• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Guest Contributor

    Can We Forecast Where Water Conflicts Are Likely to Occur?

    October 27, 2014 By Thomas Bernauer & Tobias Böhmelt
    pakistan-flooding

    Many of the world’s freshwater systems reach across national boundaries, and growing demands combined with supply constraints may lead to increased potential for international water conflicts. If that’s the case, which international river basins are most at risk of conflict or, conversely, which are most prone to cooperation? What are the factors that increase or decrease conflict risk?

    Growing demands combined with supply constraints may lead to increased potential for international water conflicts

    The scientific literature on international water politics offers a wealth of case studies on individual river basins and an increasing number of larger-scale comparisons of many international freshwater catchments.

    The latter work in particular offers a reasonably good basis for moving one step further, that is, from explanations of international water conflict in the past to predictions about which areas of the world are most prone to water conflicts in the future.

    Basins at Risks

    Building on new data on international river basins and conflict events, we revisited earlier research on the basins at risk of conflict and developed a prediction and forecasting approach for international river basin conflicts.

    Whereas an earlier study by Yoffe, Wolf, and colleagues identified 29 basins at risk, our work, recently published in Global Environmental Politics, identifies 44 such river basins (see map). Only six basins simultaneously appear in the earlier and the new list: the Asi/Orontes, Cross, Han, Indus, Ob, and Tigris-Euphrates.

    Note, however, that none of the river basins identified are likely to experience a “water war,” in the sense of an armed conflict over water. Instead, we expect conflicts to materialize primarily in the form of political tensions.

    water-risk-map

    Creating a Forward-Looking Methodology

    How did we arrive at these findings? The most popular prospective analysis to date, the Basins at Risk Project by Yoffe, Wolf, et al., was published more than 10 years ago (2003). It relied on the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, which codes water-related events (conflict and cooperation) in most international river basins over a long period of time on a scale ranging from highly conflictive to highly cooperative events. Yoffe et al. correlated this scale with a large set of factors that might influence conflict risk or chances of cooperation. Based on this very simple statistical approach (so-called bivariate regression analysis) to explaining past water conflict and cooperation events, they then extrapolated from the past and identified those international river basins that appeared particularly risk-prone in the coming years.

    Forecasting must be founded on explanatory models that can accurately account for the past

    Prediction and forecasting must be founded on explanatory models that can accurately account for water conflict and cooperation in the past. And they should rely on state-of-the-art statistical prediction and forecasting methods when moving from the past to the future. The Yoffe et al. study was, in this respect, ahead of its time, since large-scale statistical research on international river basin conflict and cooperation was still in its infancy in 2003.

    To fill this gap, we first constructed an explanatory model of past international river basin conflict and cooperation. We then used statistical methods to evaluate the predictive power of particular explanatory factors – for example income levels of countries, political system characteristics, and river geography. Finally, we then moved to forecasting which river basins might be more conflict-prone in the future.

    New Risk Factors

    Differences in methodology and empirical data resulted not only in differences concerning basins at risk, but also in predictors. Yoffe et al. highlighted high population density, low GDP per capita, overall unfriendly relations between riparian countries, politically active minority groups, proposed large dams or other water development projects, and limited or no freshwater treaties as being particularly important.

    Interestingly, our study did not identify any of these factors as robust predictors for conflict. Some of the usual suspects, for instance income levels or membership in international organizations, turned out to be poor predictors. In a related paper published in Political Geography we also found that the geographic setting, and in particular power asymmetries between upstream and downstream countries, are unlikely to be a significant cause of water conflict.

    Instead, our work finds the effects of regime type (level of democracy), the nature of riparian countries’ legal systems, precipitation levels, geographic contiguity, and the number of riparian states are most important to determining conflict risk.

    Predictive Power

    Perhaps most importantly, forecasting offers more relevant advice to policymakers

    This work suggests we can, in a scientifically meaningful way, forecast where international water conflicts are more likely to occur, even though we must remain aware that forecasts are always associated with considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty stems from the fact that explanatory models of past conflict, on which forecasts rely, are imperfect, and that unforeseen conditions may pop up in the future.

    We believe, however, that moving from explaining and analyzing events in the past to prediction and forecasting is critical. It complements the former by allowing us to discriminate among explanatory factors according to their predictive power, and perhaps most importantly, forecasting offers more relevant advice to policymakers who will certainly face mounting water challenges in the years to come.

    Adapted from “Basins at Risk,” which first appeared in the November 2014 issue of ‘Global Environmental Politics.’

    Thomas Bernauer is a professor of international politics at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Tobias Böhmelt is a lecturer at the University of Essex, United Kingdom.

    Sources: Global Environmental Politics, The International Studies Encyclopedia, Political Geography, Social Science Research Network, Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, Wolf et al. (2003), Yoffe (2001).

    Photo Credit: A U.S. Army helicopter surveys flood damage in Pakistan, August 2010, courtesy of Monica K. Smith/U.S. Army. Map: Used with permission courtesy of Thomas Bernauer.

    Topics: Africa, Asia, climate change, conflict, cooperation, democracy and governance, environment, environmental peacemaking, environmental security, featured, Guest Contributor, international environmental governance, Middle East, natural resources, security, water
    • Molly McGraw

      It is always interesting to me the correlation between predicting factors of water conflict and the overall GDP per capita of a country. It seems that there are in fact some countries in the world that have some very substantial natural resource, Russia for instance, “well” developed in terms of a basic economic stance, but yet, the wealth distribution is very minimal, and if this “developed” country was geographically located in a region that thrived on its water sources, it could be considered a risk of these type of conflicts. Perhaps there is a correlation between climate and conflict.

    • Kristin Parrish

      I like this article’s approach to international water
      politics: Instead of all the typical articles explaining why a water conflict
      occurred in a certain area, this instead takes a preventative approach by
      focusing on predicting where a water conflict has the potential to happen. I
      found the comparison between the old study by Yoffe et al. and the authors’
      newer study on at-risk river basins to be very interesting, especially how the
      number of at-risk basins rose drastically within the second study and there
      were only six overlapping basins which were determined to be at-risk from one
      study to the next. When I first heard the notion of predictive factors for
      water conflicts, some of the factors that I assumed would play a role in a
      river basin’s risk assessment fell into the category that was looked at in
      Yoffe et al.’s study such as high population density, existing unfriendly
      country relations, and proposed dams or other water projects. I found it
      interesting that the more recent study saw issues relating to climate (in the
      level of precipitation) as well as the security of the area (in the stability
      of the countries’ governments and nature of their legal systems) in determining
      which areas carried more risks for conflict. Despite issues of climate and
      security making sense as major factors in where conflicts would occur, I am
      still curious as to why previous factors that were looked at are no longer
      taken into consideration. If the factors which determined at-risk basins
      changed that drastically from one study to the next, who is to say that in a
      few years time these factors will not be completely different again?
      Regardless, I do wholeheartedly agree with the nature of this article in
      wishing to predict conflict events instead of explaining them after they’ve
      happened. We have the knowledge, skills, and abilities as researchers to
      determine when and where a conflict will occur, so this prediction can be the
      first necessary step forward to stopping these conflicts before they do happen.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • Rainforest destruction. Gold mining place in Guyana China’s Growing Environmental Footprint in the Caribbean
    ZingaZingaZingazoomzoom: US cleans up. China runs wild on free rein- A lack of international compliance mechanisms to hold...
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000