Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water

Conflict and Cooperation 19

Subash Prasad Rai, Aaron T. Wolf, Nayan Sharma,
and Harinarayan Tiwari

Abstract
Water is a fundamental human need and key to economic development.
Since the beginning of civilization, people have faced problems associated
with river and freshwater sharing. To add on to the precarious situation,
most of the freshwater rivers are transboundary rivers, i.e. they cross at
least one political border, either a border within a nation or an interna-
tional boundary. Water politics, commonly known as hydropolitics, are
politics affected by the availability of water and water resources, which
play an important role in transboundary water management. Hydropolitics
relate to the ability of geopolitical institutions to manage shared water
resources in a politically sustainable manner, i.e. without tensions or
conflict between political entities. As the pressures of population and
economic growth increase, water resources are under increasing stress.
As the stress on water resources increases, the risks associated with the
management of transboundary rivers increase exponentially given the
hegemonic disparities of the riparians. This gives rise to risks of conflict
while generating opportunities of cooperation which can be analysed with
the help of risk-opportunity index developed using fuzzy synthetic evalu-
ation technique proposed by Rai et al. (J Hydrol 519:1551–1559, 2014). It
has been proposed to formulate a hydropolitical sustainability index
(HypSI) keeping in view the circles of blue sustainability (blue indicates
water in this chapter) which considers the social desirability, political
legitimacy, economical viability, environmental sustainability and techni-
cal feasibility aspects of shared water resources.

S.P. Rai (*) • N. Sharma • H. Tiwari

Department of Water Resources Development and
Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, A.T. Wolf
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India Department of Geosciences, CEOAS, Oregon State
e-mail: subashbitsindri@gmail.com University, Corvallis, OR, USA

# Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 353

N. Sharma (ed.), River System Analysis and Management, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-1472-7_19
354 S.P. Rai et al.

19.1 Introduction to International an international boundary. According to the

Rivers Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database
(TFDD), the world consists of 276 international
Fierce national competition over water resources transboundary river basins (Fig. 19.1) which
has prompted fears that water issues contain the cover more than 45 % of the land surface on
seeds of violent conflict. – Kofi Annan the Earth (TFDD 2012). A total of 145 countries
Water is one of the nature’s greatest gifts to which constitute over 75 % of all countries have
humankind. The fact that freshwater is essential shared river basins within their boundaries, while
to survival was realized even by early 33 of them have more than 95 % of their territo-
civilizations; and hence they flourished on land rial dominion within international river basins.
made productive by great rivers, be it Nile in The internationally shared river basins are home
Egypt, Indus in India and Huang Ho in China. to over 40 % of the world’s population and con-
Freshwater is required for survival of all forms tribute to approximately 60 % of the global river
of the Earth’s life, including humans. The truth flows (Draper 2002; Giordano and Wolf 2003;
that we are inhabitants of the “water planet” Sadoff and Grey 2005; Wolf 1999; Wolf
soothes little, the reason being less than 3 % of et al. 1999).
the total water on the Earth is freshwater Even more important is count of the nations
resources. Its distribution, too, is more often that constitute certain individual basins. The
uneven, with some states suffering severe Danube basin is shared by 17 countries, the
droughts every year and some having to deal highest in the world. The Zambezi, Rhine,
with floods. Nile, Niger and Congo are each shared by nine
Since the beginning of civilization, people or more countries, while the La Plata, Neman,
have faced problems associated with river and Vistula, Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna, Tigris-
freshwater sharing. To add on to the precarious Euphrates, Aral Sea, Volga, Mekong, Jordan,
situation, most of the freshwater rivers are Tarim, Kura-Araks, Amazon and Lake Chad
transboundary rivers, i.e. they cross at least one basins each consist territory of at least five
political border, either a border within a nation or countries (Wolf et al. 1999).

Basins by
Continent
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
South America ©Oregon State University, TFDO. 2001.
Becci Dale, cartographer

Fig. 19.1 International river basins (Source: Wolf et al. 1999, updated 2001)
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 355

19.2 Hydropolitics rapid drawdown of the amount of water all over

in Transboundary Rivers the world, making it a scarce resource. And
because it is finite, it is a resource of much
Water makes adherence relation between ripar- greater importance than other resources with
ian countries of transboundary river basins some- commodity value alone. There is no viable alter-
times even without their consent as water is not native to water. Without sufficient volumes or
bounded by political boundaries. As water is an desired quality of water, economic development
essential component of our day-to-day life, ripar- including industrial and agricultural production
ian countries are incapable to separate from grinds to a halt, resulting in threats to human
water issues. In transboundary rivers, water sup- sufferings and societal stability. As the exponen-
ply, allocation, control and use are of great con- tial growth of global population continues, and
sequence to survival, quality of life and as changes in environment threaten the quality
economic success. The control of a nation’s and quantity of water resources, the ability of
water resources is considered vital to the survival countries to peacefully resolve water conflicts
of a state (Daclon 2007). Water politics, some- over transboundary international river basins
times called hydropolitics, is politics affected by will play a major role in stable and secure inter-
the availability of water and water resources, a national relations (Jägerskog et al. 2007; Nicol
necessity for all life forms and human develop- et al. 2001).
ment. Arun P. Elhance’s definition of The widening gap between freshwater supply
hydropolitics is “the systematic study of conflict and demand due to increased consumption of
and cooperation between states over water water will drive nation’s attitudes towards rivers.
resources that transcend international borders” The politics of freshwater in international
(Elhance 1999). contexts are becoming increasingly contentious.
The term “hydropolitics” (coined by As many rivers cross political borders, the water
Waterbury (1979)) can be related to the potential available to one nation depends on the usage of
for conflict and violence to erupt over interna- water by the upstream nations. The issues of
tional waters. Hydropolitics relates to the ability cross-border water sharing, use and management
of geopolitical institutions to manage shared need greater attention as giant hydropower and
water resources in a politically sustainable man- irrigation projects are gradually performing key
ner, i.e. without tensions or conflict between roles in defining international relations. Until
political entities. Water is a complex issue, and, there is no cooperation over shared water
as a result, it could be expected that hydropolitics resources, each state can use the water in the
will reflect this complexity. Competition for river to the best of its advantage before it crosses
shared natural resources, particularly where lim- political borders and becomes inaccessible.
ited, has caused or been additive to conflicts in Transboundary rivers have upstream-
the past. downstream management challenges. Consump-
With increase in population and human eco- tive use of water by an upstream country reduces
nomic activities, the global demands of our nat- the volume of water available for downstream
ural resources both non-renewable and countries. Upstream-downstream interactions
renewable have steadily increased. Water, a can trigger conflicts or generate opportunities
renewable resource, is no exception to this for cooperation. As the pressures of population
trend. Abstractions of water from rivers have and economic growth increase, water resources
more than tripled during the last 50 years, are under increasing stress. Management of
mainly due to extensive irrigation uses (Wada rivers occurs in a complex political and eco-
and Bierkens 2014). The socioeconomic nomic context. For transboundary rivers, man-
developments of the continents have resulted in agement is especially complex, given the
356 S.P. Rai et al.

multiple economic interfaces between association of hydropolitics with conflict or secu-

co-riparians. The challenges of transboundary rity issues has led to an impoverished debate and
water cooperation are often exacerbated by hindered understanding of hydropolitics as a
capacity and power disparities between riparian dynamic and ongoing process involving several
countries. other key dynamics – notably society, environ-
ment and culture (Cascão and Zeitoun 2010).
Water is a very complex resource because it
attains the forms of natural, social, cultural, eco-
19.2.1 Hegemonic Hydropolitics
nomic and political resources. The recent
decades have witnessed water more as a strategic
Policy-makers and politicians have greater lever-
asset owing to its economic and political nature.
age over the direction that transboundary water
Power plays a significant role in influencing
interaction takes. Application of critical
transboundary water relations and allocative
hydropolitics is thus useful for interpretation of
outcomes and must therefore be incorporated
the power plays that grease or block the cogs of
into any analysis. Hydropolitics are considered
the decision-making machinery. We argue that
to be characterized by hegemonic configurations,
various riparian states are endowed with highly
wherein the most powerful riparian states have
asymmetric capacity to use both overt and covert
an advantage over their riparian neighbours to
forms of power. As we will see, overt and covert
influence the allocation of the resources. Nota-
forms of power are also commonly understood
bly, the power available to the “basin hegemon”
as, but not directly analogous to, “hard” and
assumes different forms – geographical, mate-
“soft” forms of power. We assert that the power
rial, bargaining and ideational. The pillars of
asymmetries determine to a significant (not total)
hydro-hegemony (Fig. 19.3) suggest that a hege-
extent the fundamentally political distributional
monic situation on transboundary waters is built
issue of “who gets what, when, where and why”
on the four fields of both covert and overt forms
(Lasswell 1936). The question is answered only
of power.
by considering how political decisions of distri-
The suggested relative measures of each field
bution and allocation of resources (namely, natu-
for the Eastern Nile are given in Fig. 19.4. The
ral, political and financial) are made. Allocative
lengths of pillars are relative to other basin states
politics are affected by their socioeconomic and
and not quantified. These plots are based in the
political contexts, of course, at multiple scales
current political context, but as we know power
(from the individual to the global) (Cascão and
and hegemonic situations are not static, the plots
Zeitoun 2010).
would certainly look different as time progresses.
Hydropolitics has also been strongly
A quick glance at Fig. 19.4 confirms what is
associated with the “water war” concept, wherein
commonly understood, for instance, that Egypt
interstate armed conflicts were expected to occur
is the basin hegemon, despite the downstream
in any number of “hydropolitical security
riparian position it owns. It also shows that the
complexes” such as the Tigris and Euphrates
hegemons are usually very strong in all
(Schulz 1995). The report of the World Eco-
dimensions of power, at least in relation to their
nomic Forum (2015) on global risks identified
neighbours.
“water crisis” as having the greatest risk in terms
Given the enabling role that power plays in
of economic impact (Fig. 19.2). These risks are
the allocative politics of transboundary waters,
often greatest and increasing most rapidly in the
it is necessary to be able to conceptualize
major transboundary basins of the world. The
power in a useful manner. There is no common
analytical dyads of “water conflict” and “water
template that can be used to interpret all
security” are among the major forms of bias in
transboundary contexts. It is nonetheless
the hydropolitics literature. The consistent
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 357

Fig. 19.2 Global risk landscapes 2015 (Source: World Economic Forum (2015))
358 S.P. Rai et al.

Fig. 19.3 Pillars of hydro-

hegemony (Source:
Zeitoun and Warner 2006)

Fig. 19.4 Suggested plots of hydro-hegemonic configurations in the Eastern Nile, river basin (2009 estimates)
(Source: Cascao and Zeitoun 2010)

Fig. 19.5 Range of forms of interaction over transboundary water resources (Source: Zeitoun and Warner 2006)

helpful to group contexts according to specific

criteria – in terms of the character of the con- 19.3 Transboundary Conflict
trol exerted, for instance, as shown in Analysis Paradigms
Fig. 19.5. At the right-hand extreme of the
continuum, control over the transboundary “Competition” is defined as two or more entities,
waters is openly competed for, sometimes in one or more of which perceives a goal as being
somewhat hostile political environments. At blocked by another entity. If power is exerted to
the opposite extreme is the cooperative form overcome the perceived blockage, it is referred to
of interaction, based on the principle of full as “conflict”. If there is coordination of
equality and manifested in terms of economic behaviour among entities to realize at least
integration, equitable distributive politics and some common goals, it is “cooperation”. As the
collective decision-making processes. The bulk freshwater resource becomes scarce, the
of current transboundary water interaction lies elements of the society must respond by either
conceptually between these two extremes, becoming adept at competing with each other or,
however – where control is shared in principle, in order to survive, they must learn to cooperate
but not in practice. and develop symbiotic relationships. Human
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 359

conflict over common resources can be dealt with international water conflicts include (1) physical
through either competition or cooperation. Com- sciences and technology, (2) law, (3) political
petition begets ill will, which increases competi- science, (4) economics, (5) game theory, (6) alter-
tion, while, conversely, cooperation encourages native dispute resolution (ADR), (7) philosophy,
better relations, thus creating an environment (8) spiritual practice and (9) sociology. There can
conducive to increased cooperation. The choice be other disciplines too which support the analy-
between ever-increasing conflict or cooperation sis of international water conflicts. Delving deep
in hydropolitics was discussed by Frey (1993). into the disciplines is not of specific interest to
The tension and threat can apparently be resolved the authors; rather it is intended to brief the
either by sharply escalating the conflict or by practitioners about the various analysis
accepting the necessity of some form of cooper- paradigms which can be applied in the manage-
ation. Dire conditions promote cooperation, but ment of transboundary water resources.
those same conditions also make severe conflict
more likely (Frey 1993).
Just as natural water flow ignores interna- 19.3.1 Transboundary Water
tional boundaries, so, too, does the evaluation Management Through Benefit
of water resources transcend the analysis of any Sharing
single discipline. Water, by nature, necessitates
an interdisciplinary analysis. Through its physi- In recent decades significant literature on con-
cal components, we measure the quantity, quality flict and cooperation along the lines of
and variability of water sources. Because we transboundary river management has developed
need to develop an infrastructure to harness (Bernauer 1997; Gleick 1993; Rogers 1993;
water for human use – storage and delivery Wolf 1998; Zeitoun and Warner 2006). Benefit
systems, for example – an engineering compo- sharing has the potential to develop as a mecha-
nent should be incorporated into the analysis. nism which has the capabilities to resolve
Furthermore, because water can be owned, transboundary water conflicts (Dombrowsky
bought, sold and traded, its analysis takes on 2009a, b; Sadoff and Grey 2002, 2005). The
legal, economic and political aspects as well. principal thought of the benefit-sharing mecha-
Finally, because water is a resource that, when nism is that riparians should not share the water
scarce, can induce both conflict and cooperation, resources; rather they share various benefits
water can become a subject for alternative dis- derived out of water. Through this paradigm
pute resolution (ADR) (Wolf 1995). Apart from shift, a zero-sum game of water sharing can be
the above, water acts as a spiritual binder affect- replaced by a positive-sum game of benefit shar-
ing the emotions and psychology of people ing (Biswas 1999; Klaphake 2005; Sadoff and
attached with it brining in the social discipline Grey 2002, 2005). Sadoff and Grey highlighted
as well. Because of the properties inherent to that to negotiate the management and develop-
human water needs, competition over water as a ment of international shared rivers, riparians can
scarce resource, when it occurs, can be especially focus their negotiations on the allocation of
intense. Water, in short, seems to share only the water rights or on the distribution of benefits
most contentious characteristics with other derived from the use of water (Sadoff and
resources, particularly in the international Grey 2005). Thus, according to this interpreta-
setting, making analysis of international water tion, the sharing of rights and the sharing of
conflicts especially difficult. benefits can be understood as alternative negoti-
There are numerous disciplines that treat ation strategies.
water as a resource and as a subject of conflict. It is recognized that there are different types of
The approach followed by various disciplines benefits – ecological, political, social, economi-
towards conflict in general, and international cal, cultural and spiritual – derived from using
water conflict in particular, is the key to resource water, and economic benefits of which have been
security. The various disciplines for analysis of widely available in literature (Sadoff and Grey
360 S.P. Rai et al.

2002; Sengo et al. 2005; Whittington et al. 2005) river. It can be suggested that transboundary
and in practice (Giordano and Wolf 2003; Sadoff water conflicts may be resolved through benefit
and Grey 2002). Sadoff and Grey (2002, 2005) sharing. In the past, such analysis has assisted
proposed four categories of cooperation and riparians to identify and explore the various
benefits/costs that exist in connection to trade-offs associated with different cooperative
transboundary watercourses: First, benefits to scenarios, thereby bringing clarity to the question
the river generated through cooperative joint of how they can and why they should cooperate.
management of ecosystems. Second, benefits This should open up the concerned players for
from the river derived from efficient, cooperative constructive interactions.
management and development of shared rivers.
Third, cooperation on an international river will
result in the reduction of costs because of the 19.4 Transboundary Risks
river. And finally, as international rivers can be and Opportunities
catalytic agents, cooperation that yields benefits
from the river and reduces costs because of the Shared river basins create some level of stress
river can pave the way to much greater coopera- among the binding societies which generate
tion between states, even economic integration cooperative or non-cooperative responses which
among states, generating benefits beyond the can reach far “beyond the river”. The tensions
river (Sadoff and Grey 2002, 2005). and responses generated are bundled with vari-
An added move to promote cooperation is by ous factors including – but not limited to – his-
identifying the various cooperation modes or toric, cultural, environmental and economic
approaches that can be adopted and employing which have significant impact on riparian
the most appropriate mode to achieve a particu- relations. The shared bundled dynamics of
lar goal. The optimal type of cooperation varies transboundary river systems have the potential
with hydrologic and investment opportunities to either become a powerful catalyst for conflict
and with the consequent potential benefit- or cooperation. Control over transboundary
sharing mechanisms. In order to facilitate opti- waters is inextricably entwined with national
mal cooperative management in some basins, security, economic opportunity, society and cul-
information sharing and basin-wide strategic ture. Understanding coexisting conflict and coop-
assessments may be adequate, while in some eration also facilitates the work of those from
basins, drought and flood mitigation, water stor- both groups involved in the design and execution
age and joint actions in river regulation would of negotiation strategies at the multilateral level
yield significant net benefits. A continuum of or in the development of positive-sum solutions
cooperation can be conceived from unilateral addressing water and benefit-sharing paradigms
action to coordination to collaboration to joint in a balanced manner.
action (Fig. 19.6). The quantitative work led by Wolf on the
In the absence of any water-sharing mecha- Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database
nism in place, an imperative need is felt to man- (Wolf 2002; Wolf et al. 2005) forms the basis
age and harness the common pool resource of the of debate regarding cooperative events

Fig. 19.6 Types of cooperation – the cooperative continuum (Sadoff and Grey 2005)
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 361

overtaking the conflict events by a big margin: Table 19.1 BAR scale
1228 cooperative events as against 507 conflict- BAR
related events. This implies that violence scale Event description
over water is neither economically viable, 7 Formal declaration of war
strategically rational nor hydrographically effec- 6 Extensive war acts causing deaths,
dislocation or high strategic cost
tive. The events of cooperation primarily cover
5 Small-scale military acts
water quantity, quality, economic development,
4 Political-military hostile actions
hydropower and joint management. In contrast, a
3 Diplomatic-economic hostile actions
majority of conflict-laden events (~90 %) are 2 Strong verbal expressions displaying hostility
related to quantity and infrastructure (Wolf in interaction
1998). Water can act as both irritant by making 1 Mild verbal expressions displaying discord in
good relations bad and bad relations worse and a interaction
unifier by promoting cooperation along water 0 Neutral or non-significant acts for the inter-
nation situation
and other allied sectors as well. International
1 Minor official exchanges, talks or policy
waters have the potential to act as a unifier in expressions
basins with relatively strong institutions. 2 Official verbal support of goals, values or
regime
3 Cultural or scientific agreement or support
19.4.1 Basins at Risk (BAR) Index (nonstrategic)
4 Non-military economic, technological or
industrial agreement
The history of transboundary rivers has a rich
5 Military, economic or strategic support
collection of both cooperative and conflicting 6 International Freshwater Treaty; major
international transboundary water events. Inter- strategic alliance
national conflict and water appear with increased 7 Voluntary unification into one nation
frequency both in policy literature as well as
popular press (Elhance 1999; Gleick 1993;
and considerations with the International Coop-
Homer-Dixon 1994; Hughes Butts 1997; Remans
eration and Conflict Scale developed by Edward
1995; Westing 1986). The literature frequently
Azar (1980) and Yoffe and Larson (2002). The
discusses numerous indicators used to study and
higher BAR scale refers to higher level of coop-
analyse water conflict, which includes proximity,
eration, hence low conflict potential. Table 19.1
type of government, water availability and rapid
describes the 15 categories of BAR scale as
inhabitant growth. The major drawback of the
developed by Wolf et al. (2003):
existing literature was that it consisted of specific
case studies from the most volatile basins which
excluded various factors influencing water and
international conflict. 19.4.2 Risk-Opportunity Index (ROI)
Despite numerous case studies examining and
comparing water-related conflicts, no global Water is a fundamental human need and key to
scale on water and international conflicts could economic development. As the pressures of
be developed. This prompted Wolf et al. (2003) population and economic growth increase,
to create a global Basins at Risk (BAR) scale. water resources are under increasing stress.
Wolf and colleagues developed a 15-point As the stress on water resources increases, the
“Basins at Risk (BAR) scale” which ranged risk associated with the management of
from þ7 to 7, including 0. þ7 represented the transboundary rivers increases exponentially
most cooperative event, while 7 represented given the hegemonic disparities of the
the most conflictive event, and 0 represented riparians. Very recently a study was undertaken
neutral or non-significant events (Wolf by the World Bank (Rai and Young 2015)
et al. 2003). The BAR scale developed by Wolf (unpublished report) to assess the conflict-
et al. incorporates water-specific terminologies cooperation risk and opportunities in
362 S.P. Rai et al.

transboundary river basin in South Asian freshwater is used for irrigation and its efficiency
region. The study included developing a deeper of use is low. Demand for water has escalated in
understanding of the opportunities to promote recent decades, leading to increased competition
cooperation in transboundary river basins and for access to water between riparian countries
examining the significance of hegemony and and different water-using sectors of the
development variables on the conflict- economy.
cooperation risk and opportunities in the con-
text of South Asian transboundary rivers. The method used has a two-step approach:
The risks and opportunities for cooperative (i) diagnosis of issues and (ii) in-depth assess-
water resources development were assessed ment of the identified issues, using a fuzzy risk
from two perspectives: (1) the main threats to assessment framework. A comprehensive risk-
the basin’s water resources from development opportunity analysis has been conducted using a
and utilization dynamics, in terms of water, composite risk-opportunity index (ROI) based on
food and energy security and storage capacity four components of development (water security,
of the basin, and (2) riparian interactions affected food security, energy security and storage capac-
by the hegemonic disparities of the countries ity) and three components of hegemony (politi-
sharing the river basins along the lines of politi- cal, military and economy).
cal, military and economic hegemony. The hege- The risk-opportunity index (ROI) for the
mony and development variables are explained riparian countries sharing the river basin is
as follows: expressed as

Hegemony Hydro-hegemony refers to water ROI ¼ f ðD, HÞ

resources control strategies enabled by the where:
exploitation of power asymmetries within a
weak international institutional context. Political ROI ¼ risk-opportunity index
processes outside the water sector configure D ¼ development
basin-wide hydropolitical relations in forms H ¼ hegemony
ranging from the benefits derived from coopera-
tion under hegemonic leadership to the inequita- High risk is associated with higher water
ble aspects of domination (Zeitoun and Warner resources stress, development pressure as well
2006). Political and economic power influence as higher hegemony disparity. This assessment
how nations develop water resources in shared recognizes that a sustainable freshwater system
river basins. Larger economies can spend more can only function within an integrative opera-
on water resources infrastructure which in turn tional framework that combines the natural sys-
can be used to develop the water resources by tem and the management system. The different
enhancing storage capacity and realizing hydro- aspects related to the natural resource base and
power potential. Political and military domi- hegemonic disparities influence water resources
nance affects the negotiation processes. A management and thus conflict-cooperation risks
country with greater say in negotiations and and opportunities.
decision-making process may obtain a greater The risk assessment used in this analysis is
fraction of the shared water resource. based on the fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE)
technique proposed by Rai et al. (2014). FSE
Development It describes the pressures on nat- combines fuzzy logic and an analytical hierarchy
ural resources due to the present scenarios of process (AHP). AHP is used to assign weights to
water resources availability, storage capacity individual hegemony and development
and food and energy security. Rapid economic parameters. Fuzzy logic is used to determine
development and high population growth are the risk and opportunities by fuzzifying the
impacting food and water security. The bulk of
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 363

hegemonic and development variables using vulnerability of systems to actual or expected

suitable membership functions. The hegemony future changes. Vulnerability is the magnitude
and development variables are combined through of an adverse impact on a system. In general,
a fuzzy rule base to obtain the risks and concepts of “resilience” and “vulnerability” as
opportunities, which is then defuzzified using a related to water resources are often assessed
scoring method. within the framework of “sustainability” (Blaikie
This is the first instance when fuzzy logic et al. 1994) and relate to the ability of biophysical
(FL) has been employed in the assessment of systems to adapt to change (Gunderson and
risks and opportunities in transboundary river Pritchard 2002). As the sustainability discourse
basins. So far fuzzy inference system (FIS) has has broadened to include human systems in
been used in water resources allocation problems recent years, so too has work been increasingly
between riparians which can deal with statistical geared towards identifying indicators of resil-
data as well as linguistic data. Water allocation ience and vulnerability within this broader con-
problems bear fuzzy characteristics due to impre- text (Bolte et al. 2007; Lonergan et al. 2000;
cision and uncertainty of linguistic and numeri- Turner 2010). In parallel, dialogue on “security”
cal data. Linguistic uncertainty can be treated by has migrated from traditional issues of war and
fuzzy processes, which take into account partial peace towards also beginning to incorporate the
contribution of multiple parameters from each human-environment relationship in the relatively
riparian point of view. A systematic computing new field of “environmental security” (Vogel and
framework employing fuzzy rules, fuzzy logic O’Brien 2004).
and fuzzy inference system greatly amplifies the “Hydropolitical resilience”, then, is defined as
power of human reasoning (Zadeh 1968). the complex human-environmental system’s
ability to adapt to permutations and change
within these systems; “hydropolitical vulnerabil-
19.5 Hydropolitical Vulnerability ity” is defined by the risk of political dispute over
and Resilience shared water systems. Wolf et al. (2003)
suggested the following relationship between
The concept of sustainable development was first change, institutions, and hydropolitical vulnera-
introduced around 30 years back by the World bility: “The likelihood of conflict rises as the rate
Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980). Sustainable of change within the basin exceeds the institu-
development balances the exploitation of natural tional capacity to absorb that change”. It can be
resources, technology development and institu- said that very rapid change, either on the institu-
tional change to enhance the potential to meet tional side or in the physical systems, that
human needs and aspirations, now and in the outpaces the institutional capacity to absorb
future (WCED 1987). To achieve sustainability, those changes is at the root of most water conflict
all the components in the system must be also in (Wolf 2006).
balance (Sandoval-Solis et al. 2010). Loucks
(1997) defined sustainable water resources
systems as “those systems designed and managed 19.5.1 Hydropolitical Sustainability
to contribute fully to the objectives of society,
now and in the future, while maintaining their As per the United Nations 2015 report, “inade-
ecological, environmental and hydrological quate financing and deficient information about
integrity” (Loucks 1997). Sustainability consists the state of water resources, their use and man-
of three pillars: social development, environment agement impose constraints on water resources
protection and economic development. management and its ability to help achieve sus-
Recently, strong emphasis has been placed on tainable development objectives” (UNESCO
the adaptive capacity of water resources systems, 2015). Water beyond the boundaries always
which refers to measures that reduce the confronts increased challenges to social
364 S.P. Rai et al.

Fig. 19.7 Constituents of

HypSI forming circles of
blue sustainability

sustainability due to the control of political and modification within the political and eco-
circumstances over the techno-environmental nomic context of shared water resources”.
demands. “Hydropolitics” has been discussed The exercise of sustainable water resources
earlier in this chapter, but in view of sustainability can be framed taking cue from the recent study
considering the broader viewpoint, hydropolitics of sustainable urban cities. City and water
can be defined as expeditiously engineered study resources seem similar as in both the systems,
of interactions, either conflict or cooperation, human adaptation is of prime importance. Circles
between riparians sharing transboundary water of Social Life is an approach which leads to
resources in the rapidly changing political and engaged and collaborative exercise in making
economic equations. Hydropolitics predomi- our cities, locales and systems more sustainable.
nantly comprises two authoritative constituents: As part of this overall approach, Circles of
“scale” and “range of issues” (Turton and Sustainability were formulated that provides
Henwood 2002). International rivers call for practical tools for creating sustainable cities and
uncertainty and ambiguities concerning shared communities (James 2015).
waters as the concerned riparians have dissimilar In this chapter the authors propose the circles
attitudes. The existing political scenarios point of blue sustainability (blue implies water) based
towards the need of paradigm shift in manage- on the above-mentioned concept which can be
ment framework which is capable to understand used in the formulation of hydropolitical
and delve deeply with hydropolitical sustainability index (HypSI). The circles of blue
sustainability. As proposed by the authors, sustainability consider E2SPT (environment,
hydropolitical sustainability can be defined as economics, social, political and technical)
“the composite socio-techonomic (technical þ parameters. The constituent of HypSI which
economic) international waters system which forms the circles of blue sustainability is shown
has the ability to accommodate transpositions in Fig. 19.7.
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 365

19.5.2 Components of Hydropolitical 19.5.2.3 Political Legitimacy

Sustainability Index Insatiate behaviour inheres at the heart of
transboundary water conflicts. It can be handled
19.5.2.1 Social Desirability with the help of accountability, transparency and
Social desirability constitutes of two main inter- policies. Institutional capabilities should be
dependent features – mutual concessions and utilized to set industrial responsibilities for the
compromises. Society develops better ways to ultimate hydropolitical sustainability (Saleth and
execute its aspirations to achieve its socioeco- Dinar 2000). The following are the parameters
nomic objectives. In terms of concession, society which indicate political legitimacy:
wishes to get the security for life as well as food.
In parallel, augmentation of lifestyle plays an • Accountability
important role for the successful applied policy • Transparency
in water resources. Improvement of lifestyle • Policies
alleviates poverty for the social security to indi- • Industrial responsibility
vidual. Individual development includes the sec- • Institutional capabilities
ond aspect, i.e. compromises, and it comes on the
shoulder of individual responsibility (Dinar
2002). The following are the parameters which 19.5.2.4 Economical Viability
indicate social desirability: To build up any eminent frame work, economic
viability is the principally desired component
• Life security which has to be considered. Development of
• Food security market with the help of planned tariff for indi-
• Poverty alleviation vidual work will add financial accountability to
• Individual responsibility water resources system (Johansson et al. 2002).
Indigenous technology and water use optimiza-
tion can input the ingredients to hydro-eco
19.5.2.2 Environmental Sustainability sustainability (Saleth and Dinar 2004). The fol-
Hydro-environmental sustainability is achieved lowing are the parameters which indicate eco-
by minimizing the effect of anthropogenic nomic viability:
actions on the water resources systems. River
stability has been given precedence to promote • Water tariffs
Integrated Land and Water Resources Manage- • Water market
ment (ILWRM). River health monitoring • Indigenous technology
(RHM), with both quality and quantity, should • Treated water reuse
be encouraged to attain hydro-environmental
sustainability. Judicious utilization of both
ground and surface freshwater will also stimulate 19.5.2.5 Technical Feasibility
the sustainability (Hanjra and Qureshi 2010). In the context of hydropolitical sustainability,
The following are the parameters which indicate technical feasibility generally refers to the effi-
environmental sustainability: ciency of the system based on their technical
input and output. To define the same, quantifica-
• River stability tion of separate components is required. In the
• River health monitoring technical terms, excess of water (flood) and lack
• Conjunctive use of water (drought) both create a problem in the
• Integrated Land and Water Management water resources system development. Quantifica-
tion of these quantities can warrant the early
366 S.P. Rai et al.

planning and preparedness to the social security. 19.6 Conclusion

Reliability of water supplies for municipal as
well as irrigation purpose will be the major com- In this chapter, it has been endeavoured to delve
ponent to constitute the framework of into hydropolitics and its various related aspects.
hydropolitical sustainability (Dinar 2002; Saleth Hegemony does affect basin hydropolitics at the
and Dinar 2000). The following are the international arena. Political dominance affects
parameters which indicate technical feasibility: the negotiation process and more importantly
how relations between riparians flourish. The
• Flood inundation mapping complex nature of water makes it more conten-
• Drought mapping tious due to the various stakeholders involved.
• Municipal water need Conflicts related to water can be analysed using
• Water for irrigation – timing and reliability of numerous disciplines very much similar to the
the water supplies variety of human needs of water. Benefit sharing
• Land erosion and crop loss has the potential to resolve water conflicts to a
greater extent as it tries to shift the focus from the
Initially to start with the above aspects can be physical quantities of water to the numerous
included in the parameterization of the circles of benefits derived out of water. Benefit sharing
blue sustainability which forms the has the capability to reduce the risks of conflicts
hydropolitical sustainability index. These can and enhance opportunities of cooperation in the
be modified and upgraded with more diverse transboundary setup of major river basins. In the
parameters as research progresses in this field. end the authors propose an index called as
All the models of sustainability consider envi- HypSI, i.e. hydropolitical sustainability index,
ronmental, economical, social and political aspects. to assess the hydropolitics involved in interna-
But very few consider the technical aspects as well. tional river basins. Hydropolitical sustainability
Technology can be used to safeguard the natural index revolves round the circles of blue
resources and promote sustainable development sustainability (where blue implies water) which
through cooperative mechanisms. Technical includes social desirability, environmental
knowledge and expertise has to be promoted sustainability, political legitimacy, economical
among water practitioners. A very small fraction viability and technical feasibility as parameters.
of the water policy experts and practitioners Further research is needed to refine circles of
involved in the decision-making process and for- blue sustainability in a broader context even
mulation of water policies have detailed knowl- including more variables to create a better and
edge of the latest technological advancements in deeper understanding of hydropolitical
the management of natural freshwater reserves. sustainability using HypSI.
There is a strong need to develop the
hydropolitical sustainability index which can
respond to the environmental, economical,
social, political and technical challenges posed References
by transboundary river systems. The interna-
Azar EE (1980) The conflict and peace data bank
tional river basins at high risk are required to be (COPDAB) project. J Confl Resolut 24(1):143–152
studied with respect to the proposed Bernauer T (1997) Managing international rivers. In:
hydropolitical sustainability index. River basins Young OR (ed) Global governance: drawing insights
from the environmental experience. The MIT Press,
which have certain cooperative mechanisms in
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
place need to be cross-checked with HypSI to pp 155–196
assess the sustainability of the management Biswas AK (1999) Management of international waters:
practices, frameworks and mechanisms. This opportunities and constraints. Int J Water Resour Dev
15(4):429–441
can open up new areas of research of practical
Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk:
relevance in transboundary water management natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters.
and hydropolitics associated. Routledge, London
19 Hydropolitics in Transboundary Water Conflict and Cooperation 367

Bolte JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, Smith C (2007) Klaphake A (2005) Economic and political benefits of
Modeling biocomplexity–actors, landscapes and alter- transboundary water cooperation. In: Proceedings of
native futures. Environ Model Softw 22(5):570–579 the IHP-HWRP, the value of water–different
Cascão AE, Zeitoun M (2010) Power, hegemony and approaches in transboundary water management.
critical hydropolitics. In: Transboundary water man- Proceedings of the International Workshop, Koblenz,
agement: principles and practice. Earthscan, London, pp 91–99
pp 27–42 Lasswell HD (1936) Politics: who gets what, when, how.
Daclon CM (2007) Geopolitics of environment. A wider P. Smith, New York
approach to the global challenges. Comunità Lonergan S, Gustavson K, Carter B (2000) The index of
Internazionale 62(4):681–692 human insecurity. Aviso 6:1–11
Dinar S (2002) Water, security, conflict, and cooperation. Loucks DP (1997) Quantifying trends in system
SAIS Rev 22(2):229–253 sustainability. Hydrol Sci J 42(4):513–530
Dombrowsky, I (2009a) Benefit sharing in transboundary Nicol A, van Steenbergen F, Sunman H, Turton A,
water management through intra-water sector issue Slaymaker T, Allan JA, de Graaf M, van Harten M
linkage. In: Conference report: On the water front: (2001) Transboundary water management as an inter-
selections from the 2009 World Water Week in national public good. Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Stockholm, SIWI. pp 25–31 Sweden
Dombrowsky I (2009b) Revisiting the potential for Rai SP, Young W (2015) Freshwater conflict and cooper-
benefit sharing in the management of trans-boundary ation in South Asia. World Bank, Delhi
rivers. Water Policy 11(2):125–140 Rai SP, Sharma N, Lohani A (2014) Risk assessment for
Draper SE (2002) Model water sharing agreements for the transboundary rivers using fuzzy synthetic evaluation
twenty-first century. ASCE Publications, Reston, technique. J Hydrol 519:1551–1559
p 166 Remans W (1995) Water and war. Humantäres
Elhance AP (1999) Hydropolitics in the third world: con- V€olkerrecht 8(1):1–14
flict and cooperation in international river basins. US Rogers P (1993) The value of cooperation in resolving
Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC international river basin disputes. In Proceedings of
Frey FW (1993) The political context of conflict and the natural resources forum. Wiley Online Library,
cooperation over international river basins. Water Int pp 117–131
18(1):54–68 Sadoff CW, Grey D (2002) Beyond the river: the benefits
Giordano MA, Wolf AT (2003) Sharing waters: Post‐Rio of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy
international water management. Nat Res Forum 4(5):389–403
27(2):163–171 Sadoff CW, Grey D (2005) Cooperation on international
Gleick PH (1993) Water and conflict: fresh water rivers: a continuum for securing and sharing benefits.
resources and international security. Int Secur Water Int 30(4):420–427
18(1):79–112 Saleth RM, Dinar A (2000) Institutional changes in global
Gunderson LH, Pritchard L (2002) Resilience and the water sector: trends, patterns, and implications. Water
behavior of large-scale systems. Island Press, Policy 2(3):175–199
Washington, DC Saleth RM, Dinar A (2004) The institutional economics of
Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME (2010) Global water crisis and water: a cross-country analysis of institutions and
future food security in an era of climate change. Food performance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Policy 35(5):365–377 Sandoval-Solis S, McKinney DC, Loucks DP (2010)
Homer-Dixon T (1994) Environmental scarcities and Sustainability index for water resources planning
violent conflict: evidence from cases. Int Secur and management. J Water Resour Plan Manag
19(1):5–40 137(5):381–390
Hughes Butts K (1997) The strategic importance of water. Schulz M (1995) Turkey, Syria and Iraq: a hydropolitical
Parameters 27:65–83 security complex. In Hydropolitics: conflicts over
IUCN (1980) World conservation strategy: living water as a development constraint. Zed Books,
resource conservation for sustainable development. London. pp 91–122
World Conservation Union, United Nations Environ- Sengo DJ, Kachapila A, van der Zaag P, Mul M, Nkomo S
ment Programme, Word Wide Fund for Nature, Gland (2005) Valuing environmental water pulses into the
Jägerskog A, Granit J, Risberg A, Yu W (2007) Incomati estuary: key to achieving equitable and sus-
Transboundary water management as a regional tainable utilisation of transboundary waters. Phys
public good. Financing development–an example Chem Earth A/B/C 30(11):648–657
from the Nile Basin (No. 363.61 T772t). Cambridge TFDD (2012) International river basin register. In College
University Press, Cambridge of earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences. Oregon
James P (2015) Urban sustainability in theory and prac- State University, Corvallis, USA
tice: circles of sustainability. Routledge, London Turner B (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing
Johansson RC, Tsur Y, Roe TL, Doukkali R, Dinar A or paralleling approaches for sustainability science?
(2002) Pricing irrigation water: a review of theory and Glob Environ Chang 20(4):570–576
practice. Water Policy 4(2):173–199
368 S.P. Rai et al.

Turton A, Henwood R (2002) Hydropolitics in the devel- Zeitoun M, Warner J (2006) Hydro-hegemony-a frame-
oping world: a Southern African perspective. IWMI, work for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts.
Pretoria Water Policy 8(5):435–460
UNESCO (2015) Water for a sustainable world. The
United Nations World Water Development Report.
UNESCO Publishing/Earthscan, 2015 Subash Prasad Rai
Vogel C, O’Brien K (2004) Vulnerability and global envi- Department of Water
ronmental change: rhetoric and reality. Aviso 13:1–8 Resources Development
Wada Y, Bierkens MF (2014) Sustainability of global and Management, Indian
water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Institute of Technology
Environ Res Lett 9(10):104003 Roorkee, Roorkee,
Waterbury J (1979) Hydropolitics of the Nile Valley. Uttrakhand, India
Syracuse University Press, New York. ISBN 0815621922
Wced BC (1987) Our common future. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Westing AH (1986) Global resources and international
conflict: environmental factors in strategic policy and
action. Oxford University Press, Oxford Aaron T. Wolf Depart-
Whittington D, Wu X, Sadoff C (2005) Water resources ment of Geosciences,
management in the Nile basin: the economic value of CEOAS, Oregon State Uni-
cooperation. Water Policy 7(3):227–252 versity, Corvallis, OR,
Wolf AT (1995) Hydropolitics along the Jordan River; USA
scarce water and its impact on the Arab-Israeli con-
flict. United Nations University Press, New York
Wolf AT (1998) Conflict and cooperation along interna-
tional waterways. Water Policy 1(2):251–265
Wolf AT (1999) The transboundary freshwater dispute
database project. Water Int 24(2):160–163
Wolf AT (2002) Conflict prevention and resolution in
water systems. In: Howe CW (ed) The management
of water resources series. Edward Elgar Publishing
Ltd, Cheltenham Nayan Sharma Depart-
Wolf A (2006) Hydropolitical vulnerability and resilience ment of Water Resources
along international waters (five volumes: Africa, Latin Development and Manage-
America, North America, Asia, Europe). UN Environ- ment, Indian Institute of
ment Programme, Nairobi, p 2007 Technology Roorkee,
Wolf AT, Natharius JA, Danielson JJ, Ward BS, Pender Roorkee, Uttrakhand, India
JK (1999) International river basins of the world. Int
J Water Resour Dev 15(4):387–427
Wolf AT, Yoffe SB, Giordano M (2003) International
waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy 5(1):
29–60
Wolf AT, Kramer A, Carius A, Dabelko GD (2005) Manag-
ing water conflict and cooperation. In: State of the World
2005: redefining global security. The Worldwatch Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, pp 80–95 Harinarayan Tiwari De-
World Economic Forum (2015) Global Risk 2015. partment of Water
Geneva: World Economic Forum Resources Development
Yoffe S, Larson K (2002) Basins at risk: water event and Management, Indian
database methodology. In: Yoffe SB (ed) Basins at Institute of Technology
risk: conflict and cooperation over international fresh- Roorkee, Roorkee,
water resources. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Uttrakhand, India
USA
Zadeh LA (1968) Fuzzy algorithms. Inf Control
12(2):94–102