chinese investments. India decided that she had to get involved as well and that it was not enough to focus solely on economic issues. Nevertheless, within the ASEAN platform, freshwater security issues have been on the back burner. However, Malaysian companies such as Ranhill Utilities Bhd. are in partnership with India’s Jusco Group and the Infrastructure Development Finance Co. (IDFC) to lease and build water treatment plants in West Bengal.
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an organisation of South Asian nations, which was established on 8 December 1985, when the governments of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka formally adopted its charter providing for the promotion of economic and social progress, cultural development within the South Asia region and also for friendship and cooperation with other developing countries, including Malaysia. Later, Afghanistan was included as a SAARC member. SAARC takes a keen interest in environmental issues such as climate change and drought risk management and mitigation. Also, the SAARC Heads of State have been active in pursuing regional cooperation to address environmental challenges. In 1997, the SAARC Environment Action Plan was implemented which led to the establishment of the SAARC Coastal Zone Management Center, the SAARC Forestry Center, the SAARC Disaster Management Center and the SAARC Meteorological Research Center. In ecology, the South Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water Resources Studies, SaciWATER focuses on transforming water resources knowledge systems by using an interdisciplinary approach from a pro-poor, human development perspective. Its long-term goal is to establish a virtual water university. In 1995, the Duryog Nivaran network was established to fill a void in cross-border dialogue and experience sharing among organisations and other developing countries. It promotes an alternative perspective towards disasters that views people affected by disasters as not just victims but partners in their future development and well-being. The Climate Action Network-South Asia (CANSA) was established in 1991 by Asian NGOs and scientists who were concerned about the adverse impact of global climate change on the poor and most vulnerable sections of the society (Behera 2008). What is important and necessary here is that the SaciWATER group should move beyond SAARC borders to engage other countries, like Malaysia, to address water issues. It is an excellent platform for decision-makers, academics, NGOs and the private sector in both SAARC and Malaysia to share experiences and solutions to the growing weather-related disasters such as freshwater scarcity.
Indian Ocean Rim–Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC)
The IOR-ARC was launched in Mauritius in March 1997. The group currently has 18 members: Australia, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. China, Egypt, France, Japan and the United Kingdom are dialogue partners of the IOR-ARC, and the Indian Ocean Tourism Organisation (IOTO) has an observer status. The secretariat of the IOR-ARC is based in Mauritius (Gopalan and Rajan 2009). The IOR-ARC’s objective is to promote sustainable growth and balanced development of the region as a whole, with a special emphasis on economic cooperation that would dismantle the barriers to intra-regional trade flows of goods and services among the countries along the Rim. Environmental issues are not included in the objectives.
The IOR-ARC Regional Centre for Science and Technology Transfer (RCSTT) was established in October 2008. Its purpose is to organise short-term training courses, workshops and conferences in order to achieve cooperation among member states and dialogue partners to improve technology capacities of private and governmental sectors in the areas of nanotechnology, medicinal plants, microelectronics, renewable energies and biotechnology. It is apt that issues of climate change, environmental degradation and freshwater security be included in the objectives. This would greatly benefit ASEAN nations, in particular, Malaysia. Training programmes have been held on climate change and sustainability, as well as desalination of brackish, sea-water and wastewater treatment in 2012. It is proposed that some of the member states with higher potential host sponsor few programmes in cooperation with this Centre annually. Malaysia may undertake three programmes—South Africa two, Indonesia two, Kenya one, Singapore two, Sri Lanka one, Thailand one, UAE two and Oman two (Molajenad 2011).
Conclusion: The Liberal Approach and the Way Forward
What ASEAN, India and Malaysia need is to realise that they have to share a commitment to democratic forms of government and that interdependence breeds peace. Where there is peace, there is room to address global disasters such as freshwater scarcity. It must be realised that there are advantages for both India and Malaysia to adopt parallel approaches to overcome their freshwater woes, within the conduit of the four regional groupings discussed earlier. The first step has already been taken, that is, when India tabulated its Look East Policy, which gradually brought the two countries, India and Malaysia, to closer dialogue and multilateral discussions, since 1991.
It is also vital that a connection be made between economic institutions and ecological/environmental crises. The relationship is very close as can be seen in the relationship between freshwater security and economic development. Global ecosystems and freshwater sources are clearly endangered by current patterns of economic development. Over the past 50 years, ecosystems have been modified more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel. The result has been a considerable decline in the economic benefits provided by ecosystems. Through regional organisations, these problems can and should be addressed. So far, though, a lot more emphasis has been made on FTAs and economic-related relationships. It is evident in many of the ASEAN organisations, including the four that are discussed in this article. Through the four regional organisations discussed earlier, a number of multi-faceted problems associated with freshwater availability, quality, quantity and awareness can be addressed. These are as follows:
Efficient methods of extraction of groundwater, particularly in the coastal regions where population relies heavily on groundwater and rainwater. Regular checks on discharge from industries, human settlements and agricultural plantations. Maintenance of catchment areas by regulating the conversion of land into agricultural, urban and industrial development. Prevention of water wastage due to inefficient use, leakage and theft. Education of the public about the importance of freshwater resources; that freshwater is a necessity; that freshwater is not unlimited in supply; that freshwater has to be regarded as precious as oil and gold. Need to regulate sustainable management procedures at the Central (Federal), State and local levels, that is, adoption of an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) program. Realisation that the independent management of freshwater by different sectors (industrial and agricultural) is inappropriate and that sources of freshwater, such as a river basin, need to be considered as one unit of analysis. Freshwater resources management is best done when all stakeholders participate, that is, the Central government, the State, the local communities and the private sector. Realisation that no single agency should have control of the management of sources of freshwater. Need to establish efficient facilities to manage inter-state freshwater transfers so that national development goals can be met. Political will to enforce IWRM; presently, in both India and Malaysia, individual States have their own laws governing the management of water resources; it is now necessary for the Central (Federal), State and local governments to coordinate their roles to avoid overlapping of responsibilities.
The article has suggested that liberalism is the framework within which ASEAN, SAARC and IOR-ARC as well as other relevant regional organisations, which include India and Malaysia, can follow a number of directions to overcome environmental degradation, particularly freshwater scarcity. However, these organisations should be more forthcoming in discourses on issues of the environment, particularly freshwater. Also, through regional groupings such as the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, SAARC, the ASEAN–India Summit and the IOR-ARC, the central concern is to provide for the liberty of the individual. By liberty of the individual is meant to be free from all forms of degradation, be they economic, socio-cultural, environmental or political. The article concludes by suggesting that closer ties between India and Malaysia through the four organisations should be nurtured because problems between the two entities are similar, as well as geo-politically, both entities have similar strategic interests in the region. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak, and the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, met in Kuala Lumpur on 27 October 2010. They recalled their decision during the visit of the Prime Minister of Malaysia to India in January 2010 to expand and deepen India–Malaysia bilateral relations by establishing a strategic partnership between the two countries via regional organisations. Some of the elements of these strategic interests are as follows:
The two Prime Ministers acknowledged the long history of cultural and civilisational contacts between the two countries and their shared commitment to democracy and development. They also acknowledged that both sides had made a contribution in promoting economic development and stability in the Asia–Pacific and recognised each others’ responsibility in the promotion of peace, development and security of the region based on a convergence of political and economic interests and aspirations.
Both sides acknowledged the importance of enhancing and deepening all-round cooperation through biennial meetings of the Joint Commission headed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries. The latest meeting was held in Kuala Lumpur in the first half of 2011. Both sides also recognised the central role of ASEAN and other regional organisations of greater participation by India and Malaysia in regional initiatives in the long-term interests of the region. India and Malaysia also underscored the importance of open, transparent and inclusive regional arrangements based on mutuality of interests with the four regional organisations, of which they are members, as the driving force. They welcomed the ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the ASEAN–India Summit, SAARC and the IOR-ARC as important regional mechanisms that advance peace, economic growth, knowledge-transfer and stability of the South and South-east Asian regions.
The way forward for India and Malaysia, through South and South-east Asian regional organisations should be to focus on the workshop organised by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP) on the strengthening of water utilities, which was held in New Delhi in December 2006. The issues raised are the benefits of the establishment of a South Asian Water Utilities Network (SAWUN) and to ensure the commitments of a sustainable water utilities programme in the action plan. The ADB and GWP signed a cooperation agreement covering, among others, the implementation of a Water Operators Partnership (WOP) Program in the South and South-east Asian region. The key task is to set up water utilities networks as a mechanism to share knowledge and build capacity among utilities that are facing similar challenges of freshwater scarcity. This will strengthen the utilities and facilitate access to finance, for example, through the ADB Water Financing Program that plans to invest in excess of USD 2 billion annually until 2010 to improve water service delivery in the region. The very fact that the ADB is fully committed is a good step forward to fusing the issue of resource scarcity (for example, freshwater scarcity) to sound and sustainable economic development.
In the 2006 workshop, there were more than 40 participants from South and South-east Asian countries like Cambodia, Philippines, Singapore, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Malaysia, as well as interested international and regional organisations like the South-east Asia Water Utilities Network (SEAWUN), the GWP, the ADB, the UN Habitat, the International Water Association (IWA), and representatives from water utilities in Central Asia and China. The representatives from Indian Ministry of Finance and Indian Water Association also participated and contributed to the event.
SEAWUN is a regional network of water utilities from Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. It was founded by 12 utilities in 2002, and today it has a membership base of 100 utilities providing water and sanitation services in 7 countries. In addition, the network has a small number of associating members which are water-related consulting companies, manufacturers and suppliers. The network provides its members with a platform for developing their capacity and expanding their knowledge through training programmes, structured learning from peers, and exchange of information and experiences. SEAWUN and its member utilities are committed to continuously improve their service coverage and delivery, financial sustainability and other aspects of their performance.
Successful case studies of SEAWUN are the Singapore Public Utilities Board, the Manila Water Company and the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority. The track record of these three utilities were greatly appreciated by all the participants and brought about a lot of useful experiences for better replication. At the workshop, much of the time was reserved for discussion on objectives, programmes, achievements and contributions of SEAWUN to the water sector in general and water utilities in particular. In fact, SEAWUN was considered as a model for the future SAWUN. More importantly, all the participants agreed on the necessity of setting up SAWUN and proposed the follow-up activities with emphasis on sustainability of the Water Utilities Network (WUN) and the WOP, including clear goals and strategies, appropriate action plans, initial involvement of successful companies as well as commitments of the stakeholders.
The liberalist approach helps international cooperation emerge despite the absence of a central authority. Despite many sources of conflict in international relations, states cooperate most of the time. This is what we advocate in the area of addressing and mitigating freshwater stress facing countries in South and South-east Asia. States can create mutual rules, expectations and institutions to promote behaviour that enhances the possibilities for mutual gain (Goldstein and Pevehouse 2008). Through Liberalism, regional regimes have the potential to be successful. A regime in this context is a set of rules, norms and procedures around which the expectations of actors converge in a certain issues area, such as freshwater security. The convergence of expectations means that participants in the international system have similar ideas about what rules will govern their mutual participation, that is each expects to play by the same rules. Liberalism, through regimes, can help solve collective good problems (water scarcity) by increasing transparency because ‘everyone knows what everyone is doing’.