Benefit-Sharing as a Paradigm for Transboundary Waters

Dr. Anthony TurtonPrincipal Scientist and Divisional Fellow

CSIRaturton@csir.co.za

© 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