The legal dispute over the Silala river shared by the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile before the International Court of Justice provides an enlightening example of the growing and complex interaction between climate change, water scarcity and international water law. Since 1997, Bolivia has claimed that the watercourse, which derives from Bolivia and crosses into Chile, belongs exclusively to Bolivia and is not international. Conversely, Chile insists it has a legal right to use the water and asserts the Silala is an international river. For international water law to apply, an international watercourse must be naturally occurring; however, Bolivia claims that the disputed river would not run to Chile without man-made canals constructed in the early 1900s. Hence, in Bolivia’s view, the Silala is not a natural transboundary watercourse. As international water law cannot apply, Bolivia states it can exploit its waters exclusively. The river meanders through one of the driest parts of the world, which strengthens the desire of both countries to claim rights over its use. This dispute is emblematic of a wider global problem. Water scarcity due to climate change and increased consumption are straining freshwater supply, opening the floodgates to a more assertive water-driven foreign policy and international posturing by nations.

—

The Silala River Dispute: “The most vulnerable basin on the continent”

The Silala is a current example of how political, socio-economic and environmental forces fuel competition for resources. The concept of “hydropolitical vulnerability”, defined by the United Nations Environment Programme as the “risk of political dispute over shared water systems”, is illustrated by the Silala dispute. 

It all begun in 1908, when Bolivia granted a concession to the Chilean Antofagasta-Bolivian Railway Company to use the waters of the Silala. Water, a scarce resource in the Atacama Desert, aimed to power steam engines that traveled between the cities of Antofagasta in Chile and Oruro in Bolivia. Bolivia claims that Chile built up canals that moved the river’s natural flow artificially from Bolivia to Chile. In 1962, steam-powered engines were replaced by diesel engines and water was no longer needed to power the latter. Since then, Chile has retained control of the water course, channelling its flow to supply mines and towns, even though the concession was initially given to power locomotives only. The Bolivian government revoked the concession in 1997 and sought to charge Chile retroactively for these diverted uses of the Silala waters. 

You might also like: Carbon Tax: A Shared Global Responsibility For Carbon Emissions

Historical friction and the lack of full diplomatic relations between Bolivia and Chile since Bolivia’s loss of access to the Pacific Ocean in the War of Pacific at the end of the nineteenth century, strengthens the disagreement between the two countries over the Silala. 

Bolivia’s hope to gain access to the sea vanished on October 2018 after the International Court of Justice ruled in support of Chile which is not required to negotiate the surrender of its territories to give Bolivia access to the Pacific coastline. The ruling is a significant defeat for the Bolivian president Evo Morales and weakens its re-election bid. Hence, because of the underlying geopolitical and economic issues, the Silala has become one of the most vulnerable basins in the world. 

Geopolitical and Natural Challenges to International Water Law

In June 2016, the United Nation’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has assessed a legal case concerning the Silala river. The lawsuit is still ongoing. On the one hand, Bolivia claims ownership of the Silala as the river originates from springs on its territory. The country believes it can exploit the river and charge the riparian State for its use. On the other hand, Chile insists it has a sovereign right to the Silala, an international watercourse which had never been diverted from its springs but instead naturally canalised. The applicability of international water law to the Silala case depends on whether or not the Silala River is described as a natural transboundary watercourse. Human-altered canalisation and flow deviations would not fall within the rubric of international water law. 

Should the river be considered an international boundary, it would prevent Bolivia from using the river’s waters without sharing them with Chile. It would, instead, entail an equitable utilisation of the watercourse as well as a duty of cooperation with its neighbour. These principles have been codified in the 1997 United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses whose fifth article states that “watercourse States shall participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Such participation includes both the right to utilise the watercourse and the duty to cooperate in the protection and development thereof”. Hence, Chile would have the right to a “reasonable and equitable” share of the river. It is noteworthy that Bolivia has not ratified the Convention.

Instead, Bolivia argues for its supreme sovereignty over the use of the Silala. Bolivia’s view might well refer to the Harmon doctrine, a principle stating that, in the name of the absolute sovereignty over its natural resources, “an upstream country has the unrestricted right to use the water of an international river irrespective of downstream consequences”. Yet, Bolivia’s argumentation is not based on this doctrine but rather on the qualification of the Silala as a domestic and not an international one, which enables the country to refuse any obligation towards Chile.  

International law may not have a solution to a political problem. Furthermore, the human right to water may relativise the relevance of the legal qualification of the Silala river as a domestic or an international watercourse. Bolivia may have extraterritorial obligations towards the riparian State as its absolute right to use Silala waters might have consequences on people living in Chile who rely on the Silala for domestic uses. Negotiations between the two countries remain a back seat while the lawsuit continues, although talks may come to the most optimal solution for this hydro-politically vulnerable basin.  

Water is a Scarce Resource in the Region

The Silala dispute highlights that water is an increasingly contentious resource, as a result of climate change and increased demands from population and industry. In 2016, Bolivia found itself in a national state of emergency due to a drought brought by a very intense El Niño. Even in unexceptional circumstances, Bolivia and Chile regularly face drought-induced water shortages. 

The Silala flows across the Bolivian-Chilean border in the Atacama Desert, one of the driest places in the world. The Atacama receives 15 millimeters of rain on average per year. Underground water basins around the desert are depleting due to excessive exploitation. Intensive mining activities in the region are severely straining available water resources. In Chile, water is considered an economic good,  bought and sold on a private water market at a relatively low price, with little governmental regulation and management. Mining companies can buy as many water contracts as they want. This cheap resource is not considered as an important capital until it is run out.

According to Dieter Helm, an economist and Professor at the University of Oxford, natural resources, such as water, should be considered a form of “natural capital” to be valued alongside human and financial capital, with an intrinsic economic price, not just as an unpriceable necessity. If natural capital keeps being provided for free, the argument goes, people, companies and governments will not have any incentive to moderate their use. Pricing natural capital as well as damage to it, would represent a viable solution, placing water at the centre of economic and political future of the Atacama region.

 Bolivia has recognised the climate crisis as one of the top risks for the country’s future. Its population is rising, while the Andean glaciers that don its high peaks are shrinking dramatically. According to a study published in The Cryosphere, a European Geosciences Union scientific journal, the glaciers of Bolivia shrank by 43% between 1986 and 2014. Glaciers are in retreat as the world warms, a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in response to the increasing combustion of fossil fuels. Shrinking glaciers will significantly impact downstream communities that are dependent on meltwater from glaciers, particularly during the dry season. Increasing temperatures and river streamflow reductions will make rural people increasingly vulnerable in areas already plagues by antiquated farming methods and poor yields. 

River-related conflicts are becoming one of the leading causes of tension between countries that suffer from water scarcity and global warming. The Sialala transboundary freshwater dispute, intensified by extreme droughts, shrinking glaciers and management challenges, has the potential to escalate antagonisms in the Andean region. The issues that ground this typical case expand beyond water rights. They involve a competition for resources, strengthened by water scarcity. Hence, while there may be water rights at stake before the International Court of Justice, the Silala dispute is also concerned with allocating economic and political interests in a situation of climate crisis scenario. Water scarcity in both countries is likely to intensify claims of absolute territorial sovereignty over the river instead of promoting adroit management and equal rights. The outcome of this legal case may be crucial to future Chile-Bolivian relations. 

This article is part of a series published jointly with Global Risk Insights (GRI) a leading geopolitical online news-source. Our aim is to explore the deep links between a changing climate and geopolitical shifts, to highlight how the impending climate crisis is already starting to unravel the delicately achieved balance of international power. Furthermore, the series aims to lay bare the impacts the climate crisis will have on the global fabric of society, the global economy and the domestic stability of our nation states.

The post The Case of the Silala River: Between the Laws of Men and the Laws of Nature appeared first on Earth.Org.

With the election of German minister Ursula von der Leyen as the European Commission’s new President, the energy industry in Germany, and the rest of the EU, is likely to witness a major transition from coal to clean energy sources.

—

Germany, the biggest electricity market in the European Union, has become the EU’s poster child for clean energy with its decision to shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants by 2038.

A study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems had found that renewable energy has already overtaken coal as Germany’s main source of energy in 2018.

The country generated significantly less electricity from coal-fired power stations in the first half of this year. Generation from brown coal was down by 21% and hard coal was down by 24%. Emissions from its power sector fell by 20 million tons of CO2–19% of total emission– pointing at a dramatic shift in the country’s energy industry and carbon footprint.

How Much of Germany’s Energy Is Renewable?

Currently, more than 40% of Germany’s electricity generation–approximately 157 terawatt-hours–for the public power supply comes from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower.

Although many European countries have been following Germany’s footsteps, the EU has not so far witnessed a real momentum for renewable energy. But with the election of the European Commission’s first female president Ursula von der Leyen, the first German politician to be selected to the post in the last 50 years, a major shift in the EU’s energy industry might be in the offing.

In her candidacy speech at the EU parliament, Von der Leyen said she intended to make climate and the environment top priorities in all policy areas while pledging to strengthen the EU’s short-term goal on greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Our most pressing challenge is keeping our planet healthy. This is the greatest responsibility and opportunity of our times,” she said. “I want Europe to become the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050. To make this happen, we must take bold steps together. Our current goal of reducing our emissions by 40% by 2030 is not enough. A two-step approach is needed to reduce CO₂ emissions by 2030 by 50, if not 55%.”

You might also like: Renewable Energy Can Support Economic Growth Post-COVID-19

Ursula von der Leyen wants Europe to become the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050.

Von der Leyen, who will begin her five-year term in November, will introduce a Green Deal for Europe in her first 100 days in the office.  She also pledged to unlock €1 trillion (US$1.1 trillion) over the next decade for climate investment and to turn parts of the European Investment Bank into a dedicated climate bank, which would channel private investments to climate and clean-energy projects in every corner of the EU.

As Green parties have already become a political force in the new European Parliament it will be easier for Von der Leyen to push the EU towards renewable energy transition.

Recent energy investment trends in Europe also hold promise. The European Investment Bank (EIB) recently committed €4 billion of financing for renewable-related projects.  Private capital is also mobilising. Investment firm Glennmont Partners has launched an €850 million fund for European green energy while the European Commission and Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV) have launched a €100 million pilot investment fund to incubate capital intensive startups working on clean energy innovation. The European Commission also has been supporting various member states including Lithuania and Portugal to strengthen their renewable energy infrastructure.

Last year, the EU produced 17.5% of its power needs from renewable sources, moving closer to its 2020 goal of 20% clean energy generation. While 11 member states have met this goal, other members are lagging behind indicating that they might miss the target next year.  

The EU has already set a new renewable energy target of 32% renewable energy generation by 2030.  To reach this ambitious target, it might need to implement stricter policies including tougher fiscal and regulatory interventions to curb further investments in the fossil fuel industry and progressively weed off dependency from it. 

The post How Germany is Leading Europe’s Clean Energy Transition appeared first on Earth.Org.

Marine biologists call the Philippine Sea the ‘centre of the centre’ of aquatic biodiversity. However, with ongoing decimation, marine biodiversity in the Philippines is facing a bleak future. 

—

The Philippines and Marine Ecosystem Conservation 

Covering a major portion of the Coral Triangle, with more than 16800 sq km of coral reef, the Philippines is a global centre for marine biodiversity. Its central region, from Luzon to Mindanao, has more marine species per unit area than any other place on the planet. It is home to a unique plethora of seagrass, invertebrates, seaweeds, and marine mammals.

But the country is struggling to conserve its marine life in the face of overfishing, destructive fishing practices, and growing plastic pollution. These human activities coupled with climate change have led to an unparalleled decimation of its marine biodiversity.   

A study published in the Philippine Journal of Science reports that reefs in the country’s territorial waters are no longer in excellent condition, and that 90% are classified as either poor or fair. Another 2017 report by the United Nations predicted that all 29 World Heritage coral reefs, including one in the Philippines, will die out by 2100 unless carbon emissions are drastically reduced.

Decades of destructive practices like dynamite fishing, bottom trawling, and cyanide fishing have wreaked havoc in the Philippine Sea. An analysis by the University of British Columbia found that destructive fishing methods have been liberally used in the Philippines since the 1960s, with peaks in the 70s and 80s when national fishing policies shortsightedly encouraged higher yield from fish stocks with no regard for collateral side-effects. Although the authorities issued a ban in the late 90s, those fishing methods continue to be commonly practiced until this day.

Dynamite fishing– whereby explosives are detonated underwater killing all marine life within the radius of the blast–is the most common practice among local fishermen. The second most popular practice is cyanide fishing–a technique used to stun the fish by squirting sodium cyanide into water. Bottom trawling is used for large-scale fishing by commercial fishing vessels. 

You might also like: Conch and the Wider Problem of Unsustainable Fishing

In 2014, the European Union issued a yellow card to the Philippines warning that it would be banned from exporting to the bloc unless its fishing activities were strictly regulated. In response, the government introduced a new fisheries code that called for stricter measures against destructive methods. But it has produced mixed results due to the absence of serious enforcement measures.

While a modicum of regulation has managed to discipline the domestic fishing fleet, foreign fishing vessels from China, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been carrying out large-scale illegal fishing within the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) since 2012. Policing foreign vessels in territorial waters has been a significant geopolitical challenge for successive governments.

Growing plastic pollution is another menace altogether. Last year, the country attracted international attention when a young whale shark was found dead in Davao del Norte province and a biologist retrieved a cup, wrappers, and numerous other plastic items from its stomach. This incident has helped to highlight the acute nature of ocean pollution in Southeast Asia and the Philippines in particular. In 2018, the government permanently restricted access to Boracay, a favoured holiday destination and an important economic driver, because of the sheer amount of trash in the water. It has since reopened.

Ocean Conservancy, an NGO,  in its report ranked the Philippines as the world’s third-largest ocean polluter, as the country generates 2.7 million metric tons of plastic waste annually and disposes 20% of that directly into the ocean.  

Such a high concentration of plastic waste has caused disease outbreaks on the coral reef and irreversible harm to a number of marine species. Besides significant damage to marine habitats, the Philippine Sea recorded an overall decline of 29% of fish stocks. 

Only a strict enforcement mechanism and conservation methods based on a coordinated, national marine monitoring system can save the marine biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems of the Philippines. Other countries have demonstrated that it is possible for developing economies to couple sustained economic growth with a wise use of natural resources. 

The post The Philippines’ Marine Biodiversity Faces Decimation appeared first on Earth.Org.