The Zambezi river basin: a regional lifeline

One of the main topics I discuss in my blogs in the management of transboundary water resources between the states that use these resources. I have discussed the Grande Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, involving Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan and I have addressed the transboundary water conflict between the riparian states of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer in North East-Africa. I have realised my main focus has been on the Nile countries when it comes to transboundary water resource management (or an absence of this management). Therefore, thig blog will shift my focus on the Nile area to the southern part of Africa: the Zambezi River Basin. In this blog I will talk about the management of this important river basin between its riparian states.

As I have mentioned, the Zambezi River is located in Southern-Africa flowing through 8 different basin states: Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe (see figure 1). Out of these countries Zambia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Malawi. These eight states are members of the economic grouping called the Southern African Development Community (SADC). have the largest share of its basin (Heyns, 2003; Osborne,2000; Tumbare, 2015). The river supports over 20 million people and is expected to increase to over 70 million people by 2050. As we have seen before in the Nile countries, these population growths will increase water demands for food and energy which can negatively impact the basin’s ecosystem and environment. The river basin has experienced infrastructural development for energy generation, flood control, recreation, fishing and irrigation. It is now home to two large artificial reservoirs: the Kariba and Cahora Bassa (Osborne, 2003; Tilmant et al. 2012). Furthermore a number of at least 26 dams has been built for domestic, industrial, and mining water supply and for irrigation and power generation (Heyns, 2003). It's noteworthy to mention most of these irrigation and hydropower projects are being developed independently in the early stages of the projects (Tilmant et al., 2012).

Figure 1: the Zambezi River Basin

Source

Management of the Zambezi river basin

Like I have said before the Zambezi river is of vital importance of the region and is used through infrastructural projects like dams and irrigation systems. Obviously, this infrastructure affects the river in a great way. Especially the interferences upstream have a significant impact on the downstream regions. This demands a cooperation between the river’s riparian states to avoid conflict and achieve an equal share of the pie for all countries. The riparian states each monitor, asses, plan, develop, conserve and protect the water resources that are found in their territory of the Zambezi River. There is however little consultation or cooperation among the riparian states. Historically the Zambezi’s riparian states have not take the opportunity for joint water resources management, except in isolated cases (Osborne, 2000).

I start with the Zambezi River Action Plan (ZACPLAN) agreement signed in 1987 in Harare and strongly initiated and supported by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The ZACPLAN was signed by the governments of Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. A move forward to a shared programme must be a good thing, I hear you think. However the ZACPLAN agreement was signed not primarily and foremost to prevent future conflict through judicious development of the Zambezi’s waters and a coordinated international water management, but for a political strategy to isolate South Africa. Thus, the riparian states seized the opportunity to eliminate South Africa’s opportunity to tap the Zambezi River in the future. Therefore, important issues concerning water management have not been considered or agreed upon (Kampanje-Phiri, 2016). The Southern Africa Development Coordinating Conference (SADCC), a mandate that included the promotion of power development and interconnection was signed in 1980 and would obtain the power to oversee the implementation of the ZACPLAN. The riparian states, however, did not want to give up their power to a third party. This shows the error in the programme, lacking a practical, executive basis having no real impact on the states’ approach to water resource management and development (Kampanje-Phiri, 2016).

In 1995, another protocol followed on shared watercourse systems and was signed by the Zambezi River Basin states. In 1997, the UN held a conference about the Law of Nonnavigational Uses of International Watercourses, the conference's key principles were to achieve reasonable and equitable utilisation and obligation not to cause significant harm. This conference influenced the revision of the 1995 protocol that was finally ratified in 2003 and embraced the conference’s international watercourse law (Kampanje-Phiri, 2016).

Besides the previous agreements and protocols that were signed and discussed in 1995 and 1997, there has been another initiative: the Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM) which would be a legal instrument to guide water resources development in the Zambezi River Basin. Zambia resigned the negotiations but the remaining 7 riparian states signed the ZAMCOM in 2004, adopting the generalised principles of the UN convention (Kampanje-Phiri, 2016).

Analysing the Zambezi’s water management agreements and protocols, we can see there has been a progress in signed agreements that should implement more cooperation and more regulation and management on the river overall. However one must be careful with this ‘success’. As Kampanje-Phiri (2016) argues, the Zambezi’s riparian states have signed the ZAMCOM in 2004 but this agreement overlooked specific instruments to address inherent issues in the Zambezi River Basin, this development endangers overlooking key issues that may be a key to promoting water cooperation in the basin.

Thus, it remains unclear whether the riparian states of the Zambezi are effective in managing their precious water resources that in the future will even be used more intensively than ever before. Whereas no real violent conflicts have occurred so far, without implementing a strong cooperative and integrated management system this might become reality in the future.