Managing the global resource of water
“The next world war will be over water,” the former Vice President of the World Bank, Ismail Serageldin, once proclaimed. The very nature of water as a natural resource lends itself to conflict — it is a universal necessity, and often flows from sovereignty to sovereignty, defying ownership. Considering these circumstances, combined with increasing world population, diffusion of opulent Western water-usage habits, and the threat of a climate change-induced redistribution of wet and dry regions, Mr. Serageldin’s claim does not seem absurd. With significant transboundary water disputes affecting many of the world’s conflict-prone regions, including Israel–Syria–Jordan–Palestine, Egypt–Sudan–Ethiopia, Pakistan–India, and the Central Asian former Soviet republics, the need for an enforceable international treaty that protects and regulates the non-navigational use of transboundary watercourses would seem to be paramount. Yet more than forty years of cooperative dialogue and research has yet to produce codified international water laws.
In 1997, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, a comprehensive framework convention that offers the possibility of codifying what is already largely customary international law. The Convention has failed, however, to obtain the 35 signatories necessary for the law to enter into force. Most experts, such as Dr. Salman Salman, the World Bank’s advisor on water law, are resigned to accept that, as he told the HPR, the Convention “stands little chance of entry into force” because of widespread confusion about water policy. Even unratified, however, it remains the “most authoritative instrument in the field of International Water Law,” said Salman. Its principles will therefore endure, as they already have in areas such as South Asia’s Indus Water Basin, to initiate cooperation and provide a precedent for mediation between conflicting states in times of water crisis.
The Laws of Water
The water policy area has a rich history of dialogue and international resolutions, most of which built on previous work to create an organic evolution of principles that today are generally accepted as international water law. In an effort to codify these principles, the United Nations initiated a process in 1970 to construct a convention that would account for modern treaty needs. The final product of this process was the Convention. The content of the convention can be summarized by five points: the idea of a human right to water, the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, the obligation not to cause significant harm to other shares in the watercourse, the principle of sharing information related to the watercourse, and methods of mediation. The convention is considered a framework because it provides general principles but maintains flexibility for region-specific parameters. Therefore, the law would be administered on a case-by-case basis, but all agreements would share universal principles.
Where Are The Signatories?
While the Convention was adopted with the support of 103 countries, only 16 countries have ratified it — 19 short of the 35 needed for the law to enter into force. Several explanations for this discrepancy exist. The most cited by reluctant parties is the Convention’s bias towards either upstream or downstream “riparians,” the states that share a transboundary water source. Upstream riparians argue that they are disadvantaged because, ostensibly, downstream activity cannot travel upstream, so their activity is restricted. Downstream riparians claim bias toward their upstream counterparts since the principle of reasonable and equitable utilization gives them flexibility to engage in activity with adverse downstream effects. Water law scholars agree that these perceived biases are simply non-existent. In an interview with the HPR, Richard Paisley, founder of the Global Transboundary International Waters Research Initiative, dismissed these complaints as “lingering paranoia by some countries… I don’t think it’s true, but the myth is out there.” Similarly, Dr. Salman cited a basic lack of understanding of the concept of potential foreclosure of future uses. Upstream riparians can be harmed by downstream development or overuse of a watercourse, for example, as diversion of water for downstream irrigation could leave upstream communities dry.
Why Is Ratification Important?
In the views of many water policy advocates, countries’ reluctance to ratify the Convention illustrate sub-optimal understanding of the Convention itself, of the problems facing water source-sharing states, and of the nature of water ownership. Several parties have started campaigns to dispel “myths” of upstream/downstream bias and convert this knowledge into new political will. Academics have propelled the discussion forward with papers, non-governmental organizations like The World Wildlife Fund have initiated campaigns to increase the number of signatories, and sympathetic countries like Norway and The Netherlands continue to advocate for ratification. While the need for greater awareness and education about water policy is often listed as the most important reason to support the Convention, ratification would also codify existent principles and thus establish more accountability and provide disciplinary tools with which to punish defector countries.
International Water’s Future
If the campaign for ratification remains unsuccessful, the precedent of failure might stall future efforts. However, history provides hope that, as water resources shrink, cooperation seems to increase. Shrinking supply could potentially cause “an irrefutable need for the Convention [which would] convince nations to support it,” Joost Schrander, former water management consultant with the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change, suggested to the HPR. Or, as with India and Pakistan in The Indus Water Treaty, a recognized interdependence in light of scarce water resources could cause otherwise unfriendly countries to come to some agreement about water. The Indus Water Treaty is considered the most successful bilateral water-sharing agreement due to its longevity (nearing 50 years old) and its track record of successful conflict diffusion and mediation, even during three wars between the two nations.
If two countries with significant political and religious differences were able to put aside harsh feelings to cooperate under the auspices of a neutral third party, the hope is that future conflicts can be handled in a similar manner with a credible U.N. convention to aid such efforts. Gabriel Eckstein, Director of the International Water Law Project and professor of Law, agrees with this assessment, telling the HPR, “We’ll see more cooperation due to necessity.” Water is scarce and a critical asset, he points out; if a conflict arises, “what do you do? Fight over the water? No, the parties try to work out some sort of arrangement… There is just a new mindset.” By this calculus, even if the Convention never passes, its principles and the dialogue it creates offer a precedent upon which new international agreements can be based in times of crisis. Perhaps the success seen in the Indus basin may soon flow through other conflict-prone, transboundary watercourses, even without the Watercourse Convention entered in force.
