the world™s international freshwater agreements ...naumannj/geography powerpoint...

The World�s International Freshwater Agreements 1

The World�s InternationalFreshwater Agreements:Historical Developments andFuture Opportunities

PPPPPopulation growth, economic development, and changing re-gional values have intensified competition over water resources

worldwide, leading to predictions of increasing future conflicts overshared water supplies. Of particular concern to the internationalcommunity is the potential for conflict within the world�s 263 interna-tional basins. To mitigate the likelihood of conflict as well as toresolve existing disputes, the international community has devisedprinciples for international watercourse management. Over the pastcentury, these principles have been refined and, most recently,codified in the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of theNon-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. Likewise,basin communities, building on their own rich treaty history, haveaccelerated the development of cooperative institutions to manageinternationally shared river systems.

This Atlas serves to document the developments in the manage-ment of international river basins over the past century. Utilizinghistorical documents, statistical analyses, and state-of-the-artmapping technology, the Atlas presents both a graphic and textualanalysis of the world�s international basins and related agreements.The Atlas begins with a discussion of the complexities oftransboundary water management and the factors that influence co-riparian relations over water resources. Historical developments ininternational water institutions are then discussed at both the globaland basin scale along with an analysis of future institution-buildingopportunities.

The World�s International BasinsAs illustrated in Figure 1, there are currently 263 rivers that either

cross or demarcate international political boundaries. Geographi-cally, Europe has the largest number of international basins (69),followed by Africa (59), Asia (57), North America (40), and SouthAmerica (38). The absolute numbers of international basins, as wellas the nations through which they traverse, change over time inresponse to alterations in the world political map. In the 1990s, forexample, the break-up of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia led to

2 Atlas of International Freshwater Agreements

the �internationalization� of several basins (e.g., theDnieper, Don, and Volga basins) as well as tochanges in the political composition of existinginternational basins (e.g., the Danube, Ob, and AralSea basins) (see Figure 2). In contrast, the unificationof both Germany and Yemen in 1990 resulted in the�nationalization� of two formerly international basins� the Weser and Tiban.

Beyond the sheer number of basins involved, thesignificance of the world�s international waterways isfurther reflected in their physical extent and abundantresources. The world�s 263 international river basinsaccount for nearly one-half of the earth�s landsurface, generate roughly 60% of global freshwaterflow and are home to approximately 40% of theworld�s population. It is the political composition ofthese shared water systems, however, that highlightstheir vulnerabilities. A total of 145 countries contrib-ute territory to international basins. Thirty-threenations, including such sizeable countries as Bolivia,Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Niger,and Zambia, have more than 95% of their territorywithin the hydrologic boundaries of one or moreinternational basins. Perhaps even more significant isthe number of countries that share certain individualbasins. The Danube, for example, has seventeenriparian states. The Congo, Niger, Nile, Rhine, andZambezi are each shared by more than nine coun-

tries 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 basinseach contain territory of at least five sovereignnations (Wolf et al., 1999).

Dynamics of InternationalRiver Basin Management

The complex physical, political, and humaninteractions within international river basins canmake the management of these shared water systemsespecially difficult. Issues of increasing water scarcity,degrading water quality, rapid population growth,unilateral water development, and uneven levels ofeconomic development are commonly cited aspotentially disruptive factors in co-riparian waterrelations. The combination of these factors has ledacademics and policy-makers alike to warn ofimpending conflict over shared water resources.

Despite these seemingly formidable obstacles,however, co-riparian states have demonstrated aremarkable ability to cooperate over their sharedwater supplies. In the largest quantitative study ofwater conflict and cooperation, researchers atOregon State University found that cooperativeinteractions between riparian states over the past fifty

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.


years have outnumberedconflictive interactions bymore than two-to-one. Since1948, the historical recorddocuments only 37 incidentsof acute conflicts (i.e., thoseinvolving violence) overwater (30 of these eventswere between Israel and oneor another of its neighbors,the last of which occurred in1970), while during thatsame period, approximately295 international wateragreements were negotiatedand signed. Furthermore,extreme conflicts over waterwere confined to two issues� water supply and infra-structure � whereas basinstates signed water treatiesconcerning a range of issues, including water quan-tity, quality, economic development, and hydropower.

At the sub-acute level, which defines most waterinteractions, cooperative relations again dominatethe history of international water relations. This doesnot imply that water cannot act as a source of dis-cord, for disagreements over water can make goodrelations bad and bad relations worse. Water, forinstance, was the last and most contentious issue

resolved in negotiations over the 1994 Treaty ofPeace between Israel and Jordan and, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, discussions concerning theresource were relegated to �final status� negotiationsalong with such other controversial issues as thestatus of Jerusalem and the right of return for Pales-tinian refugees. Far more prevalent, however, areexamples where water has served as a unifyingagent, particularly where relatively strong institutions

Figure 2. When changes in political boundaries take place, there may be the creation or dissolution of international river basins. Thebreak 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 Seabasins). Data source: Historical International River Basins, Fiske and Yoffe (2001).

Confluence of Iguazu and Paraná Rivers. Photo credit: Rolando León.


such as treaties are present. The establishment of theIndus Water Commission in 1960 between India andPakistan, for example, fostered remarkably resilientbilateral cooperation over water, despite two warsand continued political turmoil between the twostates. The Mekong River Committee, established in1957 among the four lower riparian states of Thai-land, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos, also weatheredextreme political conditions and resulted in continuedwater-related data exchange by the member states,even during the Vietnam War. (See the GeneralReferences section for a listing of literature concern-ing both conflict and cooperation over shared waterresources.)

Thus, the creation and maintenance of interna-tional water institutions can play a vital role inconflict mitigation efforts. In fact, the presence orabsence of institutions has proven to be one of themost important factors influencing co-riparian waterrelations, exceeding such traditionally cited variablesas climate, water availability, population density,political orientation, and levels of economic develop-

ment. In addition, the historical record indicates anincreased likelihood of conflict in basins lackinginstitutions that can accommodate changing political,hydrologic, or other basin conditions. Where interna-tional water institutions exist, however, relationsamong riparian states are generally more coopera-tive than in basins without treaties or other coopera-tive management mechanisms. This situation holdstrue even in basins with high levels of infrastructuraldevelopment, an otherwise conflict-prone setting(Wolf, Yoffe, and Giordano, forthcoming, 2003).

Institutional Developments inInternational FreshwaterManagement

Acknowledging the benefits of cooperative watermanagement frameworks, policy makers have beeninvolved in institution-building efforts over the pastcentury at a range of geographic scales. Globally,the international community has developed guidingprinciples and laws for international freshwatermanagement. At a finer scale, regional bodies andindividual governments have developed protocolsand treaties governing the management and protec-tion of specific international water bodies. Together,these developments have encouraged greater under-standing and advanced a goal of coordinatedmanagement within the world�s international basins.

Principles of International FreshwaterManagement

To preempt potential conflict and resolve existingdisputes, the international community has focusedconsiderable attention in the 20th century on develop-ing and refining principles of international freshwatermanagement. The Institute of International Law (IIL)published a set of basic recommendations in its1911 Madrid Declaration on the InternationalRegulation regarding the Use of International Water-courses for Purposes other than Navigation. Includedin these recommendations, the IIL discouragedunilateral basin alterations and harmful modificationsof international rivers, while advocating the creationof joint water commissions. Expanding on theseguidelines, the International Law Association devel-oped the Helsinki Rules of 1966 on the Uses of theWaters of International Rivers. The Helsinki Rulesoutlined principles related to the �equitable utiliza-tion� of shared watercourses and the commitment not

Moselle River. Photo credit: Michael Freitag.


to cause �substantial injury� to co-riparian states(Caponera, 1985).

Four years later, in 1970, the United Nationscommissioned its own legal advisory body, theInternational Law Commission (ILC) to codify the lawon the non-navigational uses of international water-courses. In 1997, the ILC�s task was completed withthe United Nations General Assembly�s adoption ofthe Convention on the Law of the Non-NavigationalUses of International Watercourses (UN Convention),which regularized principles of �equitable andreasonable utilization� and the �obligation not tocause significant harm� and established a frameworkfor the exchange of data and information, the protec-tion and preservation of shared water bodies, thecreation of joint management mechanisms, and thesettlement of disputes (Wouters, 2000).

Despite the fact that 103 countries approved theUnited Nations� resolution adopting the document,the UN Convention�s ultimate practicality has beencalled into question due to its vague and sometimescontradictory language and the slow progress thathas been made towards its ratification (see Figure 3).However, while explicit approval of the UN Conven-tion may prove difficult, implicit support of theinternational water management principles it containsis clearly evident through such international state-ments as the 1972 Declarations of the United Na-tions Conference on the Human Environment, the1977 Declarations and Resolutions of the UnitedNations Water Conference, the 1992 Dublin State-ment from the International Conference on Waterand the Environment, and the 2000 Second WorldWater Forum�s Ministerial Declaration.

Regional Accords

Initiatives of regional organizations have furtherserved to encourage co-riparian cooperation.Through the creation of region-specific guidelines,multinational bodies such as the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD),the European Union, and the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community (SADC) have formulatedagreements and protocols supporting collaborativewater resource initiatives. In the 1970s, the OECDCouncil, for example, issued a series of recommen-dations concerning the management and protectionof transboundary resources relevant to internationalrivers. European governments have addressedregional water issues through such agreements as the

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment ina Transboundary Context (1991) and the Conventionon the Protection and Use of Transboundary Water-courses and International Lakes (1992). Similarly, inthe southern African context, the SADC memberstates, drawing heavily from the language containedin the UN Convention, have established the Protocolon Shared Watercourses in the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community (2000).

Basin Treaties

While global- and regional-scale efforts haveindeed served to encourage greater collaborationamong basin states, it is at the basin-scale where thegreatest developments in cooperative water manage-ment are found. The history of international watertreaties dates as far back as 2500 BC, when the twoSumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma crafted anagreement ending a water dispute along the TigrisRiver (Wolf, 1998). Since then, a rich body of water

Grand Canyon of Colorado River. Photo credit: Terrence E. Davis.


treaties has evolved. The Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the United Nations has documentedmore than 3600 international water treaties datingfrom AD 805 to 1984. Although the vast majority ofthese agreements concern navigational issues, agrowing number address water as a limited andconsumable resource apart from navigation, bound-ary delineation, or fisheries related matters. Includedin this latter category are more than 400 wateragreements signed since 1820, as detailed in theTreaties and Related Agreements section of this Atlas.A review of the provisions contained in these agree-ments highlights a number of positive trends ininternational river basin management over the pastcentury. First, the hydrologic linkages formed by theworld�s international basins create shared interestsamong each basin�s co-riparian states. Agriculture,industry, recreation, hydropower, flood control,environmental integrity, and human health are allconnected to some degree within an internationalbasin. While individual sectors and countries mayhave exploited their riparian position or dominance

at times throughout history, basin states have likewisedemonstrated a remarkable ability to cooperativelycapitalize upon their shared interests and to focus notonly on the division of shared water resources them-selves, but on the broader benefits from their use orcontrol. As part of the 1957 Mekong River Agree-ment, for example, Thailand agreed to providefinancial support for a hydroelectric project in Laos inexchange for a proportion of the resultant powergeneration. Through the 1986 Lesotho HighlandsWater Project Agreement, South Africa supports thefinancing of a hydroelectric/water diversion facilityand in turn receives the rights to drinking water for itsindustrial heartland in Gauteng province. Similarly,under the 1998 Agreement on the Use of Water andEnergy Resources of the Syr Darya Basin, Uzbekistanand Kazakhstan make in-kind compensation to theKyrgyz Republic for the transfer of excess powergenerated during the growing season.

Second, basin states have illustrated a great dealof creativity in formulating treaty provisions that meetthe unique hydrological, political, and cultural

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 intoforce, 35 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession are necessary. To date, only 12 countries have ratified orconsented to be bound (acceptance, approval or accession) by the agreement. Data sources: UN General Assembly Vote, UnitedNations (1997). Current Status of Convention, United Nations (2002).


Mahabad River. Photo credit: Babak Sedighi.

settings of their individual basins. A 1969 agreementbetween South Africa and Portugal on the KuneneRiver, for instance, allows for �humanitarian� diver-sions solely for human and animal requirements inSouthwest Africa, as part of a larger project forhydropower. As part of the 1994 Treaty of Peace,Jordan stores water in an Israeli lake while Israelleases Jordanian land and wells. India, under a 1966agreement with Nepal, plants trees upstream inNepal to protect its own, downstream, water supplies.In a 1964 agreement Iraq �gives� water to Kuwait,�in brotherhood,� without compensation. In anexample with particularly local implications, a 1957agreement between Iran and the USSR includes aclause that allows for cooperation in identifyingcorpses found in their shared rivers (Wolf, 1999a).

Third, conditions and priorities within a basin canchange considerably over time, necessitating somedegree of flexibility in the institutions created tomanage shared water systems. While further progressis needed in this area, precedents exist for incorpo-rating provisions into basin accords to accommodatechanging needs and values. The 1987 Agreement onthe Action Plan for the Environmentally Sound Man-agement of the Common Zambezi River System, forexample, allows for the future accession of additionalriparian states to the treaty. Other examples oftreaties with built-in flexibility include water allocationformulas that account for hydrologic fluctuations orchanging needs and values, such as in the 1996Treaty between India and Bangladesh on Sharing ofthe Ganga/Ganges Waters at Farakka, the 1986Lesotho Highlands Water Project Agreement, and the1992 Komati River Basin Treaty between South Africaand Swaziland.

A final notable development in the 20th centurytreaty record has been a use, albeit limited, of multi-resource linkages, effectively broadening the �basketof benefits� considered in international water agree-ments and expanding the possibility for positive-sumsolutions to resource problems. While countries havetraditionally treated water separately from othertransboundary issues, a number of precedents exist inwhich water negotiations were explicitly linked toother issues. In treaties concluded in 1959 and1966, India and Nepal, for example, bundledprojects related to irrigation, hydropower, navigation,fishing, and afforestation. More far-reaching ex-

amples can be found in the Middle East, where the1994 and 1995 agreements between Israel andJordan and Israel and the Palestinian Authority,respectively, incorporate water within a broaderframework for peace in the region.

Future Institution BuildingOpportunities

While a review of the past century�s water agree-ments highlights a number of positive developments,institutional vulnerabilities remain. Notably, 158 ofthe world�s 263 international basins lack any type ofcooperative management framework. Furthermore, ofthe 106 basins with water institutions, approximatelytwo-thirds have three or more riparian states, yet lessthan 20 percent of the accompanying agreementsare multilateral. Moreover, despite the recentprogress noted above, treaties with substantive


Blue Nile dam. Photo credit: Badege Bishaw.

references to water quality management, monitoringand evaluation, conflict resolution, public participa-tion, and flexible allocation methods, remain in theminority. As a result, most existing international wateragreements continue to lack the tools necessary topromote long-term, holistic water management.

Drawing from the past century�s treaty-writingexperience, the following lessons may assist theinternational, regional, and basin communities asthey expand and refine their cooperative watermanagement structures.

1. Adaptable management structure. Effective institu-tional management structures incorporate acertain level of flexibility, allowing for public input,changing basin priorities, and new informationand monitoring technologies. The adaptability ofmanagement structures must also extend to non-signatory riparians by incorporating provisionsaddressing their needs, rights, and potentialaccession.

2. Clear and flexible criteria for water allocations andquality. Allocations, which are at the heart of mostwater disputes, are a function of water quantityand quality, as well as political fiat. Thus, effectiveinstitutions must identify clear allocation schedules

and water quality standards that simultaneouslyprovide for extreme hydrological events, newunderstanding of basin dynamics, and changingsocietal values. Additionally, riparian states mayconsider prioritizing uses throughout the basin.Establishing catchment-wide water precedents maynot only help to avert inter-riparian conflicts overwater use, but also protect the environmentalhealth of the basin as a whole.

3. Equitable distribution of benefits. This concept,subtly yet powerfully different from equitable use orallocation, is at the root of some of the world�smost successful institutions. The idea concerns thedistribution of benefits from water use � whetherfrom hydropower, agriculture, economic develop-ment, aesthetics, or the preservation of healthyaquatic ecosystems � not the benefits from wateritself. Distributing water use benefits allows forpositive-sum agreements, whereas dividing thewater itself only allows for winners and losers.

4. Detailed conflict resolution mechanisms. Manybasins continue to experience disputes even after atreaty is negotiated and signed. Thus, incorporat-ing clear mechanisms for resolving conflicts is aprerequisite for effective, long-term basin manage-ment.

the world™s international freshwater agreements ...naumannj/geography powerpoint...

Documents