Debate on water wars in Nature

March 25, 2009 I posted Opinion: Nations don't go to war over water on a "peer reviewed opinion" (Nature 458, 282–283; 2009). In short, writer Wendy Barnaby discussed how a book project was stopped because research didn't turn up a significantly bloody past history of water wars. The objections are in and there are plenty of arguments on the shelf...


by psd

The potential for water conflict is on the increase by Z. W. Kundzewicz and P. Kowalczak disagree almost completely:

water has often been the object, target or weapon of military or terrorist action

...they say; referring to a quite thorough list of incidents. Although pointing to certain circumstances where cooperation is more likely than conflict, they finish...

as populations in water-stressed areas continue to grow and the demand for water increases to improve living standards with better sanitation and a water-intensive diet. In arid areas, water scarcity is likely to be exacerbated by climate change [...] The potential for water conflict — war or no war — deserves careful attention.

Increasing inequality is already making shortages worse by T. H. Meek and L. A. Meek says Barnaby was too "hasty" and points to her argument resting on at least three shady assumptions:

that developing nations will be able to afford food [...] that food itself is not also a limited resource being threatened by global warming [...that] poorer nations will become wealthier in the coming decades

Water is a source of cooperation rather than war by U. Shamir, S. Grand and N. Grand agree with Barnaby from the perspective of a senior adviser to the Israeli Water Authority. It is claimed that the Palestinian Territories receives more water from Israel than they are entitled to by the treaty.

Water: conflicts set to arise within as well as between states is by Ismail Serageldin, who was quoted by Barnaby, adds nuance:

arguments that have been made by others about international wars being unlikely for water, and they are probably right. But civil strife between competing groups within countries over water rights are very serious. [...] Drought has driven many tribes in Africa into terrain that they are not normally expected to occupy. When coupled with other factors such as ethnic or religious divides, this becomes a dangerous mix. Water may also become a casus belli between states, if the downstream nation is considerably stronger militarily than the one upstream, and the latter tries to block or reduce the flow of water.

His finish is perhaps the most important contribution:

The answer [...] is to manage our water resources better, learning from past experience, generalizing best practices and facing up to the mounting challenges that are coming our way, not to dismiss the issue as a myth.

Finally, in Water: resistance on the route towards a fair share for all M. Zeitoun largely agrees with Barnaby's attack on the "media hype" of water wars but like most others he adds details of conflicts within countries - from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, India... and Israel / Palestine:

Palestinian farmers eke out a living dependent on
highly variable and scarce rainfall, next door to the industrial farms of Israeli settlers whose irrigation water is state-subsidized.

And:

Water conflicts (not wars) are a clear and present danger for millions. They deserve our full collective scientific, financial and diplomatic attention.

by Snap®

On a more general note I'd say it is a bit naive to claim that because something didn't happen in the past - a declaration of war stating water as the issue - it will not happen in the future. Especially since conflict rarely plays by the book anyway and since low level conflicts about water seem to be common and on the rise.

Opinion: Nations don't go to war over water

Writer Wendy Barnaby has written an essay for academic journal Nature in stead of a book for her publisher as the conclusion on "water wars" wouldn't sell. Some facts...

There are 263 cross-boundary waterways in the world. Between 1948 and 1999, cooperation over water, including the signing of treaties, far outweighed conflict over water and violent conflict in particular. Of 1,831 instances of interactions over international freshwater resources tallied over that time period (including everything from unofficial verbal exchanges to economic agreements or military action), 67% were cooperative, only 28% were conflictive, and the remaining 5% were neutral or insignificant. In those five decades, there were no formal declarations of war over water.

Three examples are explored a bit further: the Israel-Palestine, the India-Pakistan and the Nile water conflict situations. The Nile issue is about how the countries surrounding it were forced into cooperation following years of low level conflicts and the India-Pakistan issue on how cooperation has been set up in a treaty with the help of the World Bank despite the two countries being engaged in an ongoing military conflict. The Israel-Palestine issue is presented a bit weird:

it is foolish for Israel, a water-short country, to grow and then export products such as oranges and avocados, which require a lot of water to cultivate

Yes it is. Israel and most neighbours have water shortages but alleviate it by importing grain. There are a whole bunch of inconvenient truths not mentioned, but one is:

Palestinian and Israeli water professionals interact on a Joint Water Committee, established by the Oslo-II Accords in 1995. It is not an equal partnership: Israel has de facto veto power on the committee.

I'll dig out some more facts soon (in the mean time try my Israel and Palestine tags). But let's just note Wendy Barnaby's main conclusions:

Inequitable access to water resources is a result of the broader conflict and power dynamics: it does not itself cause war [...] predictions of armed conflict come from the media and from popular, non-peer-reviewed work

Undoubtedly true that main stream media is better at sensationalistic headlines than scientific journals. But is this move from simplistic causation to hen-or-egg discussion a bit too easy? I mean demand is very likely to go up, supply very likely to go down. Leading to cooperation or conflict.

water 'embedded' in traded products could be important in explaining the absence of conflict over water [...] as poor countries diversify their economies, they turn away from agriculture and create wealth from industries that use less water. As a country becomes richer, it may require more water overall to sustain its booming population, but it can afford to import food to make up the shortfall

most importantly, improve the conditions of trade for developing countries to strengthen their economies

Sure. That's what the WTO is for, right? ;-)







Barnaby, W. (2009). Do nations go to war over water? Nature, 458 (7236), 282-283 DOI: 10.1038/458282a

Search Google Books for Wendy Barnaby.

Nature: Is this what the world's coming to?

With climate change placing increasing pressure on environmental resources, it is now being viewed as a threat to national security.

History is littered with lessons from once-budding civilizations that crashed from their peak of prosperity. From the Anasazi of the southwestern United States to the Mayans of Mesoamerica1 and the ancient dynasties of eastern China2, environmental change has sounded the death knell throughout time for once-thriving civilizations already stressed by factors including high population growth, overexploitation of resources and excessive reliance on external trade. In many cases, severe drought or extreme cold has been enough to push societies to the brink of civil unrest, mass migration and warfare.

Meta note: Although I check out Nature.com every now and then (continuously with RSS, of course) Dr. Saleem H. Ali got to it first and indirectly notified me by posting it to his blog at Newsvine.com which I also subscribe to. Web 2.0 galore.