Hey guys,
I just found a very interesting video about the Nile and the whole water conflict. It is a 10 min video, so just have a look! In my opinion, it explains the situation pretty good and it is based on scientific research (at least that is what they pretend). So, maybe there also some interesting and new facts for you and you can increase your knowledge about this issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioQoI76f804
Friday 16 December 2016
Sunday 11 December 2016
Case study: Burkina Faso
Hey guys,
after introducing you to different aspects about this whole topic, I would like to focus on a case study from Burkina Faso. It is about a dam, which has been built in the 1990's, and I want to link it to some of my earlier posts.
The Moussodougou dam (also known as Comoé dam) is a dam on the Comoé river in Moussodougou, Burkina Faso. The dam was built in 1991 and has a capacity of 35,000,000 cubic metres (BAZIN et al. 2011:68). Many different groups used the water of the river before the dam was built and the largest ones were the SN-SOSUCO (sugar production), rice growers, market gardeners, and fruit tree owners. 46 per cent of the sugar consumed in Burkina Faso is nowadays produced in this area, so it is (and was) a very important economic region for Burkina Faso (BAZIN et al. 2011: 68). But there were already some problems even before the dam was built. Due to the production of sugar and the power of SN-SOSUCO, many farmers lost their farmland during the early 1970's. SN-SOSUCO was established in 1965 and nowadays it is the second largest employer after the state in Burkina Faso (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 702).
The main reason for the construction of the dam was the economic power of SN-SOSUCO. They wanted to regulate the water flow so that they can increase their production (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70). After the dam was built, the state handed the control over the dam over to SN-SOSUCO and from then on they were responsible for ensuring its maintenance and supervision. The costs for maintenance and so on are actually paid by the state. So, a good deal for SN-SOSUCO (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70).
SN-SOSUCO is, of course, the largest consumer of water from the dam. But for other user groups there have not been an increase in production. The impact on agricultural production is very limited, as there is too less water for irrigation during the dry season (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70). But of course, the dam caused changes in everyday life of the users and thus the number of conflicts in this area increased after the dam was built. The main problem is that conflicts between arable and livestock farmers increased. The livestock farmers use the reservoir as a water source for their cattle but unfortunately there are only a few access routes thus they often cross areas in which arable farmers are growing their products (BAZIN et al. 2011: 72). Of course those conflicts are not very gratifying but as I have shown you before, conflicts on the local level are often solved by local mechanisms or communities. And that is also the case for those conflicts.
Another issue is the relationship between different users of the dam and SN-SOSUCO. As SN-SOSUCO mainly uses the dam for its own purposes, the company is (of course) not really interested in concerns of other users. In 2006 for example, SN-SOSUCO refused to release water out of the dam during the dry season (because the water level was too low) and consequently many farmers lost their harvests. There have also been protest marches in 2008, where farmers tried to show their anger about the water management of SN-SOSUCO (BAZIN et al. 2011: 72).
But the dam also brought some new economic activities and fishing got more and more important in this region (BAZIN et al. 2011: 74). The reservoir is well suited for fishing but so far, this economic activity is monopolised by a small group of people (BAZIN et al. 2011; 75).
As I said in the beginning, I would like to link this case study to some other posts I made so far. Many of you may have recognised the issue about the conflict between arable and livestock farmers. That is a good example for how conflicts are solved on the local level. Often, people know each other and they do not really want to have any trouble, although they also want their idea of living to become true. But local mechanisms, as I have showed earlier, are often very purposeful especially when both parties really depend on a useful outcome.
Another point, which I would like to link to earlier posts is the case about the CLE (Comité Local de l’Eau de la Haute Comoé) (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 706; BAZIN et al. 2011: 76). The CLE is a local water committee and was formed in March 2008. Its main goal is to coordinate water use between the different groups and it is welcomed by most of the water users (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 706). SN-SOSUCO used to make all decisions about the dam on its own and of course, they only focused on their own purposes. The CLE as an official institution tries to pay attention to all water users and each group is represented in the committee (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 707). Unfortunately, the number of representatives differs from group to group and depends on social recognition, and the legitimacy and priority of the claims of single groups. As a result, the fishermen for example only have on representative and it can be doubted that their interests are heard in an appropriate way (although the author does not say how many representatives there are in total) (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 707).
To conclude, this case study shows some interesting points which I have already shown you before in a more theoretical way. Conflicts can have many different faces and sometimes it is a conflcit between local groups, and sometimes it is one between local groups and industries. The establishment of committees (no matter on which scale) is always a good way for paying attention to all users/stakeholders and this way of managing the situation can bring the best result. But there have to be committees or organisations like the CLE, otherwise there will not be a satisfying solution.
after introducing you to different aspects about this whole topic, I would like to focus on a case study from Burkina Faso. It is about a dam, which has been built in the 1990's, and I want to link it to some of my earlier posts.
The Moussodougou dam (also known as Comoé dam) is a dam on the Comoé river in Moussodougou, Burkina Faso. The dam was built in 1991 and has a capacity of 35,000,000 cubic metres (BAZIN et al. 2011:68). Many different groups used the water of the river before the dam was built and the largest ones were the SN-SOSUCO (sugar production), rice growers, market gardeners, and fruit tree owners. 46 per cent of the sugar consumed in Burkina Faso is nowadays produced in this area, so it is (and was) a very important economic region for Burkina Faso (BAZIN et al. 2011: 68). But there were already some problems even before the dam was built. Due to the production of sugar and the power of SN-SOSUCO, many farmers lost their farmland during the early 1970's. SN-SOSUCO was established in 1965 and nowadays it is the second largest employer after the state in Burkina Faso (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 702).
 |
| study area (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 697) |
The main reason for the construction of the dam was the economic power of SN-SOSUCO. They wanted to regulate the water flow so that they can increase their production (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70). After the dam was built, the state handed the control over the dam over to SN-SOSUCO and from then on they were responsible for ensuring its maintenance and supervision. The costs for maintenance and so on are actually paid by the state. So, a good deal for SN-SOSUCO (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70).
SN-SOSUCO is, of course, the largest consumer of water from the dam. But for other user groups there have not been an increase in production. The impact on agricultural production is very limited, as there is too less water for irrigation during the dry season (BAZIN et al. 2011: 70). But of course, the dam caused changes in everyday life of the users and thus the number of conflicts in this area increased after the dam was built. The main problem is that conflicts between arable and livestock farmers increased. The livestock farmers use the reservoir as a water source for their cattle but unfortunately there are only a few access routes thus they often cross areas in which arable farmers are growing their products (BAZIN et al. 2011: 72). Of course those conflicts are not very gratifying but as I have shown you before, conflicts on the local level are often solved by local mechanisms or communities. And that is also the case for those conflicts.
Another issue is the relationship between different users of the dam and SN-SOSUCO. As SN-SOSUCO mainly uses the dam for its own purposes, the company is (of course) not really interested in concerns of other users. In 2006 for example, SN-SOSUCO refused to release water out of the dam during the dry season (because the water level was too low) and consequently many farmers lost their harvests. There have also been protest marches in 2008, where farmers tried to show their anger about the water management of SN-SOSUCO (BAZIN et al. 2011: 72).
But the dam also brought some new economic activities and fishing got more and more important in this region (BAZIN et al. 2011: 74). The reservoir is well suited for fishing but so far, this economic activity is monopolised by a small group of people (BAZIN et al. 2011; 75).
As I said in the beginning, I would like to link this case study to some other posts I made so far. Many of you may have recognised the issue about the conflict between arable and livestock farmers. That is a good example for how conflicts are solved on the local level. Often, people know each other and they do not really want to have any trouble, although they also want their idea of living to become true. But local mechanisms, as I have showed earlier, are often very purposeful especially when both parties really depend on a useful outcome.
Another point, which I would like to link to earlier posts is the case about the CLE (Comité Local de l’Eau de la Haute Comoé) (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 706; BAZIN et al. 2011: 76). The CLE is a local water committee and was formed in March 2008. Its main goal is to coordinate water use between the different groups and it is welcomed by most of the water users (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 706). SN-SOSUCO used to make all decisions about the dam on its own and of course, they only focused on their own purposes. The CLE as an official institution tries to pay attention to all water users and each group is represented in the committee (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 707). Unfortunately, the number of representatives differs from group to group and depends on social recognition, and the legitimacy and priority of the claims of single groups. As a result, the fishermen for example only have on representative and it can be doubted that their interests are heard in an appropriate way (although the author does not say how many representatives there are in total) (RONCOLI et al. 2009: 707).
To conclude, this case study shows some interesting points which I have already shown you before in a more theoretical way. Conflicts can have many different faces and sometimes it is a conflcit between local groups, and sometimes it is one between local groups and industries. The establishment of committees (no matter on which scale) is always a good way for paying attention to all users/stakeholders and this way of managing the situation can bring the best result. But there have to be committees or organisations like the CLE, otherwise there will not be a satisfying solution.
Wednesday 7 December 2016
Transboundary cooperation for preventing conflicts
Hey guys,
with my last post I tried to highlight the importance of transboundary co-operation when it comes to water resources management. As I have shown, the situation in Southern Africa is very complex and complex problems often need complex solutions. I already mentioned the SADC (Southern African Development Community) and in this post, I would like to dig a bit deeper and show you guys how the framework of such a co-operation looks like. Therefore, I read two articles, one about the SADC and one about the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI).
As I already mentioned in the last post, the SADC consists of many states in Southern Africa and they try to co-operate in many different areas. Their framework for regional co-operation in integrated water resources management is already really strong and they try to include many different issues into their framework as they want to solve the "water problem" in a holistic way (KANIARU 2015: 387). The different nation states signed the first protocol on shared watercourse systems on the 23rd of August 1995 but revised it a couple of times because the original versions had multiple shortcomings. Another reason why the changed it, is that the international water law changed over years and developed further, which resulted out of the United Nations convention in 1997 (KANIARU 2015: 387). The main objective of the SADC is a closer co-operation for a sustainable and co-ordinated water management, and the protection and utilisation of shared watercourses (KANIARU 2015:388). The foundation for their co-operation is that all states are equal, and that they share the values of solidarity, peace, and security (KANIARU 2015: 389). If there are any disputes, a central authority will try to solve those. The member states also introduced many different instruments with which they try to reach their goals. The most important ones are a regional water policy, harmonisation of legal and regulatory framework for water management, and different programmes which should provide the opportunity for training and capacity building in integrated water resources management (KANIARU 2015: 389). But of course, there are many different challenges which the community has to face (KANIARU 2015: 391). The most important one is that the states did not really decide to work together because they wanted to but the nature just forced them to work together. If we compare this to the European Union (EU) the problems become obvious. At first, I do not want to say that everything is fine in the EU (of course it is not). But the case is that different states decided to work together because they share the same values (more or less) and have the same goals so they decided (on their own) to join the EU because they just wanted it. The case for the SADC is a bit different. The states were just forced to co-operate because otherwise they would have faced even bigger challenges. But there are many different legal systems, economic and developmental situations, and different colonial heritages as well. So, one big challenge, before you even start working, is to reach an agreement on your co-operation and what the co-operation should look like. Another challenge is the lack of adequate financial support, and human resources which is of course a big problem for transboundary cooperation.
To present this topic in a more comprehensive way to you, I would like to present another co-operation scheme in Africa. The NBI consists of ten different states (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda) and was founded due to a proposal for more co-operation in the area of water management in 1992 (BELAY et al. 2010: 8). The main goals of this organisation are to develop water resources of the Nile Basin in a more sustainable and equitable way, to ensure prosperity, security, and peace, to ensure efficient water managememt, and to tackle poverty and promote economic integration (BELAY et al. 2010: 9). The governments of the different member states developed a strategic action program which includes various thematic projects (environment, water, social economic development, confidence building, regional power trade, agriculture, applied training) (BELAY et al. 2010: 10). Of course, the NBI also faces a lot of different challenges which are for example a lack of coordination between/with other regional institutions, the World bank participation or the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929 (BELAY 2010: 13). The participation of the World bank is in so far problematic, as their measures are often very unsuccessful and not very popular especially in very poor countries. Unfortunately, six out of the ten poorest countries in the world are member states of the NBI (BELAY 2010:13). As a result, the participation of the World bank is often seen as a problem and not really as a solution. Another problem which I just mentioned is the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929. To say it in a nutshell: this treaty was made during the time of colonisation and gave Egypt a lot of power when it comes to the distribution of the water of the Nile (BELAY 2010: 13, CASCAO 2009:245). Of course, this is not a fruitful foundation for a successful co-operation.
When we compare the two different co-operation schemes we have to consider one very important point: the NBI is not a recognized river basin organisation (RBO) (BELAY 2010: 14). That is a very important fact because it basically means, that all the nice goals for the co-operation of the countries are not binding. All of their goals and main objectives sound like they could solve all of their problems in three weeks time but the different countries are not really forced to follow those. And as I already showed you with one of my blog posts (the one about the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia) conflicts can still take place even though they are all members of one co-operation project. A real binding framework is needed with a central authority which is able to solve conflicts even before they are expanding. Otherwise you only have a nice looking fancy transboundary co-operation without any impact on the real problem...
with my last post I tried to highlight the importance of transboundary co-operation when it comes to water resources management. As I have shown, the situation in Southern Africa is very complex and complex problems often need complex solutions. I already mentioned the SADC (Southern African Development Community) and in this post, I would like to dig a bit deeper and show you guys how the framework of such a co-operation looks like. Therefore, I read two articles, one about the SADC and one about the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI).
As I already mentioned in the last post, the SADC consists of many states in Southern Africa and they try to co-operate in many different areas. Their framework for regional co-operation in integrated water resources management is already really strong and they try to include many different issues into their framework as they want to solve the "water problem" in a holistic way (KANIARU 2015: 387). The different nation states signed the first protocol on shared watercourse systems on the 23rd of August 1995 but revised it a couple of times because the original versions had multiple shortcomings. Another reason why the changed it, is that the international water law changed over years and developed further, which resulted out of the United Nations convention in 1997 (KANIARU 2015: 387). The main objective of the SADC is a closer co-operation for a sustainable and co-ordinated water management, and the protection and utilisation of shared watercourses (KANIARU 2015:388). The foundation for their co-operation is that all states are equal, and that they share the values of solidarity, peace, and security (KANIARU 2015: 389). If there are any disputes, a central authority will try to solve those. The member states also introduced many different instruments with which they try to reach their goals. The most important ones are a regional water policy, harmonisation of legal and regulatory framework for water management, and different programmes which should provide the opportunity for training and capacity building in integrated water resources management (KANIARU 2015: 389). But of course, there are many different challenges which the community has to face (KANIARU 2015: 391). The most important one is that the states did not really decide to work together because they wanted to but the nature just forced them to work together. If we compare this to the European Union (EU) the problems become obvious. At first, I do not want to say that everything is fine in the EU (of course it is not). But the case is that different states decided to work together because they share the same values (more or less) and have the same goals so they decided (on their own) to join the EU because they just wanted it. The case for the SADC is a bit different. The states were just forced to co-operate because otherwise they would have faced even bigger challenges. But there are many different legal systems, economic and developmental situations, and different colonial heritages as well. So, one big challenge, before you even start working, is to reach an agreement on your co-operation and what the co-operation should look like. Another challenge is the lack of adequate financial support, and human resources which is of course a big problem for transboundary cooperation.
To present this topic in a more comprehensive way to you, I would like to present another co-operation scheme in Africa. The NBI consists of ten different states (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda) and was founded due to a proposal for more co-operation in the area of water management in 1992 (BELAY et al. 2010: 8). The main goals of this organisation are to develop water resources of the Nile Basin in a more sustainable and equitable way, to ensure prosperity, security, and peace, to ensure efficient water managememt, and to tackle poverty and promote economic integration (BELAY et al. 2010: 9). The governments of the different member states developed a strategic action program which includes various thematic projects (environment, water, social economic development, confidence building, regional power trade, agriculture, applied training) (BELAY et al. 2010: 10). Of course, the NBI also faces a lot of different challenges which are for example a lack of coordination between/with other regional institutions, the World bank participation or the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929 (BELAY 2010: 13). The participation of the World bank is in so far problematic, as their measures are often very unsuccessful and not very popular especially in very poor countries. Unfortunately, six out of the ten poorest countries in the world are member states of the NBI (BELAY 2010:13). As a result, the participation of the World bank is often seen as a problem and not really as a solution. Another problem which I just mentioned is the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929. To say it in a nutshell: this treaty was made during the time of colonisation and gave Egypt a lot of power when it comes to the distribution of the water of the Nile (BELAY 2010: 13, CASCAO 2009:245). Of course, this is not a fruitful foundation for a successful co-operation.
 |
| Member states of SADC (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdafrikanische_Entwicklungsgemeinschaft#/media/File:SADC-Staaten.png) |
When we compare the two different co-operation schemes we have to consider one very important point: the NBI is not a recognized river basin organisation (RBO) (BELAY 2010: 14). That is a very important fact because it basically means, that all the nice goals for the co-operation of the countries are not binding. All of their goals and main objectives sound like they could solve all of their problems in three weeks time but the different countries are not really forced to follow those. And as I already showed you with one of my blog posts (the one about the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia) conflicts can still take place even though they are all members of one co-operation project. A real binding framework is needed with a central authority which is able to solve conflicts even before they are expanding. Otherwise you only have a nice looking fancy transboundary co-operation without any impact on the real problem...
Saturday 3 December 2016
International cooperation
Hey guys,
with this post I want to highlight the importance of international cooperation when it comes to possible conflicts about water. Therefore, I read three articles which show (partly) different opinions on this topic.
All of them focus on transboundary river basins and possible conflicts about the water use. Swatuk for example argues that there is in general more will for cooperation between two or more countries than a will for a conflict when it comes to the use of water (SWATUK 2015:215). As an example he uses the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which consists of 15 member states in Southern Africa. He makes clear that this part of the world has, like many other parts of the world as well, a long history of different conflicts (SWATUK 2015:217). The main reasons for conflicts in this area have been questions about land tenure and resources. Nowadays, the Southern African states share 15 river basins and six of them were labeled as basins which are potential objects of conflicts in 2003 (Cunene, Inkomati, Limpopo, Orange-Sengu, Okavango, Zambezi, according to the World Bank: global hotspots) (SWATUK 2015:218). So far, there have not been a conflict about any of these.
In contrast to this example, the author's main argument is that states with endemic water scarcity are more likely to cooperate with other states than to have a conflict with them (SWATUK 2015:218). Reasons for this are that it is in general the best solution for the future of a country but also that many different actors are involved in water management and therefore a dominance of regional cooperation exists (SWATUK 2015:218. The author also kind of criticizes that there is always this standard argument that you do not know what will happen in the future and there could be conflicts about water (SWATUK 2015:220). In his opinion cooperation will be the solution also in future time as there is no other useful solution. In this context he also claims that not all peaceful relationships are good relationships and not all conflictful relationships are bad relationships in general.
Some additional information about this topic can be found in an article written by Turton et al. At first, they indicate the international river basins as a consequence of the colonial legacy (TURTON et al 2006:22). They also offer some very interesting and impressive data about that. There are 263 known international river basins in the world and 63 of them are in Africa. These river basins (the ones in Africa) cover two-thirds of the total African land area and they are home to three-quarters of the entire African population. In total, they provide 93% of surface water resources on the continent (TURTON et al. 2006:23). These impressive statistics show how important water management is. And they also show the difference between the two articles. While Swatuk mainly focuses on cooperation and states that everything will be solved with international cooperation, Turton et al. try to highlight the importance of the water problem of the African continent. That does not mean that they want to say that there will be conflicts in future time, but they say that there is the possibility of conflicts and a holistic water management, and international cooperation is needed to prevent them. They also claim that cooperation between states is the best solution for regions with endemic water scarcity but at the same time they argue that the cooperations made so far are not enough. Most of them only focus on surface water and only a few also include groundwater (TURTON et al. 2006:29).
Kaniaru gives another insight into this topic. She shows the interdependence between the different countries very well and thus she adds another dimension to this issue. She argues, that South Africa is responsible for 80% of Southern African water use, but at the same time the country is home to one-third of the region's population only, and has only about 10% of the total water resources of Southern Africa (KANIARU 2015:383). Another interesting point is that four countries (of SADC; Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe) have already reached the maximum of their available water resources. In addition to this, many countries heavily rely on river basins in other countries. For example, 94% of river flows in Botswana originate in other countries. An interesting example from Zimbabwe shows that surface water is the most important source of the country's water supply (90% of water supply come from surface water)(KANIARU 2015:383).
If we link the three different articles there are some interesting results. All of them agree that cooperation about water use is the best solution for everyone. That has been the case in the past and it will probably be the case in future times. But especially the last article, which I just introduced to you, shows how complicated the interdependences are and that there is a lot of potential for conflicts (SWATUK would now say that is the standard argument). But the statistics Kaniaru offers, show how important the work, which countries and NGO's are doing, is and that a lot of will to cooperation will be needed in future times.
In my next post I will focus on some more of the consequences of these facts and will also give you some more historical context about cooperation and so on.
Feel free to comment!
with this post I want to highlight the importance of international cooperation when it comes to possible conflicts about water. Therefore, I read three articles which show (partly) different opinions on this topic.
All of them focus on transboundary river basins and possible conflicts about the water use. Swatuk for example argues that there is in general more will for cooperation between two or more countries than a will for a conflict when it comes to the use of water (SWATUK 2015:215). As an example he uses the Southern African Development Community (SADC) which consists of 15 member states in Southern Africa. He makes clear that this part of the world has, like many other parts of the world as well, a long history of different conflicts (SWATUK 2015:217). The main reasons for conflicts in this area have been questions about land tenure and resources. Nowadays, the Southern African states share 15 river basins and six of them were labeled as basins which are potential objects of conflicts in 2003 (Cunene, Inkomati, Limpopo, Orange-Sengu, Okavango, Zambezi, according to the World Bank: global hotspots) (SWATUK 2015:218). So far, there have not been a conflict about any of these.
In contrast to this example, the author's main argument is that states with endemic water scarcity are more likely to cooperate with other states than to have a conflict with them (SWATUK 2015:218). Reasons for this are that it is in general the best solution for the future of a country but also that many different actors are involved in water management and therefore a dominance of regional cooperation exists (SWATUK 2015:218. The author also kind of criticizes that there is always this standard argument that you do not know what will happen in the future and there could be conflicts about water (SWATUK 2015:220). In his opinion cooperation will be the solution also in future time as there is no other useful solution. In this context he also claims that not all peaceful relationships are good relationships and not all conflictful relationships are bad relationships in general.
Some additional information about this topic can be found in an article written by Turton et al. At first, they indicate the international river basins as a consequence of the colonial legacy (TURTON et al 2006:22). They also offer some very interesting and impressive data about that. There are 263 known international river basins in the world and 63 of them are in Africa. These river basins (the ones in Africa) cover two-thirds of the total African land area and they are home to three-quarters of the entire African population. In total, they provide 93% of surface water resources on the continent (TURTON et al. 2006:23). These impressive statistics show how important water management is. And they also show the difference between the two articles. While Swatuk mainly focuses on cooperation and states that everything will be solved with international cooperation, Turton et al. try to highlight the importance of the water problem of the African continent. That does not mean that they want to say that there will be conflicts in future time, but they say that there is the possibility of conflicts and a holistic water management, and international cooperation is needed to prevent them. They also claim that cooperation between states is the best solution for regions with endemic water scarcity but at the same time they argue that the cooperations made so far are not enough. Most of them only focus on surface water and only a few also include groundwater (TURTON et al. 2006:29).
Kaniaru gives another insight into this topic. She shows the interdependence between the different countries very well and thus she adds another dimension to this issue. She argues, that South Africa is responsible for 80% of Southern African water use, but at the same time the country is home to one-third of the region's population only, and has only about 10% of the total water resources of Southern Africa (KANIARU 2015:383). Another interesting point is that four countries (of SADC; Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe) have already reached the maximum of their available water resources. In addition to this, many countries heavily rely on river basins in other countries. For example, 94% of river flows in Botswana originate in other countries. An interesting example from Zimbabwe shows that surface water is the most important source of the country's water supply (90% of water supply come from surface water)(KANIARU 2015:383).
If we link the three different articles there are some interesting results. All of them agree that cooperation about water use is the best solution for everyone. That has been the case in the past and it will probably be the case in future times. But especially the last article, which I just introduced to you, shows how complicated the interdependences are and that there is a lot of potential for conflicts (SWATUK would now say that is the standard argument). But the statistics Kaniaru offers, show how important the work, which countries and NGO's are doing, is and that a lot of will to cooperation will be needed in future times.
In my next post I will focus on some more of the consequences of these facts and will also give you some more historical context about cooperation and so on.
Feel free to comment!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)