River Tales

The little blue dot is me, entering the ABC amphitheater.
Picture by J.R. 

Stepping on what makes up the headwaters of the most populous river basin in the world is not an experience to be taken lightly. I walked on the snow and glaciers that eventually melt into tributaries of the Ganges river that flows from Nepal into India, passing by millions of people, picking up bits and pieces of the land through which it runs and finally releasing its water and sediment into the sea at Bangladesh. I had the opportunity to walk next to one of the veins of the Ganges up to the Himalayas, feeling the sheer power of the crystal blue rushing water, imagining the millions of people that would benefit from it as its rush to the sea slows through the plains and become thick and opaque with traces of the river bed. 

The river tells the story of its past if you know how to read it.  It runs free here, unrestricted by human manipulation. At the headwaters, it tells the story of a young, clear river, running to join the sea, naïve of what lays in store downstream.

Glacial melt. Picture by J.R.

A few days ago, I realized how incredible it was to have experienced the Ganges so early on in its journey. To be so connected and feel so in touch with nature and people through a river… it reminds me why I want to work in the water sector.

This recognition occurred last Wednesday, when I attended a lecture that brought these feelings flooding back to me. Dr. Claudia Sadoff, regardless of how you feel about her work, is the superwoman of the water world. An economist by training, she has risen the ranks of the international sector and is now positioned at the World Bank as one of the world’s experts in water economics and policy. Her recent work focused on South East Asia where she and her research team developed the Ganges Strategic Basin Assessment, refuting some assumptions that had until now, been used as geopolitical leverage between nations.

Contemplating a melting glacier. Picture by J.R. 

The results of this study will have massive geopolitical implications and are making people rethink the reasons for the historical international pressure that Nepal has faced to develop large hydropower systems. The main benefits of damming the Himalayas have been purported to be downstream flood mitigation, income from electricity sales for Nepal and irrigation benefits for farmers along the Indian plains as water could be regulated like a faucet. The way Sadoff described this project brought to mind the image of kids playing on a beach, digging holes, building castles and moats to see how the waves change the shape of their mud sculptures. 
Only in this case, it is the World Bank playing legos on one of the world’s biggest river basins.

The results aren’t yet public, but preliminary findings show that the portion of runoff that comes from glacial melt is actually a minimal contributor to the total Ganges runoff – 4%. This means that even if the mountains are dammed, the downstream impacts are not nearly as clear as previously assumed. The river actually picks up more runoff from the monsoon rains than it does from snow melt. As well, the volume of water that a dam in the Himalayas could hold is not as much as planners have been led to believe. Nepal may well find itself liberated from pressure from international groups that have used the arguments of helping prevent flooding downstream and providing irrigation benefits during dry seasons. In fact, the study has concluded that India could benefit more from groundwater extraction of its own aquifers in the dry seasons than from regulated flow from its upstream neighbour’s dam potential.

Nepal sits poised in a politically interesting zone, bounded by the Asian giants China and India that along with the international community, are eyeing the country’s vast water supply and energy production potential, estimated at 43,000MW of economically and technically feasible hydropower development. This holds true, according to Sadoff’s findings, leaving Nepal simultaneously in a position of risk and potential. Risk of hydropower development without proper control, regulations and governance could lead to disastrous impacts on the environment and Nepali livelihoods. However, the potential of economic development for this impoverished nation through the sale of electricity to India and China could be managed and distributed to help Nepal rise out of poverty.

Picture by J.R. 

Nepal has historically been hesitant to enter into contracts with India, as it has assumed that a win-win scenario is impossible due to India’s superior economic power. The economic benefits of large hydropower dams in Nepal are still not refuted and even more, the numbers show that the main share of financial benefits would be from hydropower production in Nepal, valued between $7.4-7.8 billion in income potential for the country. The economic benefits for India and Bangladesh given assumptions of high value for irrigation and ecosystem services vary between $3.6-3.8 billion. In other words, regardless of the downstream benefits of hydroelectric dams, Nepal would win economically if they were to build dams, with fewer tradeoffs than previously imagined.

It seems that the tide has turned on the reasons for Nepal’s resistance to dams and the reasons for India and Bangladesh to encourage. This study has the potential to change the entire political dynamic between the nations. As Sadoff explained, the problem now is to get the nations to sit down at the same table to discuss the future of the basin, based on the new findings.

Of course, there are major considerations left out of this study, mainly the small issue of the environmental and social implications of large hydroelectric developments in inhabited pristine Himalayan mountains. The history of political instability in Nepal is also a factor to consider for equity and benefit sharing between nations. Throughout all of this, it is important to keep in mind who is conducting the study and what their interest is. While this course has made me more open minded about the potential benefits of large scale projects, my background keeps me rooted in healthy scepticism about international organizations like the World Bank and the IMF.

View from Sinuwa

This study answers questions and clarifies some important points while leading to a myriad of other questions about the future of the Ganges river basin. What will Nepal’s role be in the next few decades? Considering how their national policies are moving towards encouraging and supporting small scale micro-hydro development for rural electrification, will Nepal see big projects as beneficial to the future of the country’s economy? As well, knowing the impacts of the Strategic Basin Assessment for the Ganges, will it be released to the general public as is, or will pressure from India alter it to its benefit?

Busy Bee

It's been a while. I've been busy with school, travel, event organization and general enjoyment of my amazing life. Each and every day that I get up and walk past gorgeous old stone buildings and moss covered walls, I realize how grateful I am to be here and now. I am looking into options for the fall that could keep me around here. We'll see what happens!

I'll write a future post about my spontaneous three week trip to beautiful Nepal, where I went on a trek up to Annapurna Base Camp with an old friend. Hopefully I can post my elective essay in which I analyzed the barriers and drivers of rural electrification in Nepal. I just have to wait until my paper makes it's way through the University grading scheme.

Our professors are pushing us to finalize our dissertation proposals and today we had to present what we intend to research. I am very excited about my topic and especially happy to have finally settled on a subject.

As I haven't had time to write anything personal for this blog recently, I am posting my dissertation literature review below.

Research Question

How to pre-empt water disputes from escalating in arid irrigation communities?

The example of Valencia's Water Tribunal

• Water disputes due to scarce resources and improper management can escalate to violence and destabilize entire regions.

o      Climate change, socioeconomic and political pressures can put increased pressure on already water stressed areas.

• Conflict intervention can occur at different levels of intervention.

o      Prevention, Management and Resolution can occur formally and informally at individual or community levels.

• Informal intervention at a community level in the framework of a recognized formal institution might be the most efficient way to prevent conflict from escalating. 

Introduction

            Conflict is often viewed as harmful, but by not viewing it as innately negative and seizing the opportunity to properly manage disputes in a transparent and open manner, tensions and injustices can be deescalated through constructive communication and lead to human development and social equality (Funder et al 2012). Conflicts over natural resources are often the root of violence within impoverished areas and by learning from successful conflict resolution models, we may avert the escalation of violence in zones that are disproportionately impacted by climate change, socioeconomic injustices and political instability where people risk losing their livelihoods (Funder et al 2012). Climate change may be viewed as a conflict multiplier, as it triggers or aggravates underlying tensions over limited, non-substitutable natural resources such as water supplies (Funder et al 2012). Water disputes between and within states can arise due to scarcity of the resource and improper management and allocation, though in many cases it is poor governance of a scarce resource that leads to conflict (Carius et al 2004). Conflicts over water can arise not only from the relative scarcity of water and its mismanagement, but also from the impacts of water development such as irrigation and lead to conflicts between urban and rural populations (Gleick 1993). Violence that comes from water disputes is more frequently seen on a local scale, instead of an international level and these disputes can interfere with development and human welfare, sometimes impacting stability at regional and national levels (Gleick 1993 Carius et al 2004).

In some cases of water conflict, international law may play a role, but the creation of these laws is complex due to national politics, regional practices, various socioeconomic factors and economic pressures (Gleick 1993). Finding ways to avoid conflict from escalating beyond regional levels seems to be the most efficient way of targeting water disputes. It is important to study and understand institutions that are designed to address disputes between water resource users as well as institutions that manage and allocate water. When these institutions are combined, I propose that we see successful, resilient and sustainable community resource management, wherein informal interventions are able to prevent and resolve conflict.

The resilience and robustness of water management institutions is crucial in building a path to productive conflict resolution that includes confidence, cooperation and prevention of future conflict (Carius et al 2004). Water allocation can be a highly contested issue, especially with regards to the urban versus agriculture tug of war (Carius et al 2004). Worldwide, subsistence and small scale commercial agriculture is a major source of livelihoods and as climate change and urbanization make water supplies more unpredictable and scarce, farmers migrate to urban centres in a search for income and fall into a cycle of poverty (Carius et al 2004). This cycle of poverty can exacerbate conflict at various levels of society and has been linked to civil wars (Carius et al 2004). Globally, there are many countries that need to strengthen their water regulation policies and invest in capacity building in order to prevent water disputes and mitigate conflict (Carius et al 2004). It is important to find examples of systems that successfully address conflict and draw out the appropriate lessons to adapt them to other areas at risk.

To properly understand conflicts, it is important to review three factors: the root causes of the resource conflict, the mechanisms used to address conflict and the level at which intervention may occur (Funder 2012). For the scope of this research, these factors will be limited to provide a deeper investigation of water conflict intervention in one area. The main root cause of conflict will be limited to and framed as water scarcity and its distribution in accordance with local water rights. The mechanisms that will be investigated will be the prevention (early warnings, direct prevention and structural prevention), management (containment, bounding and mitigation) and resolution (negotiation, mediation, facilitation and arbitration) of conflict at a regional level.

The study area

The Turia River of Eastern Spain was diverted through the city of Valencia and today rarely reaches the sea due to overextraction in the upstream reaches and increasing droughts brought about by climate change (Boelens et al 2009). The Turia is the source of water that is divided between acequias, or communally operated irrigation canals, the users of which form irrigation communities (Boelens et al 2009). The acequias lie on the outskirts of Valencia in an area called La Huerta de Valencia and are currently at risk of being overtaken by urban sprawl, having already diminished from 12,000ha to 4,600ha (Boelens et al 2009). Irrigation communities are composed of landowners who hold titles within the acequias and their primary responsibility is to act as administrators of water allocation for irrigation from the main canal (Boelens et al 2009). Water allocation is an important, well-managed and well-supervised operation because the region is under water stress (Boelens et al 2009). Water is allocated by filas which are a measure of volume that varies based on the amount of water present in the canals (Boelens et al 2009).  The inherited rights to water are related to the size of the land and each side of the river is entitled to water on different days of the week (Boelens et al 2009). Each acequia has its own regulations for allocation, maintenance, fee collection and various administrative affairs (Boelens et al 2009).

The Water Tribunal

The internationally recognized Tribunal de las Aguas, or Water Tribunal of Valencia, is a UNESCO heritage site that communally manages its nine irrigation canals that are divided into 8 acequias (Boelens et al 2009). The Tribunal, having existed for over 1000 years, may be viewed as outdated, but its role in water allocation and water dispute intervention make it a model for problem solving in increasingly arid agricultural areas (Green 2008, Boelens et al 2009). It exists in parallel with the Spanish legal system as an example of an established, public legal forum (Green 2008). The water court features swift dispute resolution based on regionally specific regulations (Green 2008).

The Tribunal has eight sindicos who must be “honest farmers”, one from each of the eight acequias: Quart, Benacher-Faitenar, Favara, Robella, Tormos, Mestella, Mislata-Xirivella and Rascana (Boelens et al 2009). The irrigation communities are responsible for carrying out the verdicts decreed by the elected jury of the Tribunal (Boelens et al 2009). Elected officials represent their acequia and a sindico is elected to sit on the water Tribunal, with new elections held every two to three years (Boelens et al 2009). A community respected guarda has the responsibility of enforcing water allocation, managing the irrigation canals, reporting to the Tribunal and acting as a mediator between neighbours during disputes (Boelens et al 2009). The court’s narrow scope is one of the reasons for its long historical success, but may also be its downfall as Valencia’s expansion threatens to take over the land over which it presides (Green 2008). Local regulations and plans such as the Territorial Action Plan for the Protection of the Huerta Valencia are attempting to protect the Tribunal by emphasizing its inherent value as part of local culture and customs (Generalitat Valenciana 2009).  For the last several hundred years, the Tribunal has convened every Thursday at noon to arbitrate water related conflicts (Green 2008).

Local conflict

Conflicts may arise from infringements upon water rights and laws. These contentions are brought before the tribunal and divided into four categories: farmer to farmer, farmers to third parties, acequia to acequia and confederation level (Boelens et al 2009). The actual number of cases brought before the Tribunal is rather small, with an average of ten to twelve cases per year and a total of thirty five cases in the first decade of the millennium (Boelens et al 2009). However, this does not mean that conflict is not occurring; it is simply being diverted before it escalates.

Two types of problems exist between farmers: lack of maintenance that causes other farmers to receive less water and farmers that take more water than their entitlement. Generally, maintenance problems are solved informally, outside of court by the guarda’s intervention (Boelens et al 2009). As for water overuse problems, the enforcement of water allocation prevents the majority of disputes, but when they arise they too are solved informally by the guarda (Boelens et al 2009). Issues that arise between farmers and third parties are mainly between farmer and municipality based on concession and administration non-compliance, rights entitlements and non-compliance to obligations and responsibilities of land-use guidelines (Boelens et al 2009). Similar to the cases between farmers, often the guarda solves the dispute before it gets to the Tribunal though in some cases the conflict escalates and requires formal arbitration in the water court (Boelens et al 2009). The guarda is the main intervener in these two categories of water dispute, informally solving conflicts through prevention, management and resolution.

When problems escalate beyond the power of the guarda, the parties are brought to the Tribunal and formal conflict resolution occurs. The Tribunal is also tasked with resolving general water problems and so disputes between acequias are allegedly solved in the post-Tribunal private meetings attended by the elected sindicos (Boelens et al 2009). The confederation allocates water to the Huertas,, which is turn allocated to the acequias by the Tribunal (Boelens et al 2009). Any problems at this level will be dealt with in the private meetings that follow the public portion of the court proceedings (Boelens et al 2009). The court deals with disputes at a higher level of management through prevention by good governance and fair allocation, resolution by arbitration and through negotiation between authorities.

Formal and Informal Processes

Spanish formal law recognizes the Water Tribunal to the extent that regular courts will not take on a case that has not passed first through the guarda and then through the court (Green 2008, Boelens et al 2009). The legal support granted to these irrigation communities has favoured their permanence and has led to them becoming models for other regions of the world (Casalduero and Viqueira 2007). Most cases are solved at an informal level by the guarda thanks to the authority and legitimacy that the Tribunal has by simple virtue of existing as a formal body (Boelens et al 2009). The Tribunal seems to hold legitimacy and respect from the point of view of farmers who are aware of its role in protecting and representing farmers against third parties such as companies or the municipality that may have wronged them (Boelens et al 2009).

The Tribunal acts as a quick and inexpensive mechanism for addressing water rights disputes through prevention by proper water allocation to farmers, management through reinforcing customary water rights and resolution through mediation or negotiation at the community level and arbitration through the water court (Boelens et al 2009). The public aspect of the Tribunal encourages dispute resolution at a low-level to avoid disgrace or embarrassment of appearing in court, thus preventing conflicts from escalating by simply existing and having authority and prestige (Boelens et al 2009). The informal methods of addressing conflict are mainly carried out by the guardas who act as a first line of defence. Factors that must not be overlooked in this system are the importance of community, social networks and relationships in the long-term sustainability and success of water resource management and dispute resolution. Community level methods of resource management are likely to be more successful in the long term and in the case of the Huertas of Valencia, the management of water resources includes community dispute resolution (McGinnis et al 1999).

This research aims to contribute to understanding the informal conflict prevention, management and resolution processes that occur at a local level through the guardas as community mediators within the framework of a recognized and respected regional conflict resolution system, the Tribunal de las Aguas. The aim is to find lessons that can be adapted to areas under water stress that are at risk of escalating conflict.