Topic 4 – Water Diplomacy

 

Speaker: Dr. Mark Zeitoun (Director General at Geneva Water Hub)

 

Diplomacy should consider power plays :

 

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) delivered three key messages to the participants on the simplistic dynamics behind denying water to certain populations, the efficiency of policy responses, and the utility of social sciences in this regard. Unfair water sharing will result in harmful effect, hence the importance of understanding power symmetry for effective water diplomacy and referring to the National and International Water Law as a useful guide. Social processes and biophysical processes are significant reasons behind water conflicts, and a cause for social water scarcity. Iraq was particularly dry as a result of upstream dams. Agreements and diplomacy on water in the region were lacking if not non-existent. Water was a source of political power plays in conflict, which needed to be considered as part of diplomatic efforts on water. The most powerful country in a region typically determined who received water. Power asymmetry was a fact of life, but the river hegemon could use such a position of power and influence for the good of everyone beyond its own borders. Focusing on narrow national interests was just a short-term solution.

​

Effective Diplomacy :

​

There were numerous solutions that parliamentarians could implement to ensure effective diplomacy and address power asymmetry. First, it was important to build capacity to help the so-called weaker parties in negotiations. It was important to ensure that negotiators had the same technical and legal competencies. The outcome of a negotiated agreement between equals was always more sustainable compared to a coerced agreement. Second, there should be a focus on levelling the playing field, with accepted norms and standards used as the basis for all negotiations. More concretely, such action could focus on who specifically should receive water and in what quantities. It was crucial to decide if water resources should be divided equally or distributed according to need. In the case of the Nile River, there were 11 countries that shared the water resource. Certain countries in the region were more dependent on the river relative to others.

​

Support for and opposition to Water Law :

​

The 1997 United Nations Watercourses Convention stipulated that the distribution and utilization of a watercourse should be equitable and reasonable. It would make a radical difference for international diplomacy if such action was applied in specific regions around the world. A majority of countries had not signed or ratified the Convention, potentially as a result of lack of interest, downplaying the benefits or opposing it entirely. Some States had implemented technical and economic arrangements that worked around politics, which was a curious development for science diplomacy. However, such actions avoided the source of the conflict, which was the distribution of water itself.

International water law was not perfect, most significantly because it could be ignored. However, in the absence of agreed standards and principles, the space and opportunity for conflict resolution were closed down. International water law was the least worst way forward. There was also an opportunity to ensure coherence with national law and international law to ensure effective implementation.

​

Discussion :

​

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) thanked Mr. Zeitoun for the invaluable support that he and his Organization had provided to the IPU in developing the curriculum for the Science for Peace Schools initiative.

The participant from Türkiye said that transboundary water resources were one of the best resources to leverage collaborations between States. Although his country was not water-rich and despite ongoing political issues, Türkiye had continued to supply water to its neighbours. Dams and irrigation systems were much needed tools to prevent downflows. He asked how it was possible to achieve sustainable development without dams and irrigation systems.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was ample justification to continue building dams, especially given that they were the source of almost all of the electricity used in Canada and Scandinavia. The issue was rather on the consequences of building on other countries. It was true that Türkiye had the legal right to build dams, but Iraq had a legal right not to experience significant harm as a result. International law was useful in determining how water resources could be shared and the considerations that would be taken into account to ensure equitable and reasonable use. It was not a perfect solution, but it could function as a guide to agree a framework between neighbouring countries to negotiate a satisfactory outcome.

The participant from Israel said that desalination and the recycling of wastewater could provide additional resources for all sides. He asked Mr. Zeitoun for further details in this regard.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that around the time of the Annapolis Conference, Israel had just begun to desalinate water. Israel had the capacity and technology to produce water, which resulted in less stress on natural water resources. The Palestinian side requested that such technologies were factored into the equation of water sharing. Israel declined in this regard, with a preference to focus on other pressing matters. Some 20 years later, Israel was producing even more water, and was cleaning 80% of its wastewater. Israel was therefore no longer considered water scarce. However, such water was not being shared with Palestinians.

The participant from Israel said that the development of technologies and capacity should not imply that countries give up their natural resources.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that Israel should not be required to give up its water resources, but equitable and reasonable use was an important aspect to consider.

Mr. B.N. Tankoano (G5-Sahel Interparliamentary Committee) said that the Sahel region was particularly arid and lacked sufficient quantities of water. Access to water could be used as a way forward to navigate the ongoing crisis, but there were no international solutions in that regard for the region. Guinea was a crucial example as the country had the capacity to provide multiple countries in West Africa with electricity via hydroelectric projects. International projects and organizations could offer a framework to facilitate coordination between various States. He asked how water could be used as part of inter-State diplomacy to resolve conflicts.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that West Africa was a model in regard to the sharing of water resources. The Gambia River Basin Development Organization and the Senegal River Basin Development Authority were regional organizations that jointly managed their respective rivers and basins. The organizations had a mandate to think beyond their borders and consider water as a common good for humanity. Such organizations were needed elsewhere. Both organizations were cooperating in a way that ensured equitable and reasonable access.

The Sahel region was understandably different due to conflict. However, despite such differences, the people were the same. The people could use citizen science for citizen diplomacy. Environmentalists on all sides of the borders could come together to arrange to share water or to cooperate over water, in the hope that action would trickle upward. It would be naïve to think that community-level actions would influence States and governments, but such actions could make a positive different to communities and serve as an example for others to follow.

The participant from Chad said that his country was part of the Sahel region and offered significant potential in regard to groundwater and surface water. He asked if there was the possibility of a project to drain water for use elsewhere.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that, despite the ongoing conflict, the Sahel region and West Africa more generally could provide opportunities for further learning and development in regard to water development projects. In the water world, one of the biggest blockers for further learning was language, with English being used too often as the default language. Speakers of other languages needed to be involved in discussions for effective dialogue.

The participant from Palestine said that his village was located over the biggest aquifer in the West Bank, but the water was taken and pumped directly to the city of Tel Aviv. Before 2007, the village had to rely on rainwater, which was collected in big wells and containers to ensure an even and steady supply of water. It was impossible to plan for new methodologies to reuse water or even establish new plants to recycle wastewater, because all too often suitable areas were controlled by Israel and applicable permission would not be granted. It was crucial to address such matters to accomplish peace and meet basic humanitarian needs.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was more than enough water in the region to meet demand, but it was often denied to Palestinians owing to the wider Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was remarkable that Israel had the most exciting water-related technologies in the world, but people only a few kilometres away were collecting rainwater. Such a situation was pure politics and conflict. He remained hopeful that water could be used to influence the bigger political process to resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if water technologies could help to ease pressure and stress in certain countries.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that there was potential for water technologies to ease certain pressures on natural resources. Desalination technology had allowed Israel to produce more than enough water to meet the country’s needs. The technologies reduced the stress on fresh water supplies, but it did not adequately address the conflict. The benefits of technology could be used to address certain issues, especially as part of a political process aimed at resolving conflicts.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if technology could be used not to resolve conflict, but to ease conflict or facilitate discussions.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said that technology could certainly be used to ease tension, especially in Palestine or Egypt as examples. However, the issue in such places was the quantity of water received. Desalination was an expensive process. People in cities would be able to pay, but farmers, who needed much more water, would not be able to afford the prices involved. Technology could therefore reduce tensions for people living in cities, but not for farmers.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) asked if additional support in the form of research or studies was available, especially in regard to Sahel countries.

Dr. M. Zeitoun (Geneva Water Hub) said he would gladly provide further information as necessary and would discuss such opportunities with his colleagues.