|
Back to Table of Contents
Atlas of International Freshwater Agreements
The World's International Freshwater Agreements
Meredith A. Giordano and Aaron T. Wolf
Oregon State University
Historical Developments and Future Opportunities
Population growth, economic development, and changing regional values
have intensified competition over water resources worldwide, leading to
predictions of increasing future conflicts over shared water supplies.
Of particular concern to the international community is the potential
for conflict within the world’s 263 international basins. To mitigate
the likelihood of conflict as well as to resolve existing disputes, the
international community has devised principles for international watercourse
management. Over the past century, these principles have been refined
and, most recently, codified in the 1997 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Likewise,
basin communities, building on their own rich treaty history, have accelerated
the development of cooperative institutions to manage internationally
shared river systems.
This Atlas serves to document the developments in the management
of international river basins over the past century. Utilizing historical
documents, statistical analyses, and state-of-the-art mapping technology,
the Atlas presents both a graphic and textual analysis of the world’s
international basins and related agreements. The Atlas begins with a discussion
of the complexities of transboundary water management and the factors
that influence co-riparian relations over water resources. Historical
developments in international water institutions are then discussed at
both the global and basin scale along with an analysis of future institution-building
opportunities.
The World's International Basins
As illustrated in Figure 1, there are currently 263 rivers that either
cross or demarcate international political boundaries. Geographically,
Europe has the largest number of international basins (69), followed by
Africa (59), Asia (57), North America (40), and South America (38). The
absolute numbers of international basins, as well as the nations through
which they traverse, change over time in response to alterations in the
world political map. In the 1990s, for example, the break-up of the Soviet
Union and of Yugoslavia led to the “internationalization” of
several basins (e.g., the Dnieper, Don, and Volga basins) as well as to
changes in the political composition of existing international basins
(e.g., the Danube, Ob, and Aral Sea basins) (see Figure 2). In contrast,
the unification of both Germany and Yemen in 1990 resulted in the “nationalization”
of two formerly international basins — the Weser and Tiban.
Figure 1. International river basins as delineated by the Transboundary
Freshwater Dispute Database project, Oregon State University, 2000. Data
source: International River Basins, Wolf et al. (1999), updated 2001.
Beyond the sheer number of basins involved, the significance of the world’s
international waterways is further reflected in their physical extent
and abundant resources. The world’s 263 international river basins
account for nearly one-half of the earth’s land surface, generate
roughly 60% of global freshwater flow and are home to approximately 40%
of the world’s population. It is the political composition of these
shared water systems, however, that highlights their vulnerabilities.
A total of 145 countries contribute territory to international basins.
Thirty-three nations, including such sizeable countries as Bolivia, Chad,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Niger, and Zambia, have more than
95% of their territory within the hydrologic boundaries of one or more
international basins. Perhaps even more significant is the number of countries
that share certain individual basins. The Danube, for example, has seventeen
riparian states. The Congo, Niger, Nile, Rhine, and Zambezi are each shared
by more than nine countries while the Amazon, Aral Sea, Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna,
Jordan, Kura-Araks, La Plata, Lake Chad, Mekong, Neman, Tarim, Tigris-Euphrates-Shatt
al Arab, Vistula, and Volga basins each contain territory of at least
five sovereign nations (Wolf et al., 1999).
Figure 2. When changes in political boundaries take place, there may
be the creation or dissolution of international river basins. The break
up of the Soviet Union in 1991, for example, led not only to the “internationalization”
of several basins (e.g., the Dnieper, Don, and Volga rivers) but also
to a change in the political composition of existing international basins
(e.g., the Ob and Aral Sea basins). Data source: Historical International
River Basins, Fiske and Yoffe (2001).
Dynamics of International River Basin Management
The complex physical, political, and human interactions within international
river basins can make the management of these shared water systems especially
difficult. Issues of increasing water scarcity, degrading water quality,
rapid population growth, unilateral water development, and uneven levels
of economic development are commonly cited as potentially disruptive factors
in co-riparian water relations. The combination of these factors has led
academics and policy-makers alike to warn of impending conflict over shared
water resources.
Despite these seemingly formidable obstacles, however, co-riparian states
have demonstrated a remarkable ability to cooperate over their shared
water supplies. In the largest quantitative study of water conflict and
cooperation, researchers at Oregon State University found that cooperative
interactions between riparian states over the past fifty years have outnumbered
conflictive interactions by more than two-to-one. Since 1948, the historical
record documents only 37 incidents of acute conflicts (i.e., those involving
violence) over water (30 of these events were between Israel and
one or another of its neighbors, the last of which occurred in 1970),
while during that same period, approximately 295 international water agreements
were negotiated and signed. Furthermore, extreme conflicts over water
were confined to two issues — water supply and infrastructure —
whereas basin states signed water treaties concerning a range of issues,
including water quantity, quality, economic development, and hydropower.
At the sub-acute level, which defines most water interactions, cooperative
relations again dominate the history of international water relations.
This does not imply that water cannot act as a source of discord, for
disagreements over water can make good relations bad and bad relations
worse. Water, for instance, was the last and most contentious issue resolved
in negotiations over the 1994 Treaty of Peace between Israel and Jordan
and, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, discussions concerning the resource
were relegated to “final status” negotiations along with such
other controversial issues as the status of Jerusalem and the right of
return for Palestinian refugees. Far more prevalent, however, are examples
where water has served as a unifying agent, particularly where relatively
strong institutions such as treaties are present. The establishment of
the Indus Water Commission in 1960 between India and Pakistan, for example,
fostered remarkably resilient bilateral cooperation over water, despite
two wars and continued political turmoil between the two states. The Mekong
River Committee, established in 1957 among the four lower riparian states
of Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos, also weathered extreme political
conditions and resulted in continued water-related data exchange by the
member states, even during the Vietnam War. (See the General References
section for a listing of literature concerning both conflict and cooperation
over shared water resources.)
Thus, the creation and maintenance of international water institutions
can play a vital role in conflict mitigation efforts. In fact, the presence
or absence of institutions has proven to be one of the most important
factors influencing co-riparian water relations, exceeding such traditionally
cited variables as climate, water availability, population density, political
orientation, and levels of economic development. In addition, the historical
record indicates an increased likelihood of conflict in basins lacking
institutions that can accommodate changing political, hydrologic, or other
basin conditions. Where international water institutions exist, however,
relations among riparian states are generally more cooperative than in
basins without treaties or other cooperative management mechanisms. This
situation holds true even in basins with high levels of infrastructural
development, an otherwise conflict-prone setting (Wolf, Yoffe, and Giordano,
forthcoming, 2003).
Institutional Developments in International Freshwater Management
Acknowledging the benefits of cooperative water management frameworks,
policy makers have been involved in institution-building efforts over
the past century at a range of geographic scales. Globally, the international
community has developed guiding principles and laws for international
freshwater management. At a finer scale, regional bodies and individual
governments have developed protocols and treaties governing the management
and protection of specific international water bodies. Together, these
developments have encouraged greater understanding and advanced a goal
of coordinated management within the world’s international basins.
Principles of International Freshwater Management
To preempt potential conflict and resolve existing disputes, the international
community has focused considerable attention in the 20th century on developing
and refining principles of international freshwater management. The Institute
of International Law (IIL) published a set of basic recommendations in
its 1911 Madrid Declaration on the International Regulation regarding
the Use of International Watercourses for Purposes other than Navigation.
Included in these recommendations, the IIL discouraged unilateral basin
alterations and harmful modifications of international rivers, while advocating
the creation of joint water commissions. Expanding on these guidelines,
the International Law Association developed the Helsinki Rules of 1966
on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers. The Helsinki Rules
outlined principles related to the “equitable utilization” of
shared watercourses and the commitment not to cause “substantial
injury” to co-riparian states (Caponera, 1985).
Four years later, in 1970, the United Nations commissioned
its own legal advisory body, the International Law Commission (ILC) to
codify the law on the non-navigational uses of international watercourses.
In 1997, the ILC’s task was completed with the United Nations General
Assembly’s adoption of the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational
Uses of International Watercourses (UN Convention), which regularized
principles of “equitable and reasonable utilization” and the
“obligation not to cause significant harm” and established a
framework for the exchange of data and information, the protection and
preservation of shared water bodies, the creation of joint management
mechanisms, and the settlement of disputes (Wouters, 2000).
Despite the fact that 103 countries approved the United Nations’
resolution adopting the document, the UN Convention’s ultimate practicality
has been called into question due to its vague and sometimes contradictory
language and the slow progress that has been made towards its ratification
(see Figure 3). However, while explicit approval of the UN Convention
may prove difficult, implicit support of the international water management
principles it contains is clearly evident through such international statements
as the 1972 Declarations of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, the 1977 Declarations and Resolutions of the United Nations
Water Conference, the 1992 Dublin Statement from the International Conference
on Water and the Environment, and the 2000 Second World Water Forum’s
Ministerial Declaration.
Figure 3. On 21 May 1997, the United Nations General Assembly adopted
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non- Navigational Uses
of International Watercourses by 103 votes in favor, 3 against and 27
abstentions. To bring the document into force, 35 instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval, or accession are necessary. To date, only 12 countries
have ratified or consented to be bound (acceptance, approval or accession)
by the agreement. Data sources: UN General Assembly Vote, United Nations
(1997). Current Status of Convention, United Nations (2002).
Regional Accords
Initiatives of regional organizations have further served to encourage
co-riparian cooperation. Through the creation of region-specific guidelines,
multinational bodies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), the European Union, and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) have formulated agreements and protocols supporting collaborative
water resource initiatives. In the 1970s, the OECD Council, for example,
issued a series of recommendations concerning the management and protection
of transboundary resources relevant to international rivers. European
governments have addressed regional water issues through such agreements
as the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context (1991) and the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (1992). Similarly, in the southern
African context, the SADC member states, drawing heavily from the language
contained in the UN Convention, have established the Protocol on Shared
Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community (2000).
Basin Treaties
While global- and regional-scale efforts have indeed served to encourage
greater collaboration among basin states, it is at the basin-scale where
the greatest developments in cooperative water management are found. The
history of international water treaties dates as far back as 2500 bc,
when the two Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma crafted an agreement
ending a water dispute along the Tigris River (Wolf, 1998). Since then,
a rich body of water treaties has evolved. The Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations has documented more than 3600 international water
treaties dating from ad 805 to 1984. Although the vast majority of these
agreements concern navigational issues, a growing number address water
as a limited and consumable resource apart from navigation, boundary delineation,
or fisheries related matters. Included in this latter category are more
than 400 water agreements signed since 1820, as detailed in the Treaties
and Related Agreements section of this Atlas. A review of the provisions
contained in these agreements highlights a number of positive trends in
international river basin management over the past century. First, the
hydrologic linkages formed by the world’s international basins create
shared interests among each basin’s co-riparian states. Agriculture,
industry, recreation, hydropower, flood control, environmental integrity,
and human health are all connected to some degree within an international
basin. While individual sectors and countries may have exploited their
riparian position or dominance at times throughout history, basin states
have likewise demonstrated a remarkable ability to cooperatively capitalize
upon their shared interests and to focus not only on the division of shared
water resources themselves, but on the broader benefits from their use
or control. As part of the 1957 Mekong River Agreement, for example, Thailand
agreed to provide financial support for a hydroelectric project in Laos
in exchange for a proportion of the resultant power generation. Through
the 1986 Lesotho Highlands Water Project Agreement, South Africa supports
the financing of a hydroelectric/water diversion facility and in turn
receives the rights to drinking water for its industrial heartland in
Gauteng province. Similarly, under the 1998 Agreement on the Use of Water
and Energy Resources of the Syr Darya Basin, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan
make in-kind compensation to the Kyrgyz Republic for the transfer of excess
power generated during the growing season.
Second, basin states have illustrated a great deal of creativity in formulating
treaty provisions that meet the unique hydrological, political, and cultural
settings of their individual basins. A 1969 agreement between South Africa
and Portugal on the Kunene River, for instance, allows for “humanitarian”
diversions solely for human and animal requirements in Southwest Africa,
as part of a larger project for hydropower. As part of the 1994 Treaty
of Peace, Jordan stores water in an Israeli lake while Israel leases Jordanian
land and wells. India, under a 1966 agreement with Nepal, plants trees
upstream in Nepal to protect its own, downstream, water supplies. In a
1964 agreement Iraq “gives” water to Kuwait, “in brotherhood,”
without compensation. In an example with particularly local implications,
a 1957 agreement between Iran and the USSR includes a clause that allows
for cooperation in identifying corpses found in their shared rivers (Wolf,
1999a).
Third, conditions and priorities within a basin can change considerably
over time, necessitating some degree of flexibility in the institutions
created to manage shared water systems. While further progress is needed
in this area, precedents exist for incorporating provisions into basin
accords to accommodate changing needs and values. The 1987 Agreement on
the Action Plan for the Environmentally Sound Management of the Common
Zambezi River System, for example, allows for the future accession of
additional riparian states to the treaty. Other examples of treaties with
built-in flexibility include water allocation formulas that account for
hydrologic fluctuations or changing needs and values, such as in the 1996
Treaty between India and Bangladesh on Sharing of the Ganga/Ganges Waters
at Farakka, the 1986 Lesotho Highlands Water Project Agreement, and the
1992 Komati River Basin Treaty between South Africa and Swaziland.
A final notable development in the 20th century treaty record has been
a use, albeit limited, of multi-resource linkages, effectively broadening
the “basket of benefits” considered in international water agreements
and expanding the possibility for positive-sum solutions to resource problems.
While countries have traditionally treated water separately from other
transboundary issues, a number of precedents exist in which water negotiations
were explicitly linked to other issues. In treaties concluded in 1959
and 1966, India and Nepal, for example, bundled projects related to irrigation,
hydropower, navigation, fishing, and afforestation. More far-reaching
examples can be found in the Middle East, where the 1994 and 1995 agreements
between Israel and Jordan and Israel and the Palestinian Authority, respectively,
incorporate water within a broader framework for peace in the region.
Future Institution Building Opportunities
While a review of the past century’s water agreements highlights
a number of positive developments, institutional vulnerabilities remain.
Notably, 158 of the world’s 263 international basins lack any type
of cooperative management framework. Furthermore, of the 106 basins with
water institutions, approximately two-thirds have three or more riparian
states, yet less than 20 percent of the accompanying agreements are multilateral.
Moreover, despite the recent progress noted above, treaties with substantive
references to water quality management, monitoring and evaluation, conflict
resolution, public participation, and flexible allocation methods, remain
in the minority. As a result, most existing international water agreements
continue to lack the tools necessary to promote long-term, holistic water
management.
Drawing from the past century’s treaty-writing experience, the following
lessons may assist the international, regional, and basin communities
as they expand and refine their cooperative water management structures.
1. Adaptable management structure. Effective institutional management
structures incorporate a certain level of flexibility, allowing for public
input, changing basin priorities, and new information and monitoring technologies.
The adaptability of management structures must also extend to non-signatory
riparians by incorporating provisions addressing their needs, rights,
and potential accession.
2. Clear and flexible criteria for water allocations and quality.
Allocations, which are at the heart of most water disputes, are a
function of water quantity and quality, as well as political fiat. Thus,
effective institutions must identify clear allocation schedules and water
quality standards that simultaneously provide for extreme hydrological
events, new understanding of basin dynamics, and changing societal values.
Additionally, riparian states may consider prioritizing uses throughout
the basin. Establishing catchment-wide water precedents may not only help
to avert inter-riparian conflicts over water use, but also protect the
environmental health of the basin as a whole.
3. Equitable distribution of benefits. This concept, subtly yet
powerfully different from equitable use or allocation, is at the root
of some of the world’s most successful institutions. The idea concerns
the distribution of benefits from water use — whether from hydropower,
agriculture, economic development, aesthetics, or the preservation of
healthy aquatic ecosystems — not the benefits from water itself.
Distributing water use benefits allows for positive-sum agreements, whereas
dividing the water itself only allows for winners and losers.
4. Detailed conflict resolution mechanisms. Many basins continue
to experience disputes even after a treaty is negotiated and signed. Thus,
incorporating clear mechanisms for resolving conflicts is a prerequisite
for effective, long-term basin management.
Back to Table of Contents
|
