Water Conflict, Security and Cooperation (E258)
Time & Location:
Thursdays, 2:15 PM to 4:00 PM
Room: Voie Creuse 201 (CV201)
Dr. Marwa Daoudy
Office: Rigot 18
Office hours: Wednesdays, 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM
Tel: 022 908 59 35
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
Victoria Wisniewski Otero
Office: Rigot 38
Office hours: Tuesdays, 12:00-14:00
Tel: 022 908 59 51
This seminar will examine some of the contemporary and conceptual issues relating to disputes over transboundary water resources, such as hydropolitics, hydro-political complex theory, processes of securitization and de-securitization, hydro-hegemony and patterns of conflict and cooperation. Considering the many international dimensions of water, the discussions will also incorporate policy, economic, environmental and legal perspectives. The course aims to provide students with theoretical tools to analyze specific cases of water conflict in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. This seminar is open in priority to Doctoral and MIS students in Political Science.
All requirements aim to evaluate the students' ability to grasp key analytical concepts discussed in class and in the readings and to relate them to major empirical developments in water conflict and cooperation.
A) In-class participation and presentation, short written assignment: 60%
Students are expected to attend class regularly, prepare appropriately, and participate actively to class discussions. Students are required to do the readings on each topic before coming to class.
In the first part (Theory), students will choose the topic of their interest. For each session, the students who have registered for the specific day will be divided in two groups. Each group will be given by Dr. Daoudy a research question in relation to the topic and the readings of the day, each question reflecting different perspectives. Each student will be expected to provide a concise and critical evaluation of the assigned readings, with reference to his/her specific question. The floor will then be open for discussions between the presenters of the day and the rest of the seminar. All other students must have done the readings in advance and be prepared for discussions. In-class assignments will start from the 4th week onwards. In the week following their presentation, each student will submit to Dr. Daoudy a short (3 double-spaced pages) analytical review of his/her presentation and the ensuing class discussion.
In the second part of the seminar (International Cases of Water Conflict, Cooperation and Negotiation), students will be divided in two groups per session. Each group will be in charge of presenting (upstream vs. downstream) riparian positions and concerns with reference to the specific water dispute and will discuss options and alternatives with the other group on the basis of the assigned readings as well as additional research. A one page summary of core issues will be distributed in class by each group on the day the case study is discussed. One person/group will be assigned the task to present the group’s findings, while all group members will be expected to feed the in-class debate. A collective grade will be given per group.
B) Final paper: 40%
Students will select a case of a contemporary international water conflict or cooperation. The paper should provide a history of the conflict, a critical assessment of riparian dynamics and the identification of areas of potential conflict or cooperation. This analysis should draw extensively on the theories and empirical evidence covered in the course. Each student will meet with Dr. Daoudy to discuss the paper topic. The student will then prepare a brief outline of the paper of about 250 words, with a paper title, research question, methodology, summary and a brief bibliography. It is due at the beginning of class on 22 November 2007. The final paper should consist of approximately 15 double-spaced pages (+ bibliography). It is due at the beginning of class on 20 December 2007. Except for cases of medical emergencies (with medical certificates), late papers will carry a penalty of 0.25 per day. Students will be graded on their capacity to apply theories, reflect critically on the information they have read and the discussions held in class, and use the material creatively in order to identify the direct and indirect issues at stake.
The required readings will be made available in a full package that can be ordered at Imprimerie Minute (information on how to obtain the polycopiés). Two sets will be put on hold at the library for the students.
Sept. 27, 2007,
SECTION I: THEORY
Oct. 4, 2007,
Conflict & Cooperation
Topics: Hydro-politics, surface water, groundwater, quantity, quality, water management practices
- Phillips, D., Daoudy, M., McCaffrey, S., Öjendal, J. & Turton, A.R., Transboundary Water Cooperation as a Tool for Conflict Prevention and Broader Benefit-Sharing, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Expert Group on Development Issues (EGDI), 2006, pp. 15-31; 175-177.
- LeMarquand, D., International Rivers : the Politics of Cooperation, Westwater Research Center, Vancouver, 1977, pp. 7-24.
- Falkenmark, M., “Fresh Water: Time for A Modified Approach”, Ambio, vol. XV, no. 4, 1986, pp. 192-200.
WATER CONFLICT AND SECURITY
Oct. 11, 2007,
Natural Resources Depletion and Resource-Based Conflicts: The Debate
Topics: Conflict over natural resources , environmental security.
- Falkenmark, M., “Fresh Waters as a Factor in Strategic Policy and Action”, in Arthur H. Westing (ed.), Global Resources and International Conflict, Environmental Factors in Strategic Policy and Action, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986, pp. 85-113.
- Postel, S., Last Oasis, Facing Water Scarcity, WorldWatch Institute, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1992, pp. 25-37; 48-59.
- Chou, S., Bezark, R. & Wilson, A., “Water Scarcity in Rivers Basins as A Security Problem”, Environmental Change and Security Project, Special Report, The Woodrow Wilson Center, no. 3, Spring 1997, Washington DC, pp. 96-105.
Research questions for Oct. 18:
- Group I: What linkages are established between the environment and security? How can they explain the successful securitization of the environment as a referent object since the 1990s.
- Inana Goebel-Boesch,
- Reno Meyer
- Group II: Some would argue that resource scarcities have been over-securitized in the last decades. How? Why? What about current trends towards the securitization of the environment in relation to development?
- Mara Caputo
- Fairlie Jensen
Oct. 18, 2007,
Water and Conflict: Securitization Processes
Topics: Water and violent conflict, linking water and security issues, neo-Malthusian perspectives.
- Buzan, B., Waever, O., and de Wilde, J., Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 1998, pp. 21-47; 71-94.
- Homer-Dixon, T., “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases”, International Security, vol. 19, no.1, Fall 1994, pp. 5-40.
- Carius, A., Kemper, M., Oberthür S., Sprinz, D., “NATO/CCMS Pilot Study: Environment and Security in an International Context”, Environmental Change and Security Project, The Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC, Spring 1997, pp. 55-65.
- Rwabizambuga, A., “Environmental Security and Development”, International Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, 2007, pp. 201-225.
Research questions for Oct. 25:
- Group I: The inevitability of water conflicts is supported by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The link between water and violent conflict is thus confirmed.
- Group II: As a strategic security concern, water can become a source of conflict but interdependent riparian states are more likely to cooperate over water.
Oct. 24, 2007,
Water and Security: Hydro-Political Security Complexes
Topics: Scarcity and violent conflict, hydro-political security complex
- Gleick, P. H., “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security”, International Security, vol. 18, no. 1, Summer 1993, pp. 79-112.
- Toset, H.P.W, Gleditsch, N. P., Hegre, H., “Shared Rivers and Interstate Conflict”, Political Geography, vol. 19, 2000, pp. 971-996.
- Ashton, P.J. and Turton, A.R. (in press), “Water and Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging Concepts and their Implications for Effective Water Resource Management in the Southern African Region”, in Brauch, Grin, Mesjasz, Behera, Chourou, Spring, Liotta & Kameira-Mbote (eds.), Globalization and Environmental Challenges, Springer.
Research questions for Nov. 1:
- Group I: Power asymmetry between strong and weaker riparians constitutes a major source of water conflict. The will of the stronger states prevails and determines the course of action. Outcomes can be predicted when strategies applied by the stronger actors are identified.
- Group II: Power asymmetry between strong and weaker riparians constitutes a major source of water cooperation A difference in power symmetries presents an opportunity for weaker riparians to find solutions and strategies to impact the process and final outcome, thus enhancing the “power of the weak”.
Nov. 1, 2007,
Water and Power: Asymmetry, Linkage Strategies, Hydro-Hegemnoy Theory
Speaker: Dr. Mark Zeitoun, Center for Environmental Policy and Governance, London School of Economics.
Topics: Upstream/downstream dynamics, structural/bargaining power, issue-linkage, basin “hegemons”, “ counter-hegemony” strategies.
- Frey, F., “The Political Context of Conflict and Cooperation Over International River Basins”, Water International, vol. 18, 1993, pp. 54-68.
- Haftendorn, H., “Water and International Conflict”, Third World Quarterly, vol. 21, no.1, 2000, pp. 51-68.
- Zeitoun, M. and Warner, J., “Hydro-Hegemony, A Framework for Analysis of Transboundary Water Conflict”, Water Policy, vol. 8, no. 5, 2006, pp. 435-460.
- Gyawali, D., “Nepal-India Water Resource Relations”, in William Zartman & Jeffrey Rubin (eds.), Power & Negotiation, University of Michigan Press, 2000, pp. 129-154.
Research questions for Nov. 8:
- Group I: Cooperation through joint water management, information-sharing, monitoring, etc. can provide the incentive for broader cooperation between co-riparians that is needed for effective de-securitization, thus allowing for conflict prevention/transformation, mutual benefit-sharing and development of all the concerned riparian states.
- Group II: Asymmetries in levels of development, lack of mutually agreeable data, stalling techniques, etc., undermine the efficiency of processes aimed at de-securitizing water-related issues and inducing treaties among co-riparians of the same river basin. Furthermore, benefit-sharing and compensation can be difficult to achieve in practicality. Thus economic and technical cooperation does not naturally segue into de-securitization.
PROMOTING WATER COOPERATION
Nov. 8, 2007
Water Conflict Resolution
Topics: Water as a factor of cooperation, holistic approaches to water use and management, benefit-sharing.
- Wolf, A. & Hamner, J., “Trends in Transboundary Water Disputes and Dispute Resolution”, in M.R. Lowi, and B.R. Shaw (eds.), Environment and Security, Discourses and Practices, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 123-148.
- Waterbury, J., “Between Unilateralism and Comprehensive Accords: Modest Steps toward Cooperation in International River Basins”, International Journal of Water Resources Development, vol. 13, no. 3, September 1997, pp. 279-289.
- Daoudy, M., “Benefit-Sharing as a Tool of Conflict Transformation: Applying the Inter-SEDE Model to the Tigris and Euphrates Basins”, The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, vol. 2, no.2, 2007: pp. 25-32.
Research questions for Nov. 15:
- Group I: Some social, economic and environmental benefits can be generated from the adoption of market tools in the management of water resources, but water property rights need to be protected and regulated for the promotion of distributional equity and the satisfaction of basic human needs.
- Group II: Economic and social objectives are more efficiently served when water privatization options and full-cost pricing policies are adopted. When water property rights are well defined and transferable, water marketing tools can also constitute attractive options.
Nov. 15, 2007,
De-Securitization Processes: The Economics of Water
Speaker: Ms. Aline Baillat-Ballabriga, PhD. Candidate, Political Science Department, Graduate Institute for International Studies.
Topics: Price policy, water markets, public-private partnerships
- Rogers, P., De Silva, R., & Bhatia, R., “Water is an Economic Good: How to Use Prices to Promote Equity, Efficiency and Sustainability”, Water Policy, vol. 4, 2002: 1-17.
- Perry, C.J., Rock, M., & Seckler, D., Water as an Economic Good: A Solution, or a Problem?, Research Report 14, International Irrigation Management Institute, Sri Lanka, 1997.
- Griffin, R., Water Resources Economics, MIT Press, 2007, Chapter 7: “Water Markets”, pp. 203-242.
Research questions for Nov. 22:
- Group I: Water is a catalyst for cooperation, and thus, facilitates the codification of water practices into international law and the settlement of disputes through established procedure and intra-state dispute settlement mechanisms. International law serves to provide useful frameworks, while at the same time granting enough flexibility for adaptation and interpretation.
- Group II: Even when states are willing and committed to international law and dispute settlement mechanisms, interpretations and definitions can vary greatly. The slow and controversial emergence of principles of international water law can thus sometimes work against the establishment of cooperative dynamics. Cooperation over water is truly effective when bottom-up strategies are put in place.
Nov. 22, 2007,
Water Governance and Legal Frameworks
NB: Outline for the paper is due
Topics: Water governance, International Water Law
- Asmal, K., “Water is a Catalyst for Peace”, International Journal of Water, vol. 1, no. 2, 2001, pp. 200-209.
- Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, “Water Economics: Trends in Dispute Settlement Procedures and Practice”, in Brown-Weiss, Boisson de Chazournes & Bernasconi-Osterwalder (eds.), Fresh Water and International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, pp. 333-365.
- McCaffrey, S., The Law of International Watercourses: Non-Navigational Uses, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, pp. 301-322.
SECTION II: WATER CONFLICT, COOPERATION AND NEGOTIATION - INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES
Nov. 29, 2007,
The Mekong River Basin
- Phillips, D., Daoudy, M., McCaffrey, S., Öjendal, J. & Turton, A.R., Transboundary Water Cooperation as a Tool for Conflict Prevention and Broader Benefit-Sharing, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Expert Group on Development Issues (EGDI), 2006, pp. 90-121.
- Chenoweth, J.L., Malano, H.M., and Bird, J.F., “Integrated River Basin Management in the Multi-jurisdictional River Basins: The Case of the Mekong River Basin”, Water Resources Development, vol. 17, no.3, 2001, pp. 365-377.
- Fox, C. and Sneddon, C., Flood Pulses, International Watercourse Law, and Common Pool Resources: A Case Study of the Mekong Lowlands, Research Paper 2005/22, EGDI, United Nations University and World Institute for Development Economics Research, 2005.
Dec. 6, 2007,
The Jordan Basin
- Phillips, D., Daoudy, M., Mc Caffrey, S., Öjendal, J. & Turton, A.R., Transboundary Water Cooperation as a Tool for Conflict Prevention and Broader Benefit-Sharing, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Expert Group on Development Issues (EGDI), 2006, pp. 41-63.
- Lonergan, S., “Forces of Change and the Conflict over Water in the Jordan River Basin”, in Hussein Amery & Aaron T. Wolf (eds.), Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace, University of Texas Press, Austin, 2000, pp. 45-62.
- Jagerskög, A., Why States Cooperate Over Water: The Water Negotiations in the Jordan River Basin, 2003, pp. 97-121.
Dec. 13, 2007,
The Euphrates and Tigris Basins
- Daoudy, M., “A Framework for Power Asymmetry and Hydro Hegemony: The Process of Negotiation in the Euphrates and Tigris Basins”, in Water Policy, Special Edition on Hydro-Hegemony, forthcoming 2008.
- Kibaroglu, A. & Ünver, O.I.H., “An Institutional Framework for Facilitating Cooperation in the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin”, International Negotiation, vol. 5, no. 2, 2000, pp. 311-330.
- Scheumann, W., “Conflicts on the Euphrates: An Analysis of Water and Non-Water Issues”, in Scheumann, W. & Schiffler, M., Water in the Middle East: Potential for Conflict and Prospects for Cooperation, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp. 113-135.
Dec. 20, 2007,
The Indus Basin
NB: Final paper is due
- Pitman, G.T.K., “The Role of the World Bank in Enhancing Cooperation and Resolving Conflict on International Watercourses: The Case of the Indus Basin”, in Salman & Boisson de Chazournes (eds.), International Watercourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict, World Bank Technical Paper 414, 1998, pp. 155-165.
- Ulam, U., Sahota, P., & Jeffrey, P., “Irrigation in the Indus Basin: A History of Unsustainability”, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, vol. 7, no.1, 2007: 211-218.
- Gyawali, D., “Pluralist Politics under Monistic Design: Water Accords in South Asia”, in Samaddar & Reifeld (eds.), Peace as Process: Reconciliation and Conflict Resolution in South Asia, Manohar, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 159-188.