Water Conflicts

Conflicts can be defined as incompatible interaction between two or more actors. The key question is whether conflicts lead to violence, or whether the differences are managed in a non-violent manner, e.g. through dialogue, institutional and legal mechanisms.

Conflicts can be caused by tensions over the different uses and management of water, the focus of this introductory sketch. Such conflicts can be referred to as conflicts over the control of water resources, as well as development disputes. Conflicts caused by other factors (e.g. socio-political grievances), however, can make use of water systems as a military or political “tool”. Water infrastructure can also become a military “target” (PACIFIC INSTITUTE 2011).

While we focus on the “causal” aspect below, it is important to note that conflicts are never caused by one factor alone, and that there is no deterministic relationship between a specific physical availability of a resource and social conflict. If managed well, scarcity of water resources can also lead to cooperation between different social groups (MASON & MULLER 2007).

It is useful to make a difference between physical and economic water scarcity. If a region is experiencing physical scarcity, the upper limit of the annually renewable water for different uses (human and ecosystem uses including) has been surpassed and backstopping options such as groundwater mining from non-renewable resources are not available or already exhausted. In the case of economic water scarcity, sufficient amounts of water are available, but economic, human and institutional capacities for allocating it are severely limited.

As we focus on water control and development disputes, it is useful to make a difference between water for agriculture (approx. 70% of global withdrawal), for industry (20%), and for domestic uses (approx. 10%) (see also water use) (MOLDEN 2007). While the quality of water is vital for drinking water, the quantity aspect is predominant in the agricultural sector. Water related conflicts can occur on local, national, regional and global level:

Examples of conflicts at the local level are tensions over the use of a water well, or between pastoralists and modern irrigated agriculture. In subsistence agriculture, where traditional conflict management systems have been eroded and new ones not firmly established, local water related conflicts can turn violent. In the case of the Woiyto valley in Ethiopia, there has always been competition over live-sustaining resources amongst the local agro-pastoralists, peasant cultivators and hunter-gatherers. However, these were generally low intensity and managed by traditional conflict management mechanisms. With the introduction of agribusiness and programmes sponsored by the regional government, the conflict dynamics changed. In 1997 clashes between agribusiness and agro-pastoralists related to grazing land and access to watering points led to loss of life on both sides (ARSANO & BAECHLER 2002).

At the national level, the question of land use and water rights, as well as infrastructure development, may lead to conflicts, yet these are generally dealt with in a non-violent manner. Rather than violent conflict, the challenge is more one of lack of sustainable development, or development on a national level that leads to conflict on a local level (LUZI 2008; MASON et al. 2009). Both local and national water related conflicts are more likely in economically water scarce countries, as it is more a challenge of infrastructure and management, rather than about water quantity per se. In the case of Darfur, increasingly limited water and land resources, possibly also due to climate change, were factors that escalated tensions. In the words of UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon (2007): “Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.“ Nevertheless, even though the change in resource basis was a contributing factor, the main reason for the war in Darfur was the centre-periphery disparity in socio-political development in Sudan, and faulty management policies (MASON et al. 2008). In physically water scarce countries, such as North Africa and the Middle East, policy tensions often arise over the question of using local water resources to produce food on the national level (self-sufficiency approach), or rather to import food internationally (economic efficiency approach).

On a regional level, conflicts often arise over shared river basins or transboundary groundwater. Tensions at this level tend to be more diplomatic and economic, than violent. In the case of shared surface water, disputes often arise over the quantity and timing of upstream releases in relation to downstream demands. International conflicts in the Nile Basin (MASON 2004; ARSANO 2007), Mekong, Jordan, Euphrates/Tigris and Syr Darya and Amu Darya (SIEGFRIED & BERNAUER 2007; MCKINNEY 2003) are examples. As conflicts are never only about one issue, water issues may be intermingled with other political issues (e.g. in the Middle East).

At the global level, water in the form of food (“virtual water”) links the world availability of water with the global food trade. Countries that are physically water scarce (e.g. more than 75% of river water withdrawn) tend to be more affected by regional and global water tensions. While they have the financial and institutional capacity to import food, many of these countries try to avoid over dependence on the global food market, for fear of countries like the US misusing their market dominance (see IWMI map below).

The largely unseen nature of groundwater as well as the complex hydrogeology and flow paths often make conflicts over access and control of these resources more diffuse as compared to the case of surface water. In the case of groundwater irrigation for agriculture, the resources provide important means to buffer against climate variability and are thus key income-smoothing assets. If utilised in an unsustainable way, falling groundwater tables increasingly deprive typically the poor of having access to the resources, potentially causing economic hardship. If it is not managed adequately, this may result in social and political unrest or even conflict (SIEGFRIED 2004).

Climatic change will impact water availability globally. However, the direction and magnitude of regional changes in future precipitation is often not well known. Especially in the dryland regions of the globe, less frequent, higher intensity precipitation events are expected. For global temperatures, there exists a near uniform consensus on increasing trends as a function of present and future greenhouse gas forcing (CLIMATE INSTITUTE 2010).

The uncertainty prevalent in key climate boundary conditions for water resources significantly hampers our present day understanding of future water availability and the identification of target regions for focused adaptation. From the policy-making perspective this is troublesome, especially when viewed from the perspective of significantly increasing population stress in many economically marginal regions.

Nevertheless, it is very likely that the world will see increasing water-related disputes in the future as we transition into a period by mid 21st century where an expected 4.5 billion people experience significant levels of water stress frequently. At the same time ecosystems and their services will be increasingly under pressure due to the dispute between water allocation for human use and the natural environment. The challenge will be how to deal with these conflicts in a non-violent and sustainable manner (STRATEGIC FORESIGHT GROUP 2011).