Water Wars

The Pioneer, dt.25th August,2004
Water Wars- Myth and Reality
A decade ago, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice-President of the World Bank, had expressed that "the wars of the next century will be about water". Similar sentiments were echoed by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General on the World Water Day, 2002, that "water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict". The pent up demand will cause even the smallest provocation to transform into a water war bringing the bickering countries to the battle fields.
Unfortunately, the UN would remain helpless in such disputes since the "Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses" adopted by UN in 1997 is still to be ratified. Further, the convention has institutionalised the two conflicting principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm". Hence the upper riparians would stake their rights on the basis of "equitable use" while the lower riparians would clamour for protection of their existing rights under the principle of "no significant harm".
There are many who opine that wars on water are not economically viable. Many desalinisation plants can be built to meet the water needs with the cost of one day's war, they argue. Some others are of the view that once the basin countries reach agreements on their shared waters, such understandings are resilient enough to survive conflicts between hostile riparians engaged in skirmishes over other issues. They quote the example of Indus Water Treaty signed by India and Pakistan (1960) on the Indus Waters, which survived two wars in the recent past.
A perusal of the past history of wars would indicate that though there were battles over the rights on waterways, very little is documented on fights over the use of water for irrigation and other purposes. One such fight finding mention is the dispute that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian city states of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit boundary channels along the Tigris. Buddhist literature also mentions of fights between the Sakyas and Koliyas in the Himalayan Kingdom over the distribution of irrigation waters around the same period.
However, a number of fights on water have occurred in the second half of the last century. To mention a few: Between Egypt and Sudan on the Nile Waters (1958); Israel and its neighbouring Arabs on the waters of the Jordan (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Tension is also mounting on the use of Chobe waters among Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe; the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral Sea are likely to erupt into major conflicts among the countries of Central Asian Republics.
The argument that wars for water are not cost effective and hence unlikely does not carry conviction, since wars are never cost effective. Regarding the inbuilt resilience of existing agreements to prevent water wars, an examination of such treaties would reveal the one sided provisions in them causing resentment and opposition to the continuation of such agreements by the aggrieved parties.
For example, the Treaty on the Rio Grande river (1909) between the US, the upper riparian, and Mexico, the lower riparian, was based on the "Harmon Doctrine" which gave unlimited rights to the upper riparian on the waters flowing within its territory regardless to its effect on the rights of the lower riparian. It was then argued that the latter had no right to demand continued flow of water from the former. However, in the Treaty on the Columbia waters (1961-67) between Canada, the upper riparian and the US, the lower riparian, the same "Doctrine" was repudiated by the US for it was not beneficial to Americans. Hence both Mexico and Canada are not happy now in continuing with these agreements.
Similarly, many co-sharers of international water-courses are unhappy with the existing agreements forced on them under duress. While the beneficiary countries with plenty of water available since decades may not like to surrender their accrued rights, those facing scarcity would not agree to the continuance of such treaties. The ensuing tensions could explode into volcanic proportions leading to war like situations.
Many actions would be required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis. Supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide a set of concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for augmenting water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention; improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water, etc. Adopting more intensive water saving techniques, changing crop patterns, etc., would reduce the demand on water. Simultaneously, dialogues based on water needs rather than on water must be initiated among the basin countries.