Water for people.pdf - WHO Thailand Digital Repository

3 2 0 / M A N A G E M E N T C H A L L E N G E S : S T E W A R D S H I P A N D G O V E R N A N C ESharing Water: Defining a Common Interestconsumable resource or as a quantity to be managed. A database forwater conflict/cooperation was produced comprising 1,831 events –507 conflictive, 1,228 cooperative and 96 neutral or non-significant(see figure 12.2). The information was then incorporated into aGeographic Information System (GIS) with approximately 100 layers ofglobal and/or regional spatial data covering biophysical (e.g.topography, surface runoff, climate), socio-economic (e.g. GrossDomestic Product [GDP], dependence on hydropower) and geopolitical(e.g. style of government, present and historic boundaries) factors.Relevant parameters were backdated and formatted for historicalconsistency (e.g. 1964 boundaries coincide with 1964 GDPs andgovernment types), such that the historical context of each event ofconflict/cooperation could be fully assessed. By identifying sets ofparameters that appear to be interrelated, and testing each set usingsingle and multivariate statistical analyses, factors that seemed to beindicators of conflict/cooperation were identified.In general, it was found that most parameters usually identified asindicators of water conflict are only weakly linked to disputes.Institutional capacity within a basin, whether defined by watermanagement bodies or international treaties, or more generally bypositive international relations, was as important, if not more so, thanthe physical aspects of a system. On the basis of this work, then, rapidMap 12.5: Status of cooperation in transboundary river basinschanges either in institutional capacity or in the physical system wouldseem to have historically been at the root of most water conflicts.These changes were reflected by the following three indicators:■ ‘internationalized’ basins, i.e. basins that include themanagement structures of newly independent states;■ basins that include unilateral development projects and theabsence of cooperative regimes; and■ basins where basin states show general hostility over non-waterissues.By extrapolating these findings and using the above indicators in apredictive context, basins with current characteristics that suggest apotential for conflicting interests and/or a requirement forinstitutional strengthening over the coming five to ten years, wereidentified. These basins, shown in map 12.5, included the Aral,Ganges-Brahmaputra, Han, Incomati, Jordan, Kunene, Kura-Araks,Lake Chad, La Plata, Lempa, Limpopo, Mekong, Nile, Ob (Ertis),Okavango, Orange, Salween, Senegal, Tigris-Euphrates, Tumen andPotential conflicting interests and/or lack of institutional capacity Recent dispute; negotiations in progress Other international basinsThis map was extrapolated from indicators to pinpoint transboundary basins where current characteristics suggest a potential for conflict or a strengthening of institutions inthe coming five to ten years.Source: Wolf et al., forthcoming.