Preventing Conflict through Water Governance
Systems in the Greater Horn of Africa
Author: Karel Olotu Kooiman Student number: S1030138
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Political Science (MSc)
Specialization: Conflict, Power and Politics
28-06-2020
Supervisor: Dr. Thomas R. Eimer Nijmegen School of Management
Abstract
This thesis argues that in areas of limited statehood it is essential to prevent conflict from erupting over water resources by governing it across borders. Water governance systems like river basin authorities were setup to prevent actors from undertaking whatever they want in such areas and thus prevent conflict from erupting over water resources by governing it across borders. This enables states to still provide water, and for those areas without state governance to continue providing it, by preventing it from being used up/polluted upstream while also enabling local actors to continue to provide water resources to populations in areas without state governance . Governance is related to the provision of a collective good, therefore, this thesis will focus on how these water governance systems provide a space in which the provision of freshwater and thus the prevention of conflict are enabled. Looking at basin authorities is necessary as water basins like rivers and lakes cross international borders, which is important as it means that local scale communities in border areas often cross international borders to access it and at a regional scale upstream use can affect downstream use. The three governance dimensions are the independent variables explaining the dependent variable of enabling water provision and so the prevention of conflict, as they affect the ability of water governance systems to create spaces for cooperation at an international and the local community level. These systems are said to improve governance by enabling cooperation among local and international actors. Moreover, output legitimacy is increased as actors’ actions are, at least to some extent, governed by the river basin authorities and related agreements. This thesis will investigate these claims by comparing two cases of water governance systems, the Lake Victoria Basin Commission and the Nile basin Initiative, through combining a most similar case design with process tracing approach.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Dr. Eimer, my family and of course my girlfriend for their support during the writing process.
Contents
Chapter 1 – Introduction_________________________________________________5 Chapter 2 – Theory chapter_____________________________________________10 Introduction to the governance perspective______________________________10 The updated concept of governance_____________________________________11 Key concepts of governance_____________________________________________12 The three dimensions of governance_____________________________________12 The shadow of hierarchy and its link with governance___________________16 Critique of the governance literature____________________________________17 Chapter 3 – Methods chapter___________________________________________18 Case selection; Most-similar case design_________________________________19 Methods of inquiry and sources__________________________________________19 Strengths and weaknesses of the chosen design_________________________21 Chapter 4 – Empirical chapter__________________________________________22 Description of the Greater Horn of Africa________________________________22 Description of the two water governance systems________________________23 Case comparison; examining water governance systems with relation to the three governance dimensions________________________________________25 Criticism of water governance systems – this is only necessary if it’s found in the empirical cases, and should be integrated in the case description and discussed in the analytical section.__________________________________28 Chapter 5 – Conclusion__________________________________________________29 Bibliography_____________________________________________________________30
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The provision of freshwater is a global issue threatening the livelihood of millions worldwide (UN Water, 2008). It affects food security, energy and the environment negatively. This situation is worsened by the effects of climate change, making weather more unreliable and increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events (UN Water, 2008). The proper governance, development and provision of freshwater resources is therefore crucial to people’s livelihoods, but also to prevent conflict as its scarcity can increase tensions and lead to conflict (UN Water, 2008). The likelihood of water-related conflict erupting is especially high when water resources are scarce and cross international borders (Stranc, 2016). An interesting region to consider is the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA), as this area illustrates the importance of water governance. In this paper the GHA will include the ten nations in Northern and Eastern Africa; Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Egypt is included as well since it is a key riparian state. Here, the presence of water basins like rivers, lakes and underground aquifers crossing international borders has prompted the creation of international institutions intended to improve the governance regarding the use of this water (Conca, 2001; UN Water, 2008).
Water governance in this region is of utmost importance, as millions of people depend on the water for their survival (Stranc, 2016). The provision of freshwater is an issue throughout large parts of the GHA, as it is unequally distributed over time and space, with some regions experiencing drought while others experience floods (De Waal, 2017). Additionally, there are vast regions in the GHA that, partly due to their remoteness experience little state governance, meaning people in such areas don’t have access to basic necessities (Kandagor, 2005; Krasner & Risse, 2014). This amplifies existing issues like poverty, extreme weather events and conflict, making life difficult for the inhabitants of the (semi-) arid climate of the GHA (De Waal, 2017). This climate is mostly appropriate for local communities of pastoralists; cattle or camel herders who follow the rains and green pastures (Kandagor, 2005). It has become increasingly challenging for these local communities to keep doing so however, as government neglect, international borders and changing climate conditions endanger their way of life (Kandagor, 2005).
The experience of these local communities of pastoralists are an example of the neglect, targeting differences which increase the likelihood of conflict between communities at a national level, which is why some argue that
water is most likely to lead to subnational conflicts (Hauge & Ellisen, 2001). According to some, the likelihood of conflict erupting is especially increased when water basins cross international borders (Stranc, 2016; UN Water, 2008). Looking at the future and considering the impact that a lack of governance, combined with increasing populations and the effects of climate-change related issues are going to have on the provision of freshwater, highlights the importance of researching this topic (De Waal, 2017). Fresh water is a key resource for agriculture, production and energy, which has led to conflict both within and between countries. Attempting to solve these issues has been argued to require greater levels of cooperation, both within as well as between states and non-state actors. Thus, improving governance through creating international institutions to manage freshwater resources, share information and promote cooperation is seen as an important solution to current and future water-related problems and conflict (IGAD, 2020; UN, 2016). Water governance systems like river basin authorities are an example of such institutions, which can be found in different forms globally (OSU, 2016).
In the GHA, the main use of water is agriculture, though as more dams are constructed for purposes of electricity generation as well as the storage of water for use during periods of drought, the amount of water in rivers and lakes is decreasing (Lonergan, 2001; Stranc, 2016). This threatens riverine populations’ food security, increases competition over remaining water resources and thus has the potential to lead to conflict, highlighting the importance of improving governance (Lonergan, 2001). A major challenge therefore is that countries have an increased need for water for their own interests, raising the stakes and thus highlighting the importance of cooperation.
To achieve this cooperation, water governance systems have been created which prove to be useful in drawing up (international) agreements regarding the use, development and pollution of water resources, the sharing of information to ensure compliance and provide a forum for remaining in easy contact with other actors (Conca, 2001). As these agreements usually also highlight the importance of including non-state actors that are located in the regions, they are thus likely to increase output legitimacy (Börzel & Risse, 2016). The focus has largely been on provision and sharing of information, as it is important to understand the amount of water in the basins, but also to understand what the water is used for (Stranc, 2016). Water governance systems are institutions which are especially useful in areas where there is limited governance, as is the case in large parts of the GHA (Chikozo, 2012). They are intended to act as a means through which the provision of freshwater can be improved upon by
introducing good governance aimed at such provision to regions previously experiencing little governance (Chikozo, 2012; Stranc, 2016).
The creation of water governance systems and the improvement of the provision of freshwater can be achieved with the help of external actors such as international organizations, aid organizations, companies as well as local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Flintan et. al, 2013). Several authors have argued that as long as external actors are seen as legitimate by the local population, they can effectively govern areas (Börzel & Krasner, 2014). This is so as they can put together various local actors, so creating trusted networks for dialogue and cooperation (Scudder, 1989). Moreover, agreements made between parties are more likely to be respected when consequences are more severe and external actors can play a key role in the enforcement of such agreements (Risse, 2006). Despite the promises of improved governance, various criticisms have been made with regards to the effectiveness of water governance systems, with some arguing they don’t always meet their requirements (Scudder, 1989). Therefore, the main focus of this thesis will be to identify the extent to which these water governance systems can actually be considered effective governance structures to improve cooperation regarding freshwater resources and so prevent conflict. To be able to examine this, this thesis will be comparing two cases; the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) and the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI). While the contextual conditions of the two water governance systems are comparable, the LVBC is successful in the provision of freshwater to areas of limited statehood whereas the NBI largely fails to do so; they have different outcomes.
These different outcomes can be observed when looking at the ability of water governance systems located in the region to provide coordination for water provision and so prevent conflict. The LVBC and NBI are two particularly interesting cases in this respect. This is so as these are international organizations that have been created with similar goals; they intend to create better cooperation between various state and non-state actors in order to improve the provision of freshwater. This is so as the regions these water governance systems are located in were at the time of their creation facing decreasing amounts of water (LVBC, 2020; Andersson et al., 2012). The water level in both Lake Victoria and the Nile was decreasing, while at the same time many parts were facing poverty, experiencing a lack of governance as well as violent conflict (Andersson et al., 2012). They thus share similar contexts, design and goals, though the level of cooperation and effectiveness in preventing conflict differs between the two.
Therefore, the research question is as follows; How can the differences in the performance of the LVBC and NBI regarding the provision of freshwater be explained?
To answer this research question, the thesis draws on the governance literature focusing on governance in areas of limited statehood, as it is well equipped to deal with issues relating to the provision of freshwater, as these are often related to a lack of governance (UNEP, 2016). To answer the research question, a key aspect of this thesis will be considering the three dimensions of governance and applying them to two cases of water governance systems. These three are; the different levels that play a role; the local, regional, national and international, the link between private and public actors and lastly, governance modes; hierarchy, bargaining and arguing. Governance modes here refer to the way in which actors communicate when cooperating with others, meaning that negotiation occurs based on fixed preferences; bargaining, or through processes of non-manipulative persuasion; arguing, which leads to the creation of common interests and altered preferences (Börzel, 2010). The three dimensions will be examined as this thesis argues that one of them, or the interplay of these dimensions, explains the differences in outcomes of cooperation for conflict prevention in the GHA.
The two cases are well positioned to be examined through adopting the most-similar cases research design as introduced by Mill (1872). By using this research design, in combination with the governance literature, this thesis will identify the factor or factors that have contributed to the different outcomes. This is so as, despite the similarities, or control variables, shared between the cases, one, or a combination, of the three dimensions of governance explain the divergent outcomes and is/are therefore highlighted as the independent variable(s). The thesis will be adopting a process-tracing method and document analysis in order to look at the cases in more detail. This is so as it enables identifying and testing the causal mechanism explaining the link between the dependent variables and the outcome.
The academic relevance of the topic is highlighted by looking at how the idea of (international) conflict erupting over water has been discussed in the literature. In the period between 1948 and 2008, there were just 37 incidents of acute conflict over water, whilst in the same period, 295 international agreements over water were negotiated and signed (UN Water, 2008). Thus, illustrating that the relationship between water and conflict is complicated, as it doesn’t necessarily lead to conflict; it can lead to cooperation, which in turn, reduces the likelihood of conflict erupting
(IGAD, 2020; UN Water, 2008). In the fields of world politics and international relations the literature has mostly considered ‘water wars’, with the conclusion often being that, while water is one of multiple causes of a conflict, it has thus far not been the sole or major cause of wars (Chikozo, 2012). This is illustrated by Chikozo (2012), who mentions that the availability or unavailability of water doesn’t have to be a cause of conflict but can be very useful for political means. However, there is a rising body of literature focusing on the potential for preventing conflict through improving the governance of water resources, for example through setting up water governance systems like river basin authorities (Conca, 2001; Scudder, 1989; Stranc, 2016). This will enable for the resources to be distributed more evenly between countries, which is beneficial for human population as well as the environment, whilst reducing the likelihood of future conflict (Scudder, 1989; Conca, 2001).
By examining this topic, the aim is to think of the role that governance can play in improving the provision of freshwater preventing conflict in a future whereby water-related issues are likely to worsen existing problems. The societal significance of this topic is illustrated by the consequences water-related issues can have on populations. This is so for the GHA, but also for many other regions throughout the world, like other parts of Africa or the Middle East (Lonergan, 2001). This highlights the importance of international cooperation with regards to the provision of freshwater, as one of its potential effects, increased conflicts in these regions, poses a risk to many (Homer-Dixon, 1991). While these regions will experience more direct and extreme effects from climate change, conflict in these regions may also lead to increased danger for regions that experience less drastic direct effects, like Europe (IGAD, 2010). Other issues stemming from the GHA that affect Europe include drugs, trafficking, illegal immigrants, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism and governance issues (IGAD, 2010). IGAD believes that these issues are the result of a lack of development, which means that issues such as poverty, bad infrastructure and dependence on food aid should be considered an essential part of the peace and security governance strategy in the region (IGAD, 2010).
A key aspect to consider is the flow of refugees from Syria and various Northern African countries which peaked in 2015 and is still considered to be a major issue dividing EU member states (BBC, 2016). Though most of these refugees were fleeing conflict or searching for greater economic opportunities, the future potential for ‘environmental refugees’ to start moving away from places where living circumstances have become too difficult, presents the international community with significant challenges (Homer-Dixon, 1991; Lonergan, 2001). The societal relevance of the topic is further underlined by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 6; ensure
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, which mentions the importance of access to, and the management of, water resources for drinking and sanitation. Moreover, it highlights the importance of managing cooperation regarding transboundary water basins in point 6.5, international cooperation in point 6A and the importance of participation by local communities in point 6B (UN, 2016).
The various important aspects discussed in this introduction will be revisited and examined at length in the following chapters. Chapter two will start off by discussing governance in areas of limited statehood; explaining its history and the three dimensions and why it, despite criticism, is applicable to, and appropriate for, the topic at hand. Following this chapter, the third will look into explaining how the three dimensions of governance lead to the creation of various hypotheses regarding the link between freshwater provision and conflict. This chapter will be followed by chapter four, which will have a special focus upon the performance of the LVBC when compared to the NBI, as these are water governance systems that show different outcomes regarding their ability to provide freshwater and in preventing conflict, despite having similar goals. It will include a description of the two cases and will heavily depend on the preceding chapter in which hypotheses were generated. The fifth and final chapter will then conclude the thesis by stating what we can learn from the cases, reflect upon what may be weaknesses of this study and offer recommendations for future research.
Chapter 2 – Theory chapter
This section will explain the theoretical aspect of this thesis, which is mainly based on governance and its three dimensions. It will examine the need for a shadow of hierarchy and potential alternatives. Moreover, as they are important aspects of the governance literature and are crucial for comparison, this section will also briefly discuss the concepts of input legitimacy, output legitimacy and accountability.
Introduction to the governance perspective
The governance literature aims to understand the structures and processes through which the provision of public goods is ensured. It argues that a critical part of this is assuming the provision of public goods takes place in complex institutional settings. The history of governance is somewhat confusing, as the concept of governance during the 1980’s and 1990’s is much different from the current way in which governance is explained (Peters & Pierre, 2006). This is so as governance started in the 1970’s in Germany and the Netherlands as an approach through which it became possible to steer and uplift society with the intervention of the state (Börzel & Risse, 2010). In Germany and the Netherlands, the political system is characterized by cooperation, with a key example being the Dutch poldermodel. At its inception, governance was seen as ‘bringing the state back in’, whereas since the end of the 1990’s, the trend has been to move the state back out of governing (Börzel & Risse, 2010; Peters & Pierre, 2006).
The initial concept of governance is considered a failure for a variety of reasons, that are not only external but may also be due to over optimism regarding the state’s ability to steer. Various crises starting in the 1970s led to the conclusion that hierarchical steering by the state apparatus alone is not able to provide public goods. Among these are the decreased public confidence in social and political institutions, the oil crisis, globalization and the beginning of neoliberalism (Peters & Pierre, 2006). As a result, scholars demanded a shift from government to governance, arguing for the importance of including a broad range of stakeholders and steering modes. In the 2000s, the insights regarding governance in Europe were applied to regions outside the OECD. This required substantial amendments as the Western democracies’ consolidated statehood is often missing in many developing countries and emerging economies. Consolidated statehood refers to the way in which (most) European states are able to effectively
enforce the law and provide goods and services to every area within their territory (Risse, 2010; Krasner & Risse, 2014). The opposite of consolidated statehood is a failed state, one that is not able to do so. An often mentioned example of a failed state being Somalia as the state is present in only a small portion of the country (Börzel & Risse, 2010). However, according to various authors including Krasner and Risse (2014), there are many states around the world which aren’t actually considered consolidated or failed states, instead many countries contain areas of limited statehood. Limited statehood is defined as the areas of a country where the government is unable to implement and enforce rules and decisions and/or areas lacking the legitimate monopoly over violence (Börzel & Risse, 2016). Krasner and Risse (2014) mention Northeastern Kenya as an area of limited statehood, meaning Kenya is neither a consolidated nor a failed state (Krasner & Risse, 2014). Moreover, they argue that there is no relationship between statehood and the provision of services in such areas (Krasner & Risse, 2014). One important aspect related to this is that the shadow of hierarchy in areas of limited statehood is much weaker, the implications of this will be discussed in the second section of this chapter with regards to the third governance dimension (Börzel & Risse, 2010).
The updated concept of governance
The failure of hierarchical, state-led governance led to three updated ideas of governance, the first being that policymaking is not only the task of the state, it involves non-state actors as well (Börzel & Risse, 2010). The second idea challenges hierarchical steering as the only way of policymaking, as the state and non-state actors possess different resources that are valuable to the other party; legitimacy and popular support respectively, likely leading to negotiation processes involving bargaining and arguing (Börzel & Risse, 2010). Thirdly, there has been a realization, especially since the 1990’s, that many issues can’t be solved domestically, such as greenhouse-gases induced climate change, meaning policies need to be enforced in the multilevel governance system (Risse, 2006). These three core ideas of governance were adopted and further developed by the EU Commission and academics. The result were three dimensions of governance; the first dimension looks at different levels, local, national, regional, international, the second into public & private actors and the third considers various governance modes, hierarchical, arguing and bargaining. This failure of the state and the realization of the importance of creating policies with societal actors is what led to extending cooperation with societal actors, international actors and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Börzel & Risse, 2016).
In the late 2000’s it was decided that, as decision making can be done by non-state actors, governance can be applied in areas with minimal statehood; governance became seen as possible in areas without a state (Börzel & Risse, 2016). The terms statehood and governance are often used interchangeably, which is problematic since statehood refers to the ability to enforce and implement decisions made by the central government, which includes having the monopoly over the means of violence. Whereas governance refers to “institutionalized modes of governance through which collectively binding decisions are adopted and implemented to provide common goods” (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995). Governance, as opposed to statehood, thus recognizes the role actors from various levels, both state and non-state, play in providing common goods in areas of limited statehood (Börzel & Risse, 2010). The importance of these actors is underlined by governance’s aspects of structure and process.
The structure aspect of governance is related to institutions and actor constellations. The difference between the state, competition and negotiation systems are highlighted in the literature on governance (Borzel & Risse, 2016). Whereas state governance is solely focused upon governments, both competition and negotiation systems contain a combination of state and non-state actors like companies, NGOs, local communities etc. When governance is seen as a process, the modes of social coordination which allow actors to engage in rulemaking, implementation as well as the provision of collective goods are highlighted. Ways of coordination are important as they differ between those that are hierarchical and those that are non-hierarchical (Börzel, 2010; Börzel & Risse, 2016). This is so as the former is based on authoritative decisions, while the latter is based on voluntary agreement. Authoritative decisions are enforced through laws whereby there are clear hierarchical relationships between actors, with one dominating the subordinates. In contrast, voluntary agreement occurs through formalized negotiation networks or informal networks whereby the actors involved have equal standing (Börzel & Risse, 2016). As these forms of coordination are ideal types, real world situations often contain a combination or mix of these.
Key concepts of governance
Within the governance literature it is assumed that the quality of governance depends on input legitimacy, output legitimacy as well as accountability. According to Risse (2006), democratic accountability is very much related to input legitimacy. Accountability regards actors whereas legitimacy is focused on the underlying institutions, meaning an actor can’t be considered legitimate whereas rules can be. Input legitimacy refers to
the extent that civilians are allowed to participate in the rule-making process. Output legitimacy regards the extent to which the result actually reaches its aim. When considering governance beyond the national level, external accountability, rather than internal accountability, becomes the most important (Risse, 2006). This external accountability is more important as it highlights that those affected by the actions can hold those to blame responsible for their actions (Risse, 2006). This means transnational governance requires external parties in order to be successful, as they improve the participatory quality and effectiveness. Output legitimacy concerns the legitimacy of outcomes, or the effectiveness of the taken policy solutions in addressing the issues that the people face (Scharpf, 1999). The better the needs of the stakeholders are met by the policy decision, the higher the level of output legitimacy. According to Scharpf (1999), output legitimacy emphasizes government for the people, whereby political choices are legitimate in so far as they promote the welfare of the people and address their needs. An important aspect of this is the idea that there are certain issues which can not be solved through individual action, market exchanges or voluntary cooperation in civil society. Usually, these issues are faced by a large portion of the population, meaning institutional structures that are long-term and broad are often seen as the solutions (Scharpf, 1999). A key aspect required for output legitimacy is that common interests exist which allow for the creation of governance structures. This means that not only states can obtain output legitimacy, other actors can do so as well. Scharpf (1999) mentions the EU as an example of a non-state actor with output legitimacy. Output legitimacy thus is very much applicable as the key dependent variable in this thesis, especially as it stresses the importance of the provision of common goods by larger institutional structures, including both state and non-state actors.
The three dimensions of governance
The following section will examine the three governance dimensions in an effort to show the role of these dimensions when explaining different governance-related outcomes. The three dimensions of governance will in this thesis be argued to be the independent variables that explain the different outcomes observed. The dimensions are illustrative of the various concepts related to governance in areas of limited statehood. An important concept related especially to the third governance dimension is the shadow of hierarchy, which stresses the importance of the state’s involvement in governance. However, alternatives to the state’s shadow of hierarchy have been proposed and are relevant to the first and second dimension as well.
The first dimension concerns actors from the various levels who interact with each other in order to provide public goods to the population. This dimension is key when trying to understand the multilevel context within which the governance will be applied. A concept illustrating this multilevel aspect of governance is the marble cake; the mixing of actors from multiple different levels in governance is similar to the way in which the various layers of a marble cake are intertwined. The actors from these various levels have many different interests, though need to come together on the basis that a common good needs to be provided. For such governance to be effective, argumentative rationality, which depends on these actors’ ability to empathize with each other, is thus important (Risse, 2000). The extent to which they share an interpretation of the world; a common lifeworld, consisting of shared norms, rules and culture also matters. The actors also need to consider each other as equals with the same ability to participate in the discussion. The last point implies respect for 2 principles, namely that participation is open to all interested actors and that concerns raised by actors are all considered of the same weight and importance. This is key as governance scholars assume that public goods are provided by the interactions between actors at different levels and that the involvement of the actors depends on the characteristics of the policy field and the desired policy output.
The multilevel aspect of governance whereby various actors work together is further highlighted by one of the alternatives to the shadow of hierarchy as introduced by Börzel & Risse (2010); external actors compensating for limited statehood. As the name suggests, this is when non-state actors introduce governance to areas of limited statehood. There are four ways through which this can occur. The first is through the exercise of domestic sovereignty, which occurs when a state loses its sovereignty due to it being unable to or unwilling to, provide governance. The second way is through the enforcement of principles taken up in international law, whereby parties have to comply with internationally agreed upon rules regarding good governance in areas of limited statehood. Thirdly, actors aiming to realize the provision of governance in areas of limited statehood are still dependent on the same rules as the state government was. The issue with the second and third point is related to who will actually enforce them in areas of limited statehood. The fourth point solves this issue to some extent, as it refers to how the government of the home country of the actor that is providing governance has the ability to force these actors to apply principles of good governance to such areas. This illustrates that external parties can help govern areas by being able to hold the actors from different levels accountable for their actions undertaken elsewhere.
Traditional normative structures, another alternative to the state’s shadow of hierarchy, are related to how areas of limited statehood are often inhabited by local communities who have their own set of norms and values, though these may differ from internationally accepted standards relating to human rights, democracy and good governance (Börzel and Risse, 2010). The fact that they have their own norms means that their views on the practices of actors in their area may differ from the government’s. An example introduced by Börzel and Risse (2010) are mining companies, whose actions are often addressed and fought against by local communities. Such communities don’t create a shadow of hierarchy, but they do expect actors to comply with their governance norms and aid in the provision of collective goods, especially when the state isn’t able to do so due to corruption or weakness. In case non-state actors decide not to comply with local communities’ expectations, this can have serious impacts. This is so since local communities are often in good contact with NGOs and international organizations, which, through advocacy networks can call in the aid of global civil society through which non-compliant non-state actors can be heavily scrutinized. This cooperation between actors from different levels again illustrates how the interaction of actors from these different levels can lead to an improvement in the provision of common goods.
The second dimension of governance highlights the interplay and connection between public and private actors, like government and companies. It is an important aspect to consider, since companies can fulfill certain state functions in areas of limited statehood. This is so especially as a situation of absent governance is a danger to companies when their personal pursuit of profits depends on the provision of certain goods but the state is unable to provide these (Börzel & Risse, 2010). Thus, such situations give companies the incentive to, themselves, provide governance in areas of limited statehood. Börzel & Risse (2010) discuss this issue as the risk of anarchy, introducing it as an alternative to the state’s shadow of hierarchy and highlight the example of car manufacturers in South Africa. These namely provided health and education services in order to ensure that their workers and the larger community were treated for, and informed about, the HIV pandemic which spread throughout the community. Another way through which effective and sustainable governance can be achieved in areas of limited statehood is by increasing the institutionalization of settings like public-private-partnerships, as the higher the institutionalization, the higher the contribution to effective governance.
Another important factor illustrating the link between public and private actors is the role of norms and socially embedded markets (Börzel & Risse,
2010). This is related to practices of NGOs and social movements which, as part of international campaigns point out actors, usually companies, who are not providing goods in areas of limited statehood. To avoid the bad publicity related to this practice, environmental as well as humanitarian issues have become increasingly important for companies in order to protect their reputation and thus, their sales in markets located in countries where consumers care about such issues. The creation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) illustrates this point, as it is a way through which companies aim to prevent their products from being boycotted. This mainly applies to those companies with brand names to protect, meaning companies with such brand names are often scrutinized more heavily than those without. As these companies aim to protect their reputation, providing governance is so turned into essential for self-interest as doing so properly can mean caring consumers are willing to pay extra for it (Börzel & Risse, 2010). NGOs can thus have positive effects on governance, though this is not necessarily the case (Tortajada, 2016). They may, for example, be motivated by their own idealistic goals, which can be linked to the (reputational) interests of corporations and/or international (regional) organizations. This way, it’s possible for NGOs to have a self-interested agenda, with potentially negative effects on good governance, an alternative may therefore be helpful in such cases.
The third dimension addresses the various ways in which actors are said to communicate with each other in world politics; governance modes. The debate surrounding such communication in the US in the 1990’s regarded rational choice’s bargaining and social constructivism’s hierarchical, rule-guided behaviour (Risse, 2000). Risse (2000) introduces arguing, a term used to describe the process through which actors aim to “engage in truth seeking with the aim of reaching a mutual understanding based on a reasoned consensus”. This term had been discussed since 1994 by various German authors writing about international relations and offers a solution to issues in the rationalist-constructivist debate regarding how actors create common knowledge relating to the rules of the game and provides actors with a way through which they can interact with each other to question or change their views, interests or identities (Risse, 2000). Bargaining and arguing are modes of communication which actors may adopt when negotiating with actors who have different views, positions and/or interests. They can for example, be employed by non-state actors to negotiate with state actors about the provision of collective goods in areas of limited statehood. These are methods through which decisions are made between actors, providing certain resources in return for others.
Bargaining is related to the logic of consequentialism and is a way of communicating through which actors attempt to reach their goals based on fixed preferences, whereby the goal is to maximize, optimize or satisfy these preferences (Risse, 2000). To achieve this goal, such communication is often aimed at the exchange of information in order to highlight one’s preferences while making credible promises or threats. Power plays an important role in bargaining, especially with regards to credible promises and threats. This is so as it can be derived from information asymmetries, can be institutionally enshrined or can result from the availability of economic means. In case of information asymmetries, one actor has more power than another as it is more knowledgeable on an issue than the other actor. By sharing certain information and withholding other information, actors with knowledge are better able to attain their preferences than those without. When power is institutionally enshrined, the actor is seen as having the power involved with the institution. The economic means again lead to differences between actors regarding their power, as an actor possessing the funds has more power than an actor without these funds; the latter depends on the former.
Despite potential differences in actors’ level of power, a key part of bargaining is the recognition of the other actor as a valid negotiation partner, which requires a common understanding of the issues as well as the underlying principles to be bargained about (Risse, 2000). Reaching a common understanding leads to the creation of trust, which is necessary when there are differing and conflicting interests between the actors and there is a lack of a hegemonic enforcer with power over the other actors. Through this creation of trust, it is more likely for a bargaining solution to be worked out, whereby one actor offers the other something in return for changing their position.
Social constructivists adopt a different rationality; the logic of appropriateness, an approach whereby it’s most important to do the right thing; following the rules, rather than aiming to achieve the maximization of one’s preferences (Risse, 2000). They argue that shared ideas like norms; expectations of appropriate behavior for a certain identity, and institutions, have causal effects and that they define people’s social identity (Risse, 2000). This means that decisions actors make are influenced by the norms and social knowledge in their environment and that this environment also gives actors their identity. The main input of social constructivism in international relations is its idea that social identities and the ‘rules of the game’ are very much based on these shared norms and understandings. An important aspect of social constructivism is its belief that there are both structural and individual aspects that explain actors’ actions.
Risse (2000) mentions that social constructivism also incorporates the logic of truth seeking and that actors argue in order to identify the norms that apply in specific situations. Arguing is a way through which actors aim to question the validity of statements made by others and through which they attempt to convince others of the validity of the norms and principles that guide their actions. Truth seeking is an essential part of arguing; the idea of truth-seeking is that there is a common moral objective which guides the way in which people should act (). Arguing aims to reach a solution which fits this point. Argumentative rationality is very much linked to this, as it highlights how actors are willing to be persuaded by better arguments and so change their views or interests, without power and social hierarchies playing a role (Risse, 2000). Arguing is therefore likely to increase the influence of the less powerful like smaller states or NGOs (Risse, 2000). The goal of arguing is to seek reasoned consensus rather than attaining actors’ own interests and preferences, through challenging their validity.
Arguing matters during the first stage of negotiating processes as it introduces issues to be added to the agenda of international negotiations and establishes common knowledge among actors involved. After the establishment of common knowledge, the problem solving part of the negotiation can start. Communicative behavior in international public arenas is likely to involve all three logics of social action; the presence of the logic of consequentialism is illustrated by the fact that actors aim to convince other actors to change their views, interests or identities to match those of the actor bringing them in. The logic of appropriateness sets out rules regarding what is and is not considered a truthful claim. Lastly, the logic of argumentative rationality and truth-seeking behavior is relevant when actors are uncertain regarding their interests, identities or views of the world or their points are scrutinized or challenged. The success of truth-seeking in world politics highly depends on the presence of a common lifeworld, efforts to create a common lifeworld, uncertain interests and/or actors’ lack of knowledge as well as international institutions that are nonhierarchical with informal settings (Risse, 2000). Risse (2000) states that arguing provides a mechanism through which learning and norms socialization can occur in social settings.
The shadow of hierarchy and its link with governance
An important concept is the shadow of hierarchy, which some argue is necessary to solve certain issues like healthcare or environmental problems (Mayntz & Scharpf, 1995). This shadow of hierarchy refers to the idea that, in order to ensure effective provision of collective goods by non-state actors, there should be some involvement by the state (Heritier & Lehmkuhl, 2008;
Börzel & Risse, 2010). The shadow of hierarchy makes state and non-state actors more willing to cooperate with each other, though in different ways (Börzel & Risse, 2010). For non-state actors, the stronger the shadow of hierarchy, the greater the desire for cooperation with the state. On the other hand, cooperation is most interesting to states when a medium shadow of hierarchy is present, as both weak and strong states are unlikely to be willing to share governance authority with non-state actors (Börzel & Risse, 2010). Based on this, a dilemma is brought up regarding the governance and provision of collective goods in areas of limited statehood. This is so as such areas have a greater need for governance, though alternative governance systems are unlikely to be created and be effective when there is limited state presence.
When accepting this position, governance and the provision of collective goods in such areas seems impossible. However, areas of limited statehood found all over the world have been characterized by governance without the state (Risse, 2010). Such governance is achieved by the actions of multinational companies; providing public health services, war lords; providing security, NGOs; providing development services and even mining companies; managing social relations among communities (Börzel & Risse, 2010). According to Börzel and Risse (2010) the reasons for the success of these various non-state actors in providing governance is due to the link between statehood and the shadow of hierarchy being much weaker than is usually assumed in the governance literature. Furthermore, they argue that there are functional equivalents or substitutes of a state-based shadow of hierarchy through which effective, sustainable non-hierarchical modes of governance with non-state actors can be realized in areas of limited statehood. Governance research has neglected the importance of alternatives to the shadow of hierarchy, despite the ability of governance to be successful without a strong shadow of hierarchy (Börzel & Risse, 2010; Krasner & Risse, 2014).
Börzel & Risse (2010) introduce four alternatives to the state’s shadow of hierarchy and base two on the logic of consequences and two on the logic of appropriateness. The first two, based on the logic of consequences; the risk of anarchy and external actors compensating for limited statehood are opposites, as the former requires no state involvement, whereas the latter depends on a shadow of hierarchy being present through international law or in the home country of an NGO or company (Börzel & Risse, 2010). The risk of anarchy was discussed with regards to the second dimension of governance, whereby it was explained as a situation without state governance prompting private actors to take it up themselves. The second, external actors compensating for limited statehood, was discussed with regards to the first dimension of governance. This point is related to how a
shadow of hierarchy is not just casted by state actors; external actors like international organizations can also ensure non-state actors provide effective governance, even in areas of limited statehood. Combining these two may be beneficial as they enable the creation of an alternative shadow of hierarchy through making external non-state actors comply with international law and/or the home country’s regulations. This prevents requiring intrusion in the sovereignty of the state where these actors aim to improve governance and provide goods (Börzel & Risse, 2010).
The two alternatives to a state’s shadow of hierarchy mainly based on the logic of appropriateness are; norms and socially embedded markets as well as traditional normative structures. The first is especially interesting as it is related to corporate social responsibility, which is said to combine the logic of appropriateness with the logic of consequences. This is so as, according to the logic of appropriateness, consumers increasingly highlight the importance of the protection of human working conditions as well as the environment. Then, according to the logic of consequences, consumers are able to make companies comply with these norms through avoiding products from those companies.
Making governance without government function requires the creation of a medium level of shadow of hierarchy. Alternatives to the state’s shadow of hierarchy thus require the presence of sufficient incentives to provide collective goods. Additionally, it is of key importance to ensure actors remain committed to the provision and can be held accountable when they do not do so. The functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy provided by consolidated statehood rely on different social mechanisms based on the rational choice logic of consequences, the logic of appropriateness of rule-based behaviour or a combination of both. The governance in areas of limited statehood is generally less effective than government in areas that are characterized by consolidated statehood. However, at times it is the only form of governance available, whereby combining alternatives to the shadow of hierarchy can be a way through which to get around their weaknesses. This highlights the importance of including non-state actors in these processes, especially when realizing that in order to solve certain issues, the exchange of unique resources between state and non-state actors is required (Börzel & Risse, 2010).
Critique of the governance literature
Issues with regards to adopting a governance approach have been raised, with a major one being legitimacy, which is improved with the inclusion of non-state actors as it increases the effectivity of the measures implemented. This is so as including more actors in the decision making increases the
likelihood that policies will be accepted. A counterargument to this is that it privatizes governance and puts it in the hands of illegitimate actors like companies with board members who aren’t elected like public officials. An issue with governance in both state and no-state actors like companies may be corruption, as this threatens to undermine its effectiveness. Another criticism of the governance approach is that it underestimates the role of the state, which always has veto powers over decisions made by other actors, potentially making effective governance more difficult to achieve. The governance approach has been adopted in many parts of the world, despite the issues that have been raised. The output legitimacy discussed previously is relevant here since it is highly dependent on the shadow of hierarchy in case of consolidated statehood or, when discussing areas of limited statehood, the functional equivalents to it; the risks of anarchy, the presence of external actors, and the norms of socially embedded markets and of local communities (Börzel & Risse, 2010). This thesis therefore considers the use of governance approach valid, especially since the three dimensions of governance; its multi-level aspect, the public-private cooperation and the governance modes are highly relevant, as will be illustrated in the next chapter.
Chapter 3 – Methods chapter
Based on the three governance dimensions discussed in the previous chapter, three hypotheses have been created, one for each of the dimensions. They are related to the ability of water governance systems to improve the governance of freshwater resources, through which the provision of the collective good, freshwater, is arranged and conflict is prevented in areas of limited statehood. This has been framed in terms of output legitimacy, as examining the ability of governance systems to achieve output legitimacy is an essential part of this study. Output legitimacy is important for the purposes of this thesis, as it looks at the ability of water governance systems to provide a collective good in areas of limited statehood, thus allowing for checking the legitimacy of such water governance systems. It’s important to recognize the significance of cooperation, since this is one of the main reasons for setting up water governance systems in the first place. This is why each of the hypotheses focuses on cooperation.
The first highlights the importance of the aspect of cooperation between the actors from various levels who are involved in the water governance systems. This hypothesis is mainly based on the first dimension of governance, highlighting the interplay between actors from various levels. The second hypothesis considers the key role cooperation between private and public actors can play with regards to the objectives of water governance systems. This hypothesis is mainly related to the second dimension of governance, relating to the public-private cooperation. Lastly, the third hypothesis regards the extent to which the cooperation over the exchange of resources occurs in an effective way by looking at whether the forms of negotiation, or governance modes, are adopted in such a way that they work well to increase output legitimacy. This hypothesis is thus closely linked to the third dimension of governance which considers the importance of adopting different governance modes.
The hypotheses based on the three governance dimensions are thus as follows:
1. Output legitimacy is increased when effective cooperation between different levels exists
2. Output legitimacy is increased when there is effective cooperation between public and private actors
3. Output legitimacy is increased when there is synergetic use of different governance modes
The conditions under which these hypotheses are accepted or rejected are as follows. For the first hypothesis to be accepted, the water governance system has to recognize the importance of working with actors from various levels and there has to be involvement of actors from various levels in the decision-making processes of the water governance system. For the second hypothesis to be accepted, there should be smooth cooperation between key public partners with key private partners, illustrated by, for example, agreements signed between such actors. These agreements may be related to funding of projects. For the third hypothesis to be accepted, the various actors taking part in the water governance systems should have adopted governance modes through which to cooperate and in so doing, provide freshwater in areas of limited statehood. An important aspect of this is whether actors stick to their preferences and interests or are willing to change their position in light of better arguments.
The hypotheses are disconfirmed under the following conditions. With regards to the first hypothesis, it will be disconfirmed if the output legitimacy is decreased when the evidence shows that there is effective cooperation between different levels. This would indicate that different levels cooperating is not of key importance to the effectiveness of water governance systems. The second hypothesis is disconfirmed when output legitimacy is decreased despite effective cooperation between public and private actors. If this is the case, cooperation between public and private actors should be seen as having minimal effects on the success of water governance systems. The third and final hypothesis will be disconfirmed if the output legitimacy is decreased when there is synergetic use of different governance modes. The governance modes would thus be considered of lesser importance in explaining the effectiveness of water governance systems.
Case selection; Most-similar case design
The most-similar case design, also referred to as the ‘method of difference’ is one of the oldest techniques of undertaking qualitative research; having been adopted by John Stuart Mill in his 1872 study called ‘System of Logic’ (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). This technique is often applied when undertaking comparative studies, as it allows for identifying the factors that lead to a specific outcome which requires explaining. It does so by
recognizing that when looking at cases which have similar dependent variables, one can show that the puzzling outcome can be explained by the independent variable which differs between the cases. The independent variables vary, while the dependent variables are kept constant. As the aim is to identify whether there’s a relation between the independent factors and the outcome, there is no need to look into all possible explanations for the outcome. This can be achieved through looking at comparable cases with similar geographical and cultural contexts.
This thesis will be focused on the dependent variable, meaning it is a Y-centered research design. Such a design looks at what causes explain the outcome Y, or in other terms, what explains the variation in the dependent variable? The dependent variable in this thesis is the outcome of improved governance and provision of freshwater in areas of limited statehood. The independent variables explaining this outcome are the three governance dimensions; the multi-level aspect, public-private cooperation and governance modes. The two cases discussed in this thesis, the LVBC and the NBI, have similar contextual backgrounds but different outcomes with regards to the provision of freshwater in areas of limited statehood. Both were created with the purpose of improving the governance of the water resources in the region in which they were located.
Among the similarities that can be identified between the two cases are the decreasing water levels and water quality as well as increasing populations, pollution levels and lack of coordination with regards to the freshwater resources in the region. These issues were thus ‘shared’ between the regions surrounding the Lake Victoria Basin and the Nile Basin. Due to the importance of the freshwater resources for the countries and people living in them, various efforts were undertaken to improve the governance of these resources. The outcome of these efforts differs between the two, as illustrated by the greater levels of cooperation at an international level as well as with local partners that can be observed with regards to the LVBC; this is much less in the case of the NBI.
Methods of inquiry and sources
The method of inquiry adopted in this thesis is process tracing. Process tracing is a way through which to conduct qualitative research which originated in the 1960s field of psychology and was at the time mainly used to examine individual level decision making. More recently, its potential for examining broader structural explanations has been highlighted. Seen in this way, process tracing is defined by Bennett & Checkel (2015) as; “the analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjunctures of events within a case for the purposes of either developing or testing hypotheses
about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case”. It has been argued to be particularly well suited for conducting research considering the complexity of modern day societies. This is so as the answers to the questions of modern day societies are as complex, requiring a combination of social and institutional structures and context with individual agency and decision-making (Bennett & Checkel, 2015).
As a result, it has become increasingly important to look into the causal mechanisms at play in certain situations since, in the complex modern societies, various causes can have effects on the observed outcomes. Because it is an appropriate method to examine these causal processes, process tracing is often used in the fields of political science, international relations and comparative politics. It illustrates the various steps that cause an outcome in more detail than other methods. Process tracing is usually focused on explaining in detail the causal mechanisms at play in a single case, which means that inferring beyond the single case is not possible, except when combined with comparative methods (Beach & Pedersen, 2016). This is the reason process tracing and the most similar cases design have both been adopted in this thesis, as doing so enables making a detailed comparison between two cases, whereby the causal mechanisms explaining the different observed outcomes between two cases can be discussed and explained.
Process tracing requires various aspects, the first of which being to create theories of causality; the hypotheses. These hypotheses identify the relevant causes and how these are connected to the outcome under investigation (Encyclopedia of Case Study Research …). Secondly, the criteria for the independent variables are set and the outcomes; the dependent variables, are operationalized. The key conditions under which the hypotheses are accepted or rejected are then discussed, in order to highlight when the theory is considered valid and when it isn’t. These aspects of process tracing have been discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter and will be linked to the empirical cases in the next chapter.
This thesis mainly focuses on using secondary sources, those written by others. These include peer-reviewed articles from academic journals, books, information obtained from websites as well as news articles. The question is explored through desktop research; mainly focused on sources available online. This influences the decision to focus on secondary sources, meaning gathering primary data is not the aim of the research. Moreover, focusing on such sources was influenced by the need for process tracing to make use of qualitative data coming from varied sources, from archival data to interviews, due to the complexity of social events.
Obtaining relevant sources was done in two main ways, certain key terms were searched for online, in search engines as well as online databases. Other texts were found through the process of snowballing, whereby the researcher identifies relevant texts based on the literature found previously. The research has considered sources such as peer-reviewed articles and books which were obtained from online databases like the Radboud University online library, Google Scholar and the SFB Governance website. Other sources include websites containing key information such as the websites of the various relevant organizations, the LVBC, IGAD, the World Bank among others. The last type of sources used are news articles, as certain information is best obtained through looking at articles produced by news outlets like The East African. These sources illustrate the effectiveness and can often provide critique of allegedly well-working programs through, for example, conducting interviews on the ground with those who are affected, meaning they play an important role in providing the required evidence (The East African, 2020). Using various sources to obtain the required evidence adds to the reliability and legitimacy of the claims made in the sources themselves, by cross referencing the claims made in one source with other sources, while also adding to the reliability of the claims made in this thesis through providing a range of sources that are important to explain the research question and confirm or disconfirm the hypotheses.
Strengths and weaknesses of the chosen design
An important aspect to keep in mind is the problem of causal complexity, regarding how it is impossible in social science research to account for all potential combinations of independent variables. The aim of this thesis is, however, to identify the role that the three governance dimensions play with regards to the improvement of governance and the provision of freshwater in areas of limited statehood. This is done through looking at the different outcomes observed between two cases of water governance systems. Hereby the most similar cases design helps to identify key mechanisms, but whether these findings can be generalized remains an open question. The dependency of this thesis on using secondary sources may be another potential criticism. This is so as verifying some of the claims made by the sources firsthand isn’t possible. However, realizing this would be a potential criticism has meant that it has been taken into account for as much as possible. It is, for example, possible to argue that when various different sources from a multitude of authors carry the same or similar arguments, one can assume there is at least some validity to the claims made.
Chapter 4 – Empirical chapter Description of the Greater Horn of Africa
This chapter will be examining the empirical evidence relating to the provision of freshwater in areas of limited statehood in the Greater Horn of Africa in an effort to test the hypotheses introduced in the previous chapter. To do so, the chapter will compare two cases of water governance systems in the area; the Lake Victoria Basin Commission and the Nile Basin Initiative. First, the cases will be described, after which the evidence will be used to compare the two cases on the basis of the three hypotheses. Doing so will allow for the research question to be answered.
Addressing the importance of fresh water for the GHA needs to occur due to current as well as potential future issues regarding the availability and provision of the resource. The countries in the region share similar contextual backgrounds and the water basins on which they depend cross international boundaries. This means that in order to understand the whole situation, one should consider the larger region rather than simply one or two nations. To illustrate this point, rivers that pass-through Ethiopia before entering Somalia or Kenya are often dammed for irrigation or hydro-electric purposes (Scudder, 1989). Without international agreement on the allocation of the freshwater in these rivers, this likely leads to issues. These issues may be worsened in the future as the demand for water increases for example due to increasing populations, while the supply of freshwater becomes increasingly scarce. This is likely to increase tensions and thus presents the possibility of conflict breaking out, at the local, national or international level.
Considering the strategic relevance of the GHA highlights the importance of this topic for the international community. Rising tensions between nations in the region which could lead to instability and conflict with international consequences, its economic relevance, the presence of key shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea as well as many ethnic and cultural differences indicate this point (Kandagor, 2005). This strategic importance of the region can further be illustrated by the various nations that have in recent years constructed military bases in Djibouti. Among these is China, which has constructed its first foreign military base and has in recent years shown an increasing interest in the African continent (Reuters, 2017). The West has for decades been supporting the construction of dams, though China is increasingly play a role in the financing of infrastructure projects like dams, railroads and ports (Bearak, 2019). This increased interest in Africa by external actors has impacts on the development in African
