**4. Analysis**

#### *4.1. Re-Interpreting Transboundary Water Cooperation Through Brahmaputra Dialogue*

The Brahmaputra Dialogue was initiated as a bilateral initiative with people-to-people diplomacy in 2013, but from 2014, the dialogue shaped into a multi-track and multi-stakeholder deliberation engaging the four basin nations and identifying avenues of cooperation. While dialogue at the Track 1 level, with a top down approach, has always been considered an acceptable form of formal cooperation, this initiative attempted to acknowledge the inclusivity that dialogues at the Track 3 and 2 levels can bring into the decision-making process, as the perspective on the issues plaguing the basin can flow from the bottom to top only when there is accountability to those whose lives and livelihoods are impacted directly by the river. A narrow definition of water cooperation, limited to the Track 1 governmental domain, not only undermines the fruition of the cooperation in other forms, but also actively prevents the maximized impacts being generated. For example, the Indus Treaty has been a diplomatic initiative purely at the political and policy level, but it still remains disputable and unsatisfactory to the basin-level stakeholders on the ground [53,54]. This platform has served to provide a non-formal cooperative arrangement to not only the policy makers and bureaucrats (former and serving) but also to those engaged with civil society and research. The ability to bring on board the serving bureaucrats has been vital, as under certain circumstances formal communication is not possible, but unofficial bodies can facilitate the deliberation among the parties. The initiative has fostered relationships that have lasted beyond the dialogue meetings, and have initiated joint efforts beyond the platform to work together on relevant issues among the stakeholders.

In the first phase, the dialogue moved to a Track 2 mode. The structure of the workshops saw country-level workshops followed by regional-level dialogues. The country-level workshops were conducted only in India and Bangladesh, with plans to expand them to China and Bhutan in the next phase. In the second phase, the dialogue expanded its reach to Bhutan and China by organizing country consultation meetings in both countries, along with dialogue workshops in India and Bangladesh. The third phase has been concentrated on particular themes that were the outcomes of the first two phases—institutional mapping, disaster management, inland water navigation, and water–energy nexus. It has provided space for the government stakeholders to formally and informally deliberate on

issues concerning the basin, and received significant participation from China to advocate south–south cooperation on developing water–energy nexus in the region.

The dialogue meetings and workshops conducted have been cross-cut across the tracks in the aforementioned phases, but the outcomes can be outlined at different track levels. Dialogue workshops conducted between 2014 and 2018 are listed in the table in Appendix A. The workshops, meetings, and reports have been provided with a unique code, which were used for reference in the analysis section.

Figure 3 represents the recurring themes that were identified from document analysis and that have been emphasized by different stakeholders. These themes are also cross-cutting and interconnecting. Each theme also identifies which group of stakeholders is more invested in working towards cooperation in the basin through color codes. In the above diagram, "active" denotes energetic pursuit of an activity by being on the forefront, while "passive" involves watching, looking at, or listening to things rather than being actively involved in an activity. This schematic representation is intended to address how dialogue/diplomacy at the informal level can also contribute to cooperation through collaborations at that level and by keeping the diplomats at the formal level diplomacy informed. The details of this representation are addressed in the following.

**Figure 3.** Schematic representation of the analysis.

4.1.1. Data and Knowledge Sharing

Since its inception, the dialogue has involved active participation from the grassroots level (Track 3), as any sort of policy dialogue has to acknowledge the association of the communities that are primarily dependent on the river. "Any intervention implemented in Arunachal should take into account the land and water rights of the tribal communities" [55]. In fact, in 2016, an initiative was exclusively taken under the dialogue to bring together the CSOs of the three countries—the Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research (C-NES) from India, the Royal Society for the Protection of Nature (RSPN) from Bhutan, and Jagrata Juba Shangha (JJS) from Bangladesh. The aim was to bring about cooperation by the sharing of knowledge and experiences between these groups. Within this initiative, a gendered narrative (from marginalized groups) on coping and adapting to disasters across India, Bhutan, and Bangladesh at the community level was also developed, with the intention of sharing the learning with academics/researchers (Track 2) and policy makers (Track 1). "Free flow of data is required, which can contribute to reduce misunderstandings to a great extent" [55].

The best practices followed in Bangladesh, such as community-level disaster management systems, have been shared [56], so the other basin countries can see if these can be incorporated in their nations as well. Bangladesh's capacity to cope with disasters, with efficient communication from top to bottom, was well appreciated by not only the CSOs, but also the government officials that were present from India and Bhutan. The workshop in Shanghai, organized in September 2019, brought together both academics and ex-bureaucrats to discuss how to realize multiple benefits, including optimized energy security and enhanced climate change resilience, through international water cooperation [57]. There are several joint collaborations, mentioned in the following sections, that have also facilitated the sharing of information across. While Track 1.5 has been involved in the process of sharing information, it is usually Tracks 2 and 3 that have fostered better research outputs in the basin. These tracks are also responsible for communicating the information requirements to diplomats from Track 1, who facilitate such transnational data exchange.

## 4.1.2. Collaborations

A Facebook group titled "The Brahmaputra Dialogue" was initiated in 2017, which brought together the members of CSOs and academics of the three countries (India, Bhutan, and Bangladesh), along with media representatives. This form of cooperation can promote the sharing of information, generating common understanding on various issues related to the river and also building consensus regarding contested issues. Such social media groups can also help in facilitating advocacy at inter-country level [58]. The dialogue has also paved the way for science and media communication initiatives for the basin, engaging scientists and media personnel for improved generation of information and to avoid misinformation, which has been an issue in the region.

The dialogue participants have often emphasized the importance of conducting joint research and how it can help to promote cooperation in the basin. "Joint research should be conducted at the basin level by bringing all the riparian countries together, regarding issues related to the river basin" [59]. Yunnan University has extensive experience working on Mekong River, and they agreed to share their tools, which can also be applied to the Brahmaputra Basin. As a result, a basin-level project was initiated between Yunnan University from China, IIT Guwahati, and the Institute of Water Modelling (IWM) from Bangladesh. The project, titled "Water Resources Vulnerability and Security Assessment of the Yarlung Tsangpo–Brahmaputra Transboundary River Basin" is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). Further, in 2017, a MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed between Yunnan University from China and Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IIT Guwahati) to carry out data sharing, and exchange of faculty and students to ultimately foster joint research in the basin.

In 2019, the initiative was taken to develop a book called "Perspectives on the Yarlung–Tsangpo–Brahmaputra–Jamuna River". The book is one of the first of its kind, as it is being written in a collaborative manner by academics from all four riparian countries. The objective of this book is to introduce the multiple dimensions of this river, including hydrology, cultural, biodiversity, development, and so forth. The efforts for collaboration have happened only at the Track

3 and 2 level, with Track 1.5 actors being involved either as experts or recipients of the project outputs, like policy brief, reports, and research papers that can help influence decision making.

#### 4.1.3. Bridging the Gap

Continuous deliberation with the participants through the dialogue has helped to build trust and bring cooperation among academics from India, China, and Bangladesh. The first step towards this was taken in [60], when the first country-level workshop was organized in Yunnan University in China, which also included participants from India and Bangladesh. While discussions and efforts on transboundary water diplomacy and cooperation have been focused on Track 1 cooperation among governments, academic communities also have a crucial role to play. Communication and collaboration between academics can generate many benefits, such as generating and sharing knowledge on water diplomacy and cooperation, developing the capacity of the next generation of water diplomats, identifying opportunities for conflict prevention and cooperation over transboundary water resources, and developing and improving relevant tools. Moreover, in some countries where transboundary water cooperation might be politically sensitive, academic discourses are important to creating social momentum and bridging the communication and understanding among their respective citizens. Under the Brahmaputra Dialogue, an increasing number of academic players have been brought into the conversation. Take China, for example—the dialogue was initiated with only researchers from the Yunnan University Asian International Rivers Center as participants. After several years of development, its network has grown substantially within China to include more academic institutions as well as governmental think tanks. Similarly, in Bangladesh, apart from IWM, academics from BRAC University are now involved in the process. While mistrust has been the roadblock to citizens from different countries from getting to know each other, suspicion among citizens is counterproductive to advancing the cooperation agenda. "The way with trust, confidence, dialogue, and consultation, a major trans-boundary river like the Mekong has come up with a commission, similarly it is possible for Brahmaputra to be the subject of some kind of consensus among its riparian countries—it may take 10–15 years but it is definitely possible through such dialogues" [59]. This Track 2 level cooperation can help to reveal the unknown, which is the first step for dismantling mistrust and promises the hope of reaching Track 1 cooperation in the governmental domain.

Bureaucrats from Assam and Arunachal Pradesh in India have even endorsed the dialogue and recognized the importance of involving multiple stakeholders [59]. "...involving multiple stakeholders at multiple levels from all the basin countries, which will ultimately lead to wellbeing of the common people" [59]. As a result of these continued deliberations, the participants themselves demanded the continuation of the dialogue in 2015 [61]. This, itself, can be seen as a point of cooperation, with the four riparian countries wanting to discuss the issues and concerns through the informal platform. In April 2017, serving and former bureaucrats (along with members of CSOs) from India and Bhutan visited Bangladesh to better understand the disaster management system in place in Bangladesh [56]. In order to facilitate this exchange of information, discussions were conducted with a few of the union- and district-level Disaster Management Committees of Bangladesh. This form of cooperation helped the exchange of information related to disaster management between the three countries. "Various suggestions have come—holistic and basin-level approaches, integrated water resource management, regional cooperation, etc.—but all these will not succeed without dialogues and consultations between riparian countries" [59]. Track 1.5 level diplomacy has also helped to bridge the gap between government officials and civil society [62]. Track 3 and 2 play more active roles than Track 1.5.

#### 4.1.4. Multi-Track Cooperation

By being multi-stakeholder in nature, the dialogue over the years has provided a platform for deliberations of stakeholders such as serving and retired bureaucrats, NGOs, academics and researchers, and CSOs of all the four riparian countries. Therefore, the dialogue has not only helped in building

cooperation among the government officials (serving and retired bureaucrats) of the riparian countries but also between officials and other stakeholders. In a group discussion during [58] at the Track 3 level in India, the participants themselves highlighted the importance of cooperation between them. "CSOs also need to motivate themselves into working as a team, whether with other CSOs or with the research community, as one single CSO might not have the capacity to deal with certain problems alone" [58]. Further, CSOs need to engage with the media to highlight important stories and issues. " ... civil society and NGOs working on the ground should be in regular touch with media through e-mail, Whatsapp, and other social media networks so that they can come into parlance with larger issues" [58]. As compared to other river basins of South Asia, Brahmaputra is relatively under-researched [11]. Due to the lack of available scientific information, academics (Track 2) have been a central part of the Brahmaputra Dialogue. Starting with India and Bangladesh, as the dialogue progressed, academics from China also became a part of the process, generating an atmosphere of cooperation among this group multi-laterally [59].

"Cumulative Environmental Impact Assessment Studies at the transnational level should be taken up as a means of cooperation across riparian countries." [59]. When the dialogue became multi-track, the initiative was also presented to major political leaders, such as the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh and the Secretary of Water Resources Department (WRD) Assam, who appreciated the efforts of the dialogue [63]. The members of the Central Water Commission of India and water resource departments in both Bangladesh and India had agreed to be on the advisory board for the next phase of the dialogue by the end of the first phase, making the dialogue multi-track [63]. During the Bangladesh country workshop [56], members of RSPN and C-NES (along with others) conducted field research along with a multi-track meeting, where the discussions concentrated on the local-level management of disasters in the country. The meeting was organized by JJS under the BD initiative, with participation from government departments of India and Bangladesh (Track 1.5).

Academics and researchers (along with other stakeholders) from all the four countries have also come together through the dialogue on various occasions, such as the regional-level workshop in Singapore in October 2016 [64] and the Brahmaputra River Symposium in New Delhi [65] in September 2017, which has helped in enhancing cooperation among them. "Ecological needs must be taken into account when we talk about development and therefore a multi-dimensional approach is needed" has been a suggestion during [59]. Sometimes, academics or academic outcomes may exert influence over a country's political leaders' decisions. For example, the Chinese have shared their experience from Lancang–Mekong on long-term cooperation during the initial dialogues, and how the same strategies could be adopted towards the formation of the Brahmaputra River Commission [55].

In September 2019, IIT Guwahati and the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, a governmental-affiliated think tank, co-hosted the first multi-lateral workshop in China on "Climate-Water-Energy Nexus and South-South Cooperation" with participants from China, India, and Bangladesh [57]. Governmental officials also participated as observers. The workshop discussions highlighted the paramount importance of academic collaboration in creating consistent and positive discourses. Therefore, it is evident that Track 2 academic cooperation has already gained traction, as well as Track 1.5, in all the riparian countries. Therefore, the Brahmaputra Dialogue has helped the development of cooperation among academics and researchers of all the four riparian countries, often shaping it for the coming phases through suggestions that would sustain the initiative and seek to influence policies. For example, [65] and the following consultation meeting with Chinese delegates [66] brought forth recommendations for capacity building of the existing institutions to manage the river system effectively, integrated investment in the Brahmaputra Basin to mitigate risks and make more productive use of water resources, and enhancing cooperation between the riparian countries and states by promoting inland water navigation, finding nodal partners from each riparian nation, institutional mapping, benefit sharing, media involvement, and disaster risk reduction. These suggestions have been integral to the third phase of the dialogue. Track 1.5 seems more eager to

participate in the current phase, reflecting political willingness to cooperate, making them more active than passive now.

From the beginning, conducting joint research on issues of common interest has been emphasized across the tracks to ease the sharing of knowledge across the countries, and has been achieved in the more recent phases of the dialogue. Since each riparian nation has a different perspective on river water management, the dialogue has been able to identify common avenues that could generate cooperation, like flood and erosion management, inland water navigation, and the water–energy nexus. Patience is the key to such dialogue projects, as has been emphasized by the stakeholders time and again, to generate willingness to cooperate on a regional level. The Mekong River Commission, which belongs to a more familiar geographical context as both basins are in the South of Asia with familiar development issues, took 37 years to materialize [67]. The dialogue acknowledges the contribution of diplomacy and cooperation efforts at the Track 1.5, 2, and 3 levels as effective and necessary, because the outcomes keep the Track 1 informed. This provides encouragement for the Track 1 diplomats to also engage in basin-level dialogue formally.

#### **5. Conclusions**

While state cooperation in transboundary waters is seen as a logical consequence of interdependencies, such cooperation is driven by several factors, such as national security, historical rivalries, hydrological conditions of the basin, and also, at times, intervention of third parties [32]. It is a drawn-out process and, at times, states may not be motivated enough to cooperate. Hence, there is a necessity to expand the focus of cooperation beyond state actors. The Brahmaputra Dialogue provides a neutral platform for open communication among participants. The dialogue does not necessarily focus on a consensus outcome, but is a multi-lateral platform for informal engagement and consultation to identify avenues for cooperation in the transboundary context. Through multi-stakeholder engagement, the dialogue initiative aims to increase cooperation at multiple levels and decrease conflict within the basin. While transboundary cooperation is mostly looked at as a state-led process resulting from political interaction between the riparian countries, this initiative emphasizes the need to widen the scope of cooperation to incorporate initiatives that are happening outside the formal process. Such transboundary interactions between non-state actors could influence resolutions of the transboundary water issues of the Brahmaputra Basin.

Flood management, erosion control, hydropower, navigation, and ecological integrity etc., are issues of high importance to all countries sharing the basin, but there is a need to better understand the system in order to improve its management for economic development. Although researchers, water practitioners, and managers, among others, have conducted substantial analyses to understand the dynamics and potential of this mighty river, there remain significant knowledge gaps in the system and in sustainable approaches able to make the most productive use of rich water resources while reigning in destructive forces. Due to the securitization of hydrological data, there is secrecy around water knowledge in the basin, and a lack of transparency surrounds the knowledge that is available. All of these issues have also resulted in knowledge gaps, which pose a real challenge to IWRM in the region. By bringing the academic community of all the four countries together, this initiative is providing them a platform to interact and work in cooperation to generate basin-wide knowledge. Such basin-wide knowledge can help to strengthen the evidence base and enhance the shared understanding of the system. Such understanding would foster more strategic and cooperative planning across administrative and sectoral boundaries, as well as in multiple disciplines. This, in addition to strengthening the interface between science and policy, would lead to more informed decision making for improved policy formulation (such as the SDGs) and river basin management.

Several focal points where the countries could cooperate have emerged only because the dialogue could be sustained to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to identify the common issues. Therefore, the dialogue also goes beyond hydrological data sharing or signing of a basin-level treaty, thus broadening the definition of "cooperation" in the Brahmaputra Basin. The identified

focal points of cooperation include the academic exchange of scholars, joint research proposals, organizing joint workshops and conferences, joint publications, civil society meets, media interactions, and science–media dialogues. Such collaboration is already paving the way in the Brahmaputra Basin and can be seen as an entry point of cooperation among the Brahmaputra Basin countries.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.B.; methodology, S.V., A.B.; formal analysis, A.D., V.G., X.L.; investigation, A.D., V.G.; resources, V.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., A.D., S.V., V.G.; writing—review and editing, A.D., V.G., A.B., S.V.; supervision, A.B.; project administration, H.M.Q., A.B.; funding acquisition, H.M.Q.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the World Bank Group W, grant number 7187448 and the APC was not charged from the authors.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to express our gratitude to IIT Guwahati, India and SaciWATERs, South Asian Consortium for Inter-Disciplinary Water Resources Studies, Secunderabad, India, for organizational support during the study. The authors are also thankful to Juna Probha Devi, Research Scholar, IITG for preparing the map for the Brahmaputra Basin (Figure 1) and Taylor Warren Henshaw, Consultant to The World Bank for copy editing the paper.

**Conflicts of Interest:** No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
