Governing Iberian Rivers: from bilateral management to common basin governance?

Original Paper

Abstract

Traditionally, international water resources have been managed by riparian states based essentially on a technical hydraulic approach, addressing navigation concerns, water flows at the border and shared hydraulic structures, besides the definition of political borders. During the 1990s, the possibility of a paradigm change emerged, where a “technical hydraulic management approach” seemed to be giving way to a more “political environmental governance approach”. Yet, in many cases, this change did not ensue. This article argues that several riparians are trapped in stalemate due to a too strong sovereign approach to their water relations. Adopting a critical perspective on hydro-hegemony, this article argues that this framework of analysis is too limited since it is embedded in a Westphalian concept of sovereignty. To support this argument, the article draws on the Iberian Peninsula water politics. These riparians are still embedded in notions of territorial sovereignty, not being able to take on a holistic water basin governance regime embedded on considerations of equity, human rights and social justice. The article concludes that it is vital to move beyond a static sovereignty-based analysis of riparian relations and engage in a dynamic discussion of different water governance models and their consequences concerning peace and development.

Keywords

Water governance Portugal Spain Hydro-hegemony European Union Sovereignty 

Abbreviations

EDP

The public Portuguese Electricity Company

NHP

Spanish National Hydrological Plan

References

  1. Ackerman, J., & Tir, J. (2003). To share or not to share: Conditions affecting signing of river-managing treaties between riparian states. Paper presented at the international studies association annual convention, Portland, United States of America, February 25 to March 1, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Alam, U. (2002). Questioning the water wars rational: A case study of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida, A. B. d., Portela, M. M., & Machado, M. (2009). A case of transboundary water agreement-the Albufeira Convention. STRIVER Technical Brief No. 9.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, K. J. (2003). An uncooperative commodity: Privatizing Water in England and Wales (Oxford Geographical and Environmental Studies).. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barraqué, B. (Ed.). (1995). As Políticas da Água na Europa. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.Google Scholar
  6. Barraqué, B., & Mostert, E. (2006). Transboundary river basin management in Europe. Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper 21.Google Scholar
  7. Blatter, J., & Ingram, H. (Eds.). (2001). Reflection on water: New approaches to transboundary conflicts and cooperation. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bukowski, J. J. (2011). Sharing water on the Iberian Peninsula: A Europeanisation approach to explaining transboundary cooperation. Water Alternatives, 4(2), 171–196.Google Scholar
  9. Cascão, A. E. (2008). Ethiopia–challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile basin. Water Policy, 10(S2), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CNPGB n/a. Barragem de Alqueva. Comissão Nacional Portuguesa das Grandes Barragens. http://cnpgb.inag.pt/gr_barragens/gbportugal/Alqueva.htm. Accessed July 26, 2010.
  11. Collier, U., Golub, J., & Kreher, A. (Eds.). (1997). Subsidiarity and shared responsibility: New challenges for EU environmental policy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  12. Conca, K. (2005). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Correia, F. N. (1991). A problemática da água no contexto do ambiente em Portugal. In: MARN (Ed.), Livro Branco sobre o Estado do Ambiente em PortugalAnexos. Lisboa: Ministério do Ambiente e Recursos Naturais.Google Scholar
  14. Correia, F. N. (1996). O que separa também une. In Proceedings of the Conferência Portugal-Espanha “O que separa também une” (pp. 91–112). Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  15. Cunha, L.V. d. (1996). Recursos Hídricos Luso-Espanhóis. O passado e o futuro. Paper presented at the III Congresso da Associação Portuguesa de Recursos Hídricos, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  16. Daoudy, M. (2008). Hydro-hegemony and international water law: Laying claims to water rights. Water Policy, 10(S2), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekers, M., & Loftus, A. (2008). The power of water: Developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(4), 698–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Environment Agency (2010). The European environment: State and outlook 2010 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer. Consulted April 2, 2012.
  19. Falkenmark, M., & Folke, C. (2002). The ethics of socio-ecohydrological catchment management: Towards hydrosolidarity. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, 6(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fowler, M. R., & Bunck, K. M. (1995). Law, power and the sovereign state: The evolution and application of the concept of sovereignty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Freire, M. R., & Lopes, P. D. (2008). Reconceptualizar a paz e a violência: Uma análise crítica. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 82, 13–29.Google Scholar
  22. Gerlak, A. K., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2011). Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez, R. (2006). Between knowledge and politics: The role of Técnicos in the Brazilian water management reform. PhD dissertation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  24. INAG. (2004). Plano Nacional da Água (Vol. I). Lisboa: Instituto Nacional da Água.Google Scholar
  25. Jägerskog, A. (2002). Contributions of Regime Theory in Understanding Interstate Water Cooperation: Lessons Learned in the Jordan River Basin. In A. R. Turton & R. Henwood (Eds.), Hydropolitics in the developing world: A Southern African perspective (pp. 73–78). Pretoria: African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU).Google Scholar
  26. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural causes and regimes consequences: regimes as intervening variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–22). Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kreijen, G. (Ed.). (2002). State, sovereignty and international governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lipper, J. (1967). Equitable utilization. In A. H. Garretson, R. D. Hayton, & C. J. Olmstead (Eds.), The law of international drainage basin. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Lopes, P.D. (2001). As políticas da água de Foz Côa. In M. E. Gonçalves (Ed.), O caso de Foz Côa: um laboratório de análise socio-política (pp. 65–102). Lisboa: Edições 70.Google Scholar
  31. Lopes, P. D. (2009). Sharing water: Evolution, threats and challenges. Lusotopie, 16(1), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lopez-Gunn, E. (2009). Agua para todos: A new regionalist hydraulic paradigm in Spain. Water Alternatives, 2(3), 370–394.Google Scholar
  33. MOPMA. (1993). Plan Hidrológico Nacional. Memoria. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  34. Saleh, S. M. K. (2008). Hydro-hegemony in the Nile basin: A sudanese perspective. Water Policy, 10(S2), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saramago, J. (2008). Espanha quer mais água de Alqueva. Correio da Manhã.Google Scholar
  36. Shiva, V. (2002). Water wars: Privatization, pollution and profit. Cambridge: South End Press.Google Scholar
  37. Suhardiman, D., and Giordano, M. (2012). Process-focused analysis in transboundary water governance research. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9176-z.
  38. Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Regeneracionismo, the production of nature and the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), 443–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Technonatural revolutions: The scalar politics of Franco’s hydrosocial dream for Spain 1939–1975. Transactions Institute British Geographers, 32(1), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vlachos, E., & Correia, F. N. (Eds.). (2000). Shared water systems and transboundary issues, with special emphasis on the Iberian Peninsula. Lisboa: Fundação Luso-Americana para o Desenvolvimento.Google Scholar
  41. Warner, J. (2004). Plugging the GAP—working with Buzan: The Illisu Dam as a security issue. SOAS Water Issues Study Group, Occasional Paper 67.Google Scholar
  42. Warner, J. (2005). Hydro-hegemony as a layered cake: Hydro-hegemonic strategies in the case of Turkey. Paper presented at the First Workshop on Hydro-Hegemony: London Water Research Group, University of London. 2005.Google Scholar
  43. Warner, J. (2008). Contested hydrohegemony: Hydraulic control and security in Turkey. Water Alternatives, 1(2), 271–288.Google Scholar
  44. Warner, J. (2012). The struggle over Turkey’s Ilısu dam: Domestic and international security linkages. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9178-x.
  45. Warner, J., & Zawahri, N. (2012). Hegemony and asymmetry: Multiple-chessboard games on transboundary rivers. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9177-y.
  46. Wegerich, K. (2008). Hydro-hegemony in the Amu Darya Basin. Water Policy, 10(S2), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, P. (2003). The security politics of enclosing transboundary river water resources. Paper presented at the conference on resource politics and security in a global age, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  48. Wolf, A. T. (1995). Hydropolitics along the Jordan River: Scarce water and Its impacts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wolf, A. (2003). ‘Water Wars’ and Other Tales of Hydromythology. In B. McDonald & D. Jehl (Eds.), Whose water is it? The unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world (pp. 109–124). Washington D.C.: National Geographic.Google Scholar
  50. Woodhouse, M., & Zeitoun, M. (2008). Hydro-hegemony and international water law: Grappling with the gaps of power and law. Water Policy, 10(S2), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zawahri, N.A., & Hensengerth, O. (2012). Domestic environmental activists and the governance of the Ganges and Mekong Rivers in India and China. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9179-9.
  52. Yoffe, S.B. (2001). Basins at risk: Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources. PhD Dissertation. Portland: Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  53. Zeitoun, M., & Allan, J. A. (2008). Applying hegemony and power theory to transboundary water analysis. Water Policy, 10(2), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeitoun, M., & Mirumachi, N. (2011). Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., & Warner, J. (2011). Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of ‘soft’ power. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony-a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8, 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and Centre for Social StudiesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations