Table of Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Matthew A. Zentner for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography presented on November 17, 2010. Title: Assessing the Design of International Water Supply and Hydropower Arrange- ments For Managing Certain Climate Change Scenarios Abstract approved: _________________________________________ Aaron T. Wolf Increased variability of rainfall and flow from climate change has the potential to stress existing transboundary water sharing agreements and make meeting the needs of all riparians difficult. Water treaties have been theorized as valuable tools for mitigating conflict in times of climate stress, but the relationship between the design of treaties and their impact has not been explored in depth. In this study, a literature review extracts core concepts commonly used to explain the success of treaties in managing hydrologic stress. These are summarized as seven treaty mechanisms categories (specificity, uncertainty management, enforcement, communications, flexibility, integrativeness, and scale) and are hypothesized as important for shaping the institutional resiliency of a treaty. While recognizing that there is significant variability within basins and treaties, this project uses a comprehensive, quantitative approach with multiple basins (n=52) and treaties (n=146), to empirically examine the effectiveness of the seven treaty mechanisms for deterring conflict and complaints that occur due to hydrologic stress. Contrary to expectations, the most robust treaties with more mechanisms have a higher instance of both climate and general conflict. Coefficients obtained from regression analysis indicate that an increase in flexibility, scale, and enforcement within a treaty are an indicator of less conflict or complaints and the negative coefficients for communications, specificity, and integrativeness tend to indicate more conflict. The general mechanism results are used to evaluate specific treaties and their capability to manage projected changes in climate in five case study basins: the Nile, Jordan, Tigris/Euphrates, Indus, and Helmand. The case studies illustrate the difficulties in pinpointing the importance and impact of each mechanism, and the overall treaty design, on water relations. Treaty mechanisms certainly play an important role in de-escalating tensions when stresses occurred within each basin. However, conflict de-escalation is not a direct cause and effect relationship between the capabilities of the water institutions and the amount of stress to the system. Instead, there is a complex relationship between change to the system and management efforts that involves a series of feedback loops and influence from non-water related sectors. Analysis of the seven mechanisms and the five case studies provides several summary explanatory concepts that include: treaty design and mechanisms exert an influence not just on the management capability (institutional resilience) aspect of relations, but also help to shape the political context of the problem; complaints are not necessarily an indicator of decreased institutional resiliency, weak, or ill-designed treaties, but in some cases illustrate that a treaty is functioning properly; and ambient poor relations are important for shaping many complaints. What is better understood through this research is how treaty design has a relevant and important role in shaping basin management so that nations may better achieve their goals in a changing climate. © Copyright by Matthew A. Zentner November 17, 2010 All Rights Reserved Assessing the Design of International Water Supply and Hydropower Arrangements For Managing Certain Climate Change Scenarios by Matthew A. Zentner A DISSERTATION submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented November 17, 2010 Commencement June 2011 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Matthew A. Zentner presented on November 17, 2010. APPROVED: Major Professor, representing Geography Chair of the Department of Geosciences Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any reader upon request. Matthew A. Zentner, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research utilized the efforts and data from a large number of faculty and student re- searchers at Oregon State University and other institutions around the world. Dr. Ariel Dinar provided insight and was instrumental in shaping the World Bank project exploring this issue and by extension this analysis. I would like to thank Dr. Lucia De Stefano and Dr. Kerstin Stahl who were both essential to the coordination and integration of a broad range of datasets and academic expertise. Dr. Mark Giordano kindly provided guidance and his treaty data from the International Water Management Institute. Dr. Jesse Hamner was extremely patient with my questions regarding his drought data. Dr. Salman Salman took much of his personal time to discuss the virtues of treaties. Ms. Flavia Loures and Ms. Ana Parente at the World Wildlife Fund made great efforts to share their worldwide legal and water management expertise. Even short conversations with Dr. Jerome Priscol- li were fruitful for shaping the stability concepts. Several OSU students provided assis- tance with the data including Jim Duncan, Stephanie Ogden, Yoshiko Sano, Amy McNal- ly, Olivia Odom, Patrick MacQuarrie, and Kendra Hatcher. Ms. Nicole Sponaugle, Mr. Steve Hunter, Mr. Jack May, and Mr. Pete Fuhrer have been encouraging and more than patient while I pursued this research. Ms. Tamara Ryba, as always, has been there when- ever I needed help. I am especially grateful for the members of my committee who have been flexible and extraordinarily kind with their time and efforts, including Dr. Anne Nolin, Dr. Steve Hostetler, and Dr. Larry Lev at Oregon State University. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Ron Mitchell at the University of Oregon for lending his expertise and guidance to a student from a rival institution. Dr. Todd Jarvis has acted as a committee member in all but name and his contagious passion for the subject led me to Oregon State University. A full description of all the things for which I have to thank my advisor, Dr. Aaron Wolf, would require several pages, so I will just mention his patience, kindness, sound advice, willingness to take on unique challenges, and tireless efforts on my behalf. CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS Kerstin Stahl, Alan Basist, Brian Blankespoor, Amy McNally, and Lucia De Stefano provided expertise regarding the analysis of how best to estimate flow probabilities to meet the water treaty allocation requirements and were coauthors of Appendix B. Amy McNally, Yoshiko Sano, and Olivia Odom assisted with obtaining and compiling the treaty datasets. Jim Duncan, Kerstin Stahl, and Lucia De Stefano provided guidance regarding the data manipulation and analysis of the projected flow variability and climate dataset. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................1 2 Literature Review .............................................................................................7 2.1 Climate Change, Fluctuations in Water Availability, and Security ..................7 2.1.1 Environmental and Water Institutions ............................................................12 2.1.2 International Water Law .................................................................................15 2.1.3 Water Treaty Implementation and Application ..............................................19 2.1.4 Water Treaty Design.......................................................................................20 3 Hypotheses, Definitions, and Explanatory Mechanisms ................................23 3.1 Hypotheses .....................................................................................................23 3.1.1 Defining the System .......................................................................................25 3.1.2 Defining Institution ........................................................................................26 3.1.3 Defining Institutional Success .......................................................................27 3.1.4 Defining Hydrologic Stress............................................................................29 3.2 Importance of Treaty Design and Institutional Mechanisms .........................31 3.3 Explanatory Mechanisms ...............................................................................32 3.3.1 Communications ............................................................................................34 3.3.2 Flexibility .......................................................................................................35 3.3.3 Specificity ......................................................................................................37 3.3.4 Integrativeness ...............................................................................................39 3.3.5 Enforcement ...................................................................................................41 3.3.6 Scale ...............................................................................................................43 3.3.7 Uncertainty Management ...............................................................................45 3.4 Hydrohegemony