Upload
kamana
View
54
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ZARAGOZA ESPAÑA. 6 – 8 OCTUBRE 2004. WATER CONFLICT AND COOPERATION: The Transition to a Purposeful Future. Evan Vlachos Sociology & Civil Engineering Colorado State University and Unesco PC-CP and WWAP. A. PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN THE 21 CENTURY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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