Diseño de arriostres

The choice of the Orange-Senqu River basin in southern Africa (see Map 2) and the NELSB, a sub-section of the Greater Nile (see Map 3) as case studies, rests firstly, on the need to analyse regional normative convergence in two African regions; East Africa and the Greater Nile region, and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), as a means to compare and contrast any similarities and/or differences that may exist as a result of regional dynamics. Secondly, while the definition of each case study area is based on the resource i.e. the river, and therefore includes the geographical grouping of states surrounding the resource, these particular cases were also chosen for the unique socio- political communities they have formed. Both case studies are therefore lived social spaces i.e. the sum of social practices and discourses that exist within the biophysical space. This space is then given direction by regionalising state and non-state actors including both riparian states, as well as actors physically existing beyond the river basin and/or region, but which form part of its social space of normative influence (e.g. China in the NELSB). As such, the use of a Constructivist theoretical framework allows this investigation to free itself from the constraints of the bounded and territorialised nature of water, and move into

a fluid multi-level space where norms provide impetus for political will and action. The latter justification for the selection of case studies presents useful insights on where water is/should be managed and how i.e. the river basin versus the river community and the national versus the transnational.

The use of two vastly different river basins as case studies is also significant for several other practical reasons. Firstly, normative processes follow different causal pathways in the Orange-Senqu River basin than they do in the NELSB. This is as a result of biophysical, socio-political and historical differences. Biophysically, the Nile River is longer and the river basin is therefore larger. Secondly, Nile River basin management involves many more state actors than does the Orange-Senqu River, flowing through ten riparian states i.e. Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda (Abraham, 2004: 15; NBI, 2007; Waterbury, 2002: 1-6; Wolf, 1998: 1). This has resulted in a myriad local cultures and ethnic groups with a wide range of local norms and customs. The varying historical socio-political and legal backgrounds, institutional development, levels of stakeholder participation, regional economic development, and riparian relations, to mention a few, have also determined the level of institutional development and co-operation in these basins. This has affected the level of trust of external norms and as such, the degree to which they have been successfully institutionalised.

In the Orange-Senqu River basin, for instance, there is a comparatively high level of collaboration not only between states, but also between sovereign states and non-state entities (Meissner, 2000: 27). Technical co-operation is particularly dominant in the basin (ibid.). Additionally, in parallel with technical collaboration, political institutions and agreements have also been enacted (ibid.). Yet, whilst collaboration in the Orange-Senqu River basin has been predominantly of a technical nature (as opposed to political), multilateral collaboration makes for easier socialisation of environmental norms of transboundary co-operation since the mechanisms and organisational platforms which foster and facilitate norm diffusion are already in place. In contrast, Nile River basin governance has been embroiled in bilateral agreements/treaties and unilateral action for longer than its southern counterpart. Political instability, tense co-riparian relations and a general lack of trust as a result of cleavages brought about by colonial treaties, has led to

greater resistance to the transboundary co-operation norm set in the Nile River basin than it has in the management of the Orange-Senqu River, with some scholars going so far as to argue that a community of riparians does not exist in the Nile Basin (Waterbury, 2002). This is largely as a result of the contestation between the global norms of equitable and reasonable utilisation and historic rights.

These case studies will first be analysed individually for the value they add to a study of normative convergence due to the unique ways in which norms have influenced contexts and vice versa. In chapter six, they will then be reviewed together in a comparative summation of case-specific normative convergence, which eventually constructs the multi-level normative framework.

Secondly, when norm development is analysed in an African context, it is usually approached from the point of analysing international/external norms and tracking the ways in which they have been accepted in the African context. As Amitav Acharya argues, conventional “Constructivist scholarship on norms tends to focus on “hard” cases of moral transformation in which “good” global norms prevail over the “bad” local beliefs and practices” (Acharya, 2004: 239; Checkel, 1999). While these types of analyses are useful in understanding global norm dynamics, they uncover little about the local response to such norms, the interface between these and regionally constructed, and locally contrived cultural norms, and the dynamics between the co-existence and/or contestation between these levels.

Finally, the ways in which the Orange-Senqu River basin and the NELSB are perceived in African hydropolitics offer interesting leads for an analysis on normative convergence in African hydropolitics. The Orange-Senqu River basin is considered to be the most institutionally developed river basin in the SADC region and is regarded by many as the role model for transboundary river basin management. A normative framework is perceived to be institutionalised in this context. The NELSB has been perceived as the relative laggard in institutional development due to the power asymmetries in the broader Nile Basin. In the past decade however, NELSB countries have seen greater political and economic stability and a steady move towards multilateral co-operative agendas. The normative framework in this sub-basin is therefore burgeoning. It is for these reasons, the Orange-Senqu’s perceived “leader” role, and the NELSB’s changing role from “laggard” to

“independent” that these study areas were prioritised above any other cases in their respective regions, for their abilities (although varied) to influence the normative environment in their respective regions.

Moreover, the Orange-Senqu River basin is considered to be a ‘closed’ river i.e. there is no more utilisable outflow of water available which may lead to inferences that water has become securitised11 in the region (Turton, 2003a: 79). This situation has, however, not (yet) occurred in southern Africa. Instead, the Orange-Senqu River has the most comprehensive history of successful water regime creation in the entire SADC region due to a high dependence on the resource-base for long-term economic growth by virtually all riparian states. Scholars have argued that a frame of desecuritisation is emerging, that is, water resource management is placed within a political frame where it can be debated, rather than in a security frame where security specialists deal with it in a highly secretive and non-transparent manner (ibid.). “The most likely outcome under these [politicised] conditions is a positive-sum configuration, which is more favourable to regional peace” (ibid: 79). Arguably, political framing (desecuritisation) of water has facilitated a smoother socialisation process of the global transboundary co-operation norm set by encouraging debate and the dissemination of knowledge at the state level and within epistemic communities. Alternatively, the domestic context could be more conducive to the socialisation of global principles since versions of these principles (such as equitable utilisation, co-operative governance, communication, and so forth) have existed in historical agreements that predate global agreements. In essence, the domestic context allows for ‘normative fit’ with global principles.