Transcript Benefit-Sharing as a Governance Paradigm for the Okavango

Benefit-Sharing as a Paradigm
for Transboundary Waters
First African Water Week
Tunisia 26-28 March 2008
Dr. Anthony Turton
Principal Scientist and Divisional Fellow
CSIR
[email protected]
© AR Turton (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 redefinition 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.
Lake Chad
Dams and
hydraulic
inf’structure
in Southern
Africa
Nile
Congo
(DRC)
Congo
Tanzania
Angola
Rovuma
Mozambique
Zambia
Kunene
Zambezi
Zimbabwe
Cuvelai
Malawi
Pungué
Buzi
Save-Runde
Okavango/
Makgadikgadi
South Africa and Zimbabwe
are listed amongst the top
twenty countries in the
world in terms of the
numbers of dams built
(WCD 2000)
Namibi
a
Botswana
Limpopo
Incomati
Umbeluzi
Maputo
Orange
Swaziland
South
Africa
© P Ashton
N
Lesotho
0
25
0
Kilometres
50
0
Lake Chad
WATER
TRANSFERS
IN
SOUTHERN
AFRICA
Nile
Congo
(DRC)
Congo
Tanzania
Angola
Rovuma
Mozambique
Zambia
Kunene
Zambezi
Zimbabwe
Cuvelai
Malawi
Pungué
Existing water
transfer scheme
Proposed new
water transfer
scheme
© Pete Ashton
Buzi
Save-Runde
Okavango/
Makgadikgadi
Namibi
a
Botswana
Limpopo
Incomati
Umbeluzi
Maputo
Orange
Swaziland
South
Africa
N
Lesotho
0
25
0
Kilometres
50
0
Benefit-Sharing can avoid
Dance of Death
Thank You
Africa’s