‘Water cooperation can greatly defuse conflicts’
Susanne Schmeier is Professor of Water Cooperation, Law and Diplomacy in the Netherlands. Her research shows that conflicts over water can be managed proactively – ideally with international support.
Today, many people are talking about a global water crisis. As a scientist, can you confirm this?
I do, in fact, see problems with water worldwide. It is not always a question of water scarcity. In academic circles, we talk about three challenges: too much, too little, too dirty. Almost all regions of the world are impacted by at least one of these factors. Even areas where there is enough water available often have a quality problem – sometimes the water is polluted or insufficiently treated. We see this, for example, in Bangladesh and around the Congo Basin.
What are the main drivers of this crisis?
Climate change, quite clearly. This is causing more water extremes, which we are not tackling well enough yet. A growing global population combined with rising living standards is exacerbating the problem further. It is also attributable to efforts to achieve sustainable development goals such as energy and food for all – but at the same time, this is putting more pressure on available water resources.
A specialist in international water policy
Susanne Schmeier is Professor of Water Cooperation, Law and Diplomacy at the IHE Delft Institute for Water Education and at Utrecht University. Her research focuses on transboundary water management, international water law and water diplomacy. Her work centres on river basin organisations, international water agreements, and the prevention and resolution of water-related conflicts.
Do we need to prepare for wars over water?
Wars over water have so far been rare and, as things stand, are likely to remain the exception in the future. Neighbouring countries that share a water source usually have interwoven economic, political and cultural ties. Water is then just one of many factors. States therefore often have an interest in resolving conflicts over water. Water is more of a ‘multiplier’: when tensions already exist, water can be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. But when neighbourly relations are good and multifaceted, disagreements over water are less likely to escalate into conflicts.
Are there any examples of this?
Yes, quite a few, in fact. On the Mekong River, for example, a commission of the same name regulates the use of the Mekong among the four riparian states: Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam. The commission provides a fixed framework for discussing emerging conflicts diplomatically. Members exchange valuable information, for instance on water levels, flood risks and the impacts of infrastructure projects. A similar institution exists on the Nile, with eleven riparian states: the Nile Basin Initiative. In this case, conflicts over water allocation are somewhat more intense, but international water cooperation is an important forum for easing tensions here, too. GIZ has played, and continues to play, a crucial role in both. And there are a host of others around the world.
Would more serious conflicts have arisen without transboundary water institutions?
From a scientific perspective, we cannot say with absolute certainty what would have happened without these institutions. But I am absolutely convinced that, particularly on the Nile, without the Nile Basin Initiative and without GIZ’s support, there would have been far more intense discussions and disputes. One thing is clear: international water cooperation works and can greatly defuse conflicts. It requires all parties involved to adhere to decisions and agreements.
Is international support always needed for this?
It often is, but not always; it depends on the countries’ level of development and their cooperation. An interesting example is southern Africa around the Orange-Senqu River. The countries involved are Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa. In 2000, the Orange-Senqu River Commission was established to manage water more effectively. Here, too, GIZ played a key role, even running the secretariat in the beginning. The countries now manage this successfully and largely on their own. Other regions, such as those along the Niger, require international support for a longer period.
What role do the global cuts in development budgets play here?
We have seen what happens when donors withdraw, as illustrated by the example of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The US was not involved in the water sector to a large extent, so the impacts are greater with regard to health topics. But if everyone follows this example, there will be serious consequences. We will then certainly see, perhaps not wars, but tangible conflicts over the increasingly scarce resource of water more often. I am concerned about the nationalist tendencies emerging overall, because they completely underestimate the benefits of international water cooperation. As one of the largest donors in the water sector, Germany should therefore under no circumstances scale back its commitment, but should instead stress the benefits of water cooperation to partners worldwide. And this applies not only to sustainable water management, but also to economic development and peace and security.
