Climatic Change

, Volume 105, Issue 3–4, pp 387–408 | Cite as

The role of uncertainties in the design of international water treaties: an historical perspective

  • Alena Drieschova
  • Itay FischhendlerEmail author
  • Mark Giordano


Water is one natural resource whose management is especially susceptible to uncertainties, many of which are being exasperated by climate change. Some of these uncertainties originate from knowledge deficits in physical conditions while others relate to behavioral and social variability related to water supply and use. However, to our knowledge no quantitative analysis of how uncertainties have been translated into transboundary water treaty structures exists. The present paper partially fills this gap through an examination of how uncertainty has been reflected in basin specific transboundary treaties and how that reflection has changed over the last century. While we could identify only minor trends in the frequency with which uncertainties are mentioned in treaties, we did find two clear patterns in the strategies adopted to deal with them. First, treaties seem to adopt a portfolio approach that spreads the dangers of uncertainty by concurrently including several management strategies simultaneously. Second, there is a trend towards more open-ended strategies in recent decades, rather than hard codification of rules as had earlier been more common.


Transboundary Water Uncertainty Management Complete Contract Water Treaty Endogenous Uncertainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger N, Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Geoscience 337:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler E (1998) Condition(s) of Peace. Rev Int Stud 24:165–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Athias L, Saussier S (2008) Contractual flexibility or rigidity for public private partnerships? Theory and evidence from infrastructure concession contracts. Working Paper Series Reflexive Governance in the Public Interest, REFGOV-IFM-47Google Scholar
  4. Beck U (1999) World risk society. Polity, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazards 41(2):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conca K, Wu F, Mei C (2006) Global regime formation or complex institution building? The principled content of international river agreements. Int Stud Q 50:263–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Courtney H (2003) Decision-driven scenarios for assessing four levels for uncertainty. Strategy Leadersh 31(1):14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutter SL (2003) The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dabelko GD (2005) Speaking their language: how to communicate better with policymakers and opinion shapers—and why academics should bother in the first place. Int Environ Agreements 5:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Fraiture C, Giordano M, Liao Y (2008) Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use: blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy 10:67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimitrov RS (2003) Knowledge, power, and interests in environmental regime formation. Int Stud Q 47:123–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dratwa J (2002) Taking risks with the precautionary principle: food (and environment) for thought at the European commission. J Environ Policy Plan 4:197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drieschova A, Giordano M, Fischhendler I (2008) Governance mechanisms to address flow variability in water treaties. Glob Environ Change 18(2):285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischhendler I (2008a) Ambiguity in transboundary environmental dispute resolution: the Israeli–Jordanian water agreement. J Peace Res 45(1):79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischhendler I (2008b) Why and how ambiguity becomes destructive: the case of the Jordan Basin. Global Environ Polit 8(1):115–140Google Scholar
  16. Fogel C (2005) Biotic carbon sequestration and the Kyoto protocol: the construction of global knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Int Environ Agreements 5:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freudenburg WR (1988) Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science 39:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) The emergence of post-normal science. In: Von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics and morality. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 85–123Google Scholar
  19. Gleick PH (2003) Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302(5650):1524–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruen GE (2000) Turkish waters: source of regional conflict or catalyst for peace? Water Air Soil Pollut 123(4):565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grundmann R (2007) Climate change and knowledge politics. Env Polit 16(3):414–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunderson L, Light S (2006) Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the Everglades ecosystem. Policy Sci 39(4):323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamner J, Wolf A (1998) Patterns in international water resource treaties: the transboundary water dispute database. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 1997 Yearbook: 157–177Google Scholar
  24. Hart OD (1995) Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart O, Moore J (1988) Incomplete contracts and renegotiation. Econometrica 56(4):755–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henry C (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. Am Econ Rev 64(6):1006–1012Google Scholar
  27. Hoekstra AY, Hung PQ (2005) Globalization of water resources: international virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Glob Environ Change 15(1):45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17:195–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keller K, Yohe G, Schlesinger M (2008) Managing the risks of climate thresholds: uncertainties and information needs. Clim Change 91:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keohane R (1984) After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  32. Kistin L, Ashton P (2008) Adapting to change in transboundary rivers: an analysis of treaty flexibility on the Orange-Senqu River Basin. Int J Water Res Dev 24(3):385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Koremenos B, Lipson C, Snidal D (2001) The rational design of international institutions. Int Organ 55:761–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lahsen M (2007) Trust through participation? Problems of knowledge in climate decision making. In: Pettenger ME (ed) The social construction of climate change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 173–196Google Scholar
  36. Lempert RJ (2002) A new decision sciences for complex systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:7309–7313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  38. Litfin K (1994) Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental cooperation. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Litfin K (2003) Towards an integral perspective on world politics: secularism, sovereignty and the challenge of global ecology. Millennium 32:29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer B, Brown P, Linder M (2002) Moving further upstream: from toxics reduction to the precautionary principle. Public Health Reports 117(6):574–586Google Scholar
  41. Mostert E (2003) Conflict and cooperation in international freshwater management—a global review. Int J River Basin Manage 1(3):1–12Google Scholar
  42. Newig J, Pahl-Wostl C, Sigel K (2005) The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the water framework directive. Eur Environ 15:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nordhaus WD, Popp D (1997) What is the value of scientific knowledge? An application to global warming using the PRICE model. Energy J 18(1):1–45Google Scholar
  44. O’Brien KL, Leichenko RM (2000) Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climatic change within the context of economic globalization. Glob Environ Change 10(3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Riordan T (1992) The precaution principle in environmental management. CSERGE Working Paper, GEC 92-03Google Scholar
  46. O’Riordan T, Jordan A (1995) The precautionary principle: science, politics and ethics. CSERGE Working Paper, PA 95-02Google Scholar
  47. Pahl-Wostl C, Jeffrey P (2007) Adaptive water management: how to cope with uncertainty. NeWater 4:1–7Google Scholar
  48. Pahl-Wostl C, Isendahl N, Möllenkamp S, Brugnach M, Jeffrey P, Medema W, de Vries TT (2006) Paradigms in water management. Report of the NeWater Project.
  49. Prentice I, Farquhar GD et al (2001) The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. In: Houghton JT (ed) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 183–237Google Scholar
  50. Putnam RD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic policies: the logic of two-level game. Int Org 42:427–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raadgever G, Mostert E (2005) Transboundary River Basin Management—state-of-the-art review on transboundary regimes and information management in the context of adaptive management. NeWater Report Series No.10Google Scholar
  52. Ratner D (2003) The politics of regional governance in the Mekong River Basin. Global Change Peace Secur 15(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Salman SMA, Uprety K (2002) Conflict and cooperation on South Asia’s International Rivers. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Shackley S, Wynne B (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci Technol Human Values 21:275–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon HA (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Song JS, M’Gonigle RM (2001) Science, power, and system dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology. Polit Econ Conserv Biol 15(4):980–989Google Scholar
  57. Tol RSJ (2005) The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33:2064–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNEP (2006) Human development report. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty, and the global water crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, for United Nations Development Program, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  59. United Nations (1969) Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155Google Scholar
  60. Van Asselt MBA, Rotmans J (2002) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modeling. Clim Change 54:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Victor D, Raustiala K, Skolnikoff E (1998) The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Winham G (1977) Negotiation as a management process. World Polit 30(1):87–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wouters P, Vinogradov S, Allan A, Jones P, Rieu-Clarke A (2005) Sharing transboundary waters—an integrated assessment of equitable entitlement: The Legal Assessment Model. Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 74. UNESCO, Paris.
  64. Yearly S (1996) Nature’s advocates: Putting science to work in environmental organizations. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 172–190Google Scholar
  65. Yohe G (1996) Exercises in hedging against extreme consequences of global change and the expected value of information. Glob Environ Change 6:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Young O (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in a stateless society. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  67. Young R (1999) The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: causal connections and behavioral mechanisms (Global Environmental Accord). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Young R (2001) Uncertainty and the environment: Implications for decision making and environmental policy. E. Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  69. Zartman W, Berman M (1982) The practical negotiator. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alena Drieschova
    • 1
  • Itay Fischhendler
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mark Giordano
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.International Water Management InstituteColomboSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations