Water: A global struggle
Dialogue and cooperation are essential to ameliorate the grim reality of water scarcity
Water is the most vital resource. Freshwater is a basic necessity of life and a key component in modern and developed society. During the 20th century, human ingenuity and technological innovation have controlled water resources in ways leading to modern advances in agriculture, industry and general human welfare. In reality, geopolitical concerns over water have always been present due to the uneven distribution of water.
Water scarcity affects every continent. Around 1.2 billion people or almost one-fifth of the world’s population live in areas of physical scarcity and 500 million people are approaching this situation. Water scarcity is particularly intense in regions and countries in the arid zone, such as the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia and parts of sub-saharan Africa. It is projected that by 2050, at least one in four people is likely to live in a country affected by a chronic or recurring shortage of freshwater. As the global population grows, there will be a need for more water to provide food, health and energy to ensure people’s basic needs. Since in many of the aridest regions, water is shared between different countries with often tense political relations, the increased competition for water is seen likely to contribute towards further aggravating political and military tensions. Water insecurity is rightly taken as an indictment of human achievement that the world is still unable to ensure everyone having access to clean and freely available water.
There are a number of relatively wealthy countries who are clearly managing to survive apparently chronic and severe water shortage. For energy-rich countries in the Persian Gulf, part of the solution comes through desalination of the limit
less salt water found on their shores. Singapore supplies most of its water needs through imports by tanker. Both options are extremely costly and would be unsustainable for poorer countries. The current practices of water management remain highly wasteful and inefficient and there is much that can be done to increase water productivity.
The greatest potential gains can be made in agriculture since nearly 70 per cent of global water is used in this sector. Israel, where water is a scarce resource, has considerably increased its water productivity by introducing drip irrigation and other efficiency measures. Countries in arid zones can alleviate their water problem by importing grains which require over 1,000 cubic meters of water to produce one ton. This is what is called ‘virtual water’ and is stated to be a part of the solution to water security problems in arid zones. However, this is a utopian idea. All countries in arid zones are not rich in fossil fuels. For a poor and underdeveloped country, total dependence on imported food grains is fraught with great risks due to price fluctuations in the world market. Moreover, in most of these countries agriculture remains the primary occupation and source of livelihood. Agriculture has to be given its prime importance in the national economy otherwise it will aggravate poverty and inequality.
Water insecurity is linked to the ingrained notion that water is a gift of nature and that it is somehow unjust to charge its full economic cost. The
legacy of low prices has been one of wastefulness – a lack of incentives for water conservation and the embedding of powerful domestic constituencies resistant to any change in subsidisation and allocation of water. Moving to a commercial rate for water which is closer to the full cost is essential but will be politically an extremely hard, sensitive and unpopular decision. Providing for water access rights combined with effective regulatory systems is critical to the successful management of water insecurity. The role and capacity of the state in this regard is, therefore, extremely vital.
Since the 1950s, states have been resorting to water management on a massive scale with intensive pumping of groundwater, construction of dams and large-scale water diversions. These policies have in many ways been highly successful. Many waterborne diseases have been eradicated and irrigated land increased significantly, making it possible to feed the ever-growing population. Hydroelectric power generation has increased. But these policies have also had their
limitations. There has been extensive soil degradation, groundwater depletion, forcible evacuations and damage to vital ecosystems. The traditional practices of water management have reached their limit. The simple model of secure supply by the state at practically zero cost has to be supplemented by more decentralised, market-oriented policies that increase water productivity and constrain demand. For the poorest and those without access to clean water, state intervention has to remain. Less developed countries with their weaker social and political institutions may find it difficult to ensure the proper balance between state intervention and market-oriented policies. This act of balancing may prove to be an unpopular political decision.
Conflict is an inevitable and endemic feature of the politics of water. As with any scarce and valuable resource, there are disputes about its appropriate allocation and use. Conflicts are apparent at both the domestic, political and the inter-state
level. Within states, there are tensions between different users such as agriculturists, industrialists, domestic users, hydropower generators,
leisure users, and environmentalists. Water is also a sensitive political issue between states more so between upstream and downstream states. Unlike other resources, water naturally flows across national borders. There are about 270 international water basins and roughly one-third of these are shared by more than two countries and twenty between five and more countries. There are also unknown numbers of transboundary aquifers.
There is little empirical evidence that these water-related tensions have resulted in significant violent conflict at either the domestic or the international level. At the domestic intra-state level, there are multiple incidents of water-related riots, revolts or domestic insurgencies but the evidence that water scarcity itself has led to more protracted civil war is not so clear. Water scarcity certainly affects the poor and dispossessed and contributes to their misery and intermittent rebellion but it does not motivate the sufferers for mobilisation of large-scale organised violence. Water is not in itself a valuable enough resource for such violence. Far from conflict and confrontation, water scarcity tends towards increasing societal adaptation and cooperation.
International water disputes can be severe and contribute to decades of political and military tensions. This is particularly the case where one country within an international watershed, normally the regional hegemon, unilaterally decides to implement a major water project without involving neighbouring countries whose interests would be greatly affected. Yet, even in these cases, the waterrelated conflicts have not resulted in an outright military conflict but have, at the most, tended to delay rather than rule out completely the eventual establishment of a mutually agreed institutional arrangement defined legally through treaties spelling out each country’s rights and responsibilities towards a shared river.
Water is a shared resource. Theoretically, it is possible for an upstream state to consider that all the water in a river is its sole possession and that downstream users are merely granted a certain allocation. This notion of exclusive sovereignty is set out in the Harmon doctrine, which some powerful upstream states, such as Turkey and China have used to justify their unwillingness to agree to binding multilateral treaties. In practice, such a doctrine is difficult to defend as it runs against international normative and legal developments such as the 1997 UN Convention on International Watercourses which confirmed the need for equitable and cooperative management for international transboundary water resources. States should not consider water in terms of possessive rights but rather see it in terms of the needs of all who use the water. Disputes over water must be resolved by diplomacy and cooperation.
There is little practical military purpose in fighting a war over water. There have been exaggerated claims that the 1967 Arab-israeli conflict and the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon were driven by water considerations. All serious comprehensive studies of these wars identify deeper historical, political and geostrategic reasons for their outbreak. Water is not valuable enough a commodity to warrant the significant resources required to fight a war. Such military missions are difficult and inhuman. An Israeli defence analyst had expressed this clearly when he said, “Why go to war over water? For the price of one week’s fighting, you could build five desalination plants. No loss of life, no international pressure and a reliable supply you don’t have to defend in hostile territory.”
Clean water is predicted to be “next oil” underscoring its significant geopolitical importance. But there is a ray of hope. Water has not been presented so far as a security issue that divides communities, but leverage for development that unites them. Countries will more aggressively pursue technological and political solutions that currently enable them to exist in regions that are stretched past their water limits.
(The author is a former central civil service officer who retired from the Ministry of Defence. The views
expressed are strictly personal)
Water scarcity certainly affects the poor and dispossessed and contributes to their misery and intermittent rebellion but it does not motivate the sufferers for mobilisation of large-scale organised violence. Far from conflict and confrontation, water scarcity tends towards increasing societal adaptation and cooperation