Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

World Water Week 2014, WWW 2014, 31 August to 5 September 2014

Indigenous peoples and industry water users:

Mapping the conflicts worldwide
A. Jiméneza*, M. F. Molinaa and H. Le Deunffa
a
Stockholm International Water Institute, Linnégatan 87A, Box 101 87, 100 55 Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a mapping study undertaken in 2014 to determine the characteristics of conflicts between
governments, private industrial users and indigenous peoples over the use of water resources. Gathering information about 384
situations of water-related conflicts reported around the world during 1960–2014, the study found that mining and hydropower
development were the most conflict-ridden types of projects. In only 3 per cent of the cases had the parties reached the stage of
formal cooperative agreements. Conflicts had significant impacts on operations, since one-third of projects had to be either
cancelled or renegotiated. There is an urgent need to develop successful ways of cooperation between indigenous peoples, states
and industries.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Stockholm International Water Institute.
Peer-review under responsibility of Stockholm International Water Institute.
Keywords: Conflicts; Water; Indigenous; Extractive Industries; Hydropower; Mining; Mapping

1. Introduction

Approximately 90 per cent of global energy production is water intensive, placing large demands on water
resources for the conversion process (Berggren, 2014). Global energy consumption is expected to rise by 41 per cent
from 2012 to 2035 (IEA, 2014). This growing energy demand, combined with population increase and other industry
needs, will put increasing pressure on the world's scarce water resources, since the total demand is projected to rise

*Correspondingauthor. Tel.: +46 8 121 360 00; fax: +46 8 121 360 01.
E-mail address: alejandro.jimenez@siwi.org

2214-241X © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Stockholm International Water Institute.
doi:10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.10.009
70 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

by 55 per cent by 2050 (OECD, 2012). At the same time, humans consume more minerals and metals than ever, and
demand is increasing steadily due to population growth, changing lifestyle in developing countries and the increased
demand for other minerals (e.g. for mobile phone batteries).
Much of the world’s remaining unexploited minerals and hydroelectric energy sites are located in environmentally
and socially sensitive areas, many on land inhabited by indigenous people. It is estimated that there are more than
5000 distinct indigenous peoples, constituting some 370 million individuals and living in more than 90 countries in
all inhabited continents (UNDESA, 2009). Indigenous peoples have a unique position in the cultural heritage of
humankind: of the around 7000 languages spoken today, it is estimated that more than 4000 are spoken by indigenous
peoples (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2014). However, indigenous peoples around the world face
multiple forms of discrimination; while they constitute approximately 5 per cent of the world’s population, they make
up 15 per cent of the world’s poor (IFAD, 2007). There is no single agreed definition of indigenous peoples. Based
on a working definition quoted by the United Nations (UN) system (UNDESA, 2008), the most commonly identified
characteristics of indigenous peoples can be summarized as:
x Self-identification as indigenous people at an individual and/or collective level,
x historical continuity in and strong cultural links to specific territories and resources,
x unique social, economic and political systems that are to some degree maintained,
x unique languages, cultures, beliefs and knowledge systems that are to some degree maintained,
x determination to sustain and develop their identity and unique systems as distinct peoples and communities,
x non-dominant groups in society.

As many indigenous people have a long and close relationship to specific territories and the natural resources within
them, they often hold extensive and detailed knowledge about the ecosystems and environmental conditions (Peña,
2004). However, their right to self-determination of political status and economic, social and cultural development
were recognized only recently by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007). In addition to
the right to self-determination, Article 26 of the Declaration recognizes the right of indigenous people to control, use,
and develop their territories and resources.
With indigenous peoples’ concerns gaining worldwide visibility (UNDRIP, 2013) and the recognition at the
international level that they have distinct rights and interests, there is a growing expectation that governments and
companies will work actively to avoid potentially significant adverse impacts of water resources use and development
of extractive industries. Evidence shows that indigenous peoples bear disproportionate costs of many of these projects,
which are often conducted without their consultation, depriving them of the possibility to influence outcomes, or
without any compensation. The weak interactions of many indigenous populations with state authorities (Barber and
Jackson, 2014) increases the risk of indigenous peoples being left out of these negotiations. However, in some cases,
dialogue between stakeholders and agreements has prevailed.
To advance knowledge of these issues, a mapping exercise was conducted to determine the characteristics of
conflicts over water resources that emerge between governments, private industrial users, and indigenous peoples.
Reports of devastating consequences of extractive and energy industries on water ecosystems in areas inhabited by
indigenous peoples throughout the world suggest that large-scale development projects have become one of the
greatest challenges to the exercise of their rights. Because of their “distinctive cultural relationship” with water (UN,
2007) and greater dependence on water, losing access to this resource has multiple and often dramatic impacts on
indigenous peoples. In a significant number of cases, tensions over indigenous peoples’ water issues trigger conflicts,
which frequently escalate to very destructive stages, including loss of human lives. These conflicts can also have
significant costs for the industry, in terms of reputation, costs to financing, construction, operations, breakdown of a
company’s social licence to operate, and can lead to delays, renegotiation, and even cancellation of projects. This
paper allows to visualise the global trends of competing claims over water use, the type of conflicts and the effects
that these have in the industry.

2. Methods

The mapping of conflicts related to energy, extractive, and other industries and water concerning indigenous
populations was based on event data obtained from secondary sources.
 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80 71

Event data have been used by political scientists to discuss conflicts over natural resources focusing on diplomatic
and military behaviours (De Stefano et al., 2009). The analysis undertaken here is novel because these types of
databases are not commonly employed by natural resources scientists (ibid) nor, presumably, water resources
managers in the study of water-related conflicts. Exceptions for this trend are the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute
Database (TFDD) (Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation, 2014) and the Water-Related
Intrastate Conflict and Cooperation databases (Bernauer et al., 2012), which seek to specifically analyse the resource-
related interactions. In the former case, the aim is to “aid in the assessment of the process of water conflict prevention
and resolution” in transboundary water management. The latter studies the climate change–conflict nexus with a focus
on water scarcity at regional and local scales through a methodology that aims to identify cooperative processes arising
from crisis. For this purpose, the databases use a conflict–cooperation scale to determine the interaction intensity
through the recording of indicators such as acts of violence and litigation acts on the conflict side, and meetings or
requests for negotiations on the cooperation side. Research on cooperation or conflict would be subsequently sought
for by relating individual case information with interaction intensity for a given case. Although our approach has
similarities to the methodologies employed in the event datasets used for the political analysis of resource-based
conflicts, it differs in the selection of relevant events. Whereas these databases list events retrieved from media datasets
rely on a list of key terms, the cases used in this mapping were extracted from environmental justice and indigenous
peoples’ datasets and reports. For each identified conflict, three main elements were codified:
x The impacts of the project on indigenous peoples: the impacts were categorized drawing on a list adapted
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (CAFTA–DR et al. 2011a and 2011b).
x The intensity of conflict and/or cooperation: the codification was on the basis of a conflict–cooperation scale
adapted from the TFDD for intra-national events (Eidem et al., 2012).
x How the status of the project was affected by the event, which we classified into eight possible situations:
ranging from cancellation or renegotiation to no impact, where projects operate as planned.

Selecting water resource-related conflicts involving indigenous peoples over extractive industries or hydraulic
infrastructure development projects for the 54 years during 1960–2014 yielded a total of 384 different cases
worldwide. Information from an average of five different sources were collected and analysed for each case.

2.1. Data set

The main sources for this study were the Environmental Justice Atlas (Environmental Justice, 2014), the Centro
Documentazione Conflitti Ambientali (CDCA, 2014), Conflictos Mineros en Latinoamerica (CM, 2014) and Dams in
the Amazon (Dams Information, 2014) databases. Information from the International Work Group for Indigenous
Affairs’ annual reports (IWGIA, 2014) provided insights on development-related impacts on indigenous peoples and
for the selection of cases. The latter source was particularly important in the case of local-scale events, where little
information is publicly available and customary management systems are expected to be found (Boelens, 2008).
Finally, studies and reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (OHCHR, 2014) were
consulted and all relevant cases included in the selection. Other sources included academic articles from a literature
review on water, hygiene, and indigenous peoples, which identified a number of articles studying water-related
conflicts involving indigenous peoples (Jiménez et al., 2014). The review of wider literature on non-water indigenous
mining conflicts was not part of the scope of this study.
Data was set up in a relational database with filtering capabilities (using Microsoft Excel). The information
recorded included basic descriptors of projects; geographical features of location and watershed location; official/legal
status of a project; a set of projects’ impacts, retrieval sources, and stakeholders; the ethnicity/self-denomination of
indigenous groups; and occurrence of elements evaluated in the conflict–cooperation scale. The basic data content of
the dataset is detailed in the Appendix.
The events were selected by the filtered field of groups restricted to “Indigenous groups or traditional communities”
and thematic areas of “Biomass and land conflicts”, “Fossil fuels and climate justice/energy”, “Industrial and utilities
conflicts”, “Mineral ores and building materials extraction”, “Nuclear” and “Water management” in the
Environmental Justice database (Environmental Justice, 2014). For the Centro Documentazione Conflitti Ambientali
database (CDCA, 2014), the events were selected by conducting a key-term search using “indigenous”, “native” and
72 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

“tribal”. The same method was employed for the Conflictos Mineros en Latinoamerica (CM, 2014) and Dams in the
Amazon (Dams Information, 2014) databases. Annual reports of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
(IWGIA, 2014) provided information on development-related impact of projects on indigenous peoples and provided
additional information for the selection of cases. Table 1 displays the total number of cases identified before
processing, organized according to reference sources. This distribution highlights the differences in proportions rather
than informing about absolute quantities because many cases were found in more than one source.

Table 1. Distribution of reference sources before processing

Source Number of Consults

IWGIA (IWGIA, 2014) 199
Environmental Justice atlas 168
(Environmental Justice, 2014)
Other 61
CDCA (CDCA, 2014) 56
UN Special Rapporteur OHCHR (2014) 40
Dams-Info (Dams Information, 2014) 13
Conflictos Mineros (CM, 2014) 10
Total 547

A discard process was conducted for cases that did not include a direct reference to an indigenous ethnicity and
took place in rural settings. The conflicts that take place with indigenous peoples in urban settings are thus not
considered in this study. Similarly, cases linked with water and energy infrastructure (i.e. pipelines or electric
transmission lines), tourism or global environmental policies such as nature reserve declarations were not included in
the analysis. Some cases were retrieved from media sources while compiling information on other events.
After excluding cases that did not meet our specified selection criteria, a total of 384 events were selected for
further analysis. An average of five sources was retrieved for each case to compile the basic information needed and
contrast it.

2.2. Definition of impacts

The impacts of development projects on indigenous communities were identified from peoples’ own accounts or
descriptions as reflected in press releases or in the original source of information concerning the case. This assessment
makes use of environmental justice indicators to define, identify, and measure environmental impacts of the project
on vulnerable populations. The five criteria used to categorize the impacts were adapted from the original list used in
EPA’s EIA Guidelines for Energy Production and Transmission and for the Mining Sector (CAFTA–DR et al., 2011a
and 2011b). Additional separate categories of impacts were created to describe the particular situation of indigenous
peoples, with special attention to water-related impacts (Table 2).
 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80 73

Table 2. Categories for impact assessment

Area Impact
Water Degradation of groundwater and/or surface water quality
Shortages of water
Modification of drainage patterns, streams and rivers
Changes in flood patterns
Disruption of marine and coastal environment, including wetlands and mangrove areas
Desertification/drought
Degradation of ecosystems of delicate or special importance in the water cycle (i.e. glaciers and wetlands)
Water-Social Modification of drainage patterns, streams, and rivers resulting in interruption of use for transportation
Modification of drainage patterns, streams, and rivers resulting in interruption/reduction of use for fishing
Modification of flood plains resulting in the loss of agricultural land
Disruption and displacement of human settlements due to hydrologic phenomena (flooding and erosive waves)
Impact on neighbouring communities – transboundary impacts
Degradation of the quality of groundwater and surface drinking water, possibly resulting in water pollution-related health
issues or contamination of food crops (degradation of drinking water and subsistence farming water quality)
Environment Deforestation, loss of habitat and species (i.e. loss of fish species)
Adverse changes in soils quality (i.e. salinization)
Disruption of marine and coastal environment, including wetlands and mangrove areas
Degradation of ecosystems of special interest (i.e. natural reserves and pristine ecosystems)
Degradation of air quality
Social Erosion of areas made unproductive for non-mine uses, including fishing in the case of dredging
Depletion of agricultural and pasturelands
Noise and vibration disturbing human settlements
Disruption of traditional uses
Pressure on local community infrastructure, organization and social/cultural changes
Consented resettlement
Forced/unconsented displacement
Human losses in violent protests (e.g. demonstrations and use of force)
Violation of agreements after previous consultation of communities
Negative impact on community economies
Division and distress within communities
Resettlement under distressing conditions
Human losses by accidents
Pressure on local community health by introduction of non-local diseases
Introduction of social threats (i.e. drug dealing, prostitution, criminality and illegal exploitation activities)
Violation of territorial rights
Disappearance of indigenous group
Health problems possibly resulting in human losses or chronic diseases
Cultural Disturbance to historic buildings, archaeological sites and sacred or ceremonial sites
Disturbance to sites used for the collection of materials used in ceremonies or traditional lifestyles
Disturbance to sites that are important because of their roles in traditional stories
Disturbance to cultural and heritage site
74 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

The water-related impacts on indigenous peoples were subsequently grouped in five categories of “water issues”,
following the methodology employed by Eidem et al. (2012): Water Quality, Water Quantity, Infrastructure,
Intergovernmental Relations, Flood Control and Other: Navigation, Economic Development and Border Issues. Table
3 presents the classification of these water-related impacts.

Table 3. Impacts grouped in water issues (Eidem et al., 2012)

Issue Impacts
Water Quality Degradation of groundwater and/or surface water quality
Consequences of alteration of groundwater and surface water quality on human health or crops

Water Quantity Shortages of water, desertification/drought

Hydro-Social Landscape Changes in flood patterns

Forced/unconsented displacement
Modification of flood plains resulting in the loss of agricultural land
Modification of drainage patterns, streams and rivers
Disruption and displacement of human settlements due to hydrologic phenomena (flooding and erosive waves)
Impact on neighbouring communities and transboundary impacts

Traditional Instream Uses Modification of drainage patterns, streams and rivers resulting in interruption of use for transportation
Modification of drainage patterns, streams and rivers resulting in interruption/reduction of use for fishing

Water Cycle Degradation of ecosystems of delicate or special importance in the water cycle (i.e. glaciers and wetlands)
Desertification/drought
Disruption of marine and coastal environment, including wetlands and mangrove areas

The types of development projects that triggered the events were classified into different categories: Water
Allocation Projects/Infrastructure, Water Collection, Treatment and Supply, Hydroelectric Dam, Hydroelectric
Diversion, Hydropower by Pumped Storage, Instream Energy, Ores Mining, and other Industrial Users.

2.3. Conflict–cooperation scale

As previously stated, the study adapted a conflict–cooperation scale (Eidem et al., 2012) to define seven levels of
intensity in the conflict–cooperation spectrum. As events are dynamic, they undergo several different stages and move
through the scale with time. In this sense, the exercise reflects the current state of events, which can potentially move
in any direction in the future.

Table 4. Conflict–cooperation scale definitions. Source: own elaboration adapted from Eidem et al. (2012)

3: State bill passage, compacts or official agreements

2: Permit approvals, fixing violations, negotiations begin, lawsuit settlements, regulation approval and management transfers
1: Voicing opinions of approval, court-forced negotiations, editorials, meetings, third-party support and negotiation requests
0: Judicial rulings, no-comment statements and announcements
–1: Petitions, withdrawal of third-party support, delays, report reviews, voicing opposition and editorials
–2: Litigations, appeals of administrative actions, fines, proposal and permit denials, and halting negotiations
–3: Small-scale acts of violence, protests and vandalism
 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80 75

2.4. Outcome of the conflict: effects on operations

The analysis of project status enabled us to identify eight broad patterns of consequences that water-related conflicts
can have on extractive and energy generation operations or development projects. These outcomes range from project
cancellation to on-going operations with compensation of remediation (Table 5)

Table 5. Outcome of the conflict: effect on the operation or project

Project terminated or cancelled

Project under distress or renegotiation
Project suspended until environmental/social requirements are met
On-going project with indigenous opposition
On-going project with indigenous cooperation/approval
Project completed
Planned/announced project
On-going project with compensatory/remediation measures formulated

3. Analysis of results

3.1. Distribution of cases by region, type of project and type of impact

The vast majority of the 384 coded events, or 62 per cent, were linked to hydropower infrastructure development
and metal ores mining (31 per cent each), followed by oil and gas exploitation or exploration (11.7 per cent), hydraulic
infrastructure for water allocation (6.5 per cent) and agro-industrial plantations (4.9 per cent) (figure 1). The remaining
sectors represented a small share of the overall. Of the 384 coded events, 185 were categorized as a water-related issue
(48 per cent), with an impact on water quality, water quantity, the hydro-social landscape or traditional instream uses
and/or water cycle (Table 3).

Figure 1. Distribution of cases per sector (number of cases)

76 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

The events were not spread equally between regions. Almost half of the events identified (186 of 384 coded, or
over 48 per cent of the total) took place in Latin America and the Caribbean, while there were far fewer in Asia (99),
Africa (51), Europe and North America (41) and especially the Arab region (seven).
The impacts assessment revealed that the most frequent impacts from hydropower/water allocation infrastructure
and other industry activities were respectively the violation of previous consultation with communities and the
degradation of groundwater and surface water quality. The degradation of water quality was the most frequent impact
of mining projects, followed by deforestation. Human rights violation due to a lack of previous consultation was the
most prevalent impact of hydropower development.
Examining the type of issues raised by the water-related impacts of each project (Table 3) enabled us to identify
mining as the sector with the highest impact on water, especially in terms of consequences on water quality and
availability (Figure 2). However, the distribution of issues by type of activities showed that hydropower generation
had major impacts on both the hydro-social landscape and traditional instream uses of indigenous peoples.

Figure 2. Number of projects with issues mentioned

3.2. The conflict–cooperation of events

As previously described, we simplified the conflict–cooperation scale of Eidem et al. (2012) to record seven
possible statuses (Table 4), ranging from violent actions to full cooperative actions (compacts or official agreements
between the parties). For 375 of the total 384 cases, we could identify the current status of the situation and codify it
on our conflict–cooperation spectrum. In the remaining nine cases, the information was contradictory and a status
could not be determined.
In aggregated terms, 82 per cent of the cases in our sample could be described as conflicts, as they fell in the
conflictual side of the scale (zero or below) (figure 3). As many as 9 per cent were in a violent stage of protest, while
11 per cent had reached the stage of formal litigation. In 39 per cent of cases, the project or operation triggered a
strong reaction of opposition which included public campaigns. Only 3 per cent of cases were situations of full
cooperation (State bill passage, compacts or official agreements). It is important to highlight that the situation of an
event on this scale is dynamic, so many events transit from a more negative to a more cooperative scale or vice versa.
In 242 of the events recorded (almost two-thirds), there had been a violent phase at some time.
 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80 77

3: State bill, compacts or official agreements 3%

2: Permit approvals, fixing violations, negotiations

7%
begin, lawsuit settlements, regulation approval
1: Voicing opinions of approval, court-forced
9%
negotiations, editorials, meetings, third-party…
0: Judicial rulings, no comment statements,
23%
announcements
– 1: Petitions, withdrawal of third-party support,
39%
delays, report reviews, voicing opposition,…
– 2: Litigations appeals of administrative actions,
11%
fines, proposal and permit denials, halting…
– 3: Small scale acts of violence, protests,
9%
vandalism

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 3. Conflict–cooperation situation of events (%)

3.3. Event outcomes: status of projects

The examination of the current status of the mining and hydroelectric projects that have triggered the conflicts
indicated that these events could have a significant impact on operations (figure 4). As much as 30 per cent of the
projects had been cancelled or were under renegotiation, while 3 per cent were temporarily suspended until further
environmental or social plans were submitted. Up to 31 per cent were operating despite indigenous opposition. Only
7 per cent of the total number of projects in this study had secured indigenous cooperation or approval, while a scant
8 per cent of projects had put in place compensatory or remediation measures.

Ongoing project with compensatory/remediation

8%
measures formulated
Planned/announed project 10%

Project completed 12%

Ongoing project with indigenous
7%
cooperation/approval
Ongoing project with indigenous opposition 31%
Project suspended until environmental/social
3%
requirements are met
Distress/Renegotiation 14%

Project terminated or cancelled 16%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Figure 4. Outcome of the event: project status

78 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

The available evidence indicates no reduction of this trend in recent years. When looking at the outcome for the
projects that have been initiated since 2000, the share of projects that had been cancelled, renegotiated or temporarily
suspended increased to 36 per cent; 33 per cent of them were on-going with indigenous opposition, and only 4 per
cent had put in place compensatory measures.

4. Conclusions

This research provides a global overview on the type of conflicts involving indigenous peoples over energy- and
mining-related projects and their impact on water resources, the different intensity, and phases of the conflicts, and
the impacts that these events have on operations and project status.
The study showed that mining and hydropower infrastructure construction were the most conflict-prone of all
projects that could affect indigenous peoples’ use of water resources. The research confirms that extractive projects
and hydraulic energy are the activities causing the most significant changes in the quality and availability of water for
indigenous populations. The majority of cases identified took place in Latin America (48 per cent of the total),
followed by Asia (25 per cent). However, the comparatively few conflicts in other regions may reflect differences in
the recognition of indigenous peoples by the states, different levels of self-organization of indigenous groups and
different access to venues to claim for civil and social rights.
The conflicts can be protracted, and undergo several different stages of intensity. Almost two-thirds of the cases
included in the survey had experienced a violent phase. Only 3 per cent of the cases were at the stage of formal
agreements between the parties. However, this did not necessarily mean that the conflict was over. Poor
implementation of agreements can be a cause of regression of the relationship toward conflict.
Finally, the analysis shows that these conflicts had a significant impact on the development of projects and on
operations. For the conflicts started after 2000, 36 per cent of the projects were temporarily suspended, under
examination or even cancellation – demonstrating that these conflicts also had an important economic impact.
The study shows that the number and intensity of conflicts was substantial, and had increased over the last two
decades. This entails an important threat to the fulfilment of the basic rights and wellbeing of many indigenous
communities, and translates all too often into violent episodes with loss of human lives; however, the economic
impacts were also high in at least one-third of the operations. International instruments such as the International Labour
Organisation Convention No. 169 (ILO, 1989) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN,
2007) provide standards and guidelines on indigenous peoples’ consultation and how their consent should be realized,
but their real acceptance and practical implementation appears to be elusive.
Drawing upon and refining this initial mapping, further research is needed to identify how water-related conflicts
involving indigenous people can be better understood in terms of their causes, manifestations, and relationships to
broader social, political, and economic factors. The research suggests, for example, that it is important to generate a
deeper understanding of the reasons why some regions have higher rates of conflict than others, of how factors such
as the institutional and civil society context determine variations and differences in the capacity of indigenous peoples
in their relationships or interactions with industries and states, and of the type of corporate practices that have the
highest potential to lead to serious conflict. Moreover it is essential to contribute to the development of the knowledge
that can help shape corporate, government and indigenous action. Comparative analysis of cases of successful
cooperation, identification of lessons learned and best practices can provide the methodologies and approaches needed
to effectively address and prevent conflicts and thereby decrease their number and intensity.
 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80 79

Appendix A. Basic information included in the dataset

Field Description Type

ID_PROJECT Unique numerical case identifier Integer
PROJECT Name of project or brief descriptive title String
Geo-reference of the event location: longitude coordinate in
X Double
decimal degrees
Geo-reference of the event location: latitude coordinate in
Y Double
decimal degrees
ID_COUNTRY Code that correlates with UN Country Code Integer
LOCATION City/town, municipality or basin String
BASIN Name of the smallest catchment area String
State or department: second level political division the event is
STATE String
in jurisdiction of
ID_PROJ_SUBTYPE Code that correlates with project sub-type and type Integer
ID_PROJ_PHASE Code that correlates with project phase Integer
INITIAL_DATE Year in which preparatory activities for the project commenced Integer
Year in which the project is expected to finalize or was
FINAL_DATE Integer
commissioned
ID_CURR_STATE Code that correlates with the official status of the project Integer
Comments Description of relevant water management or governance issues String

References

Barber, M., and Jackson, S. (2014). Autonomy and the intercultural: interpreting the history of Australian Aboriginal water management in the
Roper River Catchment, Northern Territory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 20, 670-693.
Berggren, J. (2014). For better, for worse: the eternal interdependence of energy and water. In A. Jägerskog, T. J. Clausen, T. Holmgren and K.
Lexén (Eds.), Energy and water: the vital link for a sustainable future. Report Nr. 33. Stockholm: SIWI.
Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., Buhaug,H., Gleditsch, N. P., Tribaldos, T., Weibust, E. B. and Wischnath, G. (2012). Water-Related Intrastate Conflict
and Cooperation (WARICC): a new event dataset. International Interactions, 38, 529-545.
Boelens, R. A. (2008). The rules of the game and the game of the rules. Normalization and resistance in Andean water control. Wageningen:
Wageningen University.
CAFTA–DR, U.S. Country EIA and Energy Experts (2011a). Environmental Impact Assessment Technical Review Guidelines: Energy Generation
and Transmission Volume 1. United States EPA.
CAFTA–DR, U.S. Country EIA and Energy Experts (2011b). Environmental Impact Assessment Technical Review Guidelines: Non-Metal and
Metal Mining Volume 1. United States EPA.
CDCA (2014). Retrieved between March and June 2014, from http://cdca.it
Conflictos Mineros (2014). Retrieved between March and June 2014, from www.conflictosmineros.net
Dams Information (2014). Retrieved between March and June 2014, from www.dams-info.org
De Stefano, L., De Silva, L., Edwards, P., and Wolf, A. T. (2009). Updating the International Water Events Database, United Nations World Water
Assessment Programme, Dialogue Paper. Paris: UNESCO
Eidem, N. T., Fesler, K. J., and Wolf, A. T. (2012). Intranational Cooperation and Conflict over Freshwater: Examples from the Western United
States. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 47, 63-71.
Environmental Justice (2014). Retrieved between March and June 2014, from http://ejatlas.org
IEA (2014). World Energy Outlook 2014. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IFAD (2007). Statistics and key facts about indigenous peoples. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development.
ILO (1989) Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Geneva: International Labour Organisation
IWGIA (2014). Retrieved between March and June 2014, from website www.iwgia.org
Jiménez, A., Cortobius, M., and Kjellen, M. (2014). Water, sanitation and hygiene and indigenous peoples: a review of the literature. Water
International, 39, 277-293.
OECD (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OHCHR (2014). Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved between March and June 2014, from
www.ohchr.org/en/issues/ipeoples/srindigenouspeoples/pages/sripeoplesindex.aspx
80 A. Jiménez et al. / Aquatic Procedia 5 (2015) 69 – 80

Peña, F. (2004). Pueblos indígenas y manejo de recursos hídricos en México. Revista MAD, 11, 20-29.
Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation (2014). The Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Transboundary
Waters Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation. Retrieved between March and June 2014, from
www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/database/DatabaseIntro.html
UN (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations.
UNDESA (2008). Resource kit on indigenous peoples’ issues. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
UNDESA (2009). State of the world’s indigenous peoples. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
UNDRIP (2013). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions. Asia Pacific
Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2014). Culture. Retrieved between March and June 2014, from
http://social.un.org/index/IndigenousPeoples/ThematicIssues/Culture.aspx