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 ST 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
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 Setting
1. Pre-existing general antagonism among riparian nations
2. Little previous progress in regional management of river
issues
Environmental Imbalance
1. Perceived growing scarcity of usable water
2. Perceived growing inequality in distribution of usable water
Power Asymmetry
1. Skewed power ratio among riparian nations
2. Little restraining reciprocal interdependence among riparian
nations
Archetypal Worldviews
Worldview
Antecedents
Conventional Worlds
Smith
Market
Policy Reform
Barbarization
Breakdown
Fortress World
Great Transitions
Eco-communalism
New Sustainability
Paradigm
Muddling Through
Keynes
Bundtland
Philosophy
Market optimism;
hidden & enlightened
hand
Policy stewardship
Existential gloom;
population/resource
catastrophe
Hobbes
Social Chaos;
nasty nature of man
Morris & social Pastoral romance;
human goodness;
utopians
evil of industrialism
Ghandhi
Sustainability as
Mill
progressive global
social evolution
Your brother-inNo grand philosophies
law (probably
Malthus
Source: Great Transition [SEI, 2002]
Motto
Don’t worry, be happy
Growth, environment,
equity through better
technology & management
The end is coming
Order through strong
leaders
Small is beautiful
Human solidarity, new
values, the art of living
Que sera, sera
The Grand Transformation
• Globalization
• Complexity
• Interdependence
• Uncertainty
• Vulnerability
• Turbulence
Complexification
• Generalized
unrest
• Free - floating
anxiety
CONCERNS
• issues
• general
debate
CONFRONTATIONS CONFLICTS
• contestations
• controversies
• cleavages
CRISES
•extreme
confrontations
• stakeholders
clearly
delineated
•parties-atinterest
• open civil
unrest
•countermovements
•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 to
Planning 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]
[b]
[c]
[d]
Fragile Physical Environment
= environmental degradation
= lack of ecosystem resilience
= history of extreme hydrological events
Fragile Economy
= economic inequalities/disparities
= inadequate funding
Lack of Local Institutions
= lack of social resilience
= poor social protection
= marginalization
= capacity for recuperability
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
[implementors
administrators]
POLITICIANS
[elected representatives
policy generators]
PROFESSIONALS
[knowledge generators
researchers
data & information]
PRACTITIONERS
[implementors
administrators]
POLITICIANS
[elected representatives
policy generators]
PROFESSIONALS
[knowledge generators
researchers
data & information]
PRACTITIONERS
[implementors
administrators]
PUBLIC
[recipients]
POLITICIANS
[elected representatives
policy generators]
PROFESSIONALS
[knowledge generators
researchers
data & information]
PRACTITIONERS
[implementors
administrators]
PUBLIC
[recipients]
EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
•
•
PARTICIPATION
TRANSPARENCY
•
COHERENCY
•
RESPONSIVENESS
•
NORMATIVE COMMITMENT
•
INTEGRATIVE
THE ON-GOING CHALLENCE OF RELATING:
Legal Mandates
Professional Standards
0
0
Prudent
0
DM
Balanced
0
Public Desires
Community at Work 1966
THE RANGE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
INTERNALIZED
APPROACH
CLOSED
SYSTEM
AWARENESS
PERSUASION
MONOLOGUE
EDUCATION
INVOLVEMENT
INFORMATION
FEEDBACK
DIALOGUE
PARTICIPATION
CONSULTATION
JOINT
PLANNING
PARTICIPATORY
PLANNING
DEMOCRATIC
DELEGATION
OF POWER,
SHARED
LEADERSHIP
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
NIMBY
NIMTO
LULU
BANANA
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
PRIMARY PROCESSES
•
Adjudication
•
Negotiation
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
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
ACTIVE
INVOLVEMENT
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
The dynamics of cooperation - iterative and reinforcing
Sadoff 2003
Types of Cooperation and Benefits on International Rivers
1. THE ECOLOGICAL RIVER
Increasing benefits “to the river”
2. THE ECONOMIC RIVER
Increasing benefits “from the river”
3. THE POLITICAL RIVER
Costs arising “because of the river”
4. THE CATALYTIC RIVER
Increasing 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]
I3
DOXA
[Interpretation]
[Judgement]
PRAXIS
[Implementation]
[Action]
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
THE TRICKS OF MEMORY
PAST
PRESENT
FUTURE
Nostalgia
vs
History
Ideology
vs
Modeling
Utopian Vision
vs
Reasonable Approximation
Reconsidering the Past
Rediscovering the Present
Reinventing the Future
WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO “MAKE IT HAPPEN?”
THE FORCES OF HISTORY
& EXPERIENCE
FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICTS
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 Paradigm
Either a
Democracy of Restraints
or a
Tyranny of Constraints
ZARAGOZA
ESPAÑA
6 – 8 OCTUBRE 2004