“Water conflict is not just about an international river basin and it’s not just about conflict around a well. There’s a whole spectrum of water conflict that we try to get into,” says Sandy Ruckstuhl, senior social scientist at the Center for Complexity Analysis, LLC. Ruckstuhl also teaches a course on water and conflict at the George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Many students drawn to her course have backgrounds in human rights and approach the topic from a “right to water” framework. Ruckstuhl’s course is designed to expand their views. “This discussion is much broader than a debate around rights. There are all sorts of dimensions to water conflict, to water management, that have to do with different levels of governance, different physical challenges in dealing with the resource, different cultural contexts—there are all sorts of factors that are at play when we talk about an issue like water conflict and water cooperation,” she said.

Ruckstuhl takes her students on an exhaustive journey through 10 case studies, touching on cross-cutting topics, such as environmental security and climate change, and their impacts across a range of critical regions, from deserts in the Middle East and Darfur to the Altiplano in Bolivia. Ruckstuhl’s students also benefit from guest lectures presented by water practitioners and experts in the field, including ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, Ambassador John McDonald, and the Henry L. Stimson Center’s David Michel.

“The Department of Defense is not the U.S. government lead for climate change, but we certainly can show leadership in this area,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Amanda Dory recently told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center. “That’s true of energy as well.”

An emerging coalition in Israel dramatically illustrates how common environmental concerns can create unexpected partnerships across difficult political barriers. Through programs initiated by Friends of the Earth Middle East, the Israeli and Palestinian residents of Wadi Fukin and Tzur Hassadah (see inset map) have joined together to oppose the construction of a planned security barrier between their two communities.


View Good Water Neighbors in a larger map

The barrier, an element of the Israeli Green Line, threatens to disrupt karstic springs that support traditional agriculture in the Fukin valley. One third of the Israeli residents of Tzur Hadassah petitioned to halt construction, reports Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

“The Israeli community understood that instead of providing them with security, the fence would harm the springs and lands of the village, and will rob the Palestinian farmers of their livelihood and arouse hatred toward their Israeli neighbors,” Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) Director Gidon Bromberg told Haaretz.

On February 24th, Israelis and Palestinians from both communities met to organize their response to the construction of the separation barrier, including preparing to petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice.

“The case of Wadi Fukin is special, because it is the first time that the resistance of the residents is not based on human rights allegations. Objections here are from an environmental organization,” FoEME attorney Michael Sfard told NRG news.

Since 2001, FoEME’s Good Water Neighbors project has helped divided communities come together over shared natural resources. By collaborating with community members to improve their water situation, the organization encourages sustainable water management through information sharing, dialogue, and cooperative ventures. While the majority of the communities share common surface water sources, including the Jordan and Zomar rivers, some, as with Wadi Fukin and Tzur Hassadah, rely on common underground aquifers.

This “natural interdependence,” says Bromberg, helps to create trust and solve problems facing both communities.

Photo: Courtesy Friends of the Earth Middle East

How is water shaping geopolitics in the 21st century? Is it an underlying factor for state failure and social conflict, or can it drive peace and cooperation? How will climate change reshape global water resources?

Recently, on WAMU’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko, author Steven Solomon, and the World Bank’s Julia Bucknall came together to discuss the history, politics, economics, and future of water.

“Climate change exacerbates the water crisis in very severe ways because it manifests itself through water —through floods, droughts, and melting glaciers,” said Solomon.

The World Bank’s Julia Bucknell highlighted climate change projections that indicate average precipitation increases are likely, mostly in the global North. “It is the poorer countries that show up red on the maps with a reduction in precipitation,” she said.

By compounding failing states’ limited capacity to secure existing water supplies for agriculture, sanitation, and human consumption, decreasing precipitation will result in further intensification of global public health and food security crises.

“We need to improve the existing productivity of the water we’ve got,” said Solomon. “We need to use it more efficiently and fairly in a way that protects the ecosystems.”

Countries such as Australia, Israel, and China are leading the way: even under arid conditions, they use innovative methods to remain productive. In Australia, a new regime allows water rights to be traded, even over cellphones, while China established a credit-based system for individual farmers by using remote sensing technology based on NASA data.

Governments are under pressure to address climate change directly, while managing vexing local and regional challenges. “Our political institutions and our political leaders must not deal with the short term and pretend things will go back to a state of normalcy, but [should] progressively and proactively shape and reshape the institutions,” said Dabelko.

Countries with traditionally contentious relationships have cooperated to solve common water problems. The Financial Times recently reported on an agreement between China and India to jointly assess trends in Himalayan glacier and snow melt.

“There are prospects for tensions,” said Dabelko of the Himalayas, “but quite frankly, water is difficult to [obtain] through war. It’s hard to pick it up and take it home.”

To listen to the full audio recording, click here.

Photo: Just Add Water, Courtesy of Flickr Member MΛЯK
Photo: Melting Glacier at Jokuldalur, Iceland 2, Courtesy of Flickr Member, ChrisGoldNY

In areas fraught with conflict, is it possible to advance conflict resolution through environmental discourse? A recent conference hosted by Tel Aviv University’s Porter School of Environmental Studies explored this question through an examination of existing peace parks, as well as possible future preserves.

The wide-ranging discussion sought to apply theories of conflict resolution and environmental peacemaking to local conflict in the Middle East. Touching on conservation, conflict resolution, local history, geography, ecology, and diplomacy, the participants underscored the importance of restoration efforts, local environmental maintenance, and the pursuit of peace through environmental cooperation.

“Water disputes that can start at the local level—little things—have the potential, in extreme cases, to burgeon into something much bigger,” warned Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), during a discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center (Webcast) for the launch of CRS’ new publication, Water and Conflict: Incorporating Peacebuilding into Water Development. The report provides guidance to water development practitioners, civil society members, and others striving to incorporate water and peacebuilding into their project frameworks.

In recognition of water’s potential to drive conflict, Hackett—part of a panel featuring Jason Gehrig, Water and Conflict‘s primary author; William Hall, professor of conflict resolution at Georgetown University; and Tjip Walker, team leader of USAID’s conflict management and mitigation office‘s warning and analysis unit—urged those working on water to focus attention on identifying and diffusing areas of emerging disagreement while they are still manageable. “We must, in a proactive way, incorporate peacebuilding methodologies in water and sanitation work,” said Hackett.

Looking Beyond Tubes and Tanks

Prior to witnessing violent protests within the Altiplano region of Bolivia, Jason Gehrig assumed that the primary obstacles to successful water development efforts would be found in the technical phase of designing or building delivery systems. Local political developments, however, demonstrated that “we can’t just be looking at development without also looking at the structural issues at play,” said Gherig.

Emphasis on “social infrastructure” and the inclusion of peacebuilding paradigms allows for conflict transformation and the mitigation of future violence through heightened conflict sensitivity by local practitioners. Such understanding and sensitivity to local conflicts and structures, Gehrig asserted, can only be achieved by “listening, winning hearts and minds (beginning with our own) by getting close to the people so that their struggle for life, for dignity, for peace, becomes our own.”

Defining the Role of Environmental Conflict Resolution

William Hall noted that conflict sensitive practices apply several elements of environmental conflict resolution (ECR), such as in-depth social participation, context analysis, stakeholder involvement, and the use of neutral parties.

For Hall, the goal of ECR is not only conflict resolution, but “also how people will be involved.” Adapting a framework design from the International Association for Public Participation, Hall reminded the audience that decision-makers must clearly communicate both the goals of their intervention as well as the degree of public involvement required and desired. These issues are sensitive; Hall emphasized that, once a commitment has been made, it is extremely important “to be true to [one’s promises.]”

In situations such as those included in the CRS report, successful peacebuilding efforts—which result in high-quality agreements and improved working relationships between the affected parties—must include effective engagement of appropriate stakeholders, proper mediation, and high-quality information. While many of these factors may be seen as additional procedural complications and expenses, Hall countered that recent research has shown that, compared to standard methods, agreements reached within an ECR context grant economic and environmental benefits beyond those afforded by alternative processes.

Peacefully Managing the Commons

Tjip Walker noted that effective governance of water and other common pool resources, often magnets for mismanagement and contention, should be a pivotal concern for peacebuilders in fragile states. Drawing on research on governance and conflict, Walker explained that countries that are more democratic, and allow for greater social participation, are at a lower risk for violent conflict.

With regard to threats posed by common pool resources, Walker reminded the forum that Elinor Ostrom’s work demonstrates it is possible—providing a “enabling environment” for governance—to manage such resources without exposure to dire consequences. In many cases, however, Ostrom’s requirements for sustainable management are unfortunately difficult to achieve and are further complicated by pre-existing challenges stemming from economic dependencies and political arrangements.

Referring to previous trans-boundary river conflict projects, Walker noted that “most of them have been positive…[which] seems to suggest that we are all in this together.” Successes such as these grant hope for the future, yet also demonstrate a need for negotiated agreements across political boundaries. “Under the right circumstances,” Walker concluded, “we do have the ability to manage these resources effectively in ways that are perceived as generally being effective and legitimate.”

For more information about water, conflict and cooperation, as well as other events and publications under ECSP’s Navigating Peace Initiative, please visit www.wilsoncenter.org/water.


Photo: Courtesy David Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center.

Saleem Ali filmed this video on his visit to the “peace island” between Jordan and Israel, which Friends of the Earth Middle East (FOEME) is working to convert into an international peace park.

Africa’s elephants and black rhinos—already at risk—are increasingly threatened as the price of black market ivory rises, global markets contract, and unemployment rates rise. To fight poaching of these tusked animals, Ian Craig, founder of the Lewa Conservancy in Kenya and the brains behind the Northern Rangelands Trust, takes a unique approach to conservation that involves both local community members and high-level government officials, as well as private and public sector investors.

In the 1970s the black rhino population was at about 20,000. Less than three decades later, it had fallen to 200. Today, the population is about 600, of which 79 live in the Lewa Conservancy. The vast regions of Kenya covered by the Northern Rangelands Trust and the Lewa Conservancy are difficult to govern, so the conservancies partner with local communities to ensure the security necessary to protect the animals from poachers. By investing in community institutions, the conservancies create long-term sustainability and self-sufficiency.

But why should local communities—often beset by poverty, disease, and hunger—care about saving elephants or rhinoceroses rather than killing them for their tusks or meat? Revenue from tourism can total hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially because of the high cost and exclusive nature of tourism facilities in the area. This money is then injected back into community programs to improve adult literacy, school nutrition, health care, micro-credit, water and irrigation systems, community livestock and agriculture, and forestry and aquaculture.

In some politically volatile areas, the conservancy serves not only as a platform for ecological security, but also as a mediator of disputes. Where livestock theft is rampant, multi-ethnic anti-poaching teams have been able to act as intermediaries. Community elders and other traditional leaders serving on the conservancies’ boards have bi-annual meetings to further intra- and inter-regional cooperation. Along with regular managerial and council meetings, the board meetings set standards for good practices, open dialogue for policymaking and cooperation, and act as a unique platform for communication between different ethnic and regional groups.

Community members understand they have a stake in protecting not only the animals, but in ensuring security and building trust within the country. With its unique combination of local-level engagement, the cooperation and support of the Kenyan Wildlife Service and the national government, and with the resources available to the conservancies as a group, the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy hopes to create a model of conservation that can be used across Africa and in other at-risk regions.

The future is shaky: ivory prices continue to rise, the migration of animals has facilitated poaching, and small arms are abundantly available. However, the new community-focused approach has helped to create positive attitudes that aren’t just about saving animals, but about developing the nation.

Justine Lindemann is program assistant with the Africa Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Photo: Elephants in Lewa Conservancy area, courtesty Flickr user Mara 1