Trans-boundary Water Co-operation as a Tool for Conflict Prevention and Broader Benefit Sharing

Abstract

Given the fundamental human requirement for water, the appropriate sharing of trans-boundary watercourses is implicitly tied to the attainment of human rights. The potential for an improved allocation of benefits between populations sharing transboundary watercourses is also directly or indirectly linked to the alleviation of poverty in many cases, especially as one of the most important benefits in the developing world involves the ability to increase food production through the use of irrigated agricultural techniques. However, there are also many other more subtle ways in which the sharing of benefits arising from an improved allocation of transboundary waters could alleviate poverty. The main aim of this Global Development Study is to analyse the potential of cooperation on international transboundary waters as an instrument for the revention of conflict; and for encouraging the broader sharing of benefits by coriparians. The study includes three Case Studies, which have been selected due to their complementary nature; the Jordan River basin, the Kagera River and the Mekong River. Principles derived from these Case Studies are distilled and analysed in discussions relating to four specific questions: What conclusion arise from the available international literature on conflict and co-operation on water resources, and what role does the sharing of benefits play in this? Can co-operation on the sharing of international watercourses be utilized as a broader conflict prevention tool in the future and if so, how may this be achieved? Should development partners integrate trans-boundary water management more closely into their overall development agendas? In broad ters, how should development best proceed in the Case Study basins, and how critical is joint water management as an element of future scenarios?

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 139 citations exist upstream.