The role of water regimes in the promotion of hydrosolidarity in the Southern African Development Community (SADC): The case of the SADC Water Sector and the Orange-Senqu Commission (ORASECOM)
Year: 2014
Type: dissertation
Abstract: The aim of this study was to develop a framework that makes explicit some of the core \nnorms and indicators of hydrosolidarity and to assess whether regional and basin-level \nmultilateral water regimes in SADC are able to promote and apply the identified norms and \nindicators. This is a relevant aim given that water availability and provision is a challenge in \nthis water scarce region. This is further complicated by the reality that transboundary water \ncontains 68 percent of the area of the SADC region; it provides for 74 percent of the region’s \npeople and constitutes 91 percent of the available surface water resources in the region. In a \nregion where fresh water is both fundamentally scarce and shared, it becomes critical to best \ngovern water so as to respond to the needs of water-related ecosystems which transcend \npolitical boundaries as well as the complex spectrum of social actors and forces that place \ndemands on the resource. Hydrosolidarity is a concept that aims to respond to this \nchallenge. The concept has not, however, been distilled into a framework for analysing the \neffectiveness of transboundary water governance. Also, International Relations (IR) has \nextensive scholarship on the closely related ideas of cooperation, regimes and international \norganisations. This literature has not, however, been systematically linked to a framework for \nanalysing whether water regimes can deliver on the indicators of hydrosolidarity. \nThis context gives rise to a core research question which focused on the extent to which \nSADC Water Sector (WS) (a regional water regime) and the Orange-Senqu River Basin \n214 \nCommission (ORASECOM) (a basin level water regime) can foster hydrosolidarity in \nSouthern Africa. The assumption and thesis statement is that water regimes in SADC offer a \npartial promotion of hydrosolidarity by developing cooperative institutional structures that \nallow for the development of norms and standards of behaviour, but are not able to create \nenhanced integration and linkages beyond the water sector or to deal with issues relating to \nholistic stakeholder participation. This research question is unpacked through four subquestions. \nThe first question considers the extent to which hydrosolidarity contributes to an \nunderstanding of an ideal for transboundary water governance. The second analyses \nwhether water regimes can foster hydrosolidarity. The third considers if regional and basinlevel \nwater regimes exist in SADC, and if so, how they manifest. The last considers whether \nSADC WS and ORASECOM do actually foster hydrosolidarity in practise. \nThe task of developing a theoretical framework for analysing hydrosolidarity in a \ntransboundary context results in a set of norms and indicators being clarified. The norms of \nhydrosolidarity include cooperation and solidarity, equity, inclusivity, promotion of human \nwell-being and environmental sustainability around transboundary waters. Linked to these \nnorms are a set of indicators that can be used to identify and work towards hydrosolidarity. \nThese include striving for shared knowledge about transboundary rivers, enhanced \nintegration and linkages between relevant actors, issue areas and governance structures, \norganisational structures for fostering transboundary water governance, stakeholder \ninvolvement in transboundary water governance processes, and development of a normative \nframework for transboundary water governance. These norms and indicators are also \nsystematically linked to the characteristics and functions of multilateral water regimes. \nWhen applying this framework to the two case study areas, it emerges that SADC WS and \nORASECOM can only partially foster and promote the norms and indicators of \nhydrosolidarity in SADC. Whilst all the norms and indicators are present in the agreements \nand practices of the regimes, there are certain limitations to the extent to which the norms \nand indicators can be entrenched. There are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the regimes \nare confronted with various capacity constraints. Secondly, the regimes have a limited \nadvisory and technical mandate, meaning that they cannot enforce their recommendations or \nactually implement anything in the domestic jurisdiction of member states without express \npermission. Thirdly, the regime structure itself is limited by its theoretical assumptions which \nemphasise the authority of states, the importance of state sovereignty and the importance of \na Western-centric, positivist type of scientific knowledge as being the most authoritative \nstatements of truth with which to guide policy. In order to fully achieve hydrosolidarity, a more complex set of actors needs to work in \ncollaboration with these water regimes. These other actors include national governments, \npre-existing bilateral arrangements in the basin, non-state actors and civil society. \nThe theoretical contribution of this dissertation from a water perspective is a clarification of \nthe norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity. From an IR perspective, it illustrates how \nimportant a multi-theoretical lens is when analysing complex problems, as it helps to \nelucidate the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of individual theoretical stances. The \npractical contribution of this dissertation is to provide a clearer understanding of the capacity \nof water regimes to deliver on the outlined norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity.
Author: S Nienaber
Language: English
Subfield: Sociology and Political Science
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
Funders: United States Agency for International Development, African Development Bank Group, United Nations Development Programme, European Commission, Australian Agency for International Development, Stockholm International Water Institute, Department for International Development, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, New Partnership for Africa's Development, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, European Investment Bank, FP7 International Cooperation
OpenAlex ID: W27498447