Download Water Politics: Conflicts About Limited Resources

Franz Mauelshagen
Institute of Advanced Study in the Humanities, Essen
Email: [email protected]
Water Politics: Conflicts About Limited Resources
1. Water on Earth
Conflicts about water are a consequence of water scarcity. However, considering the masses of
water on earth, it seems paradox that there can be such a phenomenon as water scarcity. To
explain the problem, therefore, an introduction to water, as it is distributed on our globe, will be
required in the first instance. Here is a brief ‘fact sheet:’
There is a total amount of water of roughly 1,4 billion cubic kilometers on earth. However,
this includes an overabundance of salty seawater, which is not drinkable. Only 2,5% of the entire amount is drinkable or potentially drinkable water. Most of the earth’s fresh water resources
are fixed to glaciers and ice covers such as those of Antarctica (69%); 30% are groundwater,
which is not easily accessible at many places. 0.3% are stored in lakes and rivers and are more
or less ‘open source’, meaning: easily accessible, though that also means exposed to pollution or
ambitions of domination.
Water is unevenly distributed over the globe. Distribution depends largely on the water cycle. Climate controls the water cycle, as 1) temperatures determine the size of the ice sheets on
earth; 2) solar energy inputs, which depend on the earth’s rotation, its spherical shape, certain
orbital properties etc., rule evaporation; 3) atmospheric circulation determines the amount of
precipitation for each region of the globe. It is therefore, that climate is part of the story of unequal distribution of drinking water around the globe. Climate change means that there will be
changes in the distribution patterns, which is why climate change matters when discussing water
resources and water conflicts.
Water as a resource is of universal character. Thus, changes in precipitation patterns will affect ecosystems and social systems alike. Freshwater is essential to health, to agriculture and,
also, to nutrition. Furthermore, freshwater is important for hygiene, and it can be used as an energy resource (for example in the Alps); it is also used in the industry and in households (e.g.
water heating; cooling water etc.). Social systems ‘interact’ with the environment through the
use of resources. Among these, water is the most important one. Therefore, water resource management is a key issue of in environmental, ecological, and climate change studies. Last but not
least, it has become a focus of concern about international security.
2. Water and Conflict
What are ‘water conflicts’? Here is a short definition: Water Conflicts are disputes between individuals or groups (institutions and states included) about the distribution and usage of freshwater and about the use of freshwater reservoirs (in the first instance: rivers and lakes).
Distribution of water supplies is only the most principle cause for water conflicts. Water
conflicts are social, not natural, meaning that in conflict other aspects than water are involved,
for example: animosities between individuals, groups, ‘races’, or states; or trajectories of previous conflicts that lead to new ones in which, then, disputes over water resources are getting
involved. Hostility, that originates from previous conflict, is a potential for violent water conflicts
– compared with an alternative course of events, i.e. cooperation and agreement on certain solutions (which should always be kept in mind as another possible turnout). There are more social
driving factors (besides climate change), that may lead to conflict over water:
1. Ongoing population growth, which means that more people (will) have to share the
same amount of freshwater; obviously, ‘just’ distribution becomes an increasingly precarious task when populations continue to grow, while water resources decline in certain regions of the globe, due to shifts in precipitation caused by climate change.
2. Development often leads to competition between industrial and agricultural water demands. Development-related technologies (e.g. dams), used as tools of water management or source of energy, may lead to various types of conflict, e.g. about property rights
and water availability.
3. Mega cities tend to aggravate water rivalry between urban and rural parts of a country or
region.
4. Pollution of rivers, lakes, and wetlands is an obvious source of conflict. In the case of
rivers, where pollution becomes more critical downstream, the lines of conflict over pollution are shifting downstream as well. This is an interesting observation, because it is
making a case for social factors being amplified by ‘natural’ properties of rivers: people
are more vulnerable to pollution when living near the lower reaches of a river, rather
than the upper reaches, which means that the physics of water flow is involved with the
setting of conflicts over pollution.
5. States have borders, and borders cause special problems as, naturally, rivers do not recognize borders, which is typical of many environmental problems; climate does not care
about borders as well. Let me add a name to this problem. I will call this the problem of
imbalance between natural vs. man-made geography, which takes note of the fact that
these two geographies are out of proportion. Water management is an international
question only because states exist. That may sound somewhat banal, but in a historical
perspective, it is not, because states have not existed for most of human history. But the
point here is, that the question of water wars and how likely their occurrence may be in
the 21st century, as fostered by climate change, has historical preconditions to it which
deserve some deeper reflection.
Types of water conflicts: In the literature you will often find distinctions made between violent
and non-violent conflicts, conflicts on a state or on a sub-state level; sometimes you will find the
term ‘water wars’. Water wars may also take place between states and groups within states.
‘California Water Wars’ describes the disputes between Los Angeles, California and the Owens
Valley over water rights. The disputes originates from Los Angeles's location in a semi-arid area,
and the availability of water from Sierra Nevada runoff in the Owens Valley. However, the ‘California Water Wars’ are wars merely in a metaphorical sense. In the following I will focus on
water conflict between states.
History of water conflicts: Looking back into history, violent conflicts that are purely over
water, were rare on a ‘state’ level. The Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environ-
ment, and Security – in the person of Peter Gleick – has created a chronology on ‘Water and
Conflict’, which records different types, or categories of water in conflict, or conflict over water.
(Note the ‘and’ here, meaning that the chronology doesn’t only include cases where water was a
cause for conflict.) Let me illustrate some of the categories by taking some examples from that
chronology:1
• “Control of Water Resources (state and non-state actors): where water supplies or access
to water is at the root of tensions.” There are no entries that match with this category.
However, in many military conflicts control of water resources were sought for.
• “Military Tool (state actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are
used by a nation or state as a weapon during a military action.” This category occurs
most often in the “Water and Conflict” chronology. A fitting example is provided by the
Dutch, who defended Alkmaar against the Spanish in 1573 and, again, Leiden in 1574
by partially destroying their own dikes and flooding their own country – a strategy
known as the “Dutch Water Line”. Interesting as it may be, this category isn’t very illuminating in our context. The same is true for the next two categories:
• “Terrorism (non-state actors): where water resources, or water systems, are either targets
or tools of violence or coercion by non-state actors.”
• “Military Target (state actors): where water resource systems are targets of military actions
by nations or states.” Water supply and irrigation, obviously, make defenders vulnerable
and, thus, have always been targets in military conflicts – potential targets at least. For
Example: When the Goths besieged Rome, anno 537, they cut most of the aqueducts
leading into the city, a strategy that contributed to their success. – The next two categories get closer to the point where water becomes a trigger of conflict. However, entries to
these categories are much rarer.
• “Political Tool (state and non-state actors)”: where water resources, or water systems
themselves, are used by a nation, state, or non-state actor for a political goal.” Not many
events are categorizes as “political tools” in the data base. A clear example is tensions
over the Nile that occurred in and after 1978, especially the Blue Nile, originating in
Ethiopia. Ethiopia’s plans to construct dams on the headwaters of the Blue Nile obviously provoked Egypt. The Egyptian government repeatedly threatened to go to war over
waters. In 1979, Anwar Sadat said: "The only matter that could take Egypt to war again
is water.” And: "The next war in our region will be over the waters of the Nile, not politics.” However, these declarations were neither made in the context of war, nor did they
lead to war. And note the subtle distinction Sadat made between water and politics, as if
water had not become a political matter the moment he began talking about it in public.
• “Development Disputes (state and non-state actors)”: where water resources or water
systems are a major source of contention and dispute in the context of economic and social development.” Example: When India and Pakistan parted, conflict arose on the
Ganges River between Bangladesh and India. India constructed the Farakka barrage, beginning in 1962, which increased the tension. The dispute was settled by short-term
agreements between 1977-82, 1982-82, and 1985-88. A thirty-year treaty was signed in
1996. – Most “development disputes”, documented in the database, were caused by
dam planning.
1
Quotes explaining categories are from: http://www.worldwater.org/chronology.html
For a short summary of some of the insights offered by the Water and Conflict-chronology, let
me quote a recent journal article:
“Peter Gleick's conflict chronology suggests that water and violence are quite regularly associated with each other. But a close read of the events he includes reveals greater subtlety and
depth to the argument that water wars may be pervasive. What Gleick and others have actually
provided is a history rich with tensions, exacerbated relations and conflicting interests over water, but not violence, at least not between nations or over water as a scarce resource. It is worth
noting Gleick's careful categorization, because the violence he describes actually turns out to be
water as a tool, target or victim of warfare – not the cause.” (Iutto and Wolf in: Geographical
Journal 2002)
3. Examples of International Water Conflicts
History – particularly U.S. history – is full of examples of violent water resource conflicts on the
sub-state level, most often between neighboring farmers. However, these conflicts, which were
often enough carried out in a guerilla like fashion, haven’t been documented systematically.
Therefore, I will continue focusing on international conflicts and look at a few recent examples
in some more detail.
A. The Indus: The catchment area of the Indus river covers more than 100.000 km2 which is the
largest such area of a single river in the world. For its greater part, the Indus flows through Pakistan, but water also comes from Indian sources. Conflicts on water use and distribution reach
back to the British colonial period, the Mogul period and earlier stages of Indian history. However, conflict about the Indus water resources became international only since 1947, as a consequence of the partition of Pakistan and India into two independent states. Between 1947 and
1960 there were continuous disputes over irrigation water, during which India stemmed flow of
water into irrigation canals in Pakistan. An Indus Water Agreement was, nevertheless, reached in
1960, after 12 years of negotiations, led by the World Bank. The character of the conflict,
though not easy to define, can be summarized as follows: Indus water conflicts aggravated enmity between Pakistan and India at some stages of postcolonial history. Water resource conflicts,
on the other hand, got involved in even more virulent conflicts such as the one about Kashmir.
Some authors, who have written about the conflict, stated that water management has played a
peace-keeping role. Today, there exists a Permanent Indus Commission, which has survived two
wars between India and Pakistan.
B. The Jordan: The Near East is a region of extreme water scarcity. In the past, conflict turned up
about several plans of Israel and Syria to get hold of the Jordan river water stocks through technical management, basically: corrections of the river course or rivers that go into the Jordan,
such as Hasbani and Banias. In 1967, Israel destroyed the Arab diversion works on the Jordan
River headwaters. During the Arab-Israeli War Israel occupied the Golan Heights, including the
Banias tributary area to the Jordan River. However, the context of this international water conflict must not be forgotten. Principle enmity between Israel and its surrounding Arab communities (Palestinians) and states (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) has been the framework for the use of military violence in the case just mentioned as well as in similar cases. The special status of Palestinians underlines the importance of states in international contracts. To illustrate this, the 1994
peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, which includes regulations on water resources, can be
taken as an example. Palestinians were not asked if they agreed to these regulations.
Again, as in the case of Pakistan and India, there is a colonial Background to conflict in the
region; thus, conflict cannot be reduced to water. However, even in this geo-political framework, dispute over sparse water resources does not necessarily lead to violent conflict. Some
authors have pointed to the Joint Water Committee, in which Israelis and Palestinians have begun to cooperate recently.
c) The Nile: Finally the Nile, which provides an example of extremely complex international
constellation, given that as many as 10 countries are affected: Ethiopia, Egypt, Burundi, Eritrea,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Ruanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The number of
people living close to the catchment area amounts to 140 Million. Water, obviously, is a key
source for economic development in the region. The need for it still grows for that reason and
because of population growth. Population growth is the driving force behind economic growth.
Let me roughly describe some aspects of the conflict setting. First, there are important imbalances among some the states regarding their geographical position and their political power:
Geographically, Ethiopia dominates the upper reaches of the Nile, while Egypt, placed at the
lower reaches of the river basin, is a more powerful state. Egypt covers 90% of its demand for
water through the Nile, while 86% of the water masses transported through the Nile river basin
spring from the Ethiopian plateau. Second, colonial legal regulations over the Nile waters has
survived in a post-colonial order: Egypt claims water rights from a long list of treaties going far
back into the colonial period. In the more recent past, Egypt has frequently put pressure on other
states (an example from 1978 has been quoted above). Some people suspect, that Egypt has no
real interest in a solution of the civil war in Sudan that would lead to a new independent state in
the south of Sudan.
Nevertheless, conflict has never been violent on a state level, though threats were uttered
sometimes. Quite on the contrary: The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was founded in 1999. The NBI
has a political head, i.e. the Nile Council of Ministers (Nile-COM); it also has a technical council
and a secretary in Entebbe/ Uganda. There are also financial means that may help to find a
peaceful solution and lead the way to replacing outdated colonial ‘agreements’ that were, in
fact, imposed by former colonial powers on the region.
4. Concluding Remarks
Let me draw some conclusions:
1) International water wars, meaning that states or countries go to war purely for water,
have rarely ever occurred and are unlikely to occur in the future. Yet, climate change has
the potential to foster water conflicts, particularly in combination with growing populations. Most of these conflicts are likely to become violent only within states, rather than
between them. If this hypothesis holds, the use of violence will depend on the parties
involved and the role played by the state. States that have a monopoly of the use of force
within their borders have the capacity to direct water conflicts either to political negotiations or to legal courts. Thus, violent water conflicts are likely to occur where states fail
in terms of internal security.
2) Water has often been a cause for conflict between states, sometimes even one among
other reasons for violent conflict (note the implicit distinction between ‘water conflicts’
and ‘water wars’; water wars can be categorized as a type of violent conflict). However,
conflict settings are complex; the examples, we have looked at, share colonial backgrounds; also, religious or ethnic animosities are important.
3) Water contains the potential of conflict, but also that of cooperation. Where states are
the primary agencies in water disputes, conflict is unlikely to turn into war, if not superimposed or, at least, supplemented by other pushing factors. Thus, water conflict between states is more likely to find peaceful solutions through political negotiations and
cooperation. It remains an open question, whether political conflict management will be
lasting where water is negotiated between ‘unequal’ partners such as Israel and the Palestinians, who are living in a form of social organization still not an internationally recognized as a state.
4) In conflict management, international treaties are often mentioned as examples of cooperation. In the literature, I found statements such as the following (my translation):
„… conflicts over water distribution much more often lead to cooperation then confrontation: The International Water Treaties Data Base of the University of Oregon, for example,
lists more than 400 water agreements, of which more than a hundred were signed after
World War II. Furthermore, regulations of water distribution have proved rather stable; even
most military conflicts will not get at them.”2
In this statement, international treaties are taken as evidence for successful conflict management. However, the relationship between international legal regulations and conflict
is much more complex – primarily and most principally, because change often questions
the acceptability of political solutions once recorded in treatises. Treaties may just as
well be a subject matter of conflict, as they may be successful solutions of conflict and a
pathway to international cooperation. The most relevant difference between these two
ways of looking at treaties is time.
5) Conflict history is, more or less, a black box. Much more research is required. The data
and chronologies we have suggest that we should not focus on international water wars.
Furthermore, historical examples indicate that environmental-human interactions have a
higher complexity than can be grasped by the term ‘water wars’. Violent conflict scenarios often emerge from secondary or tertiary consequences of water scarcity, such as migration of social groups whose livelihood is seriously affected.
2
The original reads: “… Wasserverteilungskonflikte [führen] weit öfter zu Kooperation als zu Konfrontation […]: Die "International Water Treaties"-Datenbank der Universität von Oregon listet zum Beispiel mehr
als 400 Wasserabkommen auf, davon allein fast hundert nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Zudem sind Regelungen zur Wasserverteilung in der Regel sehr belastbar: Selbst militärische Konflikte können ihnen oft
nichts anhaben.“ (Christian Fröhlich, AuZ 25/2006)
Wasserressourcen
weltweit
Gesamt: ca, 1,4 Mrd. km3
Salzwasser: 97,5%
Süßwasser: 2,5% = ca. 35
Mio. km3
Davon:
Gletscher und
Permaschnee: 68,7%
Grundwasser: 30,6%
Tau/Reif usw. und
Permafrost: 0,86%
Rest: 1,22%
Süßwasserreserven
weltweit: nach
Regionen
1. Gletscher und
permanente Eisdecken
Quelle/Source: UNEP
Süßwasserreserven
weltweit: nach
Regionen
2.
Grundwasser
Quelle/Source: UNEP
Süßwasserreserven
weltweit: nach
Regionen
3.
Feuchtgebiete, Seen,
Flüsse
Quelle/Source: UNEP
Der Wasserkreislauf
Auszug aus der Chronologie „Wasser und
Konflikt“,
Die Nilbeckeninitiative/ Nile Basin Initiative