Complexity of Transboundary Water Conflicts: Enabling Conditions for Negotiating Contingent Resolutions (Science Diplomacy: Managing Food, Energy and Water Sustainably) - Hardcover

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 1783088699 ISBN 13: 9781783088690

Publisher: Anthem Press, 2018

Synopsis

‘Complexity of Transboundary Water Conflicts’ seeks to understand transboundary water issues as complex systems with contingent conditions and possibilities. To address those conditions and leverage the possibilities it introduces the concept of enabling conditions as a pragmatic way to identify and act on the emergent possibilities to resolve transboundary water issues. 

Based on this theoretical frame, the book applies the ideas and tools from complexity science, contingency and enabling conditions to account for events in the formulation of treaties/agreements between disputing riparian states in river basins across the world (Indus, Jordan, Nile, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Colorado, Danube, Senegal and Zayandehrud). It also includes a section with scholars’ reflections on the relevance and weakness of the theoretical framework.

About this title

About the Author

Enamul Choudhury is a professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at Wright State University, USA. His teaching areas include courses in the master of public administration program and political science.

Shafiqul Islam is professor of civil and environmental engineering and professor of water diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA. Director of the Water Diplomacy Program, Islam works on availability, access and allocation of water within the context of climate challenges, health and diplomacy.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Complexity of Transboundary Water Conflicts

Enabling Conditions for Negotiating Contingent Resolutions

By Enamul Choudhury, Shafiqul Islam

Wimbledon Publishing Company

Copyright © 2018 Enamul Choudhury and Shafiqul Islam editorial matter and selection
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-78308-869-0

Contents

List of Illustrations, vii, 
Foreword Lawrence Susskind, ix, 
Prologue Enamul Choudhury and Shafiqul Islam, xi, 
Part I The Conceptual Argument of the Book and a Case Illustration, 
Chapter One Complexity and Contingency: Understanding Transboundary Water Issues Shafiqul Islam and Enamul Choudhury, 3, 
Chapter Two The Meaning and Logic of Enablement to Explain Complexity and Contingent Actions Enamul Choudhury and Shafiqul Islam, 27, 
Chapter Three Bridging Complexity and Contingency: Role of Three Enabling Conditions to Resolve Water Conflicts in the Indus and Jordan Basins Enamul Choudhury and Shafiqul Islam, 47, 
Part II River Basins around the World: Case Studies, 
Chapter Four The Resolve to Cooperate on Danube: Enabling Conditions for Transboundary Water Cooperation Tahira Syed, 77, 
Chapter Five Governance of the Brahmaputra Sub-basin: Exploring the Enabling Conditions Nilanjan Ghosh and Jayanta Bandyopadhyay, 99, 
Chapter Six The Ganges River Water Sharing Agreement between Bangladesh and India: In Search of New Mechanisms to Meet New Challenges Ashok Swain, 129, 
Chapter Seven Agreement on Declaration of Principles on the GERD: Interdependence or Leveling the Nile Basin Playing Field? Salman M. A. Salman, 145, 
Chapter Eight Reflections on the Colorado River Kevin Wheeler, 173, 
Part III Critical Reflection on the Argument of Complexity and Contingency and the Role of Enabling Conditions, 
Chapter Nine Building a Shared Understanding in Water Management Bruno Verdini, 191, 
Chapter Ten Zayandehrud Water Issues: How Can a Negotiated Approach Be Developed? Mehdi Fasihi Harandi, 201, 
Chapter Eleven Reflections on Enabling Conditions through the Lens of Power Asymmetry Naho Mirumachi, 217, 
Chapter Twelve Is the Engagement of Third Parties an Enabling Condition of Transboundary Water Cooperation? Paula Hanasz, 225, 
Chapter Thirteen From Pulp to Paper: How Understanding Laws Enhances Cooperation and Enables Water Security Alexandra Campbell-Ferrari and Luke Wilson, 239, 
Epilogue Shafiqul Islam and Enamul Choudhury, 253, 
Notes on Contributors, 259, 
Index, 263, 

CHAPTER 1

COMPLEXITY AND CONTINGENCY: UNDERSTANDING TRANSBOUNDARY WATER ISSUES

Shafiqul Islam and Enamul Choudhury

1. Transboundary Water Management: A Brief Overview

There are approximately three hundred surface water basins and six hundred aquifers that cross international boundaries. Many more watersheds cross subnational jurisdictions. Competing and conflicting needs and demands for water in these basins as well as changing demography, socioeconomic conditions and climate are drawing increased attention to transboundary water management (TWM) issues from several disciplines and communities (e.g., Biswas and Hashimoto 1996; Elhance 1999; Turton and Henwood 2002; Pahl-Wostl 2004; Wolf 2006; Tal and Rabbo 2010; Earle et al. 2010; Subramanian et al. 2012; Mirumachi 2015; Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017).

TWM problems are shaped by many natural, societal and political interactions of elements (hereafter, "elements" will be used to mean variables, processes, actors and institutions within a TWM system). We begin by briefly describing four dominant approaches in TWM based on their frequent and growing usage in the literature. We hasten to add that these labels are more stylistic than analytical in use and purpose. Admittedly, such a categorization or labeling generally does injustice to actual positions. Yet, we hope, such a labeling may help to focus attention on current thinking — instead of citing, supporting or refuting any particular position — found in the writings of scholars and practitioners.

Hydro-management Approach: This approach is based on the notion of applying science to solve water problems using primarily expert knowledge about natural variables and processes. Social and political processes are usually left out or included as exogenous variables. Earlier conceptualizations of the hydraulic mission and integrated water resources management fall into this group. Proponents of this approach take the position that science-based management is a good idea, although they agree that it suffers from methodological imprecision and implementation difficulties when natural and societal processes are coupled. This approach faces growing challenges created by the awareness of irreducibility of uncertainty in scientific findings for policy actions.

Hydro-market Approach: This approach brings market forces and processes as an integral element of the water management process. It does so through the market mechanisms of pricing of scarce resources, internalizing externalities and trading of resources across sectors. The hydro-market approach is facilitated by innovations in technology and information processing and their use in promoting efficiency and conservation.

Hydro-politics Approach: At a broad level, two patterns of hydro-politics are apparent: (a) Hydro-hegemony Approach argues that the inequity and unsustainable practices that we confront are not simply the result of securitization but lie in the deep structure of society — the power, resource and information inequity that current social structures create and reproduce. This approach provides a pathway of effective TWM by challenging the power asymmetries and proposing changes in the institutions. (b) Hydro-democracy Approach is based on democratizing institutional practice to make policy and decision-making processes more inclusive, transparent and representative. The increasing use and expansion of stakeholders and making their participation effective thus form the operational strategy for this approach. The inclusion of feminist perspectives and diverse communities, including religious and indigenous groups, is part of the hydro-democracy approach.

Hydro-diplomacy Approach: This approach is based on the premise that water governance and management is, by definition, about conflict management. There is no such thing as managing water for a single purpose — all water management is multi-objective and based on competing and conflicting needs. Hydro-diplomacy draws on the features of three other approaches and emphasizes the interests of contending parties to arrive at a mutually advantageous solution through a carefully crafted negotiation process.

At the risk of being too simplistic — by focusing on the most dominant attribute of any of the four approaches outlined above — one can argue that if we get the science (hydro-management) or market (hydro-market) or power and participation (hydropolitics) or the process (hydro-diplomacy) right, TWM will work well. Of course, none of these approaches exclusively rely on one attribute and usually qualify their position by addressing TWM problems as "wicked" or "complex" (e.g., Biswas and Hashimoto 1996; Elhance 1999; Turton and Henwood 2002; Pahl-Wostl 2004; Wolf 2006; Tal and Rabbo 2010; Earle et al. 2010; Mirumachi 2015; Petersen-Perlman et al. 2017).

The questions of whether and how to harness transboundary water for irrigation, hydropower generation, urban development and sustainability of ecosystem processes continue to be issues of great concern. Challenges and opportunities associated with understanding, governing and managing the transboundary water systems are many.

These difficulties are further amplified by practical questions: Can we reconcile water needs for development with the need for sustainable water supply for neighboring countries and provinces particularly during the dry season? As water demands increase, how will countries meet their water requirements or adapt to water allocations? How does uncertainty related to changing climate, demographic shifts and consumption habits affect annual and long-term sharing of water and other natural resources? How do we effectively engage (sub)state actors in interstate water sharing conversations and negotiations?

There are multiple schools of thought; yet, there appears to be a void of actionable ideas on what to do and how. There is a recognition that the complexity of issues as well as competing and often conflicting values, spiritual identities and governance priorities make the process of charting a path for the future of transboundary water governance and management difficult. Our choice of the following examples is not to support (or refute) any particular viewpoint about complexity but to show the lack of clarity between theory and practice as well as assertion and outcome.

The water management profession will face a complex challenge [...] practices have to become significantly more efficient. (El-Habr and Biswas 1993)

Hydropolitics in international river basins is a very complex, multidimensional, and multidisciplinary subject. (Elhance 1999)

Numerous political, geographic, technical, and other obstacles must be overcome if the readiness to cooperate is actually to yield positive tangible rewards [...] applying political pressure and supplying economic and technical support to help developing countries cooperate effectively [...] by enabling the international community to gain a more sophisticated understanding of the highly complex field of hydropolitics. (Foreword by Solomon in Elhance 1999)

Water is a complex issue and, as a result, it could be expected that hydropolitics will reflect this complexity [...] yet, one of the problems is the lack of clarity in definitions of crucial concepts. (Turton and Henwood 2002) (Emphases in all quotations ours)

Earle et al. (2010) start with an ambitious goal: "Pursuing a unified and organized structure for analysis and evaluating our case studies will facilitate making some generalized findings through the help of systematic and careful comparison." However, they conclude with a more nuanced realization: "The Global Climate Change has opened up an important debate on how to better the imperfect practices of transboundary management of common water resources under a regime of both scarcity and uncertainty. This promises to be a complex yet urgent undertaking for the long term" (emphasis in the original).

Mirumachi (2015) starts her book by highlighting the fact that "water resources management has often been described as a 'wicked problem' defying easy solution [...] To address this wicked problem, there are global calls for water cooperation" (emphasis added).

Petersen-Perlman et al. (2017) aptly put it thus: "No two river basins, watersheds, aquifers, lakes, or any bodies of water are alike. Each has its own climate, demographic makeup, hydrology, industry, topography and cultural divisions. Despite this, it is natural to wish to find patterns from which universal patterns can be extracted." He continues by asserting that "the complexities within watersheds make managing water a complicated task, but there are opportunities for both conflict and cooperation within these complexities [...] While it is true that patterns can be found to a certain extent, each basin/ watershed/ aquifer is unique, and any attempt towards management should be adapted to these unique dimensions" (emphases added).

Another conventional usage of complexity rests on the rhetoric of water war. In fact, the potential for war between countries over TWM is low; the only reported water war between the city states of Lagash and Umma happened almost forty-five hundred years ago. The Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan is used as an example of the neutralizing effect of sharing waters. Although these two countries have gone to war four times, they have kept the sanctity of the treaty intact since 1960. Yet, cooperation is also not that common in disputes over transboundary resources. For example, over two-thirds of the world's transboundary rivers do not have a cooperative management framework. Thus, the theme of conflict and cooperation and their interrelations has also been viewed as an important attribute of the complexity of TWM problems. To address these complex problems, there are global calls for water cooperation (e.g., WWAP UN-Water 2018).

Although acute militarized conflict between transboundary states is nonexistent (Yoffe et al. 2003), this fixation on cooperation is challenged by the lack of tangible outcomes of cooperation (e.g., Giordano and Shah 2014; Mirumachi 2015). There is no general consensus on what cooperation means and the measures of cooperation. What are some valid and reliable metrics of cooperation? Yet, assertions are usually made that transboundary water cooperation is a public good that could create benefits for everyone to share: international trade, climate change adaptation, economic growth, food security, improved governance and regional integration (SIWI 2018; WWAP UN-Water 2018). Although "conflict" and "cooperation" are commonly accepted as intuitive categories, as Hanasz (2018) and Mirumachi (2015) argue, TBW issues are too complex to be adequately categorized as conflict or cooperation (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008). Such a categorization may oversimplify interactions and variations of natural and societal relations over time and the changing political contexts. It can also obscure multiple dimensions of interactions and related complexity. Such a representation of conflict (bad) and cooperation (good) assumes that relations over transboundary water can be improved by promoting movement along one direction by acting on one (or more) elements of the interaction, rather than understanding and addressing the evolving and contextual nature of interactions of variables, processes, actors and institutions.

Different views, issues and approaches related to TWM actually are a collection of frameworks, theories, models and tools from a number of disciplines, including hydrology, ecology, engineering, economics, political science, international relations and policy science. A cursory look at the growing body of literature in TWM issues with the aforementioned four approaches reveals incredible diversity in terms of ontological and epistemological assumptions, foundational concepts, levels of analysis, research methods and so on. Clearly, there are important differences among the approaches followed by different groups; however, many of these approaches acknowledge the complexity of the problem.

Yet, there appears to be much fuzziness around the notion and use of complexity to understand, govern and manage transboundary water issues. In many of the above approaches, colloquial use of complexity creates confusion and adds little to the overall explanation of the theoretical reason as well as translating the theory into practice. Our hope in this chapter is to provide a theoretically grounded basis of complexity to allow for a convergence of approaches in understanding and resolving TWM issues.

2. Complexity in Transboundary Water Problems

2.1 Many Faces of Complexity

We hear the word "complexity" used regularly to describe water problems from the California drought to water conflicts in the Nile to the struggle over water influencing Syria's war. Yet, we rarely pause to ask what does "complexity" really means, and how understanding the meaning of the word might contribute to our responses to address water problems. What makes TWM problems complex? How do we define complexity?

What is the relationship between causality and complexity?

As population growth, economic development and changing climate continue to put increasing pressure on transboundary water resources, management of these water issues becomes increasingly complex. The many faces of complexity that we will discuss in this book often involve elements that are interacting locally (microscale) with one another to create large-scale (macroscale) response. This characterization — although not a formal de?nition — does capture a wide range of events, structures, phenomena and outcome occurring in the realm of TWM, which most of us would colloquially label as complex.

For example, what are the similarities or differences in the notion of complexity mentioned in: "understanding of the highly complex field of hydro-politics" in Solomon in Elhance (1999); or "the Global Climate Change has opened up an important debate [...] on how to better the imperfect practices of transboundary management of common water resources [...] this promises to be a complex yet urgent undertaking for the long term" in Earle et al. (2010); or "the complexities within watersheds make managing water a complicated task, but there are opportunities for both conflict and cooperation within these complexities" in Petersen-Perlman et al. (2017) (emphases in the quotations added).

Is there a science of complexity — similar to or different from classical deterministic or probabilistic science — to help us understand and manage complex water problems for actionable outcome? As Kauffman (1993) appropriately put it, "Complex System is neither sufficiently described by quantum mechanics nor by classical physics." Of course, complexity science is not a panacea; we simply cannot swap complexity science for reductionist or positivist science. However, for certain type of problems, ideas and tools from complexity science may be more helpful than traditional scientific approaches.

What type of problem calls for the use of what type of knowledge from complexity science and in what situation is a question we explore in this book.

As Charbonneau (2017) puts it: "If turbulence is the graveyard of theories, then complexity is surely the tombstone of definitions. Many books on complexity have been written, and the bravest of their authors have attempted to define complexity, with limited success." Although complexity science is the theoretical lens of our approach, with a pragmatic humility, we will not make any attempt to formally define it. We will, however, provide a set of heuristics to diagnose complexity and differentiate complex systems from simple and complicated systems as well as from random, deterministic and chaotic systems.

Complexity is neither simple nor complicated

We make a distinction among three types of systems: simple, complicated and complex. For simple systems, cause-effect relationships are well understood; prediction is possible with high certainty; and best management practices are usually effective. For complicated systems, cause-effect relationships are not straightforward; prediction is difficult but possible with reasonable uncertainty; a range of possible solutions is possible for a given management intervention; and analysis and intervention require experts with contextual knowledge. For complex systems, cause-effect relationships are ambiguous and almost never prospective; prediction is not possible with any reasonable degree of certainty; nonlinearity and feedback are inherent; and emergent properties dominate system behavior and response. For more details, see Snowden and Boone (2007); Islam and Susskind (2013); Islam and Repella (2015).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Complexity of Transboundary Water Conflicts by Enamul Choudhury, Shafiqul Islam. Copyright © 2018 Enamul Choudhury and Shafiqul Islam editorial matter and selection. Excerpted by permission of Wimbledon Publishing Company.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Publication date: 2018
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 1783088699
• ISBN 13: 9781783088690
• Binding: Hardcover
• Number of pages: 292
• Editor: Choudhury Enamul, Islam Shafiqul