Lessons learned for cooperation between riparians and sectors

About this Article
Contributed by: Aaron T. Wolf, Joshua T. Newton, Matthew Pritchard

Article last edited 12 Feb 2013 by Amanda
Article originally added by Mpritchard

What is an ASI Article? Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case by linking a case to an ASI article. These ASI articles are protected, so that each person who creates a section retains control of their own content. Please use the discussion page for commenting on this article. Learn More

This article is linked to International Joint Development of The La Plata River Basin

The points below are summarized or excerpted from the Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Matthew Pritchard provided this and other summarized analysis or insights from the TFFD on behalf and with permission of the original authors. Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/

Lessons Learned

If riparian states start cooperation from the outset of a conflict, instead of letting it create stronger positions, the economic and joint management prospects are much greater.

Since 1969, the quantity of joint economic ventures in the La Plata Basin has allowed for increased cooperation between the riparian nations when many times conflict could have arisen and defeated the benefits the states are receiving today. ^[1]

If riparian states agree to equal access to transboundary water resources, equal and joint management, investment and distribution of that resource is feasible.

In the water resources sector, neither Brazil nor Argentina has used their economic or military superiority to maintain greater control over water resources or hydroelectric potential. ^[1]

Creative Outcomes Resulting From Resolution Process

The La Plata Basin Treaty has helped bring the five nations together and aid in not their own disputes, but assist in resolving disputes between sectors. The nations cooperate well, but the treaty has been helpful to resolve intersectorial conflicts.

While the Hydrovia project was proposed in 1988, even now in 2004, there is still little movement towards implementing the project due to environmental and social action groups in defending the economic, cultural and ecological integrity of the basin. In the end, this will allow for a more sustainable project.^[1]