Benefit-Sharing as a Paradigm for Transboundary Waters Dr. Anthony Turton Principal Scientist and...
-
Upload
maria-terry -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Benefit-Sharing as a Paradigm for Transboundary Waters Dr. Anthony Turton Principal Scientist and...
Benefit-Sharing as a Paradigm for Transboundary Waters
Dr. Anthony TurtonPrincipal Scientist and Divisional Fellow
© AR Turton (2008)
First African Water WeekTunisia 26-28 March 2008
Africa’s 63 transboundary river basins account for:
. 93% of the resource.
. 77% of the population.
. 61% of the surface area.
One cannot understand the water resource management problematique without understanding transboundary issues.
Given this situation, Africa is uniquely blessed with the potential to share benefits.
Ten Key Elements of a Benefit Sharing Paradigm
• Because a paradigm is a framework that provides an ordering logic, we can identify the following important aspects:
• There is a so-called “Traditional Paradigm” – the way we do things at present.
• There is an alternative “Benefit-Sharing Paradigm” - the way we could do things if we want to meet the goals of governance:– Informed decision-making about Trade-off’s– Mitigation of conflict potential (etc)
The Traditional Paradigm
• Based on IWRM as an overarching set of management approaches.
• River basin as the unit of management.
• Decentralized decision-making in the form of “subsidiarity” in terms of the Dublin Principles.
• Uses the negotiated international regime as the core foundation for international agreement (see Conca, 2006).
• Tends to focus on volumetric allocation.
The Benefit-Sharing Paradigm
• Suggests an alternate approach.
• Uses different arguments.
• Suggests different institutional architecture.
• Is more adaptive to specific sets of conditions.
• Is democratic but complex…..
• Yields higher rewards for those that persevere….. so the incentive is good.
Element No 1: Perspective on Water
• Traditional Paradigm– Water is treated like a stock.– This is a finite resource.– Coded into agreements as a specific volume.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Water is treated like a flux.– This is less finite and more “fugitive”.– Reflects hydrological and climatological realities
in many parts of Africa so it can be coded into agreements as a flow over time.
Element No 2: National Sovereignty• Traditional Paradigm
– Fear of sovereign erosion.– Stunts institutional development.– Slows down decision-making because
everything needs to be referred back to the principal.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Sovereignty is accepted and acknowledged.– No possibility of sovereign erosion by agreement.– Rapid decision-making through the Parallel
National Action (PNA) approach (paper forthcoming using SADC as case study).
Element No 3: Institutional Architecture
• Traditional Paradigm– Centralized decision-making.– Hierarchical structure.– Regime as the foundation of the institution.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Decentralized decision-making.– Matrix-styled structure embracing all key
stakeholder institutions.– Best achieved by PNA Model (paper forthcoming
from SADC region).
Element No 4: National Security• Traditional Paradigm
– Water resource management subsumed to national security concerns – it is securitized.
– National security seeks to impose security from the top down.
– Threat perception becomes a key mediating variable.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Water resource management is desecuritized.– Human security builds from the bottom up.– Many types of potential benefit are created from this
human security angle (livelihood, household food security, etc…).
Element No 5: Scale of Optimization
• Traditional Paradigm– Level of the state.– Constrained by the river basin.– Limits options to sub-optimal solutions.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Supra-state (Hydropolitical Complex).– Above the level of the river basin.– Larger number of options for sharing benefits
arising from better solutions.
Element No 6: Basket of Options• Traditional Paradigm
– Water is seen as a stock.– Optimization at the level of the state within the
constraints of the basin (we talk of Basin State).– Small range of potential solutions.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Water is seen as a flux.– Optimization is within the Hydropolitical
Complex that is less constraining.– Scale of optimization yields more options for
benefit-sharing.
Element No 7: Scale and Remedy
• Traditional Paradigm– Potential impact of the remedy is limited by the
lower scale of optimization and narrower view.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Remedies to water constraints are larger
because they are sourced outside the water sector within the Hydropolitical Complex.
Element No 8: Data
• Traditional Paradigm– Sometimes classified, generally not shared and
almost always contested.– Results in decision-making based on incomplete
knowledge.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Declassified, shared and uncontested.– Institutionalization of data results in institutional
learning and a re-definition of the core problem being managed as an outcome of this process.
Element No 9: Decision-making• Traditional Paradigm
– Centralized and hierarchical.– Designed to protect the erosion of state
sovereignty.– Decisions based on incomplete knowledge
mediated by an active threat perception.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Decentralized and matrix-styled.– Erosion of sovereignty is not a factor within a
PNA Approach.– Institutionalized knowledge results in a re-
definition of the core problem being managed.
Element No 10: Configuration of Hydropolitical Dynamics
• Traditional Paradigm– Zero-sum in dynamic.– Competitive and unstable.– High potential for the escalation of conflict and
tension.
• Benefit-Sharing Paradigm– Plus-sum in dynamic.– Non-competitive and stable.– High incentive for cooperation as stability and
predictability is a desirable outcome in its own right.
Conclusion• Water-sharing will always stunt the growth
of water constrained economies and reduce the future potential impact of the resource.
• Benefit-sharing is complex but rewarding.
• Parallel National Action is the best institutional arrangement (research underway in SADC region).
• Paradigms matter – so start to think differently now in order to change the future a generation later.
Cuvelai
Kunene
Zambezi
Limpopo
Pungué
Buzi
Save-Runde
Orange Maputo
Incomati
Umbeluzi
Okavango/Makgadikgadi
Congo
Nile
Lake Chad
Namibia
Botswana
SouthAfrica
Congo (DRC)
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Lesotho
Swaziland
Malawi
Mozambique
Angola
250
500
0
Kilometres
N
Rovuma
South Africa and Zimbabwe are listed amongst the top
twenty countries in the world in terms of the
numbers of dams built (WCD 2000)
Dams and hydraulic
inf’structure in Southern
Africa
© P Ashton
Cuvelai
Kunene
Zambezi
Limpopo
Pungué
Buzi
Save-Runde
Orange Maputo
Incomati
Umbeluzi
Okavango/Makgadikgadi
Congo
Nile
Lake Chad
Namibia
Botswana
SouthAfrica
Congo (DRC)
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Lesotho
Swaziland
Malawi
Mozambique
Angola
250
500
0
Kilometres
N
Rovuma
WATER TRANSFER
S IN SOUTHERN
AFRICA
Existing water transfer scheme
Proposed new water transfer scheme
© Pete Ashton
Benefit-Sharing can avoid Africa’s Dance of Death
Thank You