“It’s always important when working in policy to consider what we can do beyond conception and look at more implementation,” said Valerie Stahl of New York University at the Wilson Center last month.
Stahl was one of three graduate students presenting their winning papers for an annual academic paper competition, “Reducing Urban Poverty,” co-sponsored by the Wilson Center, USAID, International Housing Coalition, Cities Alliance, and the World Bank. This year’s competition was the third in an effort to better link new academic work on urban issues to actual policymaking. [Video Below]
›Stacy VanDeveer in the lead up to Backdraft: The Conflict Potential of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation at the Woodrow Wilson Center on June 10. VanDeveer believes that mitigation techniques, particularly alternative energy sources like hydroelectric dams, could stimulate cooperation rather than exacerbate threats.
As shown by Aaron Wolf’s Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, cooperation over water is much more commonplace than conflict – over the last 50 years, only 37 disputes resulted in violence, and 30 of those occurred between Israel and one of its neighbors.
It thus stands to reason that water could continue to serve as a unifier when it comes to hydroelectric development. Neighboring countries sharing a major water basin undoubtedly share a common interest in managing this nebulous resource jointly for economic and environmental gain.
However, various examples from around the world complicate this assumption – the Rogan hydroelectric dam in Tajikistan worries downstream neighbor Uzbekistan; India’s recently built hydroelectric dam in Kashmir stymies water flow and dries up irrigation canals in Pakistan; and Kenya worries about Lake Turkana’s ecosystem as Ethiopia moves to construct a new hydroelectric dam. The list goes on.
One prominent South American example is a particularly apt case in point.
Low-Level Tensions: The Case of Itaipu
In 1973, Paraguay and Brazil signed a bilateral agreement to build the Itaipu hydroelectric dam, which at that time was the world’s largest. After 20 years of construction that carried a hefty price tag of US$15 billion, Itaipu now provides some 26,000 megawatts of energy to Brazil and Paraguay.
From the outset, however, tension between the two countries has outweighed any tangible benefits. Paraguay complains that although it relies on the dam for 90 percent of the country’s electricity, it uses only a fraction of the dam’s output – 10 percent to be exact. Meanwhile, Itaipu accounts for 20 percent of Brazil’s total energy needs. Fueling tensions further, the terms of the original 1973 treaty dictate that if one country has surplus energy, it must sell that energy to the other for below-market value; meaning Paraguay regularly sells Brazil leftover energy at cutthroat prices.
Paraguay argues that if they were allowed to sell to third-party customers at market value, the country would be making upwards of US$2.28 billion a year – or, in other words, double the sum paid by Brazil for 18 years of power imports, according to the Asunción press.
Cooperation and Compensation Win the Day?
After more than 30 years of increasing hostility, Brazil agreed to triple its compensation to Paraguay in July 2009, increasing its annual payments for dam energy from US$120 million to US$360 million. Paraguay also won the possibility of selling excess energy produced from the dam to the private Brazilian market, although Paraguay will not be allowed to sell to other countries until 2023.
The compromise also set aside another US$450 million of no-strings-attached investment for a transmission line from Itaipu to Asuncion, enabling more widespread energy distribution throughout Paraguay at lower costs. (So far, only US$10 million has been paid out.)
However, the cooperative atmosphere did not last long. Despite the deal and warming relations, Brazil chose to flex its military might in a November 15, 2009, training exercise dubbed “Operation Lasso,” which took place on the border of Argentina and Paraguay. The mission: quell violence in a hypothetical enemy country and recover a bi-national hydroelectric dam that had fallen into their hands.
In obvious reference to Itaipu, the simulation was based around a strategic hydroelectric dam, Itá,” which had been occupied by hostile forces. The two combatants were “Green,” allegedly representing Brazil, and “Yellow,” presumably playing the part of Paraguay. Defesa@Net called the exercise “the greatest simulation of a major conventional conflict in Latin America.”
Brazilian General Carlos de Nardi, commander of the 8,000 joint-service members taking part in the simulation, told Defensa@Net, “We are training our people for dissuasion, so that nobody trespasses our frontiers.”
On the Horizon
The complicated nature of Brazilian-Paraguayan cooperation over the Itaipu dam will continue to be tested, as energy demand is set to significantly increase in the near future. The 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games will both take place in Brazil, and the expected influx of tourists and athletes, as well as the construction of major Games-related infrastructure projects, will surely put added strain on its already fragile energy infrastructure. With Paraguay already so dependent on Itaipu – a brief blackout in 2009 caused the entire country to lose power for 15 minutes – tensions over energy sharing will undoubtedly reoccur.
Sources: ABCTV (Paraguay), BBC News, Brazilian Southern Command, Brazzil Mag, Dawn, Diplomatic Courier, Defesa@Net, Jaluo Africa, MercoPress, Oregon State University, United Nations, United Press International.
Photo Credit: “Satellite image of Itaipu Dam, Parana River, Brazil/Paraguay Border,” courtesy of flickr user DigitalGlobe-Imagery.
›May 11, 2010 // By Schuyler NullThe Arctic Council, which helps broker economic and environmental agreements between the Arctic nations, needs a larger role in developing joint international policy, says Norway’s ambassador to Canada. Accelerating ice melt is expected to open the Arctic Ocean to seasonal ship traffic sometime between 2013 and 2030 – which analysts worry will lead to disputes over newly accessible oil and gas reserves.
The Arctic Council was founded in 1996 to “provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States” – Canada, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, the United States, as well as some Arctic indigenous communities are all members. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic may contain up to 90 billion barrels of oil (more than the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Mexico combined) and 27 percent of the world’s known natural gas reserves, most of which is located offshore.
While rhetorical flare-ups over access to resources and accusations of militarization have occurred, to date the Arctic Council has been an effective mitigating body. However, the Council currently lacks a permanent secretariat and reliable funding.
Currently, any territorial disputes are handled under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), while the Arctic Council mainly facilitates communication. However the United States has not yet ratified the Law of the Sea, despite concerted high-level efforts to do so.
Referring to the Arctic, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told Congress that “the Law of the Sea provides commercial rights to the mining of what is in the seabed of the territories that are claimable under sovereignty provisions in the treaty,” and if the United States does not ratify it, “we will lose out, in economic and resource rights, in terms of environmental interests, and national security.”
While the National Intelligence Council predicts that a major armed conflict over the Arctic is unlikely in the near future, it suggests that “serious near-term tension could result in small-scale confrontations over contested claims.” A comprehensive agreement brokered by Arctic Council leadership and agreed upon by all members – like the Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, and Protocols, which helps regulate commerce and environmental protections – would guarantee third-party moderation and alleviate the risk of an outstanding dispute erupting into real conflict.
The value of such an agreement is illustrated by the growing tension between Britain and Argentina over offshore oil rights around the Falkland Islands. Recent British drilling efforts, which have yielded a pocket of oil worth potentially an estimated $25 billion, provoked a furious response from Argentinean officials who have long disputed Britain’s claims to sovereignty, not only of the islands themselves, but of the seas around them.
Under UNCLOS, a nation is entitled to “explore and exploit” any natural resources within 200 nautical miles of their shores and in certain circumstances can apply for an extension to 350 nautical miles. By these definitions, there is considerable overlap in British and Argentinean claims, which the Law of the Sea alone is unable to resolve.
In a statement reported by the Times Online last week, Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said that “Argentina energetically refutes what is an illegal attempt to confiscate non-renewable natural resources that are the property of the Argentine people.”
In an earlier bid to slow development, Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced in February that any ship coming to or from the disputed islands would have to be granted a permit in order to pass through Argentinean waters, effectively threatening blockade.
The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands has remained a disputed topic for Argentina since the loss of the Falkland Islands War in 1982, made worse by recent financial woes at home and the country’s lack of domestic oil reserves.
Although tensions in the Arctic region are low now, a changing environment and increased competition for energy resources may lead to similar disputes in the polar region – a strong argument for strengthening multilateral institutions like the Arctic Council and UNCLOS sooner rather than later.
Video Credit: “2008 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum w/overlay” courtesy of Flickr user NASA Goddard Photo and Video.
Join the Conversation
- Living Through Extremes: Building Livelihood Resilience Across Sectors and Countries Thursday, December 4, 2014
- The Resilience Beat: Reporting on Climate, Population, and Health Wednesday, December 3, 2014
- Addressing Maternal Health and Gender-Based Violence in Times of Crisis Thursday, November 20, 2014
- Every breath you take: the environmental consequences of Iran sanctions
- Bangladesh farmers turn back the clock to combat climate stresses
- Kenyan women pay the price for slum water "mafias"
- Could climate change spell trouble for Kenya's largest river?
- Brazil soy moratorium extended to protect Amazon forest