ZARAGOZA ESPAÑA

ZARAGOZA ESPAÑA 6 – 8 OCTUBRE 2004

WATER CONFLICT AND COOPERATION:

The Transition to a Purposeful Future

Evan VlachosSociology & Civil Engineering

Colorado State Universityand

Unesco PC-CP and WWAP

A. PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE 21 CENTURY= Rapid Change and Complexification= Sharing Water: Reasonable and Equitable Distribution

B. THE SEARCH FOR IMPROVED DECISION MAKING= Sources of Stresses and Strains= On Volatility and Vulnerability

C. THE RANGE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT= From Concerns, to Contestation, to Conflict= Strategies and Tactics for Conflict Management

D. EMERGING PARADIGMS IN PARTICIPATORY P&M= Addressing Complexity and Uncertainty = Envisioning, Empowerment, Enactment

ST

Premises of Foresight

1. Trend is not destiny

Premises of Foresight

1. Trend is not destiny

2. Those who live by the crystal ball are bound to eat groundglass

Premises of Foresight

1. Trend is not destiny

2. Those who live by the crystal ball are bound to eat groundglass

3. It is better to be approximately right rather than precisely wrong

The Variety of “Shocks” in Current Society

• Cultural Shock

= technophobes and technophiles

• Future Shock

= “raplexity”

• Information Shock

= data and knowledge

• Geopolitical Shocks

= fragmentation and globalization

Population Experiencing Freshwater Scarcity,1990 - 2050.

The International River Basin

In the international arena, particularly in conditions of water scarcity, the difficulties of water management and planning are compounded by several factors:

• Relationships of power, position and interest• Territorial jurisdictional and ownership disputes• Political and ideological rivalries and geopolitical

setting• Absence of effective institutional legal machinery for

settling riparian disputes• Deeply rooted cultural and social attitudes toward

water that make change difficult (hydroculture)

Theoretical Model of the Sources of Conflict Over International River Basins

Non-Cooperative Setting1. Pre-existing general antagonism among riparian nations2. Little previous progress in regional management of river

issues

Environmental Imbalance1. Perceived growing scarcity of usable water2. Perceived growing inequality in distribution of usable water

Power Asymmetry1. Skewed power ratio among riparian nations2. Little restraining reciprocal interdependence among riparian

nations

Archetypal Worldviews

Worldview Antecedents Philosophy MottoConventional Worlds Market

Policy Reform

BarbarizationBreakdown

Fortress World

Great TransitionsEco-communalism

New SustainabilityParadigm

Muddling Through

Smith

KeynesBundtland

Malthus

Hobbes

Morris & socialutopiansGhandhi

Your brother-in-law (probably

Market optimism;hidden & enlightenedhand

Policy stewardship

Existential gloom;population/resourcecatastrophe

Social Chaos;nasty nature of manPastoral romance;human goodness;evil of industrialism

Sustainability as progressive globalsocial evolution

No grand philosophies

Don’t worry, be happy

Growth, environment,equity through bettertechnology & management

The end is coming

Order through strongleaders

Small is beautiful

Human solidarity, newvalues, the art of living

Que sera, sera

Mill

Source: Great Transition [SEI, 2002]

The Grand Transformation

• Globalization

• Interdependence

• Vulnerability

• Complexity

• Uncertainty

• Turbulence

Complexification

CONCERNS CONFRONTATIONS CONFLICTS CRISES

• Generalized unrest• Free - floating anxiety • issues

• general debate

• contestations• controversies• cleavages

•extreme confrontations• stakeholders clearly delineated•parties-at- interest

• open civil unrest•counter- movements•protests, resistance•revolutionary upheaval• violence

THE FIVE CRISES

•An ENGINEERING Crisis: Supply & Demand

•An ECOLOGICAL Crisis: Quality

•An ORGANIZATIONAL Crisis: Institutional Mobilization & Coordination

•A METHODOLOGICAL Crisis: Data & Modeling

•A PERCEPTUAL Crisis: Public Awareness,

Involvement & Participation

The Competition for Water

• Use vs. Use

• Present vs. Future

• Region vs. Region

• Quantity vs. Quality

• Water vs. Other Natural Resources

• Water vs. Other Social Priorities

“Flashpoints”

• Rivers forming a shared boundary

• Human action triggers disruption [e.g.

dams]

• In cases of power asymmetries [water

hegemony]

• Following extreme events [e.g. droughts,

floods, etc.]

Changing Approaches toPlanning and Management

1960s Feasibility studies, Elitist planning, Extrapolative

orientation

1970s Environmental Impact Assessment,

Indicators/Principles & Standards, modeling/data

1980s Cumulative Impact Assessment, foresight emphasis,

“User pays,” “Polluter pays” principle

1990s Sustainability, Equity/Efficiency/Effort, Normative

Planning

2000s Globalization, Integrated/Holistic/Comprehensive,

“Co-evolution”

UNDERLYING TRANSFORMATIONS

VOLATILITY

TURBULENCE AND UNCERTAINTY

VULNERABILITY

INTERDEPENDENCIES AND RISK

VIGILANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING AND PREPAREDNESS

Vulnerability analysis

• a necessary step in development of emergency management plans. It identifies all possible vulnerabilities, presents historical data about past disasters, assesses future probability and frequency of emergencies and disasters, analyzes impacts and effects, and validates data

VULNERABILITY

[a] Fragile Physical Environment= environmental degradation= lack of ecosystem resilience= history of extreme hydrological events

[b] Fragile Economy= economic inequalities/disparities= inadequate funding

[c] Lack of Local Institutions= lack of social resilience= poor social protection= marginalization= capacity for recuperability

[d] Lack of Preparedness= inadequate warning systems= lack of training= lack of community mobilization

KEY CHALLENGES

• conflict prevention

• conflict management, and

• the settlement of formal disputes

POLITICIANS[elected representatives

policy generators]

PRACTITIONERS[implementorsadministrators]

POLITICIANS[elected representatives

policy generators]

PRACTITIONERS[implementorsadministrators]

PROFESSIONALS[knowledge generators

researchersdata & information]

POLITICIANS[elected representatives

policy generators]

PRACTITIONERS[implementorsadministrators]

PROFESSIONALS[knowledge generators

researchersdata & information]

PUBLIC[recipients]

POLITICIANS[elected representatives

policy generators]

PRACTITIONERS[implementorsadministrators]

PROFESSIONALS[knowledge generators

researchersdata & information]

PUBLIC[recipients]

• PARTICIPATION

• TRANSPARENCY

• COHERENCY

• RESPONSIVENESS

• NORMATIVE COMMITMENT

• INTEGRATIVE

EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE

THE ON-GOING CHALLENCE OF RELATING:

Public Desires

Legal Mandates Professional Standards

0

00

0

Prudent

DM

Balanced

Community at Work 1966

THE RANGE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

AWARENESS INVOLVEMENT PARTICIPATIONINTERNALIZED

APPROACHCLOSEDSYSTEM

DEMOCRATICDELEGATIONOF POWER,

SHAREDLEADERSHIP

PERSUASION EDUCATION CONSULTATION INFORMATION JOINT FEEDBACK PLANNING

MONOLOGUE DIALOGUE PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

PERCEPTIONS OF PARTICIPATION

a. PARTICIPATION AS POLICY

b. PARTICIPATION AS STRATECY

c. PARTICIPATION AS COMMUNICATION

c. PARTICIPATION AS CONFLICT RESOLUTION

d. PARTICIPATION AS THERAPY

PREMISES

a. The process should provide opportunities for members of the public who wish to participate to do so.

b. The public should be made aware of the availability of such participation opportunities so that they can make that choice.

c. Adequate information should be made available to the public so that they can participate effectively.

OVERALL GOALS

a. Give people who feel they will be affected by a project the chance to participate in decisions.

b. Reach an acceptable effective agreement on a course of action.

c. Conduct public hearings that harbor no surprises or reversals of all preparatory steps.

c. Launch projects that stand an excellent chance of being realized because they are widely understood and supported by the public.

REPRESENTATIVENESS & PUBLIC INTEREST

a. Public participation is a learning process by which each participant acquires a more complete understanding of both the central issues and how other parties in the debate perceive the issues.

b. Members of the public can provide useful information to the decision maker, especially when values and preferences are involved that cannot be easily quantified.

c. Accountability of political and administrative decision makers is likely to be reinforced if the process is open to public view.

d. Consensus can be built through a systematic process of conflict management.

e. Public confidence and trust increase (and legitimacy also expands) when citizens can see all the issues have been fully and carefully considered.

f. Better decisions can be made by providing traceability and visibility of the decision making process.

g. The process can help use the experience and know how of the public to develop creative solutions to problems and to reduce later delays and costs from not having involved the public.

CAUSES OF LOCAL OPPOSITION

• FEAR

• EQUITY

• DISPARITY BETWEEN COSTS & BENEFITS

• DISTRUST / LACK OF CONFIDENCE

• COMMUNITY IMAGE

• PROPERTY VALUES

• NUISSANCE

NIMBYNIMTOLULUBANANA

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Premises:

• Seen as problem solution

• Co-operative rather than adversarial

• Involvement of a neutral third party

• Involvement of representatives capable

and authorized to resolve the dispute

PRIMARY PROCESSES

• Adjudication

• Negotiation

CRITERIA & STANDARDS

• ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY

• EQUITY

• ENVIRONMENTAL/ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

Key Characteristics WFD

• Prevent further deterioration, achieve “good status“ for all waters

• Promote sustainable water use• River basin approach• “Combined“ approach of emission limit

values and quality standards• Get prices right• Get citizens involved

THE ESSENCE OF WFD/2000

• PLANNING AND INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT

• PRICING AND TRUE COST RECOVERY

• PARTICIPATION AND IMPROVED DECISION MAKING

ACTIVEINVOLVEMENT

Some Broad Incentives and Institutional Mechanisms for

Resolving Water Conflicts

• Commonly perceived economic interest

• Shared ecosystemic conditions

• Political will and commitment

• Need, will to obtain/share data

• Historical and traditional customs and values

• Exogenous incentives (third party help)

Identifying Stakeholders

J. Creighton, 1981

Sadoff 2003

The dynamics of cooperation - iterative and reinforcing

Types of Cooperation and Benefits on International Rivers

1. THE ECOLOGICAL RIVERIncreasing benefits “to the river”

2. THE ECONOMIC RIVERIncreasing benefits “from the river”

3. THE POLITICAL RIVERCosts arising “because of the river”

4. THE CATALYTIC RIVERIncreasing benefits “beyond the river”

Source: Sadoff and Grey (2002)

_____________

Requisites for the Transition

• The Need for New Paradigms– Sustainability, heterarchy, co-evolution

• The Understanding of New Contexts– “Raplexity,” interdependence, globalization

• The Emergence of New Methodologies– Cumulative, synergistic, diachronic impacts

– Indicators, DSS, data-information, judgement

– Computational prowess

GNOSIS[Intelligence][Knowledge]

DOXA[Interpretation]

[Judgement]

PRAXIS[Implementation]

[Action]

I3

Supplementary Mechanisms for Transboundary Waters

• Second track diplomacy (Hydrodiplomacy)

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• Epistemic communities (Water ombudsmen?)

• Public awareness and participation (Supportive

“spirit”)

Towards a Strategy of “Vigilance”• Flexible responses, i.e., operational and strategic

flexibility• Proactive commitment, in terms of environmental

scanning and through an emphasis on risk rather than crisis management

• River basin focus and robust transnational “regimes”• Combinations of global approaches and national

plans• Ecosystemic emphasis and environmental

interdependencies• Integrated, comprehensive management, capacity

building and organizational mobilization.

Emerging Operational Principles

• Envisioning

Share the dream, share the goals

• Empowerment

Joint decision making, power sharing

• Enactment

Implementation, civic engagement

PAST

Nostalgiavs

History

Reconsidering the Past

THE TRICKS OF MEMORY

PRESENT

Ideologyvs

Modeling

Rediscovering the Present

FUTURE

Utopian Visionvs

Reasonable Approximation

Reinventing the Future

WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO “MAKE IT HAPPEN?”

THE FORCES OF HISTORY FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICTS & EXPERIENCE

1. THE INERTIA OF HABIT A. COGNITIVE CONFLICTS

2. THE INERTIA OF HISTORY B. STAKEHOLDER CONFLICTS

3. THE INERITA OF EQUILIBRIUM C. IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS

The 3 R’s

Rethinking new paradigms

Reorganizing organizational mobilization

Retooling new skills and resources

The Ultimate ParadigmEither a

Democracy of Restraints

or a

Tyranny of Constraints

ZARAGOZA ESPAÑA 6 – 8 OCTUBRE 2004