Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics volume 16, pages 815–831 (2016)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Preliminary Article—For the purposes of this Treaty, boundary waters are defined as the waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and rivers arid connecting waterways, or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the USA and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms, and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or tile waters of rivers flowing across the boundary.

  2. The 1997 UN Convention and the UN Register do include unconfined, actively recharged aquifers within their definitions of water systems. However, since groundwater systems are difficult to identify, they are not purposefully accounted for in any global efforts to map transboundary basin areas. Confined aquifers and fossil groundwater are not considered within the 1997 Convention or the UN Register.

References

  • African Development Bank. (2000). Policy for integrated water resources. http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/PolicyDocuments/IWRM%20Policy-%20Integrated%20Water%20Resources%20Management%20-%20FINAL%20version%20(highlights%20removed)_April%2026%202000.pdf. Downloaded February 15, 2014.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Altchenko, Y., & Villholth, K. G. (2013). Transboundary aquifer mapping and management in Africa: A harmonised approach. Hydrogeology Journal, 1(7), 1497–1517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Barnaby, W. (2009). Do nations go to war over water? Nature, 458(7236), 282–283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A. (2004). Integrate water resources management: A reassessment. Water International, 29(2), 248–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. R. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale. Political Geography, 17(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinar, S. (2009). Scarcity and cooperation along international rivers. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dore, J., & Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhendler, I., & Feitelson, E. (2005). The formation and viability of a non-basin water management: The US–Canada case. Geoforum, 36(6), 792–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: How social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Glassman, J. (2002). From Seattle (and Ubon) to Bangkok: The scales of resistance to corporate globalization. Environment and Planning D, 20(5), 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 18(1), 79–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugaard, M. (2003). Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 87–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC). (2012). Transboundary aquifers of the world. http://www.un-igrac.org/publications/456/.

  • 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.

  • Jarvis, T. (2006). In Transboundary groundwater: Geopolitical consequences, commons sense, and the law of the hidden sea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University.

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Fischhendler, I. (2011). Spatial and temporal dynamics of linkage strategies in Arab-Israeli water negotiations. Political Geography, 30(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klare, M. T. (2001). The new geography of conflict. Foreign Affairs, 80, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. (2011). Reconstructing scale: Towards a new scalar politics. Progress in Human Geography, 35(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson, S. M. (2008). Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum, 39(2), 776–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston, S. A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, K. (2002). In Transboundary groundwater and international law: Past practices and current implications. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.

  • Mehta, L. (2007). Whose scarcity? Whose property? The case of water in western India. Land Use Policy, 24(4), 654–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Miller, F., & Hirsch, P. (2003). In Civil society and internationalized river basin management. Working paper 7. Australian Mekong Resource Centre. University of Sydney.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Puri, S., & Aureli, A. (2005). Transboundary aquifers: A global program to assess, evaluate, and develop policy. Ground Water, 43(5), 661–668.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sneddon, C., & Fox, C. (2006). Rethinking transboundary waters: A critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin. Political Geography, 25(2), 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D, 18, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toset, H. P. W., Gleditsch, N. P., & Hegre, H. (2000). Shared rivers and interstate conflict. Political Geography, 19(8), 971–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP and OSU (2002). In Atlas of international freshwater agreements. United Nations Environment Program and Oregon State University.

  • 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.

  • United Nations (1970). Integrated river basin development: Report of a panel of experts (Revised edn.). New York: UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, E. B., & Slobodian, L. (2014). Virtual water, water scarcity, and international trade law. Journal of International Economic Law, 17(4), 717–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westcoat, J. (1984). Integrated water development, water use and conservation practice in Western Colorado. Research paper 210. The University of Chicago.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S. B., & Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: Identifying basins at risk. Water Policy, 5(1), 29–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Intercultural Center, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Rm. 514, 37th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC, 20057, USA

    Mark Giordano

  2. IWMI Laos, C/o National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) Ban Nongviengkham, Xaythany District, P. O. Box 4199, Vientiane, Lao PDR

    Diana Suhardiman

  3. Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA

    Jacob Peterson-Perlman

Authors
  1. Mark Giordano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana Suhardiman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacob Peterson-Perlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Giordano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giordano, M., Suhardiman, D. & Peterson-Perlman, J. Do hydrologic rigor and technological advance tell us more or less about transboundary water management?. Int Environ Agreements 16, 815–831 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9297-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9297-2

Keywords

  • GIS
  • Integrated water resources management
  • Scale politics
  • Transboundary waters

Search

Navigation