The science gap fueling Africa's water wars
As countries across Africa face growing pressure over shared water resources, USC water scientists argue that one of the most powerful tools for preventing conflict may be found not at the negotiating table, but in the mathematical models used to understand water itself.
Across Africa, growing competition over shared water resources is straining relationships between nations. USC water scientists argue that mathematical models can be a powerful tool in preventing conflict, rather than just a means of negotiating solutions. Essam Heggy, a researcher at USC's Viterbi School of Engineering and Stevens Institute, co-founded the Water ReUse and Resource Recovery Center and believes uncertainty over future water availability is the primary driver of African water conflicts.
In a commentary published in Nature Sustainability, Heggy and his co-authors call for increased support for rigorous African water research in prominent scientific journals. By providing governments and international organizations with robust, reproducible modeling, scientific clarity can serve as a foundation for diplomacy. Africa is home to 63 transboundary river basins that support over 1 billion people, including the Nile, Congo, Niger and Zambezi basins.
One example is the Nile, where Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt compete for resources. Heggy's research focuses on water resources and climate change in arid environments using remote sensing and environmental modeling. Despite the importance of this research, it remains underrepresented in major scientific journals, which can lead to reliance on private consulting firms whose interests may not align with the public good.
The scientific community needs to improve visibility for African water research and ensure it reaches policymakers. By reducing uncertainty through open, reproducible science, researchers can create a foundation for cooperation before water disputes escalate into crises, potentially paving the way for peace.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
