J.1e USAID Water and Conflict Toolkit.PDF

WATER & CONFLICT

A TOOLKIT FOR PROGRAMMING

Key Issues

Lessons Learned

Program Options

Rapid Appraisal Guide

CO

VE

R

PH

O

TO

A

M

EM

BE

R

O F T

H E

BA

N

D -E

-A M

IR

P

RO

TE

CT

ED

A

RE

A

CO

M M

IT

TE

E

IN

T H

E H

IN

D

U K

U

SH

M O

U N

TA

IN

S O

F

CE

N

TR

AL

A

FG

H

AN

IST

AN

(P H

O

TO

B Y

U

SA

ID

/A

FG

H

AN

IST

AN

C ompetition over natural resources, including water, is often viewed as a driver of conflict and has emerged as a key component in many current and past conflicts. However, disputes over water, whether scarce or abundant, do not always result in violence. In fact, the management of water often brings parties together and encourages cooperation; it can be an integral factor in conflict prevention, peacebuilding, and reconciliation processes. Since fresh water is irreplaceable and indispensable to life, it is a valuable and contested resource that requires careful, conflict-sensitive management to ensure that it will continue to fulfill its purposes over the long term.

This toolkit is intended to help USAID and our partners understand the opportunities and challenges inherent to development programming in conflicts where water is an important issue.

This document (1) explores the relationship between water, conflict, and cooperation, (2) highlights lessons learned from relevant development and peacebuilding programs, (3) discusses options for programming based on past USAID and development community experiences, and (4) provides a Rapid Appraisal Guide to support officers in identifying and evaluating the conflict risk and peacebuilding potential of water programs.

Together, the elements of this toolkit are designed to help raise awareness about the linkages between water resource management and conflict as well as opportunities for peacebuilding and integrating a conflict perspective into development programming.

As Director of CMM, I am pleased to introduce The Water and Conflict Toolkit and congratulate all those involved in its production. The Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was established to provide technical leadership on conflict-related issues to USAID Missions and our Washington based regional and pillar bureaus. It is through your feedback and dialogue that we can ensure our toolkits remain thoughtful, innovative, and useful.

We welcome your comments and observations to help us improve future toolkits in this series.

Melissa G. Brown Director Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance United States Agency for International Development

FROM THE DIRECTOR

2 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

KEY ISSUES 4

LESSONS LEARNED 14

PROGRAM OPTIONS 22

RAPID APPRAISAL 36

GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

Water is an essential ingredient for human security1 and sustainable devel-opment. From growing food and supporting economic growth to ensuring disease is kept at bay, water is a fundamental and irreplaceable resource in all societies. Given its centrality to human life, it is not surprising that water man-agement is complex and that water-related interests are frequently contested.

Access to water in sufficient quantity and quality can drive competition where interests are perceived as incompatible. It can also foment cooperation where mutual interest can be found.

There is a pressing need to better understand water as it relates to all levels of conflict. From the arid pastoralist areas in the Horn of Africa to communi-ties affected by melting glaciers in Andean South America to the burgeoning potential for hydropower fueled economies in South Asia, the banner of “water and conflict” is very broad. It includes scenarios as diverse as the peaceful resolution of an inter-communal dispute over access to a particu-lar water source to mitigating the effects of armed conflict on water quality, infrastructure, and institutions in urban environments. Even when water is not directly connected to the proximate causes of conflict, it is essential to consider the many ways that water insecurity, which is most often derived from water resource management configurations, could be interacting with the social and institutional dynamics in fragile or conflict- affected situations.

With that complexity in mind, this toolkit is designed to raise awareness about the linkages between water resource management, conflict and fragility,2 and peacebuilding. It also explicitly supports the integration of a conflict perspec-tive into development programming.

This toolkit is part of a series that explores how development assistance can address key risk factors associated with conflict and fragility. By exploring water-related issues in depth, this toolkit and others in the series serve as companion pieces to conflict assessments. Conflict assessments provide a broad overview of destabilizing patterns and trends in a society. While they provide recommen-dations about how to make development and humanitarian assistance more responsive to conflict dynamics, they do not provide detailed guidance on how to design specific activities. The toolkits in this series fill that gap by moving from a diagnosis of the problem to a detailed discussion of potential interventions.

Together, the USAID Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF 2.0) and toolkits are designed to help USAID officers and other develop ment practitioners gain a deeper understanding of the forces driving violence and instability and to assist in developing more strategic and focused development interventions. The authors have attempted to inspire creative thinking and encourage action to manage or prevent water-related conflicts as well as capture long-term peacebuilding and resilience-strengthening opportunities.

1. The notion of human security emphasizes security for the individual, not the state.

2. Fragility refers to the relationship between the state and society, especially the extent to which the engagement between the state and society fails to produce outcomes that are considered effective and legitimate. Fragility exists when the relationship between state and society is strained, if not contentious, producing results that members of society deem to be ineffective, illegitimate, or both. Accordingly, fragility is meant to convey more than the set of characteristics of states or governments.

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 3

This toolkit is divided into the following four parts:

• PART 1: KEY ISSUES — explores the relationship between water, conflict, and cooperation;

• PART 2: LESSONS LEARNED — highlights lessons learned from water-related development and peacebuilding programs;

• PART 3: PROGRAM OPTIONS — discusses potential program options, real-world examples of relevant development interventions, and monitoring and evaluation; and

• PART 4: RAPID APPRAISAL GUIDE — provides guidance to help identify and evaluate the conflict risk and peacebuilding potential of water programs.

The Water and Conflict Toolkit emerged from collaboration with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS). It was authored by Sandra Ruckstuhl (Group W Inc), Emily Gallagher (Group W Inc), Geoff Dabelko (Ohio University), Russell Sticklor (WWICS), Lauren Herzer Risi (WWICS), Cynthia Brady (USAID/CMM), Kirby Reiling (USAID/CMM), and Mary Ackley (USAID/CMM). Substantial input was provided by USAID officers, other U.S.

Government agencies, donor agencies, academia, and the NGO community. This toolkit builds on earlier drafts prepared by a team of experts, in addition to those named above, including: Alexander Carius (adelphi), Annika Kramer (adelphi), Doris Capistrano (CIFOR), and Jay Singh (USAID). Comments, questions, and requests for additional information should be directed to USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation.

A young girl sits beside a polluted canal that flows through her village in Cambodia. (Photo by AECOM International Development)

4 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

A South Sudanese boy carries a box of water bottles at the Tongping United Nations Mission (UNMISS) base in Juba on January 17, 2014. (Photo by Phil Moore, AFP ImageForum)

Water management is a complex issue with far-reaching and often contentious effects. Water-related tensions emerge on different geographic scales but it is the interplay of these tensions with a number of political, socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural factors that determine whether violent conflict will result. The next section will elaborate on the complex links among water resources, their management, the risk of conflict, and opportunities for peacebuilding.

UNDERSTANDING

CONFLICT

As a starting point, it is helpful to have a common understanding of conflict.

“Conflict” simply refers to a real or per-ceived set of incompatible interests and goals among two or more parties. It is not necessarily violent. Conflict is a natu-ral part of public life and the process of

PART 1: KEY ISSUES

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 5

peacefully resolving competing interests through negotiation and deliberation can often contribute to outcomes that are better for all involved. Conflict, however, can also be destabilizing and intensely destructive when it leads to mass mobi-lization, violence, or outright war.

Even when water is not directly con-nected to the proximate causes of conflict, water security could be inter-acting with the social and institutional dynamics of fragile or conflict-affected situations in many ways. Water qual-ity, quantity, and access each affect individual and collective water security.

Perceptions of security can be as im-portant to a conflict context as objec-tive reality. Water insecurity, whether real or perceived, can contribute to patterns of grievance or fragility that could make armed conflict more likely or more intractable.

When water-related disputes arise within a context of ineffective or il-legitimate governance, it can stoke the flames of discontent (grievance) or be the match that lights the fire (trig-ger). For example, poor water service delivery could undermine people’s confidence and trust in the state. A specific event, such as a new law that changes water pricing or the failure of a dam, can spur people’s decisions to join a protest, insurgency, or armed group. Additionally, disputes between communities or individuals over access or usage rights could easily turn violent in the absence of strong, legitimate governing institutions where the rule of law extends clearly over water rights.

Water can also be used as a tactic of war, such as, when a group deprives its adversaries of water access by con-taminating it or blockading delivery.

And, conflict itself can compromise water resources when insecurity weakens regulation, infrastructure operations, or maintenance.

Within this complex web of interac-tions, water disputes and challenges can also open opportunities for construc-tive change. Frequently, peacebuilding is a necessary, if too often unacknow-ledged, element of long-term sustain-able water resource management.

SOCIOECONOMIC

AND DEMOGRAPHIC

ISSUES

POPULATION GROWTH

The bulk of the world’s population growth in recent decades has taken place in developing countries. Over the next few decades rapid population growth is expected to continue in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This kind of growth poses significant challenges to governing insti-tutions and infrastructure in developing countries already experiencing popu-lation-induced strains on their natural resources. As demand grows and per capita freshwater availability decreases, competition will likely increase if not effectively addressed. Demand and quality management will become some of the most significant and scalable approaches practitioners can use to address conflict risks.

POPULATION MOVEMENT

Migration, displacement, and resettle-ment are sometimes driven by re-source competition and often result in resource-based conflicts. Population movements, regardless of cause, increase the demand for water in the location where groups settle. Where resources, institutions, and infrastruc-ture do not adequately satisfy increased demand, competition between old residents and new arrivals can result. If and when displaced persons return to their original homes, they may come into conflict with populations who did not move or who settled while origi-nal inhabitants were away. Grievances may also be heightened when return-ing individuals change their standards and practices while in their temporary location. Pastoralist migration, rural

Water insecurity, whether real or perceived, can contribute to patterns of grievance or fragility that could make armed conflict more likely or more intractable.

6 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

to urban migration, and refugee or internally displaced person movements are most concerning for water manage-ment and supply because of associated shifts in demand.

AGRICULTURE AND

FOOD SECURITY

Agriculture is the largest source of water consumption in the world, accounting for roughly 70 percent of the world’s total (WWAP 2013). The competition arising from this intense agricultural demand for water at vari-ous scales is a primary aspect of water conflict around the world. Demand for increased agricultural output to meet the food security needs of growing populations can also adversely affect water quality, as run-off from crop-growth aids such as fertilizers and pesticides contaminate groundwater supplies or adjacent bodies of surface water. At the same time, inadequate water access among small-scale farmers can hamper local food secu-rity and also cause those parties to turn against one another or against industrial-scale agricultural interests or state water managers in competition for what little water is available. In sum, agriculture is characterized by multiple party interests associated with broad health, economic, and social benefits.

This can drive intense resource use, heighten concerns about insecurity and, consequently, contribute to com-petition and conflict.

INFRASTRUCTURE

DEVELOPMENT AND

MODERNIZATION

Industrial development can cause sig-nificant environmental stress, including overconsumption and pollution. On a local level, access to drilling and pump technology can lead to increased in-stallation of shallow wells and ground-water over-extraction. Wealthier and more powerful parties often have better access and can more easily afford new and advanced technology to compensate for declining supplies, possibly further compromising water supplies for more vulnerable popula-tions and generating inter-class griev-ance. For example, effluent from fac-tories and wastewater from extractive industries can pose serious threats to human and environmental health.

Associated water quality degradation can cause disputes between the parties that cause it and the groups affected by

it. In other cases, multipurpose water infrastructure, such as dams, can cause controversy. Dams and reservoirs can necessitate population resettlement and changes in livelihoods, which can mobilize grievances against the au-thority and interests that supported or orchestrated the infrastructure development. The operation of irriga-tion canals and dam spillways can also lead to friction between upstream and downstream users, within or between nations, as the quantity and timing of release will impact multiple water users.

Additionally, water quantity and water flow patterns are crucial for maintain-ing ecosystems and agricultural sys-tems, especially those that depend on seasonal flooding. As technology and infrastructure affect hydrological flows and water consumption patterns, many interests can be impacted and result-ing perceptions of water insecurity can contribute to patterns of fragility and even direct confrontation.

INSTITUTIONAL

ISSUES1

DATA AND INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT

Water information influences eco-nomic behavior, population movement, and politics, with resultant impacts on security perceptions. Development strategies require sound hydrological

1. Institutions are the “formal rules, written laws, organizations, informal norms of behavior, and shared beliefs — and the organizational forms that exist to implement and enforce these norms…” (World Bank 2011)

A farmer in Ghana waters his corn crop during the dry season.

(Photo by Louis Stippel, USAID)

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 7

and socioeconomic data in order to plan adequate water management and infrastructure to meet demand, ensure sustainability, and to improve users’ resilience to future changes in water resources and supply. In addition, im-proved information sharing and trans-parent data collection regarding water supply fluctuations or water safety is-sues can reduce mistrust and suspicion among and between groups. Yet, reli-able water data is often difficult to ob-tain because of technical requirements in measurement. In conflict-affected countries data is often not collected or may be lost due to physical insecu-rity, infrastructure damage, and com-peting demands on government time and resources. Furthermore, when that data is captured, in some contexts parties that hold the data may modify or suppress it to protect their interests (political or otherwise), thus limiting its application and availability to users.

Water data can be highly contested by water-using parties, and its accuracy can be the subject of significant dis-putes. Even when reliable water data is available and uncontested it may not be accessible to all parties. For ex-ample, it may be poorly organized or publicized so that certain users are un-aware it exists or are unable to access it (e.g., due to language or internet access). Also, a variety of accurate data sets may exist but there can be com-plications in comparing them across time and space. Even high quality data may generate significant uncertainties, as in the case of downscaling climate models to regional or local scales or projecting future precipitation patterns under different climate scenarios.

Sharing information becomes both more important and increasingly dif-ficult as a water management unit’s scope grows or the number of parties sharing water increases. In the midst of these realities, effectively sharing water information during emergencies, such as floods or severe contamination, is crucial for protecting human and environmental health and managing perceptions of insecurity in tense and tenuous circumstances.

The stabilization pond of a wastewater treatment plant in Luxor, Egypt. (Photo by Noha El Maraghy)

8 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

WEAK, NON-INCLUSIVE,

OR CORRUPT GOVERNANCE

One of the most pressing and com-plicated issues influencing effective and equitable water management is corruption. This issue is intertwined with water information management, as a lack of transparency and public knowledge about water management (e.g., allocation of water rights, private sector contracts) can mask inequitable benefits and preferential treatment within a weak or corrupt governance system. Perceptions of preferential access to limited water resources are often a source of grievance. Moreover, preferential treatment, which benefits parties of economic, social, or political influence, weakens regulatory regimes and sustainable water management and can contribute to imbalanced economic opportunity. Corruption can increase marginalization and exploita-tion of disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. Political corruption can generate significant social unrest at the local level by exacerbating water-related economic and health issues among already vulnerable groups.

INSTITUTIONAL EFFICACY

Low technical competence and lack of political will of government and other water-management institutions can result in inequitable or ineffective water management. This can be an indicator or consequence of fragile state-society relations. Lack of technical water expertise, insufficient technical train-ing of water managers and engineers, absence of water-dispute settlement mechanisms, and inadequate funding of water programs and infrastructure hin-der capacity to build social and institu-tional resilience to internal and external water-related challenges.

A common challenge to institutional efficacy is duplicative or overlapping responsibilities among multiple formal and traditional water institutions. For example, decisions made by entities responsible for agriculture, fisheries, water supply, regional development, tourism, transportation, conservation, and environment can produce divergent management approaches that serve contradictory or competing objec-tives toward the same water resources.

These decisions lead to confusion and competing claims from different sectors

Children sharing water in Gambella, Ethiopia. Gambella is affected by inter-communal conflict associated with competition over land and water.

(Photo by Cynthia Brady, USAID)

BOX 1: Women, Water, and Conflict

Men and women use water differently according to their gender-specific roles. Women tend to have greater water needs due to their domestic responsibilities like washing family clothes, bathing children, and preparing meals. Even basic hygiene, like hand washing to reduce the transmission of disease, increases water needs at the household level. Menstruating women have additional demands such as washing clothing and bathing when men are not present. If the only water source is in a public or highly frequented location, they may wait until dark or travel to remote areas for privacy.

Women produce half of the world’s food supply. They are often responsible for feeding their families. As small farmers who are depen-dent on sources beyond rainfall, women and their dependents are at risk of food insecurity when alternative water sources are not available.

Yet, water is hard to access in many parts of the world. When water is far from home, women and girls generally shoulder the burden of transporting it. They may be at risk of harm during travel to obtain it.

These patterns make females highly vulnerable to violence in conflict environments. Water access becomes more difficult as previously safe routes become dangerous territory. Household responsibilities may increase such as caring for the sick and wounded or meeting family members’ nutritional needs. Taking care of personal hygiene by dark or in isolated places increases the risk of direct or indirect violence.

The humanitarian discussion of water access and violence generally focuses on women as victims. However, water resources are part of a system that affects and is affected by its entire population. In some contexts, men and boys access water for their households and face the same risks as females. Women and men may travel far for water in rural areas, or walk long distances from refugee settlements or slums, and thus be more vulnerable to attack. For example, there is anecdotal evidence of Somali men killed over water access and the “water widows” who have survived them. Both women and men are affected by poor water access and the complications of a fragile or conflict-affected context.

The experiences of men and women are also not consistent across time and culture. There is variation across gender experience based on social and community tradition, class structure, ethnic relations, urban vs. rural environments, livelihoods practices, and more. Due to their different roles in the community, women and men may have different information and perspectives about the causes and consequences of water-related problems. In addition, gender roles themselves often change as a consequence of conflict and fragility. Water practitioners will therefore find it construc-tive to move their analysis beyond the limited focus on female vulnerabilities and to consider gender dynamics within the system as a whole.

How can field staff better understand gender and water access issues? Seeking gender- and age-specific data, these questions serve as a starting point to examine how water access connects to wider conflict dynamics:

• Who is at risk of harm when accessing water?

• Who perpetrates the harm? What means do they use, and what are their objectives?

• Does the conflict involve water supply and resources? Directly or indirectly? Are there opportunities to mitigate the conflict by addressing water access?

• How do gender roles associated with water access change over time?

Adapted from S. Ruckstuhl 2011.

A young woman collects water in Sri Lanka.

(Photo by USAID/Sri Lanka)

10 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

and interest groups, which can contrib-ute to disputes in locations lacking a clear system of water allocation and en-forcement and unsupported by effective and legitimate institutions. Furthermore, if a state or local water-management body is not delivering on core public services like household provision of potable water or effective management of large infrastructure, that failure can quickly be perceived as a sign of govern-ment ineffectiveness or illegitimacy.

However, because water is crucial to myriad different sectors and disparate users, it is not feasible to consider all of these in one institution or decision-making process, and it is not possible to optimize across all areas at once. For example, a dam cannot be managed to simultaneously optimize both flood and drought protection. Consequently, there are trade-offs between contending inter-ests and objectives, and choices made at one time at one scale in one sector will inevitably conflict with choices made at other times and other places.

TRADITION AND

CUSTOMARY PRACTICES

Custom and traditional norms are sig-nificant components of water manage-ment regimes and can strongly influence user preferences and affect institutional contexts. For example, a formal state body may legally hold decision-making authority while users defer to custom-ary authorities regarding secondary and tertiary rights unrecognized by the law.

These practices can dictate user rights, seasonal allocations, wastewater reuse conventions, operation and maintenance practices, and conservation methods.

As another example, it may be tradition in some societies for women to collect water, which can have social and institu-tional implications for physical safety and participation in education and livelihoods (see Box 1). Further, water plays a key role in many religious rituals, making it a focal point of community activities and giving it significant emotional importance (e.g., the holy river Ganges in India).

In some locations, traditional institu-tions and formal government bodies compete for authority, and they may not collaborate frequently or effec-tively. Traditional mechanisms that fail to consider technical aspects of the hydrologic regime can contribute to unsustainable water use or, as the environmental conditions or technology access change, they may be ill-equipped to adapt and manage associated conflict risks. In addition, when formal institutions make water management decisions without sufficient stakeholder participation, effective or locally valued traditional practices may be overlooked or ignored. As a result, controversy can erupt and concerned parties may reject new water policies and infrastructure.

EXTERNAL

INFLUENCES

HYDROPOLITICS

(WATER POLITICS)

There are 276 transboundary river basins in the world and 256 (or 92.7 percent) of them are shared by two to four countries (UN-Water 2013).

Within that realm of shared water there are extensive opportunities for potential disputes within, between, and among states and water-users. In terms of understanding the risk of large-scale violent conflict over these resources, reviews of historical evidence show that armed interstate “water wars” are exceedingly rare. However, as demand grows and global freshwater resources become ever more stressed, practitio-ners must be aware of changing risks and opportunities and adapt their inter-ventions accordingly. This includes care-ful consideration of the ways in which water may be a dimension of political conflict at international, national, and local levels as well as the relationships between those dynamics. Localized disputes between users and domestic water interests often influence politi-cians and policy decisions, which fuels international political agendas and

Localized disputes between users and domestic water interests often influence politicians and policy decisions, which fuels international political agendas and informs relations between countries.

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 11

informs relations between countries.

Conversely, interstate water politics and tensions can have ripple effects that affect the ability of national institutions and local users to effectively manage water for domestic needs. Technical, po-litical, local, and international concerns are often inseperable, for good and for ill. Therefore, it is important that both diplomatic and development interven-tions, at all scales, consider dimensions of hydropolitics in order to manage and prevent conflict escalation while harnessing opportunities for collabora-tion and peacebuilding.

INTERNATIONAL DEMAND

FOR ECONOMIC PRODUCTS

Agricultural products, minerals, and manufactured goods all require water for production. High demand for these items on the international market, which can be extremely difficult for developing economies to regulate, especially those affected by fragility and conflict, can drive up water consump-tion in locations where the goods are sourced, processed, or manufactured.

This dynamic might mean that local producers will choose to grow more profitable crops for export at the expense of local food production, for example. While this may be beneficial for a few, it can come at the expense of others’ livelihoods and their access to water, productive land, and affordable food. In the short term this can contrib-ute to perceptions of water insecurity and fuel grievances against groups that are benefiting from the export market.

In the long term, these economic inter-ests can deplete water resources and directly contribute to water insecurity for other users.

PHYSICAL AND

GEOGRAPHIC ISSUES

UPSTREAM AND

DOWNSTREAM FLOWS

Every water resource has upstream and downstream riparians and associ-ated advantages and disadvantages often accrue depending on where

Mayors, municipal representatives, and youth from Israel, Palestine, and Jordan join hands in the Lower Jordan River to call upon their governments to rehabilitate the river. (Photo by Friends of the Earth Middle East)

12 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

they are physically located. For ex-ample, upstream diversions of water for agriculture or hydropower can have downstream impacts on local users, including effects on livelihoods and health. Downstream activities can also impact upstream riparians, such as, when a port downstream engages in activities that increase traffic upstream.

In other cases, cities may overdraw a region’s limited water supply to meet urban municipal and industrial water needs, which can contribute to water insecurity in rural areas that share the resource. Riparian disputes often reflect the distribution of power among insti-tutions along a waterway. Without mu-tually acceptable mediation mechanisms in place, failure of those institutions to protect perceived user interests can result in violent disputes. Upstream and downstream riparian relations are critical to consider in both local and international contexts.

GROUNDWATER

The most readily available resource of freshwater on the planet is groundwa-ter (UNEP 2008). In the developing world and elsewhere, groundwater is an essential resource—1.2 to 1.5 billion rural households in the poorer regions of Africa and Asia alone depend on groundwater for their livelihoods and food security (United Nations World Water Development Report 4 2012).

Subterranean water resources pose particularly acute governance chal-lenges. They require sophisticated tech-nology and significant knowledge to be sustainably managed. By contrast, even when surface water is not systemati-cally measured it can, at a minimum, be visually monitored. As a result, ground-water resources are at heightened risk of unsustainable consumption, pollution, and uninformed perceptions with re-gard to quantity and quality of avail-able resource. This can result in acute competition and conflict as ground-water users engage in a “race to the bottom.” In terms of both monitoring and enforcement, it is also a particularly complicated factor in transboundary treaties and agreements.

POLLUTION

Pollution and contamination from agricultural run-off, human and animal waste, extractive industries, and manu-facturing, as well as naturally occurring sources affect surface and groundwater water quality and can pose significant health risks as well as degrade liveli-hoods. While flooding may often be responsible for temporary discharges of untreated waste into public water supplies, the problem transcends tem-porary wastewater-treatment issues spurred by disasters. In developing nations, 90 percent of wastewater is released into the natural environment without treatment (Corcoran 2010).

This can cause significant damage to ecosystems and watersheds, placing water supplies at risk, endangering food supplies by threatening the health of crops and fresh-water fisheries, and also damaging economically lucrative ecotourism industries. During ac-tive conflict, contamination of water resources can be especially common.

Regulatory agencies and manage-ment mechanisms may collapse, or groups may intentionally damage water resources in an attempt to harm one another. Less knowledgeable groups liv-ing in close proximity to contaminated water are the most vulnerable to its ef-fects, and while knowledge can reduce vulnerability it can also fuel grievances toward unaffected water users, pollut-ers, and regulatory institutions.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change impacts water avail-ability, quality, and access in a number of ways: shifting precipitation patterns, desertification, saltwater intrusion, and changes in storm frequency and intensity, to name a few. In particular, changes in the timing and duration of rainfall can threaten food security, es-pecially when crop growth or livestock

In developing nations, 90 percent of wastewater is released into the natural environment without treatment.

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 13

migration is dependent on seasonal precipitation. Changes in precipitation patterns can further challenge tradi-tional and formal systems for collect-ing and using water for any number of purposes (water storage, energy production, sanitation systems, drainage systems, etc). Climatic change and the associated impacts on the hydrologic regime are likely to affect the way people live in the developing world, shifting and testing the adaptation and coping mechanisms of communities and institutions. These changes present many conflict risks where there is weak institutional capacity to constructively adapt to changes in water variability or to respond to extreme events like floods and droughts. At the same time, these challenges can highlight positive examples of existing social and institu-tional resilience and reveal the strength of coping mechanisms and adaptation systems that continue to work well in the face of change, giving development practitioners a practical foundation on which to build peace.

NATURAL DISASTERS

Disasters such as cyclones, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, and droughts can create shocks to the water supply and can render unprepared communities vulnerable to health risks and economic disruptions, potentially leading to social unrest in the transitional process from crisis to recovery. Additionally, weak institutional infrastructure for managing water availability and access in the wake of a natural disaster can heighten public perceptions of institutional ineffective-ness or illegitimacy. The risks of public discontent and mobilization are intensi-fied in densely populated areas, espe-cially in communities where there is inadequate capacity for crisis response.

A lack of disaster-preparedness at the national and sub-national levels within a country can significantly lower resil-ience to environmental shocks. A low threshold for handling environmental disruptions can negatively impact other areas of society by reducing economic productivity and triggering high unem-ployment, damaging public perceptions of governing institutions’ competence, and raising tensions between various water users over access.

14 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

A review of water-related development programming throughout the developing world and across multiple agencies and organizations reveals a range of success stories as well as cautionary examples. When these lessons are aggregated, they can be conceived of as principles of good practice and applied to improve the conflict sensitivity of water-related development interventions.

PART 2: LESSONS LEARNED

Refugees from South Sudan fetch water at the Dzaipi Refugee Transit Centre in Adjumani, Uganda, on January 24, 2014.

(Photo by Isaac Kasamani, AFP ImageForum)

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 15

CONSIDER ALL

WATER ISSUES AS

PART OF COMPLEX,

DYNAMIC CROSS-

BOUNDARY SYSTEMS

Water management is dynamic. The resource can cross physical, social, and economic boundaries. Transforming zero-sum competition for the resource into win-win management outcomes is a necessary objective of conflict-sensitive water management. Accordingly, mapping and understanding stakeholder relation-ships is important. Stakeholder interests can cut across many identities and boundaries as a result of management and use decisions, for example, among ethnic groups across administrative boundaries or between industrial users such as energy and agriculture. This com-plexity calls for sound, well-integrated Conflict Assessments and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments that include cross-boundary issues during project design and implementation.

There must always be a systemic view of the hydrology and the social and institutional dimensions of conflict that water may affect. Integrated assess-ments help practitioners understand the physical, social, and political dimen-sions of the system in which they are intervening and gauge the anticipated points of influence within that system and across various types of boundar-ies. For example, in many areas growing tensions persist between urban water users and residents of surrounding rural areas. Urban populations typically consume large amounts of water some-times at the expense of adjacent rural users, and yet urban areas tend to come out on top of any water-dispute litiga-tion because local, regional, and national political power tends to be concen-trated in urban centers (ECC 2010).

Given the multifaceted, and potentially fluid nature of water-related boundar-ies—from international divisions to cultural uses—it is especially valuable for government institutions, donors, and field implementers to coordinate sectoral assessments so that water resource management and peacebuild-ing investments are more integrated. It is also critical to monitor and evaluate progress on a continual basis so that programs can be responsive to poten-tially changing points of influence and unforeseen impacts.

ENHANCE

INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT AND

PUBLIC AWARENESS

Water data and public awareness can be sparse in fragile and conflict-affected countries where records may not have been kept, were destroyed during fight-ing or as a tactic of war, or where there has been limited capacity to collect and disseminate information. Nevertheless, accurate water data—including hydro-logical modeling, infrastructure, policy, and user behavior—is integral to ensuring that development activities are designed to support sustainable and integrated water resource management (IWRM) activities and, in turn, help to manage and prevent conflict. For ex-ample, capacity to generate and analyze water data enables water resource management institutions to formulate and implement conflict-sensitive water resource management plans, while con-textually grounded technical infrastruc-ture design and implementation can aid in conflict prevention by equitably distributing costs and benefits.

Sound water data and public awareness allow for prudent responses to water disruptions that could otherwise fuel grievance and social conflict. Where in-formation is lacking, unsustainable water use or ineffective water management may persist and raise the risk of social crisis. In Yemen, for example, water scar-city is an increasingly prevalent source of discontent and a trigger for violence.

Some hydrologists project that the

Transforming zero-sum competition for water into win-win management outcomes is a necessary objective of conflict-sensitive water management.

16 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

capital, Sana’a, will run out of water by 2025 (Chellaney 2013). Yet even where there is political will to change that trajectory, water officials in the country face critical challenges implementing water reforms because the population is not well-informed about the the im-pending water crisis and how it relates to water user behavior. Good data and better public information, along with improved capacity of responsible insti-tutions and appropriate mechanisms to allow all interested stakeholders access to the data and information, could facilitate a tipping point for change in Yemeni water usage, forestalling a water crisis and improving water management outcomes for Yemeni stakeholders.

Hydrological modeling and databases can be costly and laborious to estab-lish and maintain; such investments are often of low priority in conflict-affected or post-conflict countries. In the absence of comprehensive databases, shared data generated or sanctioned jointly by all stakeholders can facilitate more sustainable water resource man-agement decisions.

Third-party data collection, whether by NGOs, academic institutions, or others, may also help bridge the data gap be-tween divided parties. Transparency of joint decision-making can facilitate more informed decisions by all sides and often builds trust among water-sharing parties. At the same time, it is important to be mindful that there is a corre-sponding risk with increasing access to data and information. While the intent of increased transparency is to reveal helpful realities about supply as well as water governance, in a context of poor institutional performance or high social grievance these revelations risk conflict escalation if they inflame public opinion and reinforce perceptions of elitism, exclusion, and corruption. Therefore, development activities focused on improving water-related transparency should also take into consideration the capacity of the responsible institutions to manage and respond to grievances that may emerge.

A U.S. Navy commander meets with the head of Ethiopia’s Mines and Energy Department and a water engineer for preliminary research on expanding the area’s water treatment capabilities.

(Photo by U.S. Navy)

WATER & CONFLICT, 2014 17

BUILD FORMAL

AND INFORMAL

INSTITUTIONAL

CAPACITY FOR

COLLABORATIVE

GOVERNANCE

Institutions that govern collaboratively can prevent and manage conflict by:

• Striving for effective engagement by key stakeholders;

• Considering different interests in order to reveal new management options and alternatives to zero-sum solutions;

• Improving cooperation between traditional and formal governance bodies; and

• Making management decisions better accepted by all stakeholders, even if consensus cannot be reached.

It is generally prudent for develop-ment practitioners to engage with established traditional and formal water resource managment institutions in order to bolster capacity, ensure local sensibility, and improve sustainable outcomes. However, established institu-tions (whether formal or informal) with responsibility for water resource managment may not be technically equipped to manage conflict and ag-grieved water users may not perceive them as effective or legitimate media-tors. At the same time, there may be preference or bias, depending on the audience, toward certain institutions based on perceptions of effectiveness and legitimacy. Therefore, in addition to understanding the institutional con-struct for water resource managment in a country or basin, practitioners must seek to understand the social and insti-tutional context in which those entities are functioning.

Practitioners must also consider the likely influence of a development intervention on that local context (including both intended and unintended consequences).

Understanding the context, including both key actors’ and stakeholders’ needs, capacities, motives, and respective posi-tions in the political or socioeconomic hierarchy is crucial to ensuring conflict-sensitive programming and to identifying and responding to any real or perceived imbalances in public participation, issues of institutional performance, and social grievances. In some cases, it may be necessary to work with alternative insti-tutions or other stakeholders who hold influence over water institutions and their efficacy. To ensure effective stake-holder representation in water resource management processes — especially when power is unevenly distributed — less experienced, less knowledgeable, or less empowered parties (whether individuals, collectives, or institutions) may require special attention, for example in the form of coaching, skill building, and awareness raising.

Recognizing the important nexus of conflict resolution capacity and tech-nical water resource management capacity, USAID’s Fostering Resolution of Water Resource Disputes project (FORWARD), for example, targeted capacity building in the conflict-management “know-how” of water resource management institutions, local non-governmental organizations, water user associations, and religious groups to help mitigate water-related conflicts in Asia and the Middle East.

STRENGTHEN

EQUITABLE AND

AFFORDABLE WATER

ACCESS

Grievances can easily develop over infrastructure coverage and efficiency as water users become aware of imbalances in access as compared to other groups and other locations. These imbalances may be the product of providers’ preferences toward certain

Understanding the context, including both key actors’ and stakeholders’ needs, capacities, motives, and respective positions in the political or socioeconomic hierarchy is crucial to ensuring conflict-sensitive programming.

18 WATER & CONFLICT, 2014

constituents or due to their concern about operating in insecure or violent locations. Inefficiencies can also be the result of war and violence that have damaged supply systems and led tech-nical talent to move to a new location (e.g., to an urban area or outside the country). Consequently, some locations may have poorer physical infrastructure and less operations and maintenance capacity. These conditions can strain relationships between water users or with the institutions responsible for ser-vice provision, sometimes creating new grievances or inflaming existing ones.

Practitioners need to be cognizant and, through assessment and monitor-ing activities, remain knowledgeable of how development investments can contribute to inequitable coverage and associated grievances so that programs can make appropriate adjustments if any issues emerge.

Affordability is another major deter-minant of water access. Private sector participation can be an appropriate and effective avenue for improving water services coverage and water safety. At the same time, privatization can also cause controversy due to pricing and payment policies. Practitioners incorpo-rating the private sector into their pro-grams on any level — for infrastructure development, utility management, water trucking, or other purposes — need to closely monitor and manage affordabil-ity and the differential impacts of pricing on vulnerable groups and populations at risk of engaging in conflict.

Dialogue, transparency, and consensus-building are essential when introducing new water schemes that affect cost and availability, whether they are managed publicly or privately. In some cases, water privatization efforts have esca-lated social tensions and led to protests that adversely affected development programming. Sudden tariff increases that can accompany privatization can quickly mobilize public opposition and, in some instances, have become an avenue for conveying a wider set of grievances against authorities. In the late 1990s, water privatization in Cochabamba, Bolivia sent water rates soaring by 35 percent. In a city where many residents’ monthly income was roughly US$70, water became a prohib-itively expensive commodity at US$20 per month. The resulting protests in early 2000 triggered violence and the declaration of a state of emergency (Gehrig and Rogers 2009). However, the lesson of Cochabamba is not that privatization is inherently conflictive or even that higher rates are conflic-tive. Violence was fueled by the lack of transparency in the process, combined with unrealistic expectations by the public and lack of political sensitivity by the government.

COORDINATE

WATER-RELATED AID

AND INVESTMENT

In order to avoid duplication, leverage programmatic synergies, and ensure that shared water resources are man-aged effectively, communication between development actors is critical. However, in conflict-affected environments where aggrieved or displaced populations are already mobilized and security conditions are precarious, integrated water manage-ment can be elusive and the consequent risks of failure multiplied. Poorly coordi-nated or non-conflict sensitive interven-tions could generate competing priorities, unintentionally reinforce power dynamics or entrench the status quo, empower or disempower certain groups, or exacer-bate a critical source of pre-existing griev-ances (e.g., corruption, environmental damage, private sector predation).

The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC), a donor coordination group established for the West Bank and Gaza following the signing of the interim peace agreement…