In the past century, crude oil aka ‘black gold’ had the power of determining the political landscape in the entire world. Back to back conflicts, starting from the Israel-Palestine dispute over the Gaza Strip, the Yemen crisis and finally ISIS, all revolved around the fact that crude oil is a limited natural resource.
However this oil centric world is now gradually leaning towards a new end. This time it is water, another natural resource, which billions of people still have no proper access to; a clear sign that the world would become worse than the era of crude oil.
Dr. Sisira Withanachchi, a scholar attached to the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) and Kassel University of Germany, who is on a brief visit to Sri Lanka, shared the latest trends and developments of Hydro-diplomacy at a seminar organised by the BCIS (Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies) last week.
Disputes over water
According to Dr.Withanachchi’s studies, more than 150 countries share transboundary water resources.
In this context, controlling and managing water gives a competitive advantage. “At the very moment we share a natural resource, we are in need of diplomacy,” he said.
Two African countries, Senegal and Mauritania several diplomatic ties in 1989 due to a dispute over the Senegal river basin. It started as a micro level issue between people in the border areas, making the two neighbours become rivals for a few years.
Water disputes are not alien to our region also. During her state visit to India in 2017, Bangladesh Premier Sheik Hasina gave key priority to sharing of the waters of the Teesta River among two countries.
Teesta starts from the Himalayas, flows through India and finally meets the ocean passing through Bangladesh.
The river basin belongs to both countries. Darjeeling’s tea plantations are fed by the river’s water.
In an initial treaty between the two neighbouring countries, it was decided that 36 per cent of Teesta water goes to Bangladesh and 39 per cent to India. However, Bangladesh wanted it increased to 48 per cent, amidst objections by the state of Western Bengal in India, which holds most of the catchments of the river Teesta.
A universal right
There is a huge debate in international forums to designate water as a fundamental human right, like the right to live and the right to freedom of faith. However, when a resolution was tabled at the UN in 2010, proposing water as a universal right, Canada opposed. It was said that, Canada was scared of a scenario in which they would have to share their water resources with the USA.
“When we talk about transboundary issues between Canada and USA, international issues are a part of their national interest. But now Canada has a more progressive government. So I wouldn’t see that they will oppose in the future, terms of the global acceptance of water as a human right. Because the de facto global community acknowledges water as a human right.” said Dr. Withanachchi.
Once, making a controversial statement, Chairman of Nestle, the world largest food and beverage organisation, Peter Brabeck said that 98.5 per cent of the water should be privately managed.
“Water has become a very emotional subject. The moment, specially a multinational company gets involved in water you will have the criticism that water is a human right. Therefore, no private company should have the possibility of making money with water. But five litres of water you need daily for hydration and 20-25 litres of water which you need for minimum sanitation is the human right as has been recognised by the UN. But this accounts only for 1.5% of the water we are withdrawing. What I am saying is 98.5% of the water, that we are using in a mostly irresponsible manner, is not the human right” he said.
Power centres
It is perhaps a common belief that almost all natural resource management including that of water is the responsibility of the national governments. However, Dr. Withanachchi stressed the fact that water management is no longer a sole government responsiblity as stakeholder engagement is also vital.
“One good example is the Rathupaswala incident. Not just the government, there were a few stakeholders, including civil society, religious leaders, private companies and even the Army. This shows the poly centric nature of water at present,” he said.
Jaffna’s water crisis is one good example of an internal dispute over the sharing of irrigation water. Diverting Iranamadu water in Kilinochchi to Jaffna peninsula is a decades long proposal brought under successive governments, which has never become a reality.
The peninsula which has no reservoir or river, has a major issue in supplying clean drinking water to the people. Also diverting Iranamadu water created a big fuss in the Northern Provincial Council as politically motivated farmers in Kilinochchi opposed the project. Perhaps this could be a good case study for the failure of politician-based solutions in finding sustainable answers to the burning issues of the people.
“We still cannot see an active engagement from civil society towards environment governance in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, civil society is limited to a few elite personnel and they are also allies of major political parties. Civil society should be more inclusive.
On the other hand, all past, present and more likely future governments of Sri Lanka are afraid of civil organisations and Non-Government Organisations. That is why ‘governance’ is always the important term, not government,” said Dr. Withanachchi.
In the entire globe there are 263 transboundary rivers and lakes, which is a clear sign that water could be the next gold.
It is obvious that mankind has to go for alternatives and already have found plenty of options to face a world without crude oil. But, will the world ever be ready to go without water? That is actually why, hydro-diplomacy or equity sharing of water is essential, more than ever in history.