Climate change and the institutional resilience of international river basins
| Published date | 01 January 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343311427416 |
| Date | 01 January 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Research Articles |
Climate change and the institutional
resilience of international river basins
Lucia De Stefano
Oregon State University
James Duncan
Oregon State University
Shlomi Dinar
Florida International University
Kerstin Stahl
University of Freiburg
Kenneth M Strzepek
University of Colorado at Boulder
Aaron T Wolf
Oregon State University
Abstract
In the existing 276international river basins,the increase in water variabilityprojected by most climate change scenarios
may presentserious challengesto riparian states.This research maps theinstitutional resilienceto water variabilityin trans-
boundary basins and combines it with both historic and projected variability regimes, with the objective of identifying
areas atpotential risk of futurehydropolitical tension.To do so, it combs existinginternationaltreaties for sources ofinsti-
tutionalresilience and considers thecoefficient of variationof runoff as a measure of past and future watervariability. The
study findssignificant gaps in boththe number of people and area covered by institutional stipulationsto deal with varia-
bility in South America and Asia. At present, high potential risk for hydropolitical tensions associated with water varia-
bility is identified in 24 transboundarybasins and seems to be concentrated mainlyin northern and sub-Saharan Africa.
By 2050, areasat greatest potential riskare more spatially dispersedand can be found in 61 internationalbasins, and some
of the potentially large impactsof climate change are projectedto occur away from those areas currently under scrutiny.
Understandingwhen and where to targetcapacity-buildingin transboundary riverbasins for greater resilienceto change is
critical. This study represents a step toward facilitating these efforts and informing further qualitative and quantitative
research into the relationship between climate change, hydrological variability regimes, and institutional capacity for
accommodating variability.
Keywords
climate change, freshwater treaties, resilience, river basin organizations, transboundary, water variability
Corresponding author:
luciads@geo.ucm.es
Journal of Peace Research
49(1) 193–209
ªThe Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343311427416
jpr.sagepub.com
p
eace
R
ESEARCH
journal of
Introduction
Transcending political boundaries, river basins shared by
two or more countries pose particularly challenging man-
agement problems. In transboundary basins, the unify-
ing principles of integrated watershed management
clash with the forces of state sovereignty. While the inter-
dependence exemplified by sharing a river may result in
interstate conflict and dispute, it could likewise result in
cooperation (Elhance, 1999). To date, studies have shed
much light on this relationship considering how physi-
cal, economic, and political factors may affect conflict
and cooperation (e.g. Lowi, 1993; Hensel, Mitchell &
Sowers, 2006). In its most extreme form, the water–con-
flict relationship has been expressed in the water-wars
thesis (Starr, 1991). While the great majority of aca-
demic studies have criticized this alarmist claim as sensa-
tionalist at best (Wolf & Hamner, 2000), others have
challenged these more sobering and optimistic accounts
by speculating about the effects of climate change on
international water (Working Group II, n.d.).
Overall, climate change is expected to intensify secu-
rity concerns within or between countries or within river
basins (Nordås & Gleditsch, 2007; Gleick, 1993).
According to Barnett (2003: 9), climate change may
have indirect negative effects that can undermine the
legitimacy of governments, undermine individual and
collective economic livelihoods, and affect human health
through reduced availability of food and increased expo-
sure to new disease vectors. A report written by a group
of retired senior military officers attests that one of the
most destabilizing impacts from climate change will be
reduced access to freshwater, which could lead to conflict
in certain areas (CNA, 2007: 13–16). Pertaining to the
phenomenon of water variability, a 2008 Technical
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change has claimed that increased precipitation inten-
sity and variability is projected to increase the risks of
flooding and drought in many areas, which will affect
food stability as well as water infrastructure and practices
(Bates et al., 2008: 3–4).
As climatic variability around the world is expected to
change, the resilience of social-ecological systems in the
face of these shifts could be influenced by the existence
and make-up of international institutions. Resilience is
described here as the ability of a system to absorb pertur-
bations without altering the fundamental structure,
functions, and feedbacks of both its ecological and social
components (Adger et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2006).
Such ‘second-order resources’ enhance the abilities of
society to deal with environmental change (Ohlsson &
Turton, 2000). Formal management regimes governing
shared river basins, in the form of international water
treaties (including specific stipulations such as water allo-
cation, conflict resolution, and variability management)
and river basin organizations, can be particularly instru-
mental in managing or defusing likely disputes among
fellow riparians when faced with climatic change and
water variability (Drieschova, Giordano & Fischhendler,
2008). In their assessment of the Ganges Water Treaty,
for example, Salman & Uprety (2002: 177–186) find
that the 1996 Ganges River Treaty may have incorpo-
rated important stipulations such as water allocation yet
ignored others, including water augmentation (or varia-
bility management) and flood mitigation. Having little
recourse to deal with water variability has contributed
to political tensions between India and Bangladesh.
The study presented here aims to increase our under-
standing of the global distribution of treaties and the
institutional mechanisms they contain. This article uses
the geographical approach of risk-mapping based on the
vulnerability expressed by presence of treaties and river
basin organizations, juxtaposed with the respective
basin’s exposure to hydrological variability. The objec-
tive is to identify which basins may be ill-equipped to
deal with climatic change and water variability. Our
working assumption is that the existence of these treaty
stipulations and organizations will enhance resilience
specifically in river basins predicted to experience high
variability in the future.
With this mapping analysis we are then able to iden-
tify specific basins that may merit further study in light
of their potential risk of hydropolitical stress. The study
shows that institutional coverage is unevenly distributed
across continents and across basins. North America, Eur-
ope, and Africa have the highest coverage of spatial
extent, while South America and Asia have significant
gaps in both the number of people and the spatial extent
covered. The majority of high potential risk associated
with low institutional coverage and present water variabil-
ity is found in northern and sub-Saharan Africa. Consid-
ering future water variability, our study suggests that this
high potential risk may also affect other areas of the globe
(e.g. in Central Asia or Eastern Europe), many of which
are currentlynot under scrutiny. By identifying these areas
at the global scale, we can contribute to efforts aimed at
anticipating and addressing future challenges in trans-
boundary water management posed by climate change.
The outline of this article is as follows. We briefly dis-
cuss the linkage between climate change, water variabil-
ity, and stability within international river basins. We
then review the institutional sources of resilience to
194 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 49(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial