IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/1303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conflict and cooperation in managing international water resources

Author

Listed:
  • Barret, Scott
  • DEC

Abstract

Water is often not confined within territorial boundaries so conflicts may arise about shared water resources. When such boundaries lie within a federal state, conflicts may be peacefully and efficiently resolved under law, and if the state fail to reach an agreement, the federal government may impose one. Similar international conflicts are more difficult to resolve because no third party has the authority to enforce an agreement among national states, let alone impose one. Such international agreements must be self-enforcing. Efficient outcomes may emerge, but are not guaranteed. International law may emphasize the doctrine of"equitable utilization"of water resources, but there is no clear definition of what this implies. In the Colorado River case, the polluter (the United States) agreed to pay for all the costs of providing the downstream neighbor (Mexico) with clean water. In the Rhine River case, the downstream country (the Netherlands) agreed to pay part - but not all - of the costs of cleanup. In Colombia River Treaty case, both parties agreed to incur construction costs on their side of the border and share evenly the gross (not the net) benefit. This division may well have yielded a smaller net benefit to the United States than unilateral development would have, but the United States ratified the treaty. Negotiated outcomes need not to maximize net benefits for all countries. To some extent, inefficiencies can be traced to the desire to nationalize resources rather than to gain from cooperative development. The Indus Waters Treaty, for example, divided the Indus and its tributaries between India and Pakistan, rather than exploit joint use and development of the basin. Both efficiency and equity should be considered in agreements for managing international water resources. The 1959 Nile Waters Agreement between Egypt and Sudan did not reserve water for upstream riparians - notably, Ethiopia. A basinwide approach could make use of Nile waters more efficient and benefit all three riparians: Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. Construction of dams in Ethiopia would give that country irrigation, would eliminate the annual Nile flood, and would increase the total water available to Ethiopia and Sudan. In negotiations over use of the Nile, the net benefits of basinwide management, and the ways these three riparians could share equitably in gains, should be demonstrated. In the 1980s, Egypt did not run short of water because Sudan did not take its full allocation and because Ethiopia did not withdraw any water from the basin. Increased water demand will inevitably create tension between the states.

Suggested Citation

  • Barret, Scott & DEC, 1994. "Conflict and cooperation in managing international water resources," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1303, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1994/05/01/000009265_3970716141014/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrett, Scott, 1994. "Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 878-894, Supplemen.
    2. Maler, Karl-Goran, 1990. "International Environmental Problems," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 80-108, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia W. Sadoff & Dale Whittington & David Grey, 2002. "Africa's International Rivers : An Economic Perspective," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 15175, December.
    2. Erik Ansink & Arjan Ruijs, 2008. "Climate Change and the Stability of Water Allocation Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 249-266, October.
    3. Shivshanker Singh Patel & Parthasarathy Ramachandran, 2019. "A Bilateral River Bargaining Problem with Negative Externality," Papers 1912.05844, arXiv.org.
    4. Hu Lu & Yuntong Wang, 2014. "Efficient trading on a network with incomplete information," Working Papers 1405, University of Windsor, Department of Economics.
    5. Ansink, Erik & Houba, Harold, 2016. "Sustainable agreements on stochastic river flow," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 92-117.
    6. Wenzhong Li & Genjiu Xu & Rene van den Brink, 2021. "Sharing the cost of cleaning up a polluted river," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-028/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. D. Kilgour & Ariel Dinar, 2001. "Flexible Water Sharing within an International River Basin," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(1), pages 43-60, January.
    8. Wang, Yuntong, 2011. "Trading water along a river," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 124-130, March.
    9. Ni, Debing & Wang, Yuntong, 2007. "Sharing a polluted river," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 176-186, July.
    10. Ambec, Stefan & Sprumont, Yves, 2002. "Sharing a River," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 453-462, December.
    11. Schiff, Maurice & Winters, L. Alan, 2002. "Regional cooperation, and the role of international organizations and regional integration," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2872, The World Bank.
    12. Shivshanker Singh Patel & Parthasarathy Ramachandran, 2022. "A bargaining model for sharing water in a river with negative externality," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(2), pages 645-666, June.
    13. Panfei Sun & Dongshuang Hou & Hao Sun, 2019. "Responsibility and sharing the cost of cleaning a polluted river," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 89(1), pages 143-156, February.
    14. Alcalde-Unzu, Jorge & Gómez-Rúa, María & Molis, Elena, 2015. "Sharing the costs of cleaning a river: the Upstream Responsibility rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 134-150.
    15. Alan Richards & Nirvikar Singh, 2004. "No Easy Exit: Property Rights, Markets, and Negotiations over Water," Development and Comp Systems 0412011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Abraham, Anand & Ramachandran, Parthasarathy, 2021. "The welfare implications of transboundary storage and dam ownership on river water trade," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 18-27.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henry Van Egteren & Jianmin Tang, 1997. "Maxium Victim Benefit: A Fair Division Process in Transboundary Pollution Problems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(4), pages 363-386, December.
    2. A.V. Kryazhimskii & A. Nentjes & S. Shibayev & A.M. Tarasyev, 1998. "Searching Market Equilibria under Uncertain Utilities," Working Papers ir98007, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    3. David Maddison, 2007. "Modelling sulphur emissions in Europe: a spatial econometric approach," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(4), pages 726-743, October.
    4. Halkos, George, 1997. "Modelling optimal nitrogen oxides abatement in Europe," MPRA Paper 33132, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Gilles Rotillon & Tazdaït Tarik, 2003. "Coopération internationale et problèmes environnementaux globaux : vision normative versus vision positive," Revue d’économie du développement, De Boeck Université, vol. 11(1), pages 101-134.
    6. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    7. Richard Tol, 2011. "Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 827-839, October.
    8. David M. McEvoy & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2011. "The problem of maintaining compliance within stable coalitions: experimental evidence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 475-498, July.
    9. Na Li Dawson & Kathleen Segerson, 2008. "Voluntary Agreements with Industries: Participation Incentives with Industry-Wide Targets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 97-114.
    10. Bellelli, Francesco S. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Aftab, Ashar, 2023. "An empirical analysis of participation in international environmental agreements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    11. Michael Finus & Pedro Pintassilgo & Alistair Ulph, 2014. "International Environmental Agreements with Uncertainty, Learning and Risk Aversion," Department of Economics Working Papers 19/14, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    12. Tobias Böhmelt & Jürg Vollenweider, 2015. "Information flows and social capital through linkages: the effectiveness of the CLRTAP network," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 105-123, May.
    13. Effrosyni Diamantoudi & Eftichios Sartzetakis & Stefania Strantza, 2018. "International Environmental Agreements and Trading Blocks - Can issue linkage enhance cooperation?," Discussion Paper Series 2018_07, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Jun 2018.
    14. Thoron, Sylvie & Sol, Emmanuel & Willinger, Marc, 2009. "Do binding agreements solve the social dilemma?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(11-12), pages 1271-1282, December.
    15. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    16. Alt, Marius & Gallier, Carlo & Kesternich, Martin & Sturm, Bodo, 2023. "Collective minimum contributions to counteract the ratchet effect in the voluntary provision of public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    17. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    18. John Whalley, 2011. "What Role for Trade in a Post‐2012 Global Climate Policy Regime," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(11), pages 1844-1862, November.
    19. Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla J., 2021. "Accounting for inequality aversion can justify the 2° C goal," Ruhr Economic Papers 925, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Carattini, Stefano & Fankhauser, Sam & Gao, Jianjian & Gennaioli, Caterina & Panzarasa, Pietro, 2023. "What does network analysis teach us about international environmental cooperation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:1303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.