CLIMATE CHANGE AS A DIPLOMATIC STRESS TEST: POWER, ADAPTATION, AND TRANSBOUNDARY WATER NEGOTIATIONS IN CENTRAL ASIA

Abstract

This study investigates climate change as a structural diplomatic stress test in Central Asia, focusing on how it reshapes transboundary water governance, power asymmetries, and state adaptation strategies. Unlike traditional environmental security approaches that treat climate change as an external shock, this research conceptualises it as an endogenous and continuous variable influencing negotiation behaviour, institutional performance, and regional stability. The empirical focus is the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins, which form the backbone of water security in Central Asia. These basins are defined by upstream–downstream structural asymmetry: Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan control headwaters and prioritise hydropower generation, while Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan depend on regulated downstream flows for irrigation-based agriculture and food security. Scientific evidence confirms that Central Asia is one of the most climate-sensitive regions globally. The IPCC (2021) reports accelerated glacier retreat in the Tien Shan and Pamir mountains, rising temperatures above the global average, and increasing variability in seasonal river discharge. The World Bank (2023) further projects that water stress in the region will significantly intensify by mid-century, with direct implications for agriculture, energy security, and regional stability. This study argues that climate change introduces systemic uncertainty into water governance, weakening historically stable hydro-political arrangements. As a result, traditional forms of hydro-hegemony based on geographic position and infrastructural control become less predictable, and bargaining outcomes increasingly depend on adaptive capacity and institutional resilience. Methodologically, the research employs a qualitative comparative case study design, using process tracing, document analysis, and triangulation of international datasets. It draws on policy documents, treaty frameworks, and reports from international organisations such as the IPCC, World Bank, and UNEP. The findings suggest that climate change does not directly cause conflict; rather, it transforms the conditions under which cooperation and contestation occur. Institutional strength, political alignment, and adaptive governance capacity determine whether environmental stress leads to cooperation or diplomatic deadlock.