Water Grabbing: A transboundary issue?

Water Grabbing 

“Water grabbing is the process in which powerful players are able to take control of, or reallocate for their own benefit, water resources used by local communities or which feed aquatic ecosystems on which their livelihoods are based” (Franco et al. 2013a p1653-54). The need for land and the water sources that come with the land has increased dramatically as the human population has grown along with the increased demand for food. The process of land grabbing has been happening for centuries, and is a global phenomenon, though much attention has been paid to land, and the associated water grabbing in Africa (Rulli et.al., 2012).

Grabbed water in top 24 most grabbed countries (Guerrilla, 2017)

In many countries, the right to the use of water has often been organised at a local level, with informal arrangements between smallholders. These local arrangements are often disregarded as governments, and big corporations seek to formalise the rights to water use. Many of the more recent initiatives and regulations focus on the control of land appropriation, leaving the control of water sources complex, unclear and open to abuse. It is challenging to devise adequate regulations regarding the control of water resources as its availability is so variable, being dependent on seasons, temperature and climate change (Rulli, et.al., 2012). In the case of rivers that flow across nation’s borders, the source of the water may be far removed from regions where it is used, and the effects of diverting or polluting a water supply may be felt long distances from the source of disruption.

In recent years, millions of acres of land across Africa has been grabbed, often by private investors and corporations for large-scale agriculture. The demand for food and biofuels have increased, and often wealthier nations have resorted to grabbing cheap land and the necessary water supply, in more impoverished areas of the world. The acquisition of land is usually done legally through local government leasing incentives; however, the control of water needed for irrigation is less regulated and often ignores the social, economic and environmental implications for the local population.

Tana River Delta

The Tana River Delta is one of the most important wetlands in Africa and supports a diverse range of wildlife, along with a population dependent on the biannual flooding to provide grazing for cattle, fertile farmlands and fishing areas. The Kenyan government had declared the delta land as underutilised with potential for development. Plans were drawn up with private investors and foreign companies for large-scale production of sugar cane and Jatropha curcas – a plant used in the production of biofuel (Duvail, 2012). Not only would the land be grabbed from local populations, but also the river water. Historically, the local people had existed with informal rights of access to water that were sustainable and beneficial to all. Minimal regard had been given to the environmental and social implications, so environmental organisations, NGOs and local communities began a campaign to halt the development of the Delta. In 2012, the Tana River Delta was designated a Ramsar site. Ramsar is an international convention for the protection of important wetlands (Franco et al., 2013b).

Other regions of Eastern Africa such as areas neighbouring the River Nile have been subject to large-scale land and water grabbing. The River Nile is a lifeline for neighbouring states such as Ethiopia, Southern Sudan, Sudan and Tanzania and large irrigation projects continue to be the cause of much geopolitical discord. Historically, much of the Nile water was designated for Egypt’s use as discussed in my previous posts. However, after the building of the Aswan Dam in the 1960s to regulate the rivers flow in Egypt and aid in large-scale irrigation of agricultural land, the flow of nutrients and minerals which would normally fertilise the land for local farmers downstream was reduced.  Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan, along with Egypt have become targets for foreign-owned agricultural projects. Land is leased by the governments, but it is the water needed for irrigation that is more valuable and the grabbing of which tends to ignore the historical rights of access by the local populations. The cheap land available for lease by large businesses and the lack of governance over water supply has enabled water to be diverted from its traditional uses.

The growing of water demanding crops such as palm oil and sugar cane, which are often exported has resulted in local subsistence farmers losing access to both land and water, leaving the local populations dependent on international food aid. Years of civil war in Sudan for example, along with unstable leadership has resulted in a lack of organisation and legal controls in the allocation of water resources. Powerless against big corporations local people are left with high levels of malnourishment and poverty. It is difficult to see how the Nile River can sustain such large-scale agriculture in the future without detrimental environmental and social consequences (Grain, 2012).

The Ethiopian government backed the construction of the Gibe III dam on the Omo River (completed in 2015), to provide electricity and aid in irrigation of large tracts of land leased to foreign agribusinesses, mainly producing sugar cane. The removal of much of the water upriver for irrigation has led to diminished supply and quality of water to the downstream regions occupied by indigenous tribal communities in Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. The resulting poverty and hunger amongst these communities have caused local unrest, but little concern from international businesses benefitting from the easy grabbing of water resources for their own benefit (National Geographic, 2015).

It is becoming apparent that there is not enough water available in Africa’s rivers and water tables to sustain all the major industrial and agricultural projects ongoing or planned. The depletion and degradation of water sources in the quest for food security by wealthier nations will continue to result in poverty and hunger in Africa where indigenous people gain little or no benefit from these projects.