Afghanistan’s Qosh Tepa Canal Stirs Regional Water Tensions
Infrastructure projects in Afghanistan have drawn increasing attention, particularly the Qosh Tepa canal, an irrigation initiative with significant transboundary consequences for the Amu Darya river basin.
The canal draws water from one of Central Asia’s most critical transboundary rivers. For downstream countries–primarily Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan–the Amu Darya is a vital water source directly linked to agricultural output and the sustainability of rural communities. The discussion around Qosh Tepa thus extends beyond Afghanistan’s domestic agenda.
Concerns from experts stem from the project’s scale and the absence of an inclusive, basin-wide management mechanism involving Afghanistan, which is not a signatory to the post-Soviet agreements on Amu Darya water allocation. As a result, discussions on the canal’s potential impact are largely taking place outside of official multilateral frameworks.
While the project is being viewed within the broader context of water flows shaping regional relations, assessments often highlight the lack of a sustainable mechanism to coordinate its transboundary effects. There is persistent concern over the absence of a structured platform to assess such projects before they are perceived as risks, as regional infrastructure development often outpaces the creation of joint management mechanisms.
An initiative by Kazakhstan to establish a specialized International Water Organization within the United Nations system aims to address this institutional gap. The proposal seeks to create a neutral forum for technical and expert discussion of transboundary water projects at an early stage.
The Qosh Tepa canal, a unilateral undertaking, could serve as a test case for such a preventive mandate. Although the project is underway, it has not yet escalated into a formal regional dispute, creating an opportunity for professional dialogue. The situation is characterized by transboundary impacts without a corresponding transboundary mechanism, as the project within Afghanistan objectively affects the interests of downstream states.
Afghanistan’s participation in multilateral formats would serve its interests by reducing negative external rhetoric and helping legitimize the project, even without formal political recognition. Such engagement would also enhance the canal’s long-term sustainability by mitigating the risk of water disputes. This is viewed not as a “water for recognition” transaction but as a pragmatic move to reduce external risks while maintaining sovereignty.
Ultimately, the situation requires institutional dialogue and the inclusion of Afghanistan in regional water resource management. For Central Asian states, Afghanistan’s participation in multilateral water structures would help reduce regional risks. The country’s food and water security is considered a prerequisite for long-term regional development, interconnectedness, and autonomy.
