120
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
• indirect allocation mechanisms: indirect allocation mechanisms establish processes through which actual allocations are to be determined, but without codifying
the specific quantities or proportions to be shared. These include:
– consultations between parties,
– an obligation to notify when water needs arise,
– a requirement for co-riparian consent to any increased water use,
– prioritisation of uses, etc.
• allocation principles and guidelines: these are broader ideas or concepts for
determining how water should be allocated now or in the future. Such principles
include:
– equitable and reasonable utilisation,
– rational use,
– sustainable use,
– no harm,
– protection of existing uses.
Each mechanism has its benefits and drawbacks. Direct allocation mechanisms
provide clarity, but it can be difficult to reach agreement on actual quantities of water.
Direct fixed mechanisms may effectively ignore natural fluctuations in water quantity, let alone out-of-range variations triggered by climate change. If the allocation
mechanism is rigid and inflexible, the parties are less able to honour their commitments once water availability changes (Dinar et al. 2014). Indirect mechanisms are
flexible, but at the same time they are open-ended which may turn problematic when
clearer direction is needed. Such ambiguity may allow parties to reach an agreement
relatively easily, but may also lead to controversy later, especially when the availability of water does not satisfy all parties’ needs. This applies particularly to the
broad legal principles of water sharing that—as Meredith Giordano and Aaron Wolf
have demonstrated—have very little practical impact on the actual practice of water
allocation (Giordano 2002).
Conventional wisdom suggests that the division of water among riparian states
is one of the most frequent and powerful driver of water-related inter-state disputes
(see Fig. 3.1). In other words, the relative importance of the allocation questions in
co-riparian relation correlates with the hydropolitical complexity of a given basin.
In fact, as Aaron Wolf contends, it is the “question of equitable allocations” that
lies “at the heart of most international water conflicts” (Wolf 1999). It is therefore
not surprising that much of the world’s water-related legal apparatus is primarily
concerned with water sharing, since the presence of allocation mechanisms may
confer resilience to any given transboundary governance scheme (Dinar et al. 2014).
Recently, however, the impact of water allocation mechanisms on the stability
of co-riparian relations was tested through quantitative mathematical modelling
by Shlomi Dinar et al. The research aimed at measuring, on the basis of a large
number of institutional and economic-political variables, the degree to which given
allocation mechanisms influence hydro-political resilience. The conclusions of this
study contribute significantly to the refinement of one of the established premises
10 The Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance …
• indirect allocation mechanisms: indirect allocation mechanisms establish processes through which actual allocations are to be determined, but without codifying
the specific quantities or proportions to be shared. These include:
– consultations between parties,
– an obligation to notify when water needs arise,
– a requirement for co-riparian consent to any increased water use,
– prioritisation of uses, etc.
• allocation principles and guidelines: these are broader ideas or concepts for
determining how water should be allocated now or in the future. Such principles
include:
– equitable and reasonable utilisation,
– rational use,
– sustainable use,
– no harm,
– protection of existing uses.
Each mechanism has its benefits and drawbacks. Direct allocation mechanisms
provide clarity, but it can be difficult to reach agreement on actual quantities of water.
Direct fixed mechanisms may effectively ignore natural fluctuations in water quantity, let alone out-of-range variations triggered by climate change. If the allocation
mechanism is rigid and inflexible, the parties are less able to honour their commitments once water availability changes (Dinar et al. 2014). Indirect mechanisms are
flexible, but at the same time they are open-ended which may turn problematic when
clearer direction is needed. Such ambiguity may allow parties to reach an agreement
relatively easily, but may also lead to controversy later, especially when the availability of water does not satisfy all parties’ needs. This applies particularly to the
broad legal principles of water sharing that—as Meredith Giordano and Aaron Wolf
have demonstrated—have very little practical impact on the actual practice of water
allocation (Giordano 2002).
Conventional wisdom suggests that the division of water among riparian states
is one of the most frequent and powerful driver of water-related inter-state disputes
(see Fig. 3.1). In other words, the relative importance of the allocation questions in
co-riparian relation correlates with the hydropolitical complexity of a given basin.
In fact, as Aaron Wolf contends, it is the “question of equitable allocations” that
lies “at the heart of most international water conflicts” (Wolf 1999). It is therefore
not surprising that much of the world’s water-related legal apparatus is primarily
concerned with water sharing, since the presence of allocation mechanisms may
confer resilience to any given transboundary governance scheme (Dinar et al. 2014).
Recently, however, the impact of water allocation mechanisms on the stability
of co-riparian relations was tested through quantitative mathematical modelling
by Shlomi Dinar et al. The research aimed at measuring, on the basis of a large
number of institutional and economic-political variables, the degree to which given
allocation mechanisms influence hydro-political resilience. The conclusions of this
study contribute significantly to the refinement of one of the established premises