Growing global water stress has created an opportunity for unprecedented international cooperation between transboundary watershed management systems. Although it is argued that water scarcity, in regards to basins which cross national boarders, could lead to legitimate conflict, such a dramatic response “seems neither strategically rational, hydrographically effective, nor economically viable” (Wolf 1998). While conflict is unlikely, tensions between nations do arise.
Truly effective international water management cooperation is difficult to cultivate as water security is treated as an element of national security. Often nations “reach a stalemate or deadlock over their shared waters” (Earle 2013). While many nations have come to recognize the “absolute territorial integrity concept,” which acknowledges downstream nations’ rights and needs regarding transboundary basin use, such a recognition is not enough (Earle 2013). Furthermore, in the face of increasing drought concerns, which “ means something different for a water manager, an agriculturalist, a hydroelectric power plant operator, and a wildlife biologist,” true compromise is difficult to reach (Wilhite 2005).
The ability of a water management system to adapt to increasing resource stresses is an escalating concern for many nations, even more so for those containing a transboundary water basin. Such adaptive behavior moves beyond conventional management systems, and requires a great deal of collaboration between actors, in spite of a volatile water resource. “Adaptive management is more responsive to changing conditions of and demands on ecosystems as compared to traditional approached to water resource management” (Huntjens 2011). If a nation faces a “natural resource scarcity while at the same time [has] a scarcity of ‘adaptive capacity,’” solutions are harder to encounter and maintain (Turton 1999). The ability to gain such an “adaptive capacity,” varies depending on institutional, societal, economic, and environmental variables. Generally, focus needs to shift from the management of supply, which allows demand to dictate water allocation, toward management of demand. Such a shift would promote a more efficient and regulated system of consumption (Turton 1999). This is a difficult transition to make, and requires cooperation from actors both within and outside of the water sector.
Furthermore, traditional water management systems have not been able to keep pace with growing demand, especially as climate variability jeopardizes supply. Therefore, multilateral adaptive strategies must be created and enforced within major watershed management systems. Ultimately, “the challenge is to get ahead of the “crisis curve,” to facilitate capacity and cooperation in advance of costly, time-consuming crises, which… threaten local and regional economies, human and community health, and ecosystems” (Wolf 2012). While many nations reliant on transboudary basins created cooperative initiative decades ago, the various treaties which have been implemented are being pushed to their adaptive limits, as growing demand and inefficiently allocated supply continue to create scarcity.
Generally, treaties have lacked, and continue to fail in terms of responsible and sustainable allocation, as well as effective enforcement mechanisms (Wolf 1998). Treaties have also been slow to develop often due to “historical relationships between the countries concerned, which often transcend water-related considerations; …asymmetrical power relationships; intensity and magnitude of the water issues faced by the countries and the people’s perception of the urgency of solving the problems…narrow interests of the political leaders who often tend to exploit the trade-offs necessary to arrive at a mutually acceptable treaty for partisan and short-term gains” (Biswas 2013). Furthermore, such ineffective management decisions “may not be robust enough to cope with the impacts of climate change on water supply, flood risk, health, agriculture, energy aquatic ecosystems” (Stahl 2008). However, both general and specific improvements are being worked towards.
Information sharing initiatives are often the first step between transboundary basin nations. Such data can “enabl[e] improved flow forecasting and greater preparedness for floods and droughts” (Sadoff 2005). In addition to information sharing, more significant measures include strong movements toward river flow regulation, water storage, flood control, and adaptive allocations in response to drought. In 2008, at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Germany, IX/9 was adopted. IX/9 “strongly supported the need for strengthened international cooperation regarding the allocation and management of water” (Brels 2008).
The Western Australian government has created several initiatives to more efficiently manage their limited and decreasing supply of water. Although the government “recognizes that new legislative tools must be at hand to increase options to adequately respond to existing and future challenges and the changing needs of water users and the environment,” their plan of action is overwhelmingly unspecific (Government of Western Australia 2015). However, Australia has recognized that “it is time to stop patching the existing Acts and rebuild the legislative framework for water management” (Government of Western Australia 2015). At the same time, they are predicting a population growth rate of 2.2 percent through 2026, in combination with an increasing water usage of 2.4 percent per year, while the majority of their water resources are already fully-allocated (Government of Western Australia 2015). Western Australia recognizes their need to adapt, however, without the creation of specific policies, their growth will make such a change difficult. This is the case in many nations.
India, also predicted to increase in both population and water use, “has an important role to play in making regional cooperation possible by improving its relationship further with all its neighbors” (Chandra 2015). India’s history with surrounding countries can at times dissuade continued cooperative efforts such as data sharing and flood control. This strained relationship is seen with other powerful Newly Industrialized Countries, such as China, who is subsequently also a holder of major transboundary basins. “China and India as planetary powers are shaping the global biosphere, and are therefore central to whether the world succeeds in building a healthy, prosperous and environmentally sustainable future for the next generation” (Chandra 2015). China and India, both world powers and major water users, need to be as the forefront of cooperative and adaptive policies.
Despite the complexities which accompany the overwhelming presence of such global powers, South-East Asia has at times been a leader of multilateral cooperative efforts. For example, the “Comprehensive Scheme for Establishment of Hyro-meteorological and Flood Forecasting Network on rivers Common to India and Bhutan,” created in 1979, is still in operation (Government of India 2014). Furthermore, bilateral and multilateral treaties have been created and are still in use today in regards to the Mekong Basin, despite turbulent negotiations along the way.
South Africa became a prominent example of necessary water policy adaptation early on, in the 1990s, when “social changes…added to the tension caused by the chasm between outdated policy and the realities of resource management” (Karodia 2001). Such a “chasm” prompted the 1956 Water Act and subsequent alterations. Currently, South African legislation is working to adapt more specifically to drought potential.
South America demonstrated their cooperative capabilities starting in the 1970s with the Amazon Co-operation Treaty Organization, which included Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guiana, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela. This multilateral agreement aided in the movement towards a more comprehensive and adaptive management system in the Amazon basin, whose population is approximately 27 million (Biswas 2013). The treaty promoted the “no harm” statute which basically states that the water rights of one riparian user must “stop at the threshold of inversely affecting the right” of another riparian user. Although the basis of this treaty was strongly grounded in transboundary cooperation, problems have arisen since, as adaptation is difficult to maintain when so many nations are at play.
Although there are hundreds of examples of preliminary transboundary cooperative efforts, attempting to create adaptive watershed management systems, realistic implications of present initiatives are limited. While real impacts have been more often seen with the creation of bilateral and multilateral institutions, specifically aimed at the management of transboundary basins, treaties remain largely unspecific. Ultimately, transboundary watersheds create relationships that can function as cooperative partnerships, or dysfunctional resource users. Such natural partners must recognize that “cooperation is a permanent task, to be built restlessly” (Biswas 2013). However, real cooperation necessitates legitimate and specific policies, which can be upheld by all nations involved.
W O R K S C I T E D
Biswas, Asit K. 2013. Managing Transboundary Waters of Latin America. Routledge.
Brels, Sabine, David Coates, and Flavia Loures. 2008. “Transboundary Water Resources Management: The Role of International Watercourse Agreements in Implementation of the CBD.” Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. https-::www.cbd.int:doc:publications:cbd-ts-40-en.pdf 2.webloc.
Chandra, Vishal. 2015. India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions. Pentagon Press.
Earle, Anton, Anders Ja ̈gerskog, and Joakim O. ̈jendal. 2013. Transboundary Water Management: Principles and Practice. Earthscan.
Government of India. 2014. “India-Bhutan Cooperation.” Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation.
Government of Western Australia. 2015. “Allocation Planning.” Department of Water. http://www.water.wa.gov.au/Managing+water/Allocation+planning/default.aspx.
Huntjens, Patrick, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Benoit Rihoux, Maja Schlüter, Zsuzsanna Flachner, Susana Neto, Romana Koskova, Chris Dickens, and Isah Nabide Kiti. 2011. “Adaptive Water Management and Policy Learning in a Changing Climate: A Formal Comparative Analysis of Eight Water Management Regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia.” Environmental Policy and Governance 21 (3): 145–63. doi:10.1002/eet.571.
Karodia, H., and D. Weston. 2001. “South Africa’s New Water Policy Law.” Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
Sadoff, Claudia W., and David Grey. 2005. “Cooperation on International Rivers.” Water International 30 (4): 420–27. doi:10.1080/02508060508691886.
Stahl, Kerstin. 2008. “Future Scenarios: The Impact of Climate Change and Droughts on Transboundary Water Dispute and Management.” Water Tribune. http://www.ayto-zaragoza.mobi/contenidos/medioambiente/cajaAzul/S1-P1-Kerstin_StahlACC.pdf.
Turton, A. 1999. “Water Scarcity and Social Adaptive Capacity: Towards an Understanding of the Social Dynamics of Water Demand Management in Developing Countries.” School of Oriental and African Studies.
Wilhite, Donald A. 2005. Drought and Water Crises: Science, Technology, and Management Issues. CRC Press.
Wolf, Aaron. 2012. “Sharing Water, Building Relations: Managing and Transforming Water Conflict in the US West.” U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Reclamation.
Wolf, Aaron T. 1998. “Conflict and Cooperation along International Waterways.” Water Policy 1 (2): 251–65. doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(98)00019-1.