water wars

IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS OVER WATER

Wars are rarely cost-effective or susceptible to reason. With water becoming increasingly scarce, water-wars can no longer be dismissed as a figment of imagination. Dialogue is necessary and based more on 'need' rather than 'rights'

M.S.Menon

WITH global warming altering weather patterns and affecting fresh water availability, it has often been stressed that the next war will be fought not over oil but over water.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, while addressing the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit (2007), warned that high population growth, rising consumption, pollution and poor water management posed significant threats on water availability and could be 'a potent fuel for war.' Earlier, on the occasion of World Water Day of 2002, the then UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, had also stated that "fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict".
Presently, more than 26 countries are considered as water scarce, with the projection that by the year 2025, 2/3rd of the world population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe shortage of water.
These warnings have to be taken seriously and addressed with concern. In this connection, a recent report published by David Zhang of Hong Kong University in the Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences, after analysing the data of more than 8000 wars, is relevant. He established that resource shortage was the main cause of wars in the past.
Recorded history up to the 20th century does not, however, indicate any major war caused by disputes over use of water for drinking and other purposes, though some armed conflicts did take place such as the one that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian cities of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit the boundary of channels along the Tigris river.
Modern history, however, has documented a few major water disputes resulting in wars, such as between Egypt and Sudan on Nile waters (1958); Israel and neighbouring Arab countries on the Jordan river waters (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Of late, tension has been mounting on the Chobe river waters among Mozambiq, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Trouble is also brewing among the Central Asian Republics on the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral sea.
Many experts are not convinced though about the possibility of wars caused by water scarcity, since they feel that wars on water are not economically viable. With the cost of one day's war, they argue, alternative sources such as desalinisation plants can be constructed to meet the requirement. However, since no war is cost effective, the argument does not carry much conviction.
According to others, the global trade in 'virtual water', the water consumed for making food products, has allowed arid countries in the Middle East to meet their water requirements without resorting to war. They claim that but for this trade ,which kept Egypt, Jordan and others fed for the last 30 years, there would have been many wars in the Middle East.
The contention that export of 'virtual water' in the form of foodgrains to water-stressed countries could reduce the problem through trade is misplaced since with rising population, less water would be available for foodgrain production. It would be of interest to note that this year, about a quarter of the US grain harvest will be used not for food or fodder but to fuel automobiles. Hence food insecurity in a water stressed world, could kindle serious conflicts among the countries.
There are also optimists who feel that once basin states conclude treaties and establish water regimes, they will be resilient enough to survive conflicts. They point out that the US, Mexico, and Canada have effective institutions to resolve and settle water issues; there are also examples of trans- boundary river sharing treaties such as the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan which had survived two wars and many war like situations, the Itaipu Treaty between Paraguay and Brazil for the hydro power development in the Parana river ( 1973), etc.
The much hyped Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is also under stress since India feels that the provisions are biased in favour of Pakistan which got a larger share of the Indus waters, thereby affecting Indian agricultural and other needs. Similarly, Paraguans have also started questioning the terms of the Itaipu treaty blaming Brazil for not paying enough for the energy it is using.
In the meanwhile, fresh signs of trouble are brewing with China proposing to divert the Brahmaputra waters, ignoring protests from India and Bangladesh.
The existing international law is ineffective and inadequate to arrest conflicts on water. Also, the international institutions are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes among countries. The UN would be helpless since the much talked about 'UN Convention on Non-Navigational uses of International Water Courses' adopted by it in 1997 is yet to be ratified.
The root cause of any conflict is the scarcity of the resource and in this case , it is water. Hence, the solution lies in improving its availability. For this purpose, supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide for concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for improved water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention, improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water etc. These actions are required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis.
(The Tribune, 25th Sept. 2011)