In my last post, I considered the different factors which contribute to whether water disputes are met with cooperation or conflict. Significant factors were those involving extreme changes in physical or institutional settings within a basin. These changes, whether that be a new dam or international treaties, are necessarily impacted by political dynamics. The question which follows then, is whether water cooperation (or lack thereof) has the power to influence international relationships in terms of non-water related issues.
Let’s continue with our case study of the Eastern Nile Basin. It has commonly been assumed that water-relations between countries are deterministic for relations in other sectors. This is explained by theories of benefit sharing that cooperation in ‘low politics’ (including technical issues such as water sharing) will ‘spill over’ into ‘high politics’ such as overall relationships between states. Tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) have negatively impacted their ability to cooperate in other areas, which would support the former assumption, that water disputes do have an impact on wider political relationships.
On the other hand, there have been instances of cooperation between Egypt and Sudan with the signing of agreements such as the 1959 Agreement on the Full Utilisation of the Waters of the Nile, and a 1974 agreement on political and economic integration, as well as the creation of a joint agricultural company for a 70,000ha project in Damazin. Yet this cooperation failed to extend to government funding and infrastructure development, causing the project to fail. If relationships between the three states were improved, their respective advantages could be synergised: hydropower and labour in Ethiopia, natural resources in Sudan, and agricultural and industrial technology in Egypt. However, despite examples of cooperation over water, and seemingly obvious benefits to cooperation, these states have struggled to cooperate ‘beyond the river’.
This suggests that whilst water cooperation may be necessary, it is not the only thing that matters for cooperation in other sectors. Tawfik (2019) suggests that this relationship is complicated by contrasting definitions of what ‘cooperation’ looks like, and the perceptions of the benefits to be accrued by each state. Indeed, when Haas (1961) initially put forward the neo-functionalist argument that cooperation can spill over from one sector into others, he highlighted that this extension depends on the perception of the benefits and drawbacks of cooperation. The expectations of political elites, their assessment of how it will impact the state and their own positions of power, play a role in whether they advocate for cooperation.
This post has focused on the Eastern Nile to illustrate the nuanced relationship between water and non-water issues and has been inspired by the work of Dr. Rawia Tawfik, at Cairo University. Still, more research is needed to examine this link in other transboundary rivers. We should also consider whether these contrasting national perceptions play a role in the management of state-run water supplies. Would it be better to remove responsibility from states completely, and turn towards the private sector? … see next post for insights.
Comments
Post a Comment