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)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a framework that makes explicit some of the core norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity and to assess whether regional and basin-level multilateral water regimes in SADC are able to promote and apply the identified norms and indicators. This is a relevant aim given that water availability and provision is a challenge in this water scarce region. This is further complicated by the reality that transboundary water contains 68 percent of the area of the SADC region; it provides for 74 percent of the region’s people and constitutes 91 percent of the available surface water resources in the region. In a region where fresh water is both fundamentally scarce and shared, it becomes critical to best govern water so as to respond to the needs of water-related ecosystems which transcend political boundaries as well as the complex spectrum of social actors and forces that place demands on the resource. Hydrosolidarity is a concept that aims to respond to this challenge. The concept has not, however, been distilled into a framework for analysing the effectiveness of transboundary water governance. Also, International Relations (IR) has extensive scholarship on the closely related ideas of cooperation, regimes and international organisations. This literature has not, however, been systematically linked to a framework for analysing whether water regimes can deliver on the indicators of hydrosolidarity. This context gives rise to a core research question which focused on the extent to which SADC Water Sector (WS) (a regional water regime) and the Orange-Senqu River Basin 214 Commission (ORASECOM) (a basin level water regime) can foster hydrosolidarity in Southern Africa. The assumption and thesis statement is that water regimes in SADC offer a partial promotion of hydrosolidarity by developing cooperative institutional structures that allow for the development of norms and standards of behaviour, but are not able to create enhanced integration and linkages beyond the water sector or to deal with issues relating to holistic stakeholder participation. This research question is unpacked through four subquestions. The first question considers the extent to which hydrosolidarity contributes to an understanding of an ideal for transboundary water governance. The second analyses whether water regimes can foster hydrosolidarity. The third considers if regional and basinlevel water regimes exist in SADC, and if so, how they manifest. The last considers whether SADC WS and ORASECOM do actually foster hydrosolidarity in practise. The task of developing a theoretical framework for analysing hydrosolidarity in a transboundary context results in a set of norms and indicators being clarified. The norms of hydrosolidarity include cooperation and solidarity, equity, inclusivity, promotion of human well-being and environmental sustainability around transboundary waters. Linked to these norms are a set of indicators that can be used to identify and work towards hydrosolidarity. These include striving for shared knowledge about transboundary rivers, enhanced integration and linkages between relevant actors, issue areas and governance structures, organisational structures for fostering transboundary water governance, stakeholder involvement in transboundary water governance processes, and development of a normative framework for transboundary water governance. These norms and indicators are also systematically linked to the characteristics and functions of multilateral water regimes. When applying this framework to the two case study areas, it emerges that SADC WS and ORASECOM can only partially foster and promote the norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity in SADC. Whilst all the norms and indicators are present in the agreements and practices of the regimes, there are certain limitations to the extent to which the norms and indicators can be entrenched. There are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the regimes are confronted with various capacity constraints. Secondly, the regimes have a limited advisory and technical mandate, meaning that they cannot enforce their recommendations or actually implement anything in the domestic jurisdiction of member states without express permission. Thirdly, the regime structure itself is limited by its theoretical assumptions which emphasise the authority of states, the importance of state sovereignty and the importance of a Western-centric, positivist type of scientific knowledge as being the most authoritative statements of truth with which to guide policy. In order to fully achieve hydrosolidarity, a more complex set of actors needs to work in collaboration with these water regimes. These other actors include national governments, pre-existing bilateral arrangements in the basin, non-state actors and civil society. The theoretical contribution of this dissertation from a water perspective is a clarification of the norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity. From an IR perspective, it illustrates how important a multi-theoretical lens is when analysing complex problems, as it helps to elucidate the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of individual theoretical stances. The practical contribution of this dissertation is to provide a clearer understanding of the capacity of water regimes to deliver on the outlined norms and indicators of hydrosolidarity.