![]()
1
Introduction: Setting the Scene for Transboundary Water Management Approaches
Anton Earle Anders Jägerskog Joakim Öjendal
- Transboundary waters can make a contribution to regional development and peace if the institutional capacity exists to manage them cooperatively to the benefit of all basin states.
- The three major groupings in transboundary water management (TWM) initiatives are the water resource community (including water managers from government, as well as water users from the private sector and civil society), the research and academic community (including international financial institutions (IFIs) and development partners) and politicians.
- The three broad groups interact in a variety of ways – influencing each other and learning from each other, but the overall pace and direction of TWM processes is set by the politicians.
Setting the Scene
The more than 263 surface water basins shared between two or more states account for roughly 60 per cent of global freshwater flows and cover almost half the earth’s land surface area (Carius et al, 2004; Wolf et al, 2005). Added to this is the large number of transboundary aquifers, constituting the primary source of water for over two billion people in the world (Puri and Struckmeier, Chapter 6). The availability, distribution and control of freshwater resources have been at the centre of the human story since the start of the Neolithic revolution roughly 12,000 years ago. With the advent of the modern nation state and its attendant emphasis on sovereignty, self-sufficiency and rivalry, it comes as no surprise that interactions between states over shared watercourses have at times been tense and conflictual. Water, as a fugitive resource, respects neither political boundaries nor commonly accepted notions of fairness or equity. Variable in both time and space, water has defied the efforts of politicians, economists and engineers to tame its capricious nature. No wonder much of the literature has focused on the possibility of disputes over water spilling over into outright conflict between states (Wolf et al, 2005). Water is an indispensible input to almost all human activity – manufacturing products, delivering services, producing food, transporting goods and sustaining life itself. The fact that water cannot readily be substituted by other resources leads, in part, to the long-term cooperation between states over its management and development.
Work carried out over the past decade by scientists such as Aaron Wolf (1998; Wolf et al, 2003b), Anthony Allan (1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000, 2002) and Anthony Turton (Turton, 2003; Turton and Earle, 2005), among many others, has demonstrated that issues of national identity, cultural values and world view are more likely to lead to conflict between states, than are disputes over water (Kalpakian, 2004).
Disputes over water do occur, but they very rarely develop into greater conflicts as this would jeopardize the use of the resource itself (Wolf, 1998). Instead, states either reach a stalemate or deadlock over their shared waters, or manage to cooperate to some limited degree. This has been described by John Galtung as a ‘negative peace’ – merely the absence of violence, without further constructive collaboration (Galtung, 1996). In cases of water scarcity, where the likelihood of disputes between states over shared waters may be greater, the corollary is that there is also more evidence of cooperation (Wolf et al, 2003a). This cooperation is promoted and enhanced by institutions, such as laws or agreements, organizations and customary practices, which have been developed either on a bilateral or a multilateral level between states. These institutions (formal or informal) offer a forum where disputes can be discussed and amicably settled and may lead to the sustainable development of shared water resources, making a contribution to national and regional socioeconomic development. In the context of global change these institutions are bulwarks against the pressures introduced through natural climatic variability, resource degradation from socioeconomic development and climate change. Indeed, assuming sufficient institutional development, transboundary waters can become avenues of cooperation between countries, contributing to socioeconomic development and regional integration.
In the Basins at Risk (BAR) study carried out by Wolf and colleagues it is proposed that ‘the likelihood and intensity of conflict rises as the rate of change within a basin exceeds the institutional capacity to absorb that change’ (Wolf et al, 2003a). Rapid changes in the institutional framework (such as key staff members leaving) or in physical factors (climate, water demand, demographics etc.) which outpace the institutional capacity to absorb such change are at the heart of most water conflicts (UNEP, 2005). Thus, where a well-capacitated institution is in place (encompassing human resources, legislative framework, financial sustainability and political will, among other factors), the chances of being able to withstand the pressures of global change are enhanced. This can improve the potential for cooperation between basin states and even lead to the co-management and co-development of shared water resources, shifting the balance towards cooperative management and away from the lack of development associated with the stalemate situation of a ‘negative peace’. This is an important aspect considering that various parts of the developing world are in the early stages of creating water infrastructure (dams, inter-basin transfers etc.) which will have transboundary impacts. Hence, in our view, there is nothing predetermined about the outcome of TWM processes – neither ‘war’ nor ‘cooperation’ – but rather we view it as ‘malleable’, measures taken being dependent on context and interests.
The rationale for developing this book on TWM stems from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)-supported International Training Programmes (ITPs) on TWM, implemented jointly by SIWI and the international consultants Ramboll Natura, in collaboration with regional partners. The ITPs were aimed at mid-career professionals involved in the management of transboundary waters and represent sectors such as government (national, regional, local), river basin organizations (RBOs), NGOs, academia, the media and the private sector. Through the programmes, the participants were introduced to some of the core elements involved in TWM, challenges and emergent solutions, using a range of inputs including lectures, role-plays, individual projects, panel discussions and technical site visits.
While collating reading material for the programmes it soon became apparent that no single-volume work covered the range of topics associated with TWM. Many individual papers, journal articles, policy briefs and reports exist and, for the purposes of the programme, were collated into a body of reading for the participants. There are several books dealing with a specific element of TWM, such as negotiations, water law or conflict management, but none provided an overall picture. The current volume represents a partial solution to fulfilling this need. Partial in that it cannot hope to cover all the topics necessary to manage transboundary waters in any specific setting, thus the respective chapters provide an introduction and overview of their respective subjects and not an in-depth analysis. But also partial in the sense that the editors believe transboundary waters can and in most cases do act as catalysts of sustainable socioeconomic development.
The nature of the book is to some extent dictated by the intended audience – the people involved in managing transboundary waters. These are the same types of practitioners at whom the Sida ITPs were aimed and who need to refer to a book to give them input on specific challenges they may face in performing their duties. Most of these practitioners are skilled water managers of some sort, working in the public, private and nonprofit sectors – what they may lack is the specific knowledge needed in the transboundary context. For them the section on TWM Polity and Practice should provide a practical overview of the skills, tools, and mechanisms used in managing transboundary waters of various types.
The second intended audience of the book is the broader research and academic community. In common with the practitioners mentioned above, they also come from a specific epistemic background and may lack an overview of the skills and knowledge needed to conduct research on transboundary issues. In addition, the chapters in the section on the Analytical Approaches to TWM are more theoretical in nature, providing the opportunity of developing the discourse further and contributing to solutions to TWM challenges. It is believed that the theoretical section would also be of use to the practitioners, as this would assist them in developing appropriate responses to the specific set of challenges encountered in their basin situation.
A group frequently neglected in TWM initiatives is that of the politicians. Arguably, politicians have the greatest impact on the outcome, successful or otherwise, of any TWM initiative. With ultimate responsibility for the ‘allocation of values in society’, they have great influence over water management domestically (Allan, 2001). Coupled with the responsibility to protect the sovereignty and rights of their state, they emerge collectively as the group with most influence over the direction, speed and quality of transboundary interactions over water (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Development, adoption, co-option and implementation of TWM strategy
The three broad groups involved in TWM strategy can be seen as cogs turning in a system, with greater leverage being exerted by the largest cog. The water resource community – including water managers from government, as well as water users from the private sector and civil society, implements TWM strategies. They do this within the framework developed by the politicians, while also having a role in the formation of that framework. It is within this community that some of the innovative and pragmatic solutions to TWM challenges develop. In cases where the broader political environment does not allow politicians to enter into formal cooperative structures, it is often the water resource community which manages to transcend boundaries and cooperate for a greater good, often based on common professional understanding or water-use needs across political borders. Whether this is formalized by the political structures depends on the relations, at a political level, between the states concerned (Jägerskog, 2003).
There is a limit to what the water resources community can achieve – in the absence of the required political will it becomes difficult for the functional cooperation evident at this level to become more institutionalized. It often remains at the level where it is driven by and dependent on specific individuals. The broader research community, including academics, international financial institutions (IFIs) and development partners (donors), plays an active role developing theory and generalized practice aimed at explaining, influencing and improving TWM. Much of what they develop has its genesis in the action observed among the water resource community. The research community would like to see uptake of its ideas in the broader TWM strategy framework for specific basins or regions; indeed this may be the prime objective of development partners. They believe that approaches such as benefit sharing, equitable share allocations, decentralized decision making and institutional cooperation can improve a given water management situation. Typically, they seek to introduce these ideas into the water resource community, hoping that by strengthening the desire to cooperate across international borders at this level some form of durable institutional structure is developed. In essence they are outsiders, observing and commenting on processes from a distance. Some members of this community enjoy better access to the other two communities. This is specifically the case for development partners, who often work closely with governmental entities. Their power to influence stems primarily from the fact that they support many of the TWM processes taking place in countries and regions.
The reality is that approaches developed by the research community will be adopted or co-opted by the politicians in accordance with the goals and pressures of the latter. It should be recognized that the political community, visualized in Figure 1.1 as a large cog, is not heterogeneous. There are domestic realities and pressures on a national scale, from within as well as outside of the water sector, in addition to power relations on the basin or international scale. For any given basin the rate and direction of change in TWM strategy will be highly influenced by the hegemonic power in that situation, with a range of cooperative and non- or less cooperative actions evident (Zeitoun and Mirumachi, 2008).
The ‘set of cogs’ metaphor is useful in visualizing the interactions between the various groups involved in TWM strategy and management as it recognizes that the direction as well as the speed of rotation of the cogs is linked. The inertia of the most powerful cog determines the rotation of the others. What it does not show is how individual communities interact directly with each other – if all the cogs were to engage with each other the system would jam. The reality is that there are direct linkages between the politicians and the research community, some formal and others less so. The key point to consider is that in the context of TWM strategy and management, the ideas and approaches emerging from the research community, as well as from the water resource community, are only implementable in so far as they receive support from the politicians. This approach places emphasis on the role of the state in TWM, driving the range of possible management options. A more effective way of developing and sharing approaches and solutions to TWM challenges between the three groups is needed.
Moving the Research Frontier
The reality of the emerging global water crisis (Gleick, 2009) is gradually pushing the broader water sector – water resource community, research community and politicians – to seek more efficient methods for managing available water, as well as ways to access other sources sustainably. These trends point towards the demand for improved transboundary governance. First, as we saw above, research and knowledge production, water policy and management, and political spheres do not interact optimally. Second, historically, utilization of transboundary waters – and especially in the light of increasing water scarcity – has been associated with diverging interests, conflict, violence and, as it was commonly predicted in the 1990s, war (see Philips et al, 2006).
However, what is now well established through the groundbreaking research led by Oregon State University (Wolf et al, 2003b), ‘war’ is unusual as a result of water rivalry (only), and although ‘conflict’ – the pursuance of incompatible interests – is common over any scarce resource, cooperation is also common, to the extent that it constitutes the dominant pattern at international transboundary scales. What is less commonly observed is that cooperation as it typically occurs in these cases is shallow, reluctant and piecemeal: it may serve to avoid violent conflicts, but it does not markedly assist development efforts, or even serve to guarantee long-term sustainability of the tentative agreements. Cooperation will tend to be on the terms of the hegemon in the basin, with approaches and initiatives co-opted by them as needed. The lack of a more nuanced understanding of cooperation stems from the under-theorized nature of cooperation as a concept (Axelrod and Keohane, 1985; Oye, 1985).
Put differently, the fact is that ‘cooperation’ is common and necessary, but insufficient for dealing with accelerating water crises and the underlying development demands. Crucially, in international systems, interests, power and hegemony are structural features that cannot be wished away (Warner and Zeitoun, 2008). How should this cooperation be deepened and subsequently transformed into actions that are conducive to development? We have chosen to approach the field with the view that transboundary waters can be properly managed, leading to peace and sustainable development, only if a number of conditions are present, and if good practices on various levels in the system are applied. This book seeks to illuminate systematically these ‘ifs’.
TWM carries some specific difficulties, which in combination constitute a field that needs to be comprehensively addressed. These include:
- scale (emanating from the size of a basin-wide approach);
- fragmentation (from its division into several judicial systems);
- complexity (from the range of cross-sectoral issues in large-scale water management);
- interests (vested in the basin states).
These combine to make up a formidable field of issues that need to be addressed. Overall, this volume serves to display the key issues involved with transboundary management and review the best-practice responses to the dilemmas at hand, while it draws on, and synthesizes from, these experiences.
This...
