2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.3. LINKS BETWEEN WATER SHORTAGE AND CONFLICT
In the following subchapter I will present different sides within the scholarly debate on the link between water shortage and conflict and discuss the nature if this relationship.
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
35
In 2016, the World Bank estimated that 1.8 billion people live in areas of physical scarcity, and the same number is predicted to live in areas of absolute scarcity by 2025, and at the same time, according to the United Nations, water shortage will continue to be a problem for about 3 billion people. (UNDP 2006) (World Bank 2016) The ever-growing population on one hand and the diminishing quantity and quality of fresh water on the other side suggest that the demand surpasses the supply; therefore the assumption that water shortage could cause tensions seems justified.
In the introduction part of the literature review we already discussed the media coverages of the most recent water-related tensions and conflicts. However, it is not just the media that regularly expresses their concerns about the future of water security issues; academia has added its concerns as well. Thomas Homer-Dixon states that human-induced environmental challenges will contribute to various aspects of security issues: war, terrorism, diplomatic and trade conflicts. (T. F. Homer-Dixon 1991) Focusing more on water-related conflicts, scholars identify two of the following scenarios for water-related conflicts:
1. War for water resources to gain more power. Even though these kinds of wars are traditionally fought over non-renewable sources, Gleick (1993) argues that even water can provide a source of economic and political strength. In such case, military conflict over water resources would be justified. This scenario depends on the degree of scarcity, inequitable distribution, the number of actors that share the water resources and their relative power as well as possible access to alternative resources. Some suggest this view falls within the Neomalthusian school, which says that population growth, economic and industrial development are expected to produce increased demand and insufficient supply at the same time, leading to
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
36
securitization of water and thus likely occurrence of violent conflict. (Hensel and Brochmann 2008) In support of these claims, scholars rely on data provided by various institutions, such as the UN, that shows the current availability and distribution of freshwater resources in relation to the expected increase in demand.
2. Using water resources as an offensive/defensive weapon. Due to its importance, water has been a target as well as a tool of war in many cases – bombing of water dams in the World War II, diversions of the Jordan river, Saddam Hussein’s poisoning of Shiite Muslims’ water supplies (P. H. Gleick 1993) and as mentioned in the introduction, more recently the Prime Minister of India also called for using the Indus river in its on-going dispute with Pakistan. (BBC 2016) Transboundary rivers provide many opportunities to the upper riparian, whose geographically advantageous position makes it possible to manipulate the water flow for the downstream users. However water can be a powerful tool not only in the hands of governments, but also non-state actors such as terrorist groups. These can either target the water infrastructure or contaminate the water supplies, however the possibility of a large-scale destruction caused through water contamination is mostly considered small. Some of the water-terrorism cases include 1984 contamination of water supplies with salmonella in The Dalles, Oregon; 1992 contamination of Turkish Air Force compound water tanks with lethal concentrations of potassium cyanide, and regular destruction of dams in by the Mozambican National Resistance throughout 1980’s, in addition to many other examples and attempts. (P. H. Gleick 2006)
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
37
On the other side of the spectrum are scholars who see water shortage as an opportunity for peace and cooperation, instead as a catalyst for conflict. The supporters of this view argue that there is no empirical evidence for the future to be that of water wars, since water is not easily converted into power. (Spillmann 2000) While a full-scale water war is highly unlikely, these scholars still admit that unilateral actions as an answer to unresolved issues on shared water resources will lead to tensions and regional destabilization. Therefore, they conclude, the water-stress itself is not a direct cause for conflict, but unilateral attempts to secure sufficient water supplies are. They see the answer in early cooperation, strong institutions and efficient treaties that provide monitoring and enforcement, shifting the focus from rights to needs and finally interests that ensure equitable distribution. However lack of these mechanisms might lead to internal and regional tensions that may have international implications. (Wolf 2007)
When discussion water shortage in relation to conflict, most scholars agree that water-related conflicts will act as catalysts and exacerbate other factors like poverty, ethnic tensions, poor governance, stunt in economic growth, etc. (Brown, Hammill and McLeman 2007)
To prevent and mitigate such challenges, some researchers propose quantitative indices to measure the vulnerability of states that would help the policymakers in identifying and solving water related issues. Areas that are most commonly seen as problematic include the Middle East and Central Asia, where multiple countries have been forced to share the scarce resources. Due to its persistent and tangible nature, water security in these regions already entered the arena of high politics. (P. H. Gleick 1993)
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
38
Nowadays most water related conflicts arise over the shared water resources, mostly rivers. Equitable distribution of shared water resources is said to be in contradiction with sovereignty of involved states, bringing the discussion in the field of international law down to the conflict between the principle of sovereign ownership and exclusive rights over one’s resources on one side and on the other the principle of shared ownership and equitable use of joint river, with the latter being the center of many international river treaties. (Hanqin 1992) However even with the equitable distribution ensured by the joint management river treaty, it is also important to ensure that it provides balance between human consumption and ecological sustainability. (Dimitrov 2002) Another important point to consider when dealing with this category is to distinguish between transboundary rivers and rivers that form a border. The conflicts over transboundary rivers are expected to arise in cases of water shortage, while boundaries that run along the river might lead to conflicts over the boundaries themselves. Recent researchers also pointed out that in order to fully comprehend the dynamics of transboundary rivers, we need to focus on the whole river basins, instead of just one single river. (Gleditsch, Owen, et al. 2006)
Some argue that the water scarcity and demand ratio has been and will in the future make states more likely to expand on their river claims and even begin militarized conflict over the water resources. Claims will most likely arise and militarization will be considered when the demand for resources considerably surpasses the available supplies. On the other hand we have those inspired by liberal institutionalism who suggest that to prevent such scenarios, international agreements can sometimes help reconciling different claims, but have more success with minimizing militarization while aiming at ensuring sustainable and sufficient amount of water to all parties. Therefore, direct armed conflict over water issues is more of an exception, than a rule. Democratic regime is one of the characteristics of the two involved states that are often referenced when talking about
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
39
transboundary water resource conflict. According to the democratic peace theory, democracies are generally not expected to engage in conflict with each other because of shared values and compliance with international norms, such as paying more attention to resources and environment, therefore eliminating the chances of scarcity-related conflicts.
At the same time democracies generally show more commitment to international treaties, which further prevents militarization of potential conflicts. (Hensel and Brochmann 2008)
Researches discussed in the above sections have been valuable in evaluating the probability of exclusively water-related wars; however, this thesis wishes to expand on this and look at water conflicts in a broader scheme of interstate relations. That is not to say that water shortage conditions the entire relationship, but that in some cases it brings a new dimension to the state-to-state interactions.
Other scholars like Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008) question whether cooperation is always inherently good, and claim that conflict and cooperation almost always coexist, so it is more appropriate to think of transboundary water interaction with important political and social aspects to it. As we have seen on the previous pages, some scholars (e.g.
Homer-Dixon, Gleick, etc.) argue that water resources will increasingly present a source of conflict, while others (e.g. Hensel and Brochmann, Wolf, etc.) claim that shared water resources lead to more cases of cooperation than conflict. Through the Transboundary Water Interaction Nexus (TWINS) framework Zeitoun and Mirumachi show us how the different aspects of the two almost always coexist. The matrix they use is a two-dimensional matrix with cooperation intensity (ranging from confrontation of issues, ad hoc, technical, risk-averting and risk-taking) represented by one axis and conflict intensity (non-politicized, politicized, securitised and violised) on the other, allowing us to trace the developments in the transboundary water interactions. Looking at the shared
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
40
water interaction instead of binary concepts of cooperation versus conflict allows us to gain more insight into the inter-state water sharing developments. The TWINS nexus thus includes a political dimension of water treaties, showing that some forms of cooperation might perpetuate the conflict. If water treaties prefer one party to another, or focus on for example data sharing between some institutions instead on resolving the actual conflict, is
“any cooperation” really a step forward?
In the case studies we will see how treaties can also lead to future disagreements, however ideally these would still be negotiated within the framework of the treaty. The changing conditions and how they influence the water interactions will be further demonstrated in the next chapters through case studies.
Solving the transboundary river disputes calls for more international institutions and treaties, however they only seem to be effective on a regional level, instead of becoming globally accepted norms that could prevent future conflicts. (Haftendorn 2000) To address this “no-size-fits-all” issue some suggest paying more attention to causes of water conflicts that could provide more insight into most appropriate solutions. Haftendorn (2000) distinguishes between usage (i.e. construction of dams and power stations), distribution (relative and absolute) and pollution causes of water conflict. In addition to that I would suggest expanding the latter category to water resource depletion due to climate change and environmental degradation, including pollution.
Transboundary water disputes present the important dynamic between the upper riparian, who has the geographical advantage over the use of water resources, and the downstream riparian whose water utility depends on the upstream neighbor. Many scholars agree that conflict arises when the downstream riparian is more powerful than the upstream counterpart, giving the downstream riparian a chance to put necessary pressure behind its
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
41
claims for a more beneficial water management strategy. (T. Homer-Dixon 1999) Such developments can lead to an establishment of so-called water hegemony, which was explained by Zeitoun and Werner in their 2006 article Hydro-hegemony – a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts:
“Hydro-hegemony is hegemony at the river basin level, achieved through water resource control strategies such as resource capture, integration and containment.
The strategies are executed through an array of tactics (e.g. coercion-pressure, treaties, knowledge construction, etc.) that are enabled by the exploitation of existing power asymmetries within a weak international institutional context.
Political processes outside the water sector configure basin-wide hydro-political relations in a form ranging from the benefits derived from cooperation under hegemonic leadership to the inequitable aspects of domination. The outcome of the competition in terms of control over the resource is determined through the form of hydro-hegemony established, typically in favour of the most powerful actor.” (Zeitoun and Warner 2006, 1)
Others say that when compared to the democracy variable, development levels seem to have a significantly bigger impact on the transboundary water conflict. (Gleditsch, Owen, et al. 2006) According to them, the previous data suggested the undeveloped countries experience less water scarcity due to smaller levels of pollution, and developed countries experience less scarcity because they can invest in water management technologies.
Gleditsch et al (2006) tested this hypothesis and concluded the statement is correct only in the case of developed countries, while undeveloped countries might still be affected by water shortage leading to conflict. However, the research also shows the developing countries suffer from both the increase in demand (due to industrialization and population
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
42
growth) and at the same time degradation of water resources, while usually not spending enough money on water management, therefore increasing the risk of water conflict.
The reviewed literature showed us that there is still much debate about the topics such as water security and its impact on interstate conflict. The literature also presents various possible scenarios of water-related disputes and evaluates the most common solutions such as international water sharing treaties. While the treaties provide temporary solutions to scarcity issues, they seem to not accommodate the changing water availability, as well as fail to ensure first equitable distribution and second compliance with the terms of agreement. At the same time most of the literature discusses this issue in terms of binary concepts such as conflict versus cooperation, with some of the researchers (e.g. Zeitoun and Mirumachi) proposing a more wholesome approach to analyzing international water interactions.
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
43