Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Governing Iberian Rivers: from bilateral management to common basin governance?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditionally, international water resources have been managed by riparian states based essentially on a technical hydraulic approach, addressing navigation concerns, water flows at the border and shared hydraulic structures, besides the definition of political borders. During the 1990s, the possibility of a paradigm change emerged, where a “technical hydraulic management approach” seemed to be giving way to a more “political environmental governance approach”. Yet, in many cases, this change did not ensue. This article argues that several riparians are trapped in stalemate due to a too strong sovereign approach to their water relations. Adopting a critical perspective on hydro-hegemony, this article argues that this framework of analysis is too limited since it is embedded in a Westphalian concept of sovereignty. To support this argument, the article draws on the Iberian Peninsula water politics. These riparians are still embedded in notions of territorial sovereignty, not being able to take on a holistic water basin governance regime embedded on considerations of equity, human rights and social justice. The article concludes that it is vital to move beyond a static sovereignty-based analysis of riparian relations and engage in a dynamic discussion of different water governance models and their consequences concerning peace and development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This understanding is not uncontested, and some riparians, such as Egypt, have challenged its implementation. Nevertheless, when analyzing international water treaties, one can conclude that these overall attributes, although not always explicit, can be found either as an implicit part of treaties or as a practice among riparians.

  2. The hydro-hegemony framework of analysis explains how a riparian’s hegemonic position in a river basin is a result not only of its riparian position, but also of its power and exploitation potential (Zeitoun and Warner 2006). For these authors, power constitutes the main determinant of the degree of control and access to water resources attained by each riparian state.

  3. The analysis is also informed by qualitative open-ended interviews conducted during 1998 and 1999 with Portuguese and Spanish water specialists as well as with Portuguese decision makers and planners responsible for the decisions that led to the Foz Côa Dam protests. This was part of an overall research project of the 1990s Foz Côa conflict in Portugal, which contributed to a change in Portugal’s water politics paradigm and constituted the background context for the negotiation of the Albufeira Convention.

  4. Portugal was under Spanish rule from 1580 to 1640 due to royal family alliances. In 1640, Portugal re-gained its independence by force of arms.

  5. For an analysis of different water governance models, see Lopes (2009).

  6. The Water Law was also a result of the necessity to transpose the European Union Water Framework Directive into national legislation.

  7. For an in-depth discussion of this particular case, see Warner (2008, 2005, 2012).

  8. The fact that Spain is also downstream in the Guadiana river basin is considered not significant since almost all the development is concentrated in the upper Guadiana in Spanish territory.

  9. The factor “power” was calculated based on gross domestic product per capita (Eurostat 2010), number of military troops (International Institute for Strategic Studies—The Military Balance 2010) and the percentage of voting power held by each country in the European Parliament.

  10. Here reflecting the number of large dams in each country: Portugal with 191 and Spain with 1200 (European Environment Agency 2010).

  11. The arbitrator commission would be headed, in the case of a technical dispute, by an engineer nominated by the Zürich Polytechnic Institute (now ETH), and if the dispute was legal, then by specialist appointed by the International Court of Justice.

  12. A supply-side approach adopts policies that are dedicated to taking more water where, when and to whom it is needed.

  13. Spain has eight main rivers, of which 5 flow into the Atlantic Ocean and the other three into the Mediterranean Sea. Four of the former cross Portugal before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.

  14. This was according to the Dublin Principles, 1992.

  15. Portuguese authorities had a copy of the Spanish Plan since the beginning of 1993 (Lopes 2001), which further fueled Portuguese public contestation, accusing the Portuguese government of lack of strength and sovereignty.

  16. During the negotiations, Spain agreed to halt its projects to transfer water from Spanish–Portuguese rivers basins (Vlachos and Correia 2000).

  17. For an in-depth study on “mechanisms, types, and frequencies of water resources data and information sharing,” see Gerlak et al. (2011).

  18. Portugal only ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses in 2005 and Spain in 2009.

  19. Positive and negative-sum hydro-hegemony are understood here as more cooperative/peaceful and more hostile/violent, respectively.

  20. See for example, Collier et al. (1997); Kreijen (2002); Fowler and Bunck (1995).

  21. For a discussion on hydro-hegemony and international water law, see Daoudy (2008), who discusses international law as a source of structural power, or Woodhouse and Zeitoun (2008), who suggest international law needs to take into account hydro-hegemonic dynamics. It should be noted that international law contributes to the international system’s structure but it is also a result of power politics.

  22. See Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2011) on transboundary water interaction and, on a more conceptual note, see Freire and Lopes (2008).

Abbreviations

EDP:

The public Portuguese Electricity Company

NHP:

Spanish National Hydrological Plan

References

  • Ackerman, J., & Tir, J. (2003). To share or not to share: Conditions affecting signing of river-managing treaties between riparian states. Paper presented at the international studies association annual convention, Portland, United States of America, February 25 to March 1, 2003.

  • Alam, U. (2002). Questioning the water wars rational: A case study of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Geographical Journal, 168(4), 354–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, A. B. d., Portela, M. M., & Machado, M. (2009). A case of transboundary water agreement-the Albufeira Convention. STRIVER Technical Brief No. 9.

  • Bakker, K. J. (2003). An uncooperative commodity: Privatizing Water in England and Wales (Oxford Geographical and Environmental Studies).. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraqué, B. (Ed.). (1995). As Políticas da Água na Europa. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraqué, B., & Mostert, E. (2006). Transboundary river basin management in Europe. Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper 21.

  • Blatter, J., & Ingram, H. (Eds.). (2001). Reflection on water: New approaches to transboundary conflicts and cooperation. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bukowski, J. J. (2011). Sharing water on the Iberian Peninsula: A Europeanisation approach to explaining transboundary cooperation. Water Alternatives, 4(2), 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cascão, A. E. (2008). Ethiopia–challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile basin. Water Policy, 10(S2), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNPGB n/a. Barragem de Alqueva. Comissão Nacional Portuguesa das Grandes Barragens. http://cnpgb.inag.pt/gr_barragens/gbportugal/Alqueva.htm. Accessed July 26, 2010.

  • Collier, U., Golub, J., & Kreher, A. (Eds.). (1997). Subsidiarity and shared responsibility: New challenges for EU environmental policy. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. (2005). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia, F. N. (1991). A problemática da água no contexto do ambiente em Portugal. In: MARN (Ed.), Livro Branco sobre o Estado do Ambiente em Portugal–Anexos. Lisboa: Ministério do Ambiente e Recursos Naturais.

  • Correia, F. N. (1996). O que separa também une. In Proceedings of the Conferência Portugal-Espanha “O que separa também une” (pp. 91–112). Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa.

  • Cunha, L.V. d. (1996). Recursos Hídricos Luso-Espanhóis. O passado e o futuro. Paper presented at the III Congresso da Associação Portuguesa de Recursos Hídricos, Lisboa.

  • Daoudy, M. (2008). Hydro-hegemony and international water law: Laying claims to water rights. Water Policy, 10(S2), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekers, M., & Loftus, A. (2008). The power of water: Developing dialogues between Foucault and Gramsci. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(4), 698–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (2010). The European environment: State and outlook 2010 http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer. Consulted April 2, 2012.

  • Falkenmark, M., & Folke, C. (2002). The ethics of socio-ecohydrological catchment management: Towards hydrosolidarity. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, 6(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, M. R., & Bunck, K. M. (1995). Law, power and the sovereign state: The evolution and application of the concept of sovereignty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, M. R., & Lopes, P. D. (2008). Reconceptualizar a paz e a violência: Uma análise crítica. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 82, 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., Lautze, J., & Giordano, M. (2011). Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, R. (2006). Between knowledge and politics: The role of Técnicos in the Brazilian water management reform. PhD dissertation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.

  • INAG. (2004). Plano Nacional da Água (Vol. I). Lisboa: Instituto Nacional da Água.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jägerskog, A. (2002). Contributions of Regime Theory in Understanding Interstate Water Cooperation: Lessons Learned in the Jordan River Basin. In A. R. Turton & R. Henwood (Eds.), Hydropolitics in the developing world: A Southern African perspective (pp. 73–78). Pretoria: African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU).

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural causes and regimes consequences: regimes as intervening variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–22). Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreijen, G. (Ed.). (2002). State, sovereignty and international governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipper, J. (1967). Equitable utilization. In A. H. Garretson, R. D. Hayton, & C. J. Olmstead (Eds.), The law of international drainage basin. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, P.D. (2001). As políticas da água de Foz Côa. In M. E. Gonçalves (Ed.), O caso de Foz Côa: um laboratório de análise socio-política (pp. 65–102). Lisboa: Edições 70.

  • Lopes, P. D. (2009). Sharing water: Evolution, threats and challenges. Lusotopie, 16(1), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Gunn, E. (2009). Agua para todos: A new regionalist hydraulic paradigm in Spain. Water Alternatives, 2(3), 370–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • MOPMA. (1993). Plan Hidrológico Nacional. Memoria. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Medio Ambiente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saleh, S. M. K. (2008). Hydro-hegemony in the Nile basin: A sudanese perspective. Water Policy, 10(S2), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saramago, J. (2008). Espanha quer mais água de Alqueva. Correio da Manhã.

  • Shiva, V. (2002). Water wars: Privatization, pollution and profit. Cambridge: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhardiman, D., and Giordano, M. (2012). Process-focused analysis in transboundary water governance research. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9176-z.

  • Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Regeneracionismo, the production of nature and the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), 443–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Technonatural revolutions: The scalar politics of Franco’s hydrosocial dream for Spain 1939–1975. Transactions Institute British Geographers, 32(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, E., & Correia, F. N. (Eds.). (2000). Shared water systems and transboundary issues, with special emphasis on the Iberian Peninsula. Lisboa: Fundação Luso-Americana para o Desenvolvimento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (2004). Plugging the GAP—working with Buzan: The Illisu Dam as a security issue. SOAS Water Issues Study Group, Occasional Paper 67.

  • Warner, J. (2005). Hydro-hegemony as a layered cake: Hydro-hegemonic strategies in the case of Turkey. Paper presented at the First Workshop on Hydro-Hegemony: London Water Research Group, University of London. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (2008). Contested hydrohegemony: Hydraulic control and security in Turkey. Water Alternatives, 1(2), 271–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (2012). The struggle over Turkey’s Ilısu dam: Domestic and international security linkages. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9178-x.

  • Warner, J., & Zawahri, N. (2012). Hegemony and asymmetry: Multiple-chessboard games on transboundary rivers. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9177-y.

  • Wegerich, K. (2008). Hydro-hegemony in the Amu Darya Basin. Water Policy, 10(S2), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. (2003). The security politics of enclosing transboundary river water resources. Paper presented at the conference on resource politics and security in a global age, University of Sheffield.

  • Wolf, A. T. (1995). Hydropolitics along the Jordan River: Scarce water and Its impacts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, A. (2003). ‘Water Wars’ and Other Tales of Hydromythology. In B. McDonald & D. Jehl (Eds.), Whose water is it? The unquenchable thirst of a water-hungry world (pp. 109–124). Washington D.C.: National Geographic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, M., & Zeitoun, M. (2008). Hydro-hegemony and international water law: Grappling with the gaps of power and law. Water Policy, 10(S2), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawahri, N.A., & Hensengerth, O. (2012). Domestic environmental activists and the governance of the Ganges and Mekong Rivers in India and China. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9179-9.

  • Yoffe, S.B. (2001). Basins at risk: Conflict and cooperation over international freshwater resources. PhD Dissertation. Portland: Oregon State University.

  • Zeitoun, M., & Allan, J. A. (2008). Applying hegemony and power theory to transboundary water analysis. Water Policy, 10(2), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., & Mirumachi, N. (2011). Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8, 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., & Warner, J. (2011). Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of ‘soft’ power. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony-a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8, 435–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, FEUC, Av. Dias da Silva, 165, 3004-512, Coimbra, Portugal

    Paula Duarte Lopes

Authors
  1. Paula Duarte Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Duarte Lopes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lopes, P.D. Governing Iberian Rivers: from bilateral management to common basin governance?. Int Environ Agreements 12, 251–268 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9175-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-012-9175-0

Keywords