Inclusive Transboundary Water Governance

Abstract

Transboundary watercourses, including rivers, lakes and aquifers (confi ned and unconfi ned), shared between two or more countries, are home to over 70 % of the world's population and supply water for roughly 60 % of global food production. It is no surprise that the management of these watercourses has been entrusted to national states, which have the power to take sovereign decisions over their management, use and conservation. State sovereignty is mitigated through the existence of a global institutional framework comprised of customary international water law (the norms dictating how states behave), global and regional conventions, basin-level agreements and basin management organisations. The good news is that there is a large body of joint institutions between countries with transboundary watercourses, the UN estimating that around 3600 exist. This in part explains the relative lack of military interstate confl icts. Less good news is that despite the existence of international-and basin-level agreements and basin organisations, the benefi ts to be expected from international cooperation around transboundary watercourses have in most cases not materialised. Acute, persistent and seemingly intractable problems persist, with ecosystem degradation not being reversed, joint investments in water infrastructure not materialising and joint management organisations failing to attract signifi cant long-term support from the respective basin states. Despite at least two decades of concerted support by the international development community, the impacts of enhanced interstate cooperation are noticeable through their absence. This chapter investigates why this may be so and introduces a starting point which moves beyond the state-centric approach to transboundary water management. In doing so it does not challenge the sovereign right of states to manage their watercourses; instead it shows how a range of non-state actors do in fact infl uence state practice through a variety of mechanisms. As these mechanisms are frequently covert, it becomes diffi cult to assess the integrity of the relationships between actors, in turn making public engagement and participation diffi cult. Needed is a governance paradigm which opens the decision-making arena to non-state actors all in support of the national governments and their respective mandates. This chapter ends with an indication of what such a governance arrangement

Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Visions and Options for Sub-Saharan Africa

“…This is exacerbated by the fact that low-income nations are at the initial stages of water infrastructure development, and the possibility exists for contemplating the construction of large-scale infrastructure, such as dams to address some of their water-related problems [204]. Others have drawn on the masculine nature of transboundary water management with the focus being on economic, technical, and political operations with little or no attention paid to the needs of the users, and the effects on women and the poor [208,209].…”

Multi-level governance application to a shared river basin

“…This arrangement shows how institutions relate to each other at global, regional, national, state and local level in different (interdependent), although overlapping (nested), areas. This process lies on the inclusive, but non-exclusive, and decentralized participation of state and private actors in decisionmaking about the management of common pool resources (Earle & Neal, 2017;Patrick et al, 2014).…”

“…As pointed out by Garrick et al (2014) Federal countries distribute authority between national and state jurisdiction, which complicates water management tradeoffs within rivers basin shared by multiples territories. (Garrick et al, 2014, p. 3) Decisions made at upper levels depend on national and state organizations to be implemented, although their implementation remains dependent on the local level (watershed) to be accepted, legitimated (Earle & Neal, 2017) and to form a chain. Authors such as Welling et al (2012) advocate that the governance of interstate water resources lies on clarifying the roles, rules and accountability of different actors because it creates collective participation, which allows conflict mediation and the solution/ prevention of environmental issues.…”

Water security and environmental security in a national and regional context: envisioning environmental diplomacy for cooperation

“…Tables 2 and 3 provide correlation. Diplomacy (C24) on water resources provides a mechanism to manage conflicts, negotiate the matters or treaties for allocation and management of international basins at national and regional levels (Earle & Neal, 2017). The cross-cutting dynamic nature of water conflicts and tensions have placed them at the heart of national security, thus proximity linked to environmental security, economic development, geopolitical concerns, poverty alleviation, social issues and emerged as top policy agendas (Patrick et al, 2014).…”