Transboundary Water Basins: Conflict and Cooperation

Asymmetrical power relations exist across the world, both on international and domestic scales. It goes without saying that the conflict that arises because of this must be resolved in order to prevent the dangerous consequences associated with it, whether this be social, economical or environmental. Given that natural resources are the lifeblood of any society it’s hardly surprising that conflict over these resources is ubiquitous. Population growth, high consumption and climate change all contribute to a trajectory that suggests an increase in these disputes. With this mind, I wanted to give appropriate attention to the conflict and cooperation over shared resources in the form of transboundary river basins. If a state and it's people are embroiled in conflict over water resources, there is little hope for achieving food security.

Around 60% of the African population lives within a transboundary river basin (Nijsten et al. 2018) and conflicts over water are inherently asymmetrical due to upstream riparian states controlling the quality and quantity of flows. Determining what constitutes an ‘equitable’ allocation of water is at the centre of a system of riparian water rights which allocates water among states possessing land along a river path (Wolf 1999). Implementing an agreement that pleases all the states within a transboundary river basin is extremely difficult due to contention between upstream and downstream riparians regarding what claims of water rights should be based on. Most often, these claims are based on either hydrography or chronology.

Figure 1. Transboundary River Basins of Africa. (Source: UNWC)

Claims of water rights based on hydrography often follow the ‘doctrine of absolute sovereignty’, a principle that argues a state has absolute rights to any water flowing through its territory, and this is typically claimed by upstream riparians. Downstream riparians, on the other hand, typically claim the ‘doctrine of absolute riverine integrity’ which suggests that every riparian is entitled to the natural flow of a river system crossing its borders. Claims based on chronology are also more common with downstream riparians who have used a certain resource for longer, and therefore assume they should have greater access to it, and this is known as ‘prior appropriation’.

These positions make it difficult to reap the benefits of bargaining associated with ‘soft power’ (Zeitoun et al. 2010) in the context of water management. This form of bargaining, comparable to Scott's (1985) ‘weapons of the weak’, provides ‘weaker’ states with leverage, potentially avoiding the use of ‘hard power’ which often takes the form of military action. Co-operation between riparians is already difficult due to the concept of hydro-hegemony (Zeitoun and Warner 2006) where a ‘rambo situation’ exists and it is in the best interests for the advantaged upper riparian to maintain their position. This concept is discussed in detail by Haftendhorn (2000) who argues that this ‘rambo situation’ needs to be turned into the ‘dilemma situation’ found in Game Theory. What this means in the context of water rights is that the hegemonic riparian can choose to agree on a policy that affords increased rights to other riparians in exchange for political rewards.

The Case of the Nile

Following negotiations with the British Empire at the start of the 20th century, Egypt secured its status as the operative user of the Nile’s waters even though its position was as the lower riparian. Their commitment to this agreement continued for several decades, dismissing the rights of states like Sudan, despite their independence from the previous colonial regime. It wasn’t until the 1959 Nile Water Agreement between Sudan and Egypt that they began to change their stance. This was followed by the 1999 Entebbe Agreement which sought to promote peaceful relations between all of the riparians by developing the Nile in a cooperative manner. However, with Ethiopia planning to construct dams along the watercourse, Egypt quickly became angered due to fears of altered flows; Egypt relies heavily on the Nile, not only as a source of water for irrigation, but also as a piece of national identity. With the signing of the 2010 Cooperative Framework Agreement between the upstream states strongly opposed by Egypt, and the construction of the Grand Renaissance Dam by Ethiopia firmly underway, the situation in the Nile Basin is now highly contentious. 

Figure 2. The Nile Basin with the location of the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam (Source: BBC)

It may seem that the thoughts of the Egyptian President, in 1979, that the next war in the region would be over the waters of the Nile could hold some truth to it. Fortunately, however, there are many scholars like Yoffe et al. (2003) who have branded this idea of ‘water wars’ as fiction. Their analyses of 1800 cases of transboundary interactions over the second half of the 20^th century showed that cooperation is the most likely outcome from transboundary disputes (70% of all cases), and even in the event of conflict, war never occurred. Whilst widespread legislation and treaties play a huge role in averting these so-called ‘water wars’ (Barnaby 2009), it’s also clear that disputes between states still exist, as I have demonstrated with the case of Egypt.

To summarise, I think achieving ‘equitable’ allocations of water between states is an intrinsically difficult process given the asymmetrical power relations that exist in various transboundary basins. A quote from a professor of global environmental governance reads: ‘the very transboundary agreements that we applaud for preventing conflict at the regional level may, in fact, exacerbate conflicts over water at the local level’. This is something I want you to consider as we conclude this post as it begs the question of the importance of those who really need water. I would argue, in a way, that in the pursuit of controlling water rights on the international stage, states neglect their very own people by failing to address local issues.

Let me know your thoughts below, and as always, thanks for reading!