Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mark ZeitounWater Security Research Centre
University of East [email protected]
Building the Water Agenda: Policy responses to scarcity and shockChatham House, 9-10 July 2012
Re-Framing Transboundary Water Politics:What Really Matters for effective diplomacy
What Matters?POWER matters
good analysis must incorporate
interventions must confront
NORMS matter interventions require a benchmark
1. Some helpful theory2. Tigris and Euprhrates3. Policy responses
more specifically
How?
1Some helpful theory
a) Politics driving water interaction
b) Cooperation & Power
c) Levelling
1a) Politics driving water interaction
‘Environmental Determinism’:Water can lead to peaceWe can learn from North America and Europe
learn from mistakes made in other basins
enhancement of classic politics, diplomacy, international relations + look ‘outside the box’ at economics, finance, food trade (i.e. the nexus)
- Western-centric- ignores / wishes away politics- liberal assumptions about power and equality- little evidence of success
‘Political Economy / Ecology’:Water and society co-produced (Physical and Social water scarcity)Water is subordinate to larger forces (ideological, political, economic)
environmental peacemaking supposedly apolitical interventions, in very political contexts
1b) Cooperation Cooperation is poorly theorised, or understood
Wolf (2007)
either Conflict or Cooperation
Mirumachi (2007)
‘TWINS’
Kalbhenn (forthcoming)
Dataset quality and interpretation issues…
Conflict and cooperation co-exist
Liberal interpretation of ‘cooperation’Cooperative efforts can be part of the problem
(teaties on Jordan and Ganges) – because of power
BUT1b) Cooperation
a ‘fact of life’
1b) Power
Power asymmetry is a fact of life…
Basin Leader or Basin ‘Bully’?
Forms of Power:Hard Power (upstream position, military, economy)
Soft Power (ideology, allies, discourse, etc)
… but can be used to lead or to dominate.
‘Hegemon’s prerogative’: Selective policy engagement (‘cherry-picking’ responsibilities)
Emphasise conflictive or cooperative face of interaction
Agenda of basin hegemon (bully or leader) followed… while alternatives offered by non-hegemons are ignored as not ‘pragmatic’ or ‘realistic’ (e.g. Bangladesh, Palestine… )
Not all cooperation is pretty [link]
… hurried diplomacy can lead to perpetuation of conflict
Zeitoun, Mirumachi, Warner (2011)
1b) Power + Cooperation
‘Cooperation’to be evaluated in the specific political context
Confronting power and power asymmetry
Effective diplomacy requires:1b) Power + Cooperation
seek standards, not just political pragmatism
Level the players Level the playing field
a) Influencing Power (moving from basin bully to basin leader)
b) Challenging Power
Positive-sum outcomes, benefit-sharing, etc Sadoff and Grey (2002)Phillips and Woodhouse (2010)
Zeitoun and Jägerskog (2011)
International Water Law
1997 UN Watercourses Convention‘no significant harm’; ‘prior notification’; ‘equitable and reasonable use’
e.g. Capacity-building
Objective Standards (to inform treaties):
especially negotiations and lawyers(not just techno-managerial capacity)
1c) Levelling
In absence of agreed standards and principles, space for effective diplomacy is closed down
Level the players
Level the playing field
2Tigris & Euphrates
Turkey
Syria
Iraq
Iran
Development context:- Abstractions upstream- effect on livelihoods (&ecosystems)
Political context:- Turkey as Basin Leader or Basin Bully?- Tri-lateral committee… often bi-lateral- talk of benefit-sharing, ‘oil for water’, joint training, etc (soft power)- How effective is the cooperation?
Interventions by UNDP, UNESCO, others:- Levelling the players without levelling the playing field?- What standards are brought to the table (along with inducements)?
Tigris and Euphrates
UN-IWTFI 2011 (Walther Casey)
With uncoordinated upstream ‘development’:is this the future also of Cambodia, Egypt, Bangladesh?
3Policy Responses
POWER matters good analysis must incorporate
interventions must confront
NORMS matter interventions require a benchmark
look for evidence of and interpret soft power
Level the players Level the playing field
Thank –you [email protected]
a) Influencing Power
b) Challenging Power
1. Ask who says Power and Norms do NOT matter (i.e. who benefits from status quo)?
moving from basin bully to basin leader
Policy Responses (last slide!)
Kalbhenn A and Bernaeur T forthcoming International Water Cooperation and Conflict: A New Events Dataset.
Mirumachi N and Allan J A 2007 Revisiting transboundary water governance: power, conflict cooperation and the political economy. Proceedings from CAIWA International Conference on Adaptive and Integrated Water Management: Coping with Scarcity, 12 - 15 November 2007. Basel, Switzerland.
Phillips D and Woodhouse M 2010 Benefit Sharing in the Nile River Basin: Emerging Strategies for Fresh Water Use at the Country and Selected Sub-basin Levels, as Revealed by the Trans-boundary Waters Opportunity Analysis. Nile Basin Initiative, Socio-economic Development and Benefit Sharing component, Windhoek.
Sadoff C W and Grey D 2002 Beyond the river: the benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy 4 389-403.
UN-IWTFI 2011 Managing Change in the Marshlands: Iraq's Critical Challenge. United Nations White Paper. United Nations Integrated Water Task Force for Iraq.
Wolf A T 2007 Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 241-269.
Zeitoun M and Warner J 2006 Hydro-Hegemony: A Framework for Analysis of Transboundary Water Conflicts. Water Policy 8 435-460.
Zeitoun M and Mirumachi N 2008 Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements 8 297 - 316.
Zeitoun M and Jägerskog A 2011 Addressing Power Asymmetry: How Transboundary Water Management May Serve to Reduce Poverty. Report No. 29. Stockholm International Water Institute., Stockholm.
Zeitoun M, Mirumachi N and Warner J 2011 Transboundary water interaction II: Soft power underlying conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements 11 159 - 178.
References
