The Hovering Clouds of Water Wars.
M.S.Menon.
(Published in the USI Journal, April- June
2013)
Introduction
Banki Moon, U.N.
Secretary General, has recently warned the global community that the planet
earth is facing a severe water crisis and the scarcity of this natural resource
would be a potential fuel for wars and conflict. He was concerned of the
indifference and inaction of the governments concerned in taking steps to
prevent instances of the resource being spoiled, wasted and degraded.(1)
This is not the
first time that such fears were expressed of looming water wars by leaders of
international organizations. In the ninetees, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice
President of the World Bank had stated that the wars of the 21st
century would be about water and not oil (2).. Also on the occasion of the
World Water Day, 2002, the message from the then UN Secretary General, Kofi
Annan was cryptic that “fierce national competition over water resources has
prompted fears that the water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict.”(3).
The fears are real since misuse of the
resource and poor management practices have been causing depleted supplies,
falling water tables, shrinking inland lakes and stream flows diminished to
ecologically unsafe levels thereby leading most parts of the world to the
threshold of water famine. High population growth, rising consumption and
pollution have posed significant threats on fresh water availability and
climate change is also making a bad situation
worse. Hence the threats of water wars are heading to become a reality as we are facing an unprecedented demand
on the relatively decreasing natural resource of fresh water supplies
and there is no substitute available to replace the natural resource like water.
Recent Studies
In this
connection,a recent report on global
water security released by US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on the
occasion of the World Water Day, 2012 is relevant (4). It has brought out
the risk of water wars in the coming decades. The report, based on the
assessment of Federal Intelligence Agencies, has concluded that lack of fresh
water to meet the demands of a surging population would create tensions within
and between the states causing global instability and conflict. The report has
also cautioned about the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism
becoming a reality in the near future.
Another interesting study published in the
Journal of the US National Academy of Sciences by David Zhang recently, based
on the data of more than 8000 wars in the past had established that the
resource shortage was the main cause for triggering these wars.(5).
Water is a gift of nature playing an
important role not only in the origin of civilization, but also in the overall
development of the social fabric. Most of the world’s water is saline and only
2.5% is fresh. A major part of this fresh water , almost 97% is tied up in ice, permanent snow and
fossil ground water and only the remaining 3% alone is renewable and available
for use as surface and ground water. Human use of water has increased more than
35 folds over the past 3 centuries. According to studies by International Water Management Institute,
nearly 1.4 billion people amounting to a
quarter of the world population, or a third of the population in developing
countries would be experiencing severe water scarcity by 2025.(6)
Legal Status on
Use of International Rivers.
There are more
than 260 international rivers covering almost one half of the surface of globe,
and an untold number of shared aquifers providing fresh water to people settled
within these basins. Many of the participating basin states look at the
administrative boundaries as the basis for decision making ignoring the fact
that rivers do not recognize political boundaries and legal generalizations.
Hence it has been a cause of legal
battles and consequent political tensions between countries in various
continents .
International
laws that govern the use of transboundary rivers is poorly developed. In 1997,
UN attempted to develop a frame work on the issue and adopted the’ Convention
on Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses’, but it is still to be
ratified to come into force. Though it sets out
many important principles for cooperation and joint management of such waters and
provide practical guidelines for allocations, no practical enforcement
mechanism exists in the text to back up the decisions of the final arbiter- the
International Court of justice. Further it institutionalizes the two
conflicting principles in the upstream- downstream uses of an international
waterway by emphasizing both on ‘equitable use’ and ‘an obligation not to cause
significant harm.’ These would enable the upstream users to stress on the
principle of equitable use, while the downstream riparians would demand the
protection of their existing uses under the provision of no significant harm
and might thereby trigger further disputes.
Water Wars- a
Myth or Reality?
Many analysts do
not subscribe to the view that water
would become a source for wars in this century. Water wars are not
economically viable, they argue. For the cost of a day’s war, alternative
sources such as de –salinisation plants could be built to meet the water needs,
they claim. They also point out that the past history on wars does not indicate
any full-fledged battle for using river waters and the recorded disputes were
all for controlling navigational rights on these rivers.
The earliest
documented conflict over water use is
the dispute between the Sumarian city states of Lagash and Umma over the right
to exploit boundary channels along the Tigris sometime during 2500 BC.
We have also
witnessed a number of water related conflicts in the last century. To name a
few, in 1958, the Nile waters were the cause for tension between Egypt and
Sudan. Guns boomed in the conflict between Israel and her neighbours in 1967 as
the Arabs wanted to divert the waters of the Jordan river system. In 1975, the
dispute regarding the flows in the Euphrates brought out a hostile situation between
Iraq and Syria. Confrontation occurred between Mauritania and Senegal on the
Senegal river in 1989.
Water Treaties
and Their Resilience.
While historic
reality does not point out to a full scale war over water, the newly added
problems of climate change and increase in pollution further affecting the
water availability are leading to an environment more conducive to trigger a
military conflict. However, some war analysts are of the view that if the
states sharing the international rivers conclude treaties and establish water
regimes, such agreements are resilient enough to survive conflict inducing
situations. To justify their stand, they cite the Indus Waters Treaty (1960)
between India and Pakistan for sharing the waters of the Indus river as a model
which survived two wars and many war like situations between the two countries.
They also point out that there are many more such treaties and agreements
entered into by some of the cobasin states during the last century to optimally
share and use their water resources due to which many potential threats have been averted.
The contention of
these analysts that the inbuilt resilience in the existing water treaties
and agreements is adequate to prevent wars has also its limitations, as an in depth
study of such agreements show that some
biassed provisions in the agreements on sharing common rivers have brought out
fresh problems . When scarcity looms large, these provisions could be exploited
by one party to its advantage ignoring the interests of other parties and this
could lead to an environment conducive to trigger conflicts. It is also seen
that based on their past experience in the working of the agreements, many of
the parties who are signatories to the existing treaties are pressing for renegotiating
the terms with their counter parts as they feel that they have been taken for
a ride while signing the agreements.(7)
Take for example the 50 year old history of
the Indus Waters Treaty(1960) between India and Pakistan. It is the story of a
tragedy that began with hope as demonstrated by past events. It has failed not only in accomplishing its objective of
optimum development and utilization of the Indus waters, but also in settling
water disputes between the two all these years. India feels aggrieved that it
had to sign the treaty which ignored its rightful share of more than 40% of the
Indus waters and gave it only about 20% in the water allocation, due to World
Bank using a concept of equally dividing the tributaries instead of equitably
dividing the resource as per international norms. The disputes are continuing
with no solution in sight as Pakistan is not willing to renegotiate and review
the provisions in the treaty.
The peace brought about by the treaty
signed between USA and Mexico on the Colorado river (1944) is under threat
since recently Washington took the unilateral decision of lining parts of the All American Canal bordering Mexico
ignoring the provisions and the latter objected to that action. U S took the
stand that the canal being located in American territory and the water flowing
through that being California’s share of the Colorado river water, it had every
right to take a sovereign decision to line it
with the objective to make more water available to its people by
preventing seepage loss. Mexican government disputed this right basing its case
on the principle that their farmers of Mexicali valley adjoining the
border had established a beneficial use
of the seepage water since decades,
giving them the right under the treaty. The
tempers are rising on the issue between the two countries.
Like wise, the project initiated by US
unilaterally without consulting Canada for the
diversion of water from North
Dakota’s Devil’s Lake to Manitoba (Canada) ignoring the provisions in the Boundary
Water Treaty (1909) has been objected to by the latter as it feared that the
proposal would damage their ecosystem. Canada pointed out that the proposal
should have been discussed and approved by the International Joint Commission
(IJC) set up by the two under the treaty which had been handling all
trans–boundary water issues for more than 100 years. But US is poised to go
ahead with the scheme bypassing the IJC and ignoring Canada’s protests. This
has resulted in strained relationship between the two.
In South America, the Itaipu treaty signed
in 1973 between Paraguay and Brazil for the optimum utilization of the Parana
river for power generation, has opened up disputes on the benefits accrued.
According to Paraguay, Brazil got undue benefits as the former had to
invariably sell all its surplus energy to
the latter at cheap rates as per the treaty provisions. Paraguay wanted
to renegotiate the terms but Brazil is not willing till the treaty lapses in
2023.
In Africa, a battle of control over the Nile
has broken out between Egypt and the
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa with the latter complaining that they have been
denied the due share of the Nile water
as per the existing treaty (1929). Flouting the treaty provisions, Tanzania
plans to build a 105 mile long pipeline for drawing out water from lake
Victoria which feeds the Nile river.
Uneasy calm continues to prevail between
Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river. The co-basin states,
Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe sharing
the Chobe waters are still to come to terms with the present situation.
The
long standing disputes between Portugal and Spain on their common rivers
could be settled by their signing the ‘Convention’ concerning the management of
their shared river basins in November,1998
and adopted by both the countries in January 2000. However, according to media
reports, the worst drought of 2005, has resulted in fresh disputes over
sharing the Tagus and Douro waters in spite
of the standing agreement.
Like
wise, though the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia on the Danube river has been settled at the instance of the
International Court of Justice, many legal questions are being raised on the
outcome of the court decisions.
Similarly,
the disputes on the waters of Amu Daria and
Syr Daria draining into the Aral Sea are waiting to erupt into major conflict among the Central Asian
Republics.
Troubles are brewing in Asia with the
Chinese proposals to divert the waters of the Mekong, Yarlung-Tsangpo and
Salween to its dry north, in spite of
protests from the downstream countries as also from the Mekong River
Commission. Interestingly, China is not a party to any treaty with its
neighbours regarding the sharing of its transboundary rivers.
There are many more such simmering disputes
on the use of common rivers all over the world.The examples shown above reveal
that even in spite of existing agreements, many nations continue to feel that
they have not been able to get their due in their common rivers. As the demand
for water is increasing by leaps and bounds to meet the aspirations and
requirements of a surging world
population , and the scarcity is becoming a reality, there is every
possibility of the bickering countries taking the conflicts to the battle
fields.
Actions Needed.
The root cause of any conflict is the scarcity of the
resource as brought out in many studies carried out on the subject 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 conveyance and water use
efficiencies, recycling and reuse of drainage water. These actions have to be
taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis. The task is
a daunting one. The problem is complex and multisectoral, and the solution
involves in correcting decades of mismanagement of this resource. In the present context of socioeconomic and
ecological problems of development under the conditions of severe demographic
pressures, there is urgent need to take up measures as above to improve the
availability of the resource.
Conclusion.
Water is available to meet everybody’s
need, but not adequate to meet their greed. This fact has to be recognized by
all stake holders to work together to make the optimum utilization of the
available resource. International organizations have to take a greater institutional role to start dialogues among
the contending states to impress upon them to share the limited resource to
meet their water needs rather than insist on their water rights and to develop a sustainable
arrangement in this regard. It would then be possible to mitigate the conflict inducing characteristics
of water by taking adequate measures now itself, instead of waiting for the
flash point to occur.
End Notes.
- Ban-Ki- Moon, Address at the World Economic Forum, January, 2008 and Message for International Year of Water Cooperation, February, 2013.
- Ismail Serageldin, Interview reported in the New York Times, August, 10,1995.
- Kofi Annan, Message on World Water Day, March,22, 2002.
- Director of National Intelligence, USA- Report on Global Water Security, February, 2012.
- David Zhang, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, December,2007.
- David Seckler, Water Security in the 21st Century, IWMI Water Brief – 1,March, 1999.
- Media Reports on water conflicts among various countries in the recent times.
