Reconsidering conflict and cooperation

This post takes a look at Mark Zeitoun and Naho Mirumachi's paper 'Transboundary Water Interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation'. The paper mainly argues that academics and policy makers should look at conflict and co-operation as a transboundary 'water interaction' rather than discussing the two in isolation and that water interaction is an inherently political process.

Zeitoun and Mirumachi argue that the assessment of both conflict and cooperation as separate entities contradicts the vast majority of transboundary water scenarios, where in fact cooperation and conflict actually co-exist. Such a view maintains the belief that any conflict is bad and all forms of cooperation are good (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002). I agree with the authors view that cooperation and conflict co-exist. As the paper cleverly put it 'it is well understood by anyone who survives a relationship' conflict and co-opertaion occur simultaneously, which form my personal experience I can agree too.  Furthermore more insight and understanding of the effective management of transboundary water resources will be achieved if they are thought of jointly in terms of interaction, rather than separate because possible disagreements and conflict of interests can be more easily distinguished.

The paper also ascertains that transboundary water interaction is an inherently political process determined by the broader political context. It is almost impossible to argue that transboundary water issues are not political in nature. Water management is at the heart of African politics for several reasons. Firstly there is fierce competition for scarce water supply between different countries and even between different cities in the same country. Fundamentally water is an essential good, so this puts water at the heart of the relationship between government and its citizens. There is also an international political perspective which includes the negotiation of terms and uses surrounding transboundary water agreements between different countries.

According to Sadoff and Grey (2002), international rivers in some cases can become a powerful catalyst for conflict, or a powerful catalyst for co-operation. One example of the benefit of riparian states of sharing a transboundary water resource is the concept of 'benefit sharing'. This concept has been implemented in the Nile basin Initiative. Sadoff and Grey ascertain that sharing of benefits derived from the river (e.g. hydroelectricity) may be more politically feasible and therefore more likely than the actual sharing of the transboundary water resource. To a certain extent I agree with this line of thought because its easier for a country to share, knowing that it will itself receive some reward.   However, as Zeitoun and Mirumachi later reiterate, this view separates conflict from co-operation, and does not acknowledge that conflicts of interests are likely to occur during the sharing of benefits.

The process of effective cooperation is more complex than we generally tend to think. International agreements are generally seen as the pinnacle of cooperation. Wolf (2003) states 'once cooperative water regimes are established through treaties, they turn out to be impressively resilient over time'. However this fails to consider that important components of the treaty may not be implemented and treaties can often favour one party, which can be termed poor or non cooperation (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002). There is more too co-operation than just signing the dotted line of the treaty and all the problems are solved. There is a need to look at compliance, goals, interests and problem solving, within the treaty. Regional agreements (particularly in the global South), whilst often originate as environmental agreements, actually serve as a vehicle to promote development goals- e.g. Hydroelectric production which can stimulate a conflict of issues, such was the case in the Zambezi river basin. It is imperative that the 'multiple faces of cooperation' are understood (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2002) in more detail, which in part can be achieved by recognising that conflict and co-opertaion co-exist.

Whether international tensions over transboundary water resources will lead to greater conflict or offer increased potential for cooperation remains a hotly debated issue throughout water related literature. But one thing is for sure, conflict and cooperation can not be discussed in isolation to one another.
 n


'