Event Description
This session will challenge the conceptions that the international water community has of water conflict and cooperation. Too many have silently submitted to the notion that more equitable, sustainable and efficient transboundary water cooperation is not possible. As the methods by which the 'hydro-hegemon' dictates the rules of engagement in the basin are overlooked, will this prophecy become self-fulfilled? In its role as leader, the basin hegemon may facilitate the desired goal of 'effective cooperation'. As basin bully, it may pursue its interests unilaterally by strong arming less powerful states. Some of the resultant forms of asymmetric "cooperation" are actually quite unfair and ultimately perpetuate, not resolve, conflict. The speakers will identify some of the gaps between the intended and actual effects of programmes designed to encourage effective cooperation, and identify the optimal conditions for its creation. The importance of acknowledging the political nature of water resource allocation and management – notably power asymmetry – will be emphasised. Examples will come from the Middle East, South Asia, southern Africa and other transboundary contexts. In keeping with the spirit of open dialogue of the World Water Week, the London Water Research Group and the Universities Partnership for Transboundary Waters expect to spark an interesting and useful debate.

Event Summary and Conclusions
The session focused on the relationship between transboundary water cooperation and conflict, the underlying drivers of cooperation, and how we may better understand the processes of cooperation and conflict.

Numerous case studies from Asia, the Middle East and Africa revealed that cooperation and conflict should not be considered as being at opposing ends of a spectrum, and cannot be classified simply as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Conflict and cooperation co-exist in any case, and not all forms of cooperation have positive effects - some can serve to perpetuate asymmetric and harmful situations. Considering the perspective of the weaker parties (e.g. that of Palestinian farmers or Cambodian fisherman on the Jordan or Mekong rivers) offers great insight into the outcomes and process of cooperative arrangements (in this case determined by basin hegemons Israel and China). Analysis relevant to policy designed to encourage effective transboundary water management should therefore qualify what is understood as ‘cooperation’. It was furthermore emphasised that transboundary water relations be interpreted as interaction (not conflict or cooperation), and recognised existing power asymmetries that shape all institutional and governance arrangements.

It was found that states enter into cooperative arrangements for numerous reasons. The goals stated in official documents are often common to all signatories (e.g. development, peace), but it is commonplace to note hidden, agendas behind the decisions to cooperate (e.g. security, financing, or maintaining the status quo). Cases considered were the discussions leading to the 1994 Jordan-Israel treaty and the ongoing deliberations through the Nile Basin Initiative. Analysis of ‘cooperation’ is thus improved through an understanding of both the explicit and implicit goals of the different parties.

The internal and external factors that drive states to cooperate over transboundary waters were also discussed. Extreme weather events, for example, can drastically alter the form of interaction established. The decreasing water levels of Lake Victoria in the early 2000s created tension between Nile riparians, but eventually led to a cooperative study of the occurrence. The risks deriving from non-cooperation in this case drove the interaction, once the interests of the basin hegemon had been altered.

Key tools and approaches that can assist in enhancing effective cooperation and levelling the playing field between parties were identified. Legal mechanisms, such as the UN Watercourses Conventions and the 2008 Draft Groundwater Principles have the potential to enhance cooperation through depoliticising the dialogue between parties, offering conflict mediation mechanisms and establishing objective fair-sharing principles. Resistance to international water law, remains as strong but perhaps less coordinated than the movement promoting it. Another approach identified was that of addressing power asymmetry by strengthening and building the capacity of the weaker party, through educational or negotiations strategies. Such efforts, it was thought, begin to challenge the hegemon’s power over ideas to frame opportunities in the basin on the basis that the status quo (even if inequitable) cannot be improved.

The very engaged audience built on the presentations, offering examples of enduring conflict under the guise of cooperation in the Mekong, Nile and Tigris rivers, for example. There was a strong feeling that significant work remains to be done both in research and in policy, on the quest for effective cooperation on transboundary water.

Programme

Chairs: Dr. Anders Jägerskog, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Sweden, and Dr. Marwa Daoudy, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies (IDS), Switzerland