Advertisement

Do hydrologic rigor and technological advance tell us more or less about transboundary water management?

  • Mark GiordanoEmail author
  • Diana Suhardiman
  • Jacob Peterson-Perlman
Original Paper

Abstract

Strict hydrologic definitions of basins coupled with technological advances including the use of remote sensing and geographic information systems have given us more accurate and detailed knowledge than ever before about the scale and extent of transboundary waters. This information has had both research and policy impact. The knowledge of the vast number and extent of basins has been used to bring attention to the overall issue of transboundary water management and understand how and why countries conflict and cooperate over water. Combining this information with ideas embedded in legal instruments such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses has given us new ways to look at the adequacy, and inadequacy, of existing transboundary institutions and to suggest policy change and institution building. But do precise data and clearly codified definitions always improve our understanding and decision making? Might they even lead us to incorrect conclusions and poor priority setting? This paper examined how the combination of universalized basin scale principles for international water management and increased mapping precision has resulted in policy prescriptions that sometimes run counter to what negotiators and managers have consistently and thoughtfully done in practice. The conclusion is not a call to cease using new technology nor to end the search for principles to guide our resource management actions. Rather it is a call for caution and balance as we apply technology and logic to specific locations in a complex world.

Keywords

GIS Integrated water resources management Scale politics Transboundary waters 

References

  1. Aguilera-Klink, F., Pérez-Moriana, E., & Sánchez-García, J. (2000). The social construction of scarcity. The case of water in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Ecological Economics, 34(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, T. (1998). Watersheds and problemsheds: Explaining the absence of armed conflict over water in the Middle East. Middle East, 2(1), 50.Google Scholar
  3. Altchenko, Y., & Villholth, K. G. (2013). Transboundary aquifer mapping and management in Africa: A harmonised approach. Hydrogeology Journal, 1(7), 1497–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asian Development Bank. (2003). Water for all: The water policy of the Asian Development Bank. Published by the Asian Development Bank. http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2003/water-policy.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2014.
  5. Barnaby, W. (2009). Do nations go to war over water? Nature, 458(7236), 282–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas, A. (2004). Integrate water resources management: A reassessment. Water International, 29(2), 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, J. C., & Purcell, M. (2005). There’s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36, 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimension, 10(2), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conca, K., Wu, F., & Mei, C. (2006). Global regime formation or complex institution building? The principled content of international river agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 50(2), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, K. R. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale. Political Geography, 17(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies, J., Robins, N. S., Farr, J., Sorensen, J., Beetlestone, P., & Cobbing, J. E. (2013). Identifying transboundary aquifers in need of international resource management in the Southern African Development Community region. Hydrogeology Journal, 21(2), 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dinar, S. (2009). Scarcity and cooperation along international rivers. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dombrowsky, I., Almog, R., Becker, N., Feitelson, E., Klawitter, S., Lindemann, S., & Mutlak, N. (2010). How widely applicable is river basin management? An analysis of wastewater management in an arid transboundary case. Environmental Management, 45(5), 1112–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dore, J., & Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feitelson, E., & Fischhendler, I. (2009). Spaces of water governance: The case of Israel and its neighbors. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 728–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischhendler, I., & Feitelson, E. (2003). Spatial adjustment as a mechanism for resolving river basin conflicts: The US–Mexico case. Political Geography, 22(5), 557–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischhendler, I., & Feitelson, E. (2005). The formation and viability of a non-basin water management: The US–Canada case. Geoforum, 36(6), 792–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: How social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2014). Global administrative unit layers. http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=12691.
  20. Foucault, M. (1994). So is it important to thin? In D. Faubion (Ed.), Michael foucault, power: Essential of foucault 1954–1984 J (pp. 454–458). London: Penguin books.Google Scholar
  21. Furlong, K. (2006). Hidden theories, troubled waters: International relations, the ‘territorial trap’, and the Southern African Development Community’s transboundary waters. Political Geography, 25(4), 438–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerlak, A. K. (2004). The global environment facility and transboundary water resource management: New institutional arrangements in the Danube river and Black Sea region. The Journal of Environment and Development, 13(4), 400–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giordano, M., Drieschova, A., Duncan, J. A., Sayama, Y., De Stefano, L., & Wolf, A. T. (2014). A review of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(3), 245–264.Google Scholar
  24. Glassman, J. (2002). From Seattle (and Ubon) to Bangkok: The scales of resistance to corporate globalization. Environment and Planning D, 20(5), 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 18(1), 79–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haugaard, M. (2003). Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC). (2012). Transboundary aquifers of the world. http://www.un-igrac.org/publications/456/.
  28. International Network of Basin Organizations and Global Water Partnership. (2012). In The handbook for integrated water resources management in transboundary basins of rivers, lakes and aquifers. ISBN: 978-91-85321-85-8. http://www.gwp.org/Global/About%20GWP/Publications/INBO-GWP%20Transboundary%20Handbook/MGIREB-UK-2012_Web.pdf.
  29. Jarvis, T. (2006). In Transboundary groundwater: Geopolitical consequences, commons sense, and the law of the hidden sea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  30. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Katz, D., & Fischhendler, I. (2011). Spatial and temporal dynamics of linkage strategies in Arab-Israeli water negotiations. Political Geography, 30(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klare, M. T. (2001). The new geography of conflict. Foreign Affairs, 80, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kliot, N., Shmueli, D., & Shamir, U. (2001). Institutions for management of transboundary water resources: Their nature, characteristics and shortcomings. Water Policy, 3(3), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. MacKinnon, D. (2011). Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography, 35(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manson, S. M. (2008). Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum, 39(2), 776–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marston, S. A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matsumoto, K. (2002). In Transboundary groundwater and international law: Past practices and current implications. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  39. Mehta, L. (2007). Whose scarcity? Whose property? The case of water in western India. Land Use Policy, 24(4), 654–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption, value of water research report series no. 50, UNESCO-IHE.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, F., & Hirsch, P. (2003). In Civil society and internationalized river basin management. Working paper 7. Australian Mekong Resource Centre. University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  42. Norman, E. S., & Bakker, K. (2009). Transgressing scales: Water governance across the Canada–US borderland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(1), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norman, E., Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2012). Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 52–61.Google Scholar
  44. Puri, S., & Aureli, A. (2005). Transboundary aquifers: A global program to assess, evaluate, and develop policy. Ground Water, 43(5), 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A. K., & Blumstein, S. (2015). Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: Conceptualizing international river Basin organizations. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10784-015-9287-4.
  46. Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2006). Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin. Political Geography, 25(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., & Molle, F. (2012). Scalar disconnect: The logic of transboundary water governance in the Mekong. Society and Natural Resources, 25(6), 572–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: Glocalization and the politics of scale. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization (pp. 137–166). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  49. Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D, 18, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Toset, H. P. W., Gleditsch, N. P., & Hegre, H. (2000). Shared rivers and interstate conflict. Political Geography, 19(8), 971–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNEP and OSU (2002). In Atlas of international freshwater agreements. United Nations Environment Program and Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  52. United Nations (1958). In Integrated river Basin development: A report by a panel of experts. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. p. 60.Google Scholar
  53. United Nations (1970). Integrated river basin development: Report of a panel of experts (Revised edn.). New York: UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations (1978). Prepared by the centre for natural resources, energy and transport of the department of economic and social affairs of the United Nations. In Register of International Rivers (Vol. 2, pp. 1–58). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  55. United Nations Water (2008). Thematic paper 8, Transboundary waters: Sharing benefits, sharing responsibilities. Water task force on transboundary waters, UNW: Zaragoza, Spain. http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf.
  56. Warner, J., Wester, P., & Bolding, A. (2008). Going with the flow: River basins as the natural units for water management. Water Policy, 10(Supplement 2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiss, E. B., & Slobodian, L. (2014). Virtual water, water scarcity, and international trade law. Journal of International Economic Law, 17(4), 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Westcoat, J. (1984). Integrated water development, water use and conservation practice in Western Colorado. Research paper 210. The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Wester, P., & Warner, J. (2002). River basin management reconsidered. In A. Turton & R. Henwood (Eds.), Hydropolitics in the developing world: A Southern Africa perspective (pp. 61–71). South Africa: African Water Issues research Unit, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  60. Wolf, A. T. (1999). “Water wars” and water reality: Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Environmental change, adaptation, and security (pp. 251–265). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolf, A., Natharius, J., Danielson, J., Ward, B., & Pender, J. (1999). International river basins of the world. Journal of Water Resources Development, 15(4), 387–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S. B., & Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Policy, 5(1), 29–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intercultural CenterGeorgetown University School of Foreign ServiceWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.IWMI Laos, C/o National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) Ban NongviengkhamXaythany DistrictLao PDR
  3. 3.Department of GeosciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations