The Emerging Water Wars - Part II
All the lakes around Mexico City have dried and it is now
sinking into the cavernous remains of its withered reservoirs.
Soil subsidence is a major problem in cities around the world,
from Bangkok to Venice. According to "The Economist", the town
of Cochabamba in Bolivia, once a florid valley is now a dust
bowl. Some of its residents receive water only a few hours every
two or three days. A World Bank financed project attempts to
pipe the precious liquid from mountain rivers near the city.
Singapore, concerned by its dependence on water from capricious
Malaysia, decided last November to purchase water from private
sector suppliers who will be required to build one or more
desalination plants, capable of providing it with 10% of its
annual consumption.
Singapore is so desperate, it even considers importing water
from the strife-torn Aceh province in Indonesia. The cost of
Malaysian fresh water skyrocketed following a bilateral accord
with Singapore signed September 2000.
Control of water sources has always served as geopolitical
leverage. In Central Asia, both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan often
get their way by threatening to throttle their richer neighbors,
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan - and by actually cutting them off
from the nourishing rivers that traverse their territories. This
extortion resulted in inordinately cheap supplies of gas, coal,
and agricultural products.
To avoid such dependence, Turkmenistan has decided to divert
water from the catchment basin of one of the rivers - the Amu
Darya - to a $6 billion artificial lake. This inane project is
comparable only to China's much-disputed Three Gorges Dam - the
$30 billion, 180 meters tall hydroelectric plant that will block
the fierce Yangtze River.
On January 2000, a Kinshasa-based firm, Western Trade
Corporation, and an American partner, Sapphire Aqua, proposed to
raise financing for a $9 billion set of 1000-2000 km. pipes from
the Congo River to the Middle East and South Africa. Stratfor
justly noted that the water were to be given free, casting in
doubt the viability - or the even the very existence - of such a
project.
Con-artists and gullible investors notwithstanding, water is big
business. Water Forum 2002, sponsored and organized by the World
Bank, attracted many NGO's, donors, and private companies. The
Agadir conference next month is expected to attract scholars and
governments as well. According to the government of Morocco, it
will deal with "views and experiences on water pricing, cost
recovery and the interactions between micro and macro policies
related to water".
T. Boone Pickens, a corporate raider, has bought water rights
from Texans during last year's drought. He succeeded to amass c.
200,000 acre-feet worth c. $200 million.
Economic competition coupled with acute and growing scarcity
often presage conflict.
"Water stress" is already on the world's agenda at least as
firmly as global warming. The Hague Ministerial Declaration
released on March 2000 identified seven 'water-related
challenges'. This led to the establishment of the 'World Water
Assessment Program' and UNESCO's 'From Potential Conflict to
Cooperation Potential' (PC to CP) which 'addresses more
specifically the challenge of sharing water resources primarily
from the point of view of governments, and develops
decision-making and conflict prevention tools for the future'."
Simultaneously, Green Cross International and UNESCO floated
"Water for Piece" project whose aims are "to enhance the
awareness and participation of local authorities and the public
in water conflict resolution an integrated management by
facilitating more effective dialogue between all stakeholders."
In its efforts to minimize tensions in potential and actual
conflict regions, the project concentrates on a few case studies
in the basins of the Rhine, the Aral Sea, the Limpopo/Incomati,
the Mekong, the Jordan River, the Danube, and the Columbia.
Peter Gleik of the Pacific Institute suggested this taxonomy of
water-related conflicts (quoted in thewaterpage.com):
"Control of Water Resources (state and non-state actors): where
water supplies or access to water is at the root of tensions.
Military Tool (state actors): where water resources, or water
systems themselves, are used by a nation or state as a weapon
during a military action. Political Tool (state and non-state
actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are
used by a nation, state, or non-state actor for a political
goal. Terrorism (non-state actors): where water resources, or
water systems, are either targets or tools of violence or
coercion by non-state actors. Military Target (state actors):
where water resource systems are targets of military actions by
nations or states. Development Disputes (state and non-state
actors): where water resources or water systems are a major
source of contention and dispute in the context of economic and
social development." Mark de Villiers, author of "Water Wars"
contrasts, in ITT's aforementioned Guidebook, two opposing views
about the likelihood of water-related conflicts. Thomas
Homer-Dixon, the Canadian security analyst says:
"Water supplies are needed for all aspects of national activity,
including the production and use of military power, and rich
countries are as dependent on water as poor countries are ...
Moreover, about 40 percent of the world's population lives in
the 250 river basins shared by more than one country ... But ...
wars over river water between upstream and downstream neighbors
are likely only in a narrow set of circumstances. The downstream
country must be highly dependent on the water for its national
well-being; the upstream country must be able to restrict the
river's flow; there must be a history of antagonism between the
two countries; and, most important, the downstream country must
be militarily much stronger than the upstream country."
Frederick Frey, of the University of Pennsylvania, disagrees:
"Water has four primary characteristics of political importance:
extreme importance, scarcity, maldistribution, and being shared.
These make internecine conflict over water more likely than
similar conflicts over other resources. Moreover, tendencies
towards water conflicts are exacerbated by rampant population
growth and water-wasteful economic development. A national and
international 'power shortage,' in the sense of an inability to
control these two trends, makes the problem even more alarming."
Who is right?
The citizens of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states in India are
enmeshed in bloody skirmishes over the waters of the Carvery
River. Colonel Quaddafi has been depleting the Iittoral aquifer
in the Sahara for decades now - to the detriment of all his
neighbors - yet, not a single violent incident has been
recorded. Last year, the Rio Grande has failed to reach the Gulf
of Mexico - for the first time in many decades. Yet, no war
erupted between the USA and Mexico.
As water become more scarce, market solutions are bound to
emerge. Water is heavily subsidized and, as a direct result,
atrociously wasted. More realistic pricing would do wonders on
the demand side. Water rights are already traded electronically
in the USA. Private utilities and water markets are the next
logical step.
Water recycling is another feasible alternative. Despite
unmanageable financial problems and laughable prices, the
municipality of Moscow maintains enormous treatment plants and
re-uses most of its water.
Wars are the outcomes of cultures and mores. Not every casus
belli leads to belligerence. Not every conflict, however severe,
ends in battle. Mankind has invented numerous other
conflict-resolution mechanisms. There is no reason to assume
that water would cause more warfare than oil or national pride.
But water scarcity sure causes dislocation, ethnic tension,
impoverishment, social anomy, and a host of other ills. It is in
fending off these pernicious, all-pervasive, and slow-acting
social processes that we should concentrate our efforts.