Amanda: contributors and TFDD credit

2013-02-12T15:57:12Z

contributors and TFDD credit

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:57, 12 February 2013
(No difference)

Amanda at 15:54, 12 February 2013

2013-02-12T15:54:19Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:54, 12 February 2013
(No difference)

Amanda at 15:53, 12 February 2013

2013-02-12T15:53:32Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:53, 12 February 2013
(No difference)

Amanda at 15:53, 12 February 2013

2013-02-12T15:53:16Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:53, 12 February 2013
(No difference)

Mpritchard at 19:25, 9 November 2012

2012-11-09T19:25:55Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:25, 9 November 2012
(No difference)

Mpritchard: moved from old format to new format

2012-11-09T19:21:46Z

moved from old format to new format

New page

{{ASI
|First Contributor=Aaron T. Wolf
|First Contributor Link=http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/about/wolf.html
|Second Contributor=Joshua T. Newton
|Second Contributor Link=http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/research/case_studies/index.html
|Third Contributor=Matthew Pritchard
|Third Contributor Link=http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Mpritchard
|Reflection Text=

''The points below are summarized or excerpted from the Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Matthew Pritchard provided this and other summarized analysis or insights from the TFFD on behalf and with permission of the original authors. Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/''

=== Lessons Learned ===
*Even with power disparity, there is possibility for agreement over water resources through economic benefits.

:South Africa is a much more powerful nation than Lesotho, but Lesotho has abundant water resources, which, through the Highlands Project, will benefit both nations economically and through the provision of water to South Africa. It is possible even when there is such a wide gap between nations in terms of power, to collaborate for the mutual gain of both countries. <ref name="tfdd"> Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/ </ref>

*It is more economically sound to begin impact studies before nations start to construct projects.

:It was shown through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project that if impact studies are started after the initiation of a major hydro-project, the costs for the project go up as necessary components for the project may not have been considered pre-study. For the Phase II of the LHWP, studies are being conducted to judge the feasibility of a project that was designed more than 15 years to ago to investigate in a more comprehensive manner the possible impacts of the project. <ref name="tfdd" />

*Renegotiation clauses in an agreement can prevent issues from arising for the nations involved.

:The LHWP treaty also exemplifies the importance of providing for renegotiation of project terms. In the absence of such a provision, the additional phases of the project might have been implemented without adequate consideration of their feasibility <ref name="tfdd" />

== Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process ==

The Lesotho Highlands Water Project provides lessons in the importance of an integrated approach to negotiating the allocation of a "basket" of resources. South Africa receives cost-effective water for its continued growth, while Lesotho receives revenue and hydropower for its own development. <ref name="tfdd" />
|Perspective=Academic
|Case Study=The Lesotho Highlands Water Project
|ASI Keyword=
|User=Mpritchard
}}

ASI:Lessons Learned in Lesotho HIghlands Water Project - Revision history

Amanda: contributors and TFDD credit

Amanda at 15:54, 12 February 2013

Amanda at 15:53, 12 February 2013

Amanda at 15:53, 12 February 2013

Mpritchard at 19:25, 9 November 2012

Mpritchard: moved from old format to new format