Reconsidering conflict and cooperation

This post takes a look at Mark Zeitoun and Naho Mirumachi's paper 'Transboundary Water Interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation'. The paper mainly argues that academics and policy makers should look at conflict and co-operation as a transboundary 'water interaction' rather than discussing the two in isolation and that water interaction is an inherently political process.

Zeitoun and Mirumachi argue that the assessment of both conflict and cooperation as separate entities contradicts the vast majority of transboundary water scenarios, where in fact cooperation and conflict actually co-exist. Such a view maintains the belief that any conflict is bad and all forms of cooperation are good (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002). I agree with the authors view that cooperation and conflict co-exist. As the paper cleverly put it 'it is well understood by anyone who survives a relationship' conflict and co-opertaion occur simultaneously, which form my personal experience I can agree too.  Furthermore more insight and understanding of the effective management of transboundary water resources will be achieved if they are thought of jointly in terms of interaction, rather than separate because possible disagreements and conflict of interests can be more easily distinguished.

The paper also ascertains that transboundary water interaction is an inherently political process determined by the broader political context. It is almost impossible to argue that transboundary water issues are not political in nature. Water management is at the heart of African politics for several reasons. Firstly there is fierce competition for scarce water supply between different countries and even between different cities in the same country. Fundamentally water is an essential good, so this puts water at the heart of the relationship between government and its citizens. There is also an international political perspective which includes the negotiation of terms and uses surrounding transboundary water agreements between different countries.

According to Sadoff and Grey (2002), international rivers in some cases can become a powerful catalyst for conflict, or a powerful catalyst for co-operation. One example of the benefit of riparian states of sharing a transboundary water resource is the concept of 'benefit sharing'. This concept has been implemented in the Nile basin Initiative. Sadoff and Grey ascertain that sharing of benefits derived from the river (e.g. hydroelectricity) may be more politically feasible and therefore more likely than the actual sharing of the transboundary water resource. To a certain extent I agree with this line of thought because its easier for a country to share, knowing that it will itself receive some reward.   However, as Zeitoun and Mirumachi later reiterate, this view separates conflict from co-operation, and does not acknowledge that conflicts of interests are likely to occur during the sharing of benefits.

The process of effective cooperation is more complex than we generally tend to think. International agreements are generally seen as the pinnacle of cooperation. Wolf (2003) states 'once cooperative water regimes are established through treaties, they turn out to be impressively resilient over time'. However this fails to consider that important components of the treaty may not be implemented and treaties can often favour one party, which can be termed poor or non cooperation (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002). There is more too co-operation than just signing the dotted line of the treaty and all the problems are solved. There is a need to look at compliance, goals, interests and problem solving, within the treaty. Regional agreements (particularly in the global South), whilst often originate as environmental agreements, actually serve as a vehicle to promote development goals- e.g. Hydroelectric production which can stimulate a conflict of issues, such was the case in the Zambezi river basin. It is imperative that the 'multiple faces of cooperation' are understood (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002) in more detail, which in part can be achieved by recognising that conflict and co-opertaion co-exist.

Whether international tensions over transboundary water resources will lead to greater conflict or offer increased potential for cooperation remains a hotly debated issue throughout water related literature. But one thing is for sure, conflict and cooperation can not be discussed in isolation to one another.
 n


'

Are there alternatives to transboundary sharing?

Today's blog will divert a little from previous posts and focus slightly less on the actual sharing of transboundary water resources and focus on the concept of virtual water.

John Allan, the founder of the term 'virtual water' describes it as water embedded in commodities such as grain (Allan 2003). However, virtual water is more than just the actual water content of a product, but rather how much water was needed to make that particular product (Mauser 2009).

In this post I will briefly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of virtual water and then give my opinion on the idea of virtual water.

Advantages:

One major benefit of virtual water is that it has the potential to be a better alternative to resolving conflict in water scarce regions such as the Nile Basin than water scarce countries sharing a transboundary water resource (Mauser 2009). Conflict and tension may arise over the arrangements of how much water is shared out between the countries, whereas if water was imported, such disagreements may not arise. Another possible way that virtual water may be able to lower the risk of conflict over water is that importing virtual water lowers the pressure on water scarce countries to produce food. For example, Egypt imports a substantial amount amount of wheat and in doing so saves the country 7% of the water it is entitled to as agreed by the 1959 Nile treaty (Chapagain 2005).

A further advantage of virtual water is an increase in efficiency of water resource management. The increase in the trading of virtual water among water rich and water scarce countries in the year 2000, meant that over 4% of water which would have been used in agriculture was saved. The saving was accounted for by the fact that less water efficient countries were importing from the more efficient countries (Dalin 2011). The international trade of water does not only improve efficiency but also the fair distribution of water worldwide

Disadvantages:

It would be foolish, however, to assume that virtual water did not have its drawbacks. One such drawback is that countries with the highest net export of water including the United States, Canada and Australia may suffer environmental problems and a depletion of their own water resources in the future (Dalin 2011).  This highlight issues relating to the long term sustainability of virtual water.

Another disadvantage of the virtual water trade is that it could cause a dependence of water scarce countries on water rich countries, who are also often economically rich. If this occurred it could mean that countries with less water availability such as Egypt and Sudan may become less self sufficient in term of foo production, which would leave them at the hands of exporting countries. This over reliance could cause conflict, not between neighbouring countries but with the ones holding them politically hostage (Dalin 2011).

Concluding Remarks: 

As an undergraduate student and having only quickly breezed through the topic of virtual water, my opinion may not be the most reliable of opinions, however I will give it anyway. I believe the trading of virtual water has some merit, especially given its potential to distribute water more evenly across the world, as well as to improve efficiency. I do however acknowledge some issues with the concept including those related to dependency and possible political leverage. I think that the trading of virtual water should be implemented simultaneously with the cooperative sharing of transboundary water resources and not as an alternative.

Mauser,W. (2009) Water Resources: Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Use, London: Haus Publishing Ltd

Stop fighting, its just a game

This post will be a bit more light hearted in the sense that it will discuss transboundary water resources in relation to one of my favourite things; Football.

The Nile Basin tournament, hosted in Egypt took place in January 2011 and was contested by 7 teams. These teams included Egypt, Burundi, DR Congo, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, whilst three other teams Eritrea, Ethiopia and Rwanda withdrew before the tournament kicked off. The tournament was proposed by the Egytptian Football Association, after an agreement could not be made to establish a football association of the Nile countries.

The eventual winners of the Tournament was Egpyt who beat Uganda 3-1 in the final. It seems Egypt dominates the other Nile basin countries on and off the field. In 2011 it was decided that the tournament  would be an annual event, Egypt even  promising to help financially support any other countries that were willing to host the tournament. However, I could not find any evidence of the tournament taking place after the inaugural 2011 tournament.

Entertaining football, however, was not the only goal of the tournament. Ministers of irrigation and foreign affairs and chairmen of the football federations from each of the participating countries were invited to the tournament to meet with their Egyptian counterparts for discussions relating to water security.

In my opinion,  football and other sports could be a way to promote solidarity between countries, similar to the way the Olympics promotes a sense of togetherness across the world stage.  However the fact that one country (Egypt) had such a big part to play in the tournament, especially given its role in the trandboundary conflict, may suggest an ulterior motive from Egypt.

In the long run maybe the tournament didn't achieve much, in terms of improving water sharing in the region, but did highlight that in fact the countries of the Nile basin can in actual fact be cooperative.

Til next time

http://www.goal.com/en/news/89/africa/2011/01/06/2292842/nile-basin-tournament-to-be-an-annual-event

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Nile_Basin_Tournament#Final