Transition: Rainfall variability, violence, solutions

After my last post, I wanted to focus on water conflicts and how it is possible to solve them. During my literature search I found an interesting article which kind of connects the different topics I already talked about and topics I want to talk about in upcoming posts. The article is called “Rainfall variability and violence in rural Kenya: investigating the effects of drought and the role of local institutions with survey data” (article) and tries to link multiple questions about this topic. Linke et al. investigate the connection between droughts and conflicts but they also explore the role of local and national institutions within these conflicts and how successful they are with their measures. Therefore, the article offers a perfect transition to the question how water conflicts can be solved.

Linke et al. choose a different approach (different from the one I presented in my first post) and so they include different determinants for identifying the relationship between water scarcity and conflicts. They know about the complex relationship and so they interviewed 504 individuals in three rural Kenyan counties. So in contrast to the research which I presented to you in my first post, they do not (primarily) use statistics and geospatial data for their research. They interviewed individuals from many different social (pastoralists, agricultural groups) and ethnic (Kikuyu (post 2), Kalenjin, Luo) groups from different ecological areas in Kenya. Linke et al. chose Kenya for their research because it is a political stable country and thus there are not too many conflicts which could affect the outcome of their interviews. Furthermore, Kenya is a country with many different environmental zones and different ethnic groups which will offer many different opinions about that topic and thus a more or less representative result (Linke et al. 2015:39).

The main goal of Linke et al. is to offer some new approaches to the existing research about this issue. On the one hand, they want to offer an approach which connects the individual and household level with large samples and on the other hand they want to show that the link between climate change and violence takes place in certain social contexts (Linke et al. 2015:37).

To do their research, Linke et al. make three propositions for their research (Linke et al. 2015:39):

-          They say, that where droughts are more often, support for use of violence will be higher than in other regions where drought are less frequent

-          They say, that governments regulating the use of natural resources will reduce support for use of violence

-          They say, that the presence of intercommunity dialogues can reduce the support for use of violence

During their interviews, they used standard question which are also used for the Afrobarometer survey. They also tried to explain their research very detailed so that interviewed persons are hopefully more honest and not too much influenced by social desirability. They then created different models and also added different determinants like age, education, and gender because all of them can affect the outcome of the research.

Their results are clearly. They find no support for their propositions 1 and 2. That means that people think there is no support for use of violence during droughts and they also think that governments do not have an impact on reducing the support for use of violence.

But Linke et al. make clear that proposition 3 can be seen as true. Many interviewed persons said that community dialogues are very important when it comes to managing conflicts during a drought. Consequently, this informal “institution” is more purposeful than any government institution. According to Linke et al. that is the case because local dialogues are more flexible and adaptive to changing circumstances and consequently more useful for solving problems (Linke et al. 2015:42).

But what are the consequences of these findings?

First, this case study shows that many people in Kenya obviously have the feeling that the government does not have many measures for solving water conflicts. Even though it might not be true, people (in this case) trust more in their local dialogues than in their government. These local dialogues might work in many (maybe most) cases but it is still necessary that governments also take their responsibility in local conflicts.

For this, they need more flexible institutions which know local patterns and which can deal with different ethnic and social groups. In many cases, you can trust in self-responsibility of communities but not always and therefore you need measures which can help to reduce the risk of an outbreak of a conflict.

This research and its results also show that water conflicts are still not really seen as such a big problem nowadays and for the future. Of course, many different problems can lead to a conflict but water can be one of these problems thus a holistic solution for this whole problem is needed. Otherwise governments and nation states will face even more problems in future time. If governments are not able to provide a sufficient solution for the distribution of water (and other resources) more and more conflicts will be the result. Of course this is a huge job but it has to be done now...

As always: Feel free to comment on my post and ask questions!

Somali civil war and its water dimension

After explaining the relationship between water shortages and violent conflicts and showing different scales in which these conflicts can take place, I want to go a bit into detail and highlight one specific conflict to show the importance of water once again. With this post, I would like to emphasize the interconnections of different dimensions within a conflict.

But, no worries guys, this post will be the last one in which I talk about just one single conflict. In the upcoming blog entries I will focus on other questions.

The conflict which I want to use to show you the complexities of the whole topic is the civil war in Somalia (Some background information). It is (unfortunately) a well-known one because it (unfortunately again) already has a long history with a lot of horrible incidents which happened during this time. The media around the world are reporting a lot about this conflict and as a result they give an insight into the different dimensions of this war. But often, they only focus on the very spectacular topics like Islamism or Pirates but they leave out a lot of other dimensions.

The civil war grew out of conflicts during the early 1980’s and since then different parties are fighting each other in the East-African state. This conflict has a lot of different dimensions and there are a couple of reasons why it is still ongoing. The first reason is the clan system in the Somali society. The whole society is divided into different clans with different lifestyles and different opinions and claims. But the majority of these clans have one thing in common: They do not accept a centralized political power. And as a result, many of them do not accept the government and they have their own political organization. Of course, this leads to many conflicts between the different clans and conflicts between the clans and the state. As already mentioned, all clans have different plans for the development of Somalia (or single regions) and an agreement on single topics between different clans is hard to make.

Another issue of this conflict is Islamism. This topic is of increasing importance in Somalia, as many different groups are fighting for their islamistic ideas and objectives (for example Al-Shabaab or since 2015 the Islamic state).

Another point which is part of the complexity of this conflict are military interventions from other countries. Several countries took part in this conflict and intervened in it. One example for these countries is Ethiopia, which supported different groups in Somalia several times (e.g. 2007). Another example is the international community which also took part in this conflict (UN mission 1992-1995). All these interventions caused additional trouble and did not really solve the problem.

But finally, I want to get to the point we are all interested in: Water. As I already mentioned, the media often only reports about topics which are more or less easy to explain as well as horrible and spectacular (US drone strike, US airstrike). The question about water and land tenure is maybe less spectacular and sometimes not as obvious as attacks from Al-Shabaab or other different groups. But the whole conflict about water and land tenure is crucial when we want to have an end of the civil war in Somalia (National conflicts about water). The main problem is that different clans want to have land for their own usage and claim it as their own (MAYSTADT & ECKER 2014: 19). Of course, they do not want to have land which is not useful for their clan and as a result many different clans claim the same regions as their own property. The most wanted land is the region around the rivers Juba and Shabelle in the south of Somalia (Juba and Shabelle). Due to the rivers, it is a very fruitful region and as a result a good place to live in for many clans. But as I already explained there is a kind of strong rivalry between different clans and especially this very popular region is fought. Many small clans used to live in this region but due to the conflict and its dynamics the two biggest clans (Hawiye and Darod) moved into this region and started fighting against each other for reaching domination in this region (Clan politics). In consequence, many smaller clans moved away and many farmers who stayed in this region now work as a kind of slave for the bigger clans.

In conclusion, the Somali civil war is not just about political issues or economic issues but also about water. The water issue was not one of the trigger of this conflict but now it is a crucial part of it. And if you want to have an end of this war and a sustainable solution for this whole region, you have to solve this problem. Otherwise there will not be a peaceful end to this conflict.

As I mentioned in the beginning, in the upcoming posts I want to focus on some other aspects of this whole topic. Maybe I will tell you guys a bit about possible solutions for water conflicts. I do not just want to talk about solutions and their importance all the time but do not offer some.

As always, feel free to comment on my entry and share your opinion!

Differences between "large-scale" conflicts and "small-scale" conflicts

In my second entry I want to highlight the differences between large scale and small scale conflicts which deal with water. For that I will shortly present two different conflicts which took place in the last decade. With this entry, I also want to show very briefly (there will be another entry about this topic) that there are various reasons for a (water) conflict, and sometimes the issue of water distribution can be the trigger and sometimes it is the key issue of a conflict.

Very often a conflict results from many different problems and not just one. We should always take into consideration the different lifestyles of different social groups, the historical context, and the social and ethnic differences. All these variables can lead to an outbreak of a conflict. Very often, armed conflicts, which deal with water, only happen on the small scale, for example in villages or in general in just one single country. Water conflicts between two or more states often remain on the political or diplomatic stage. The reason for this is quite obvious. It is simply cheaper and easier to not have a war, than to have a war (Konflikte und Kooperationen). 

One example for this case is the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia. This conflict has already existed for many decades but it almost escalated in 2013. The main issue was that Ethiopia wanted to build a new dam (Renaissance dam) on the Nile (upstream). Of course, Egypt was afraid of this project because they feared to lose one of their most important resources. As a result of this, Egyptian politicians talked about blowing up the dam or the possible support of Ethiopian rebel groups which will fight against the government (Wasserkrieg). So, the whole atmosphere was very overheated and a solution for this big problem was necessary. But this conflict also shows another dimension. It was not just about the water and the dam but also about national policy. Both presidents (of Egypt and Ethiopia) pushed the conflict a little bit to show their population their strength and power. Especially the president of Ethiopia used this conflict to get more support from young people (Wasserkrieg). The solution of this conflict was a treaty which was negotiated by Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, which shares a border with both countries. Sudan decisively supported the negotiations and showed Egypt possible advantages of the new dam. After the negotiations, the Sudanese minister talked about “Hydro-diplomacy”, a term which will be maybe used more often in the future. This whole conflict shows what I just mentioned at the very beginning. Conflicts between two or more states are often solved by cross-border cooperation instead of armed conflicts (TU Berlin). (the picture shows the presidents of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, source: FAZ)

In contrast to this conflict I want to present a regional conflict between two ethnic groups in Kenya. Since 1992, there have been various conflicts between Maasai people and Kikuyu people. The Kikuyu people are the largest ethnic group in Kenya and the Maasai people are one of the most popular ethnic group in Africa. After the end of colonialization many different ethnic groups claimed various territories in Kenya as their own. The Maasai people and Kikuyu people, which usually have a more or less peaceful relation, also attacked each other to get more land. But it is not just a conflict about territory and the water which is in this territory, but also a fight about different lifestyles. The Maasai people are nomads and they sometimes attack other groups, which settled down at one place, because they think it is their territory. And this existing small conflict escalated in 2005. The Maasai people blamed the Kikuyu people to steal water from the Ewaso Kedong River (Rift Valley), which actually belongs to no one (TU Berlin). As a result of this, Kikuyu people attacked the leader of a regional Maasai village and unfortunately, they killed him. Of course, this attack led to riots and on the 22^nd of January in 2005, 400 Maasai warriors attacked a Kikuyu village for avenging their leader. They killed 15 people and more than 10 were injured (FAZ).

Since then, there has not been any conflict with such terrible consequences but of course this whole event led to huge social conflicts (WELT).

And as I already mentioned in the beginning these conflicts are not just about water but they are a mixture of different problems which can lead to a conflict. The two examples I just presented to you show that lifestyle, historical context, economic situation, politics, and social and ethnic conflicts also matter. And they also showed the difference between “small-scale” conflicts and “large-scale” conflicts. The conflicts between two states are often about diplomacy and negotiations whereas the conflicts in one country or a region often lead to riots.

As always, feel free to comment on my entry! If you have any criticism, ideas or thoughts about my text just share it!