Redeliberating IWRM at the scale of a river basinAUTHOR : NILANJAN GHOSHPublished on Mar 21, 2024 While it is clear that traditional reductionis...

Published on by

Redeliberating IWRM at the scale of a river basinAUTHOR : NILANJAN GHOSHPublished on Mar 21, 2024 While it is clear that traditional reductionis...
Redeliberating IWRM at the scale of a river basin
AUTHOR : NILANJAN GHOSH
Published on Mar 21, 2024
While it is clear that traditional reductionism present in water governance has led to water conflicts, ‘Water for Peace’ can be achieved by recalibration of IWRM at a basin scale

Redeliberating IWRM at the scale of a river basin
This article is a part of the essay series: World Water Day 2024: Water for Peace, Water for Life

The theme of World Water Day 2024 is ‘Water for Peace’, highlighting water’s significant role in bringing about global stability and prosperity. Physical scarcity of freshwater, water pollution, iniquitous access and the upstream-downstream dimension of water as a flowing resource have often made water a subject of conflict at various levels. The unbridled race for control over water, beginning from the global to the local levels, has pitched stakeholders at various scales against each other in a battle for dominance over this precious resource. This struggle often escalates into heated conflicts over the right to use or own water, particularly when it crosses boundaries. Transboundary water disputes are not just international—they occur within countries, between states, and even among local communities, stretching down to the smallest societal units. Moreover, definitionally “transboundary” extends beyond geographical to sectoral boundaries, illustrating the complex web of water-related challenges. The most recent form of transboundary water conflict is acknowledged to be between human economic use and natural ecosystem needs. The challenges are getting even more complex with global warming and climate change causing substantial changes in hydrological flow regimes of major river basins of the world, thereby, affecting various ecosystem services provided by water including the food and drinking water provisioning and supporting and regulating services. Given the way water has been the subject of intense conflicts, the theme of World Water Day 2024 pitching water as an instrument of peace seems apt—this will require coordinated efforts and changes in the paradigmatic thinking of water governance.

Water scarcity and conflicts
The word “scarcity” is nearly synonymous with water disputes, stemming from both the limited quantity of potable water and its uneven distribution across the globe. This brings in the “zero-sum” dimension in the entire water game. The distributional disparity is perceptible with regions flush with water and others parched for it. Adding to this are the nuances of “temporal scarcity,” where water scarcity fluctuates with seasonal changes and grows with population and economic expansion, exacerbating the scarcity as demand soars amidst booming urbanisation and industrialisation. In the realm of transboundary waters, the inherently mobile resource complicates the establishment of clear property rights. In many cases, the upstream-downstream water conflicts have been symptomatic of conflicts over definitions of property rights over water.

From an upstream-downstream perspective, the three extreme principles of defining property rights entail the doctrines of history, Harmon and Hobbes. The Harmon doctrine, rooted in the belief that “If water falls on my roof, it belongs to me,” favours those at the water's origin, benefiting upstream users. Similarly, history echoes the “prior appropriation” principle, granting water rights to those who first utilise the resource, regardless of their geographical position. Meanwhile, the Hobbesian doctrine recognises rights established through negotiations among neighbouring water users or riparian states.

The persistent socio-political and economic pressures from water scarcity leading to conflicts at various levels have driven professionals and researchers to rethink water governance paradigms.

The persistent socio-political and economic pressures from water scarcity leading to conflicts at various levels have driven professionals and researchers to rethink water governance paradigms.

This has ignited a global debate, signalling a pivotal shift from conventional water resource development to innovative, sustainable approaches.

From an old to a new paradigm of water governance
The neo-Malthusian creed of “scarcity induces conflicts” is based on a paradigm that looks at water from the perspective of a physically quantified resource that can be stocked and used as per human need. This is what embodies the traditional paradigm of water governance often delineated as arithmetic hydrology, which is inherently reductionist (as it reduces the very complex water paradigm to a numerical figure). Stressors are emerging from the natural ecosystem that can lead to conflicts within human societies, putting environmental security at risk due to disputes between humans and their surroundings—the scarcity of natural resources to meet burgeoning human needs is well-acknowledged. However, what is less acknowledged are the adverse outcomes from human actions that modify natural resource cycles for short-term economic gains, in the name of “development”. Alterations to natural water cycles by humans typically bring long-term negative consequences despite immediate economic benefits, illustrating the complex nature of these interactions. Such actions have detrimentally impacted livelihoods downstream by affecting ecosystem services.

Media

Taxonomy