Transboundary cooperation for preventing conflicts

Hey guys,

with my last post I tried to highlight the importance of transboundary co-operation when it comes to water resources management. As I have shown, the situation in Southern Africa is very complex and complex problems often need complex solutions. I already mentioned the SADC (Southern African Development Community) and in this post, I would like to dig a bit deeper and show you guys how the framework of such a co-operation looks like. Therefore, I read two articles, one about the SADC and one about the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI).

As I already mentioned in the last post, the SADC consists of many states in Southern Africa and they try to co-operate in many different areas. Their framework for regional co-operation in integrated water resources management is already really strong and they try to include many different issues into their framework as they want to solve the "water problem" in a holistic way (KANIARU 2015: 387). The different nation states signed the first protocol on shared watercourse systems on the 23rd of August 1995 but revised it a couple of times because the original versions had multiple shortcomings. Another reason why the changed it, is that the international water law changed over years and developed further, which resulted out of the United Nations convention in 1997 (KANIARU 2015: 387). The main objective of the SADC is a closer co-operation for a sustainable and co-ordinated water management, and the protection and utilisation of shared watercourses (KANIARU 2015:388). The foundation for their co-operation is that all states are equal, and that they share the values of solidarity, peace, and security (KANIARU 2015: 389). If there are any disputes, a central authority will try to solve those. The member states also introduced many different instruments with which they try to reach their goals. The most important ones are a regional water policy, harmonisation of legal and regulatory framework for water management, and different programmes which should provide the opportunity for training and capacity building in integrated water resources management (KANIARU 2015: 389). But of course, there are many different challenges which the community has to face (KANIARU 2015: 391). The most important one is that the states did not really decide to work together because they wanted to but the nature just forced them to work together. If we compare this to the European Union (EU) the problems become obvious. At first, I do not want to say that everything is fine in the EU (of course it is not). But the case is that different states decided to work together because they share the same values (more or less) and have the same goals so they decided (on their own) to join the EU because they just wanted it. The case for the SADC is a bit different. The states were just forced to co-operate because otherwise they would have faced even bigger challenges. But there are many different legal systems, economic and developmental situations, and different colonial heritages as well. So, one big challenge, before you even start working, is to reach an agreement on your co-operation and what the co-operation should look like. Another challenge is the lack of adequate financial support, and human resources which is of course a big problem for transboundary cooperation.

To present this topic in a more comprehensive way to you, I would like to present another co-operation scheme in Africa. The NBI consists of ten different states (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda) and was founded due to a proposal for more co-operation in the area of water management in 1992 (BELAY et al. 2010: 8). The main goals of this organisation are to develop water resources of the Nile Basin in a more sustainable and equitable way, to ensure prosperity, security, and peace, to ensure efficient water managememt, and to tackle poverty and promote economic integration (BELAY et al. 2010: 9). The governments of the different member states developed a strategic action program which includes various thematic projects (environment, water, social economic development, confidence building, regional power trade, agriculture, applied training) (BELAY et al. 2010: 10). Of course, the NBI also faces a lot of different challenges which are for example a lack of coordination between/with other regional institutions, the World bank participation or the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929 (BELAY 2010: 13). The participation of the World bank is in so far problematic, as their measures are often very unsuccessful and not very popular especially in very poor countries. Unfortunately, six out of the ten poorest countries in the world are member states of the NBI (BELAY 2010:13). As a result, the participation of the World bank is often seen as a problem and not really as a solution. Another problem which I just mentioned is the Nile Basin water treaty of 1929. To say it in a nutshell: this treaty was made during the time of colonisation and gave Egypt a lot of power when it comes to the distribution of the water of the Nile (BELAY 2010: 13, CASCAO 2009:245). Of course, this is not a fruitful foundation for a successful co-operation.

Member states of SADC (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdafrikanische_Entwicklungsgemeinschaft#/media/File:SADC-Staaten.png)

When we compare the two different co-operation schemes we have to consider one very important point: the NBI is not a recognized river basin organisation (RBO) (BELAY 2010: 14). That is a very important fact because it basically means, that all the nice goals for the co-operation of the countries are not binding. All of their goals and main objectives sound like they could solve all of their problems in three weeks time but the different countries are not really forced to follow those. And as I already showed you with one of my blog posts (the one about the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia) conflicts can still take place even though they are all members of one co-operation project. A real binding framework is needed with a central authority which is able to solve conflicts even before they are expanding. Otherwise you only have a nice looking fancy transboundary co-operation without any impact on the real problem...