Scene-setting: why is there likely to be increasing conflicts over transboundary resources?

Climate change: It is perhaps no surprise that climate change will make it onto this list. Whilst the impacts of climate change on Africa remains relatively uncertain, it is more than likely that it will have some impact on water resources in the continent. For instance de Wit and Stankiewicz (2006) predicted that climate change is likely to lead to fall in precipitation in Northern and Southern Africa whilst increasing rainfall in East Africa in particular. Indeed the latest IPCC report (2013) has also predicted a precipitation pattern where the wet gets wetter and the dry gets drier with the notable exceptions of Northeast Brazil and East Africa. Whilst there is still considerable uncertainty surrounding such predictions, the possibility of such dramatic changes when coupled with the lack of institutional capability for the majority of African government to deal with these changes is likely to lead to increased conflict over transboundary water resources.

Population growth: Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world in terms of population. The population of sub-Saharan Africa has over tripled between 1950 and 2000 and is expected to double once more by 2060 (World Bank, 2015). This rapid population growth is expected to the cause considerable pressure on food and water in Africa. This pressure is likely to force countries to use available water resources more efficiently and in some cases the demand for water might exceed the supply (Falkenmark, 1990). This need to use all or the majority of available water resources may be a source of international conflict between nations along a river system as an increased extraction of freshwater from nations upstream will directly affect the water available to downstream nations.

However, questions are being raised about to what extent is there a case of water scarcity per se. As Rijsberman (2006) noted, water scarcity may not mean what the general public thinks it means. Whilst many might conceptualise water scarcity as the lack of water to support domestic purposes, this is often not the case: the water need for domestic purposes is actually quite small in comparison to other usages. As such, becoming water scarce as defined by the Falkenmark index is not an indication of a lack of water for drinking and cleaning, but of a lack of water for food production. This therefore raises a question: if water scarcity is more of a problem to do with food production, would importing cheap food from other nations be a viable way of solving conflicts over the usage of transboundary resources in water scarce regions?

Predictions of water scarcity are also questioned due to the way water scarcity is measured. Much of the statistics on water scarcity only calculates blue water (water in rivers, lakes and aquifers) and doesn't take into account green water, which accounts for about 60% of global food production (Savenjie, 2000). As such, a calculation that includes green water is likely to show a much more positive scenario.

In conclusion, whilst there will unquestionably be a higher demand for water resources in the future, the situation might not be as bleak as it seems and there is a good chance that conflicts over transboundary water resources may not happen.

Conflicts on the Nile

  Perhaps the most complex transboundary river basin in Africa is the Nile basin. Shared by 10 different countries, management of this transboundary water resource has been challenging and often a source of conflicts. This blog will investigate how the historical dominance of Egypt in the region has led to a power imbalance in negotiations and how the rise of other nations in the area has increased the tension within the region.
  As one of the earliest human civilisations, Egypt has been the dominant power in the Nile region for much of recorded history. Indeed, this dominant status enjoyed by Egypt has led to a belief among Egyptians that the Nile is a birthright and its use should therefore be controlled by Egypt (Rahman, 2012). Indeed, this notion of Egyptian supremacy has defined water management strategies of the region. Not only is this supremacy reinforced through bilateral agreements that recognises the control exerted by Egypt over the Nile, but also tacitly through the lack of challenge against Egypt's water management decisions by other riparian countries. Indeed, conflicts over the Nile has thus far not troubled Egypt and the nation still feels dominant enough in the region to threaten other riparian countries with war should they undertake measures that would affect Egypt's access to Nile water. Egypt's relative power in the international community has also meant that it is able to gain international support in order negotiate cooperative arrangements that are in its favour. As a result, Egypt has arguably benefited disproportionately from the Nile as its water needs were ensured.
  However, this dominant position is increasingly challenged by the rise of other nations in the region such as Ethiopia. Indeed, Rahman hypothesises that the emerging nation of Ethiopia, coupled by the increasing demand for water due to growing populations, would lead to increased conflicts in the region.

Busting the Water Wars myth: how cooperation is preferred to conflict in Southern Africa

  It has often been suggested that conflicts over water will become increasingly common as the demand for water resources increases and a growing area experiences water scarcity (defined by existing metrics). This notion is not difficult to comprehend: as water becomes a scarce resource, nations will take stronger actions to ensure their water needs are met, thus increasingly the likelihood of conflicts over the distribution of water in trans-boundary water resources. Despite the pessimistic and Malthusian nature of this notion, it is a widely accepted theory that has been backed up by examples and literature. However, the example of Southern Africa would seem to buck this theory and it is upon this example and its analysis by Turton et al. (2010) that this post will be based.
  One of the more striking aspects of the south African example is how on paper conflict should be the far likelier outcome. Water is considered to be a major constraint for development in southern African nations and the colonial legacy (more specifically the arbitrary ways in which national boundaries are created during decolonisation) of region would all seem to suggest the presence of water-related conflicts-- a theory reinforced by the fact that 6 river basins in the region are considered to be 'basins at risk.'
  However despite this designation trans-boundary river basins in southern Africa have remained relatively peaceful, prompting Turton and his colleagues to suggest that there must be an alternative theory to the Water Wars idea at work in the region. After examining researches on river basins across the global, they have came up with an alternate conceptualisation of trans-boundary water resource management they called Hydropolitical Complex. This concept is underpinned by the ideas that a track record of peaceful cooperation is a good indicator of future behaviour and that endemic water scarcity within a shared river basin will produce sufficient incentive for nations to negotiate a long-term resolution rather than resort to violence. The Hydropolitical Complex stipulates that pivotal states (i.e. the more developed nations of the region) and pivotal basins (river basins shared between pivotal states) determine the ways in which trans-boundary water resources will be managed in the region. As such, the fact that the pivotal states in southern Africa have a long history of cooperation even without the existence of clear structure for collaboration could be used to explain the lack of water-related conflict in the region.
  Though the Hydropolitical Complex has only been applied to too limited a set of river basins to be considered universally applicable, it nonetheless offers an alternative view to trans-boundary water resource management; suggesting that trans-boundary water resource management should not focus on independent water resources but on all pivotal basins in the region as a whole.