Ana Elisa Cascão

Presentation to TWM Lake Victoria

Kigali, Rwanda – 26 October 2009

Hydropolitics: Water, Power and Cooperation (II)

Lake Tiberias

Jordan

Syria

Israel

Wes

t Ban

k

Water conflict:example from the Jordan River Basin

Who gets what water, when, where and how?

• 4 riparians: Israel, Jordan, Syria and Palestine

• Unequal utilisation and allocation of water

• Asymmetric power among riparians

• Several conflict events / Limited cooperation

• Jordan Basin: Extreme case of water-related conflict

Water conflict: most common situation

Riparian A Riparian B

Deadlock

DON’T•Agree in positions and needs•Share data and information

•Engage in negotiations• Politcally commit

• Collaborate/ Cooperate•Have common projects

DO•Securitise water issues

•Use national-based arguments•Classify information•Refuse concessions•Delay negotitions

•Use threats against neighbours

Riparian A Riparian B

Deadlock

COOPERATION

Water Cooperation: Overcoming the deadlock

?

Riparian A Riparian B

Water Cooperation: example from the Senegal Basin

Who gets what water, when, where and how?

• 4 riparians: Senegal, Mali, Mauritania, Guinea

• Well-established Senegal River Basin Organisation (1972)

• Goals: shared development, concerted governance and conflict management

• Jointly planned and owned infrastructures

• Shared costs and benefits

• Water and socio-economic development (food security, hydropower, navigation, etc)

• Senegal Basin: good example of transboundary water cooperation

Water cooperation: How to get there?

Water cooperation in the Northeastern African regionBasin Initiative Main achievements Donors

Niger Niger Basin Authority(9 riparians)

•One of the oldest intergovernmental in Africa (Convention signed in 1987)•Goal: integrated water management and economic development•Shared Vision and several investment projects•Joint basin-wide hydrological monitoring system •Active involvement of donors, but also civil society and environmentalists

World Bank, UNDP, African Development Bank, Canada, European Commission, France, US

Lake Chad Lake Chad Basin Commission(5 riparians)

•Old organisation – since 1964 [Failed to prevent environmental catastrophe]•Goal: regulation and planning of the uses of water and natural resources•Still focusing primarily in surface water, and not groundwater•Ambitious project of water diversion from Congo River to Lake Chad

World Bank, UNDP, Denmark, European Commission, France,

Nubian Aquifer

Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System Project(all 4 riparians)

•Goal: rational and equitable management of the NSAS•In the first stages of cooperation (setting)•Not yet legal and insitutional framework neither projects

International Atomic Energy Agency, UNDP, GEF, UNESCO

Nile Nile Basin Initiative(all 10 riparians)

•NBI – provisional cooperative mechanism (since 1999)•Ambitious goals/ involves all 10 riparians / strong involvement of donors•Shared Vision and Subsidiary Action programs•Capacity-building and trust achieved •Not yet a legal framework or significant projects on-the-ground•Nevertheless, seen as a good model of cooperation

World Bank, UNDP, African Development Bank, FAO, GEF, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, US

Lake Victoria

Lake Victoria Basin Commission(all 3 riparians)

•Legal Framework and river basin commission•Harmonisation of policies and laws on the management of the environment - Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project.•Development of some hydraulic infrastructure•Cooperative focus on development of economic activities (energy, fishing, industry, agriculture and tourism)•Information sharing and data

East African Development Bank, World Bank, Sweden, Norway and France

EXERCISE 3: If I was a donor…

• In which cooperative initiative would I invest? In the Lake Victoria Basin Commission or the Nile Basin Initiative?

• In which of these fields of activity (or others) would I engage giving financial support? And Why?

Legal Framework

Water-Sharing vs. Benefit-Sharing?

Benefit-Sharing Paradigm

Benefits to to

the river

Benefits from from

the river

Benefits because because of the river

Benefits beyondbeyondthe river

BENEFITS OF COOPERATIONBENEFITS OF COOPERATION

Environmental Social Economic Political

Sadoff and Grey 2002, 2005

“A focus on sharing the benefits derived from the use of water,rather than the allocation of water itself,

provides far greater scope for identifying mutually beneficial cooperative actions”

Generating Regional Benefits

Hydropower Production and Trade

Irrigation Development

Water-Sharing: possible to avoid?

• Energy supplies• Power grid, pool and trade• Cheap electricity• Economic development

• River regulation• Reduction of water losses• Sedimentation control

WATER-SHARING

CONSTRAINTS:

• Politically controverse

• Water abstractions

• Impacts on flows downstream

• Property rights and water allocations

• Water-sharing negotiations

BENEFITS OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT

• Suitable sites for irrigation• Increased water productivity• Efficient water utilisation• Increased food production

• Regional food market and trade• Economic development• Reduce food & poverty gaps

Benefit-Sharing or Water-Sharing?

Benefit-sharing is the best approach

Benefit-sharing is an intermediary solution

Benefit-sharing is not a panacea for all basins

Benefit-sharing is a smokescreen for status quo

Cooperation is as political as water

BASINBASIN

Multiple stakeholders, positions, decision-making layers, approaches, strategies, complexities, ...

Multiple stakeholders, positions, decision-making layers, approaches, strategies, complexities, ...

Multilateral Donor

BilateralDonor

CivilSociety

RiparianC

RiparianB

Riparian A

Thanks for your attention

ana.cascao@kcl.ac.uk