The challenges facing resource management, including transboundary river basins, have become increasingly complex, requiring more holistic readings of governance processes that encompass a range of formal and informal collaborations between diverse actors. Innovation and transformative governance changes hold potential for addressing the increased complexity and multi-scaled nature of the challenges facing the world’s shared rivers. However, significant research gaps exist around this application in practice. This dissertation asks the following questions: Is governance of transboundary waters changing to integrate a more diverse set of actors beyond centralized governments? If so, what is the role of non-central state actors in contributing to innovations and transformative changes to transboundary water governance processes? In working towards answering these questions, the study explores the case of the Columbia River Treaty (North America) and the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Southern Africa). This study has the following objectives: first, to determine the type of power, albeit conceived from a Euro-western perspective, that non-central state actors mobilize to engage in transboundary water governance processes, and assess if the power these actors mobilize is contributing to changes in governance. Second, to conceptualize the on-going bordering processes for transboundary water governance, and evaluate whether non-central state actors are shaping these processes. And, third, to identify which non-central state actors are involved in transboundary water governance, and examine whether and how these governance systems are becoming more polycentric. This dissertation is composed of five chapters, three of which have been prepared as standalone articles for submission to academic journals. Broadly, the dissertation findings suggest that changes to governance of transboundary waters, away from state-centric processes, may be emerging in some areas, such as the ability of non-central state actors to exercise and mobilize different forms of power to shape water governance processes. Findings illustrate that a clear distinction between international and national processes is no longer sufficient to address transboundary water governance challenges and issues. Further, findings illustrate that some non-central state actors have power and influence in these transboundary water governance processes. However, these insights also highlight that centralized government authority for transboundary waters remains, and evidence of the emergence of polycentric governance systems at the international scale is limited. / Graduate / 2019-04-30

This doctoral dissertation provides conceptual contributions to understanding and analysing transboundary river basin management practices and processes. The conceptual framework of this thesis is embedded in the social learning literature. This thesis builds on prior efforts by scholars (see Keen et al., 2005; Muro & Jeffrey, 2008; Newig et al., 2010; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Reed et al., 2010; Schusler et al., 2003) to evaluate and analyze social learning processes. In particular, the concept of learning space as used in this thesis contributes to a deeper understanding of the context in which social learning occurs by combining an analysis of interactions, deliberations and reframing processes. Three research gaps are identified and addressed in this dissertation. First, conceptualisation and evaluation of social learning in emergent processes. Second, an analysis of how relational features (such as trust and shared identities) impact on social learning outcomes. Third, the lack in understanding of how contextual features (such as frames) shape social learning processes and influence transboundary river basin management practices. To address these gaps, this thesis employed case study approach of two transboundary river basins; the Omo-Turkana and Zambezi river basins in Africa. The two case studies fit a better understanding of transboundary river basin management processes and practices as both river basins are shared by different riparian states with competing interests. This thesis explores the general research question: How do learning spaces shape transboundary river basin management practices and processes? This thesis found that the success of transboundary basin cooperation lies not only in actors solving technical problems but also hugely relates to how actors interact with one another to build the needed capacity to address technical issues. As such, creating trust and shared identities, as well as paying attention to problem framing plays a considerable role in defining how actors learn. Overall, by incorporating concepts such as trust, shared identity and frames into the concept of learning space, this thesis was able to provide a better understanding of transboundary river basin management practices. Such a perspective could provide a deeper understanding of how management practices and institutions can be better designed.

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. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / gm2014 / Political Sciences / unrestricted

The inter-scalar interaction of norms is pervasive in African hydropolitics due to the nature of freshwater on the continent – shared, strategic and that which necessitates cooperation. However, with few exceptions, particular norms created at specific levels of scale have been researched in isolation of those existing at other levels. It is argued that this exclusionary approach endangers the harmonised and integrated development of international water law and governance, producing sub-optimal cooperative strategies. The notable contributions of Ken Conca and the Maryland School’s research on the contestation of norms occurring at different levels of scale, and Anthony Turton’s Hydropolitical Complex (HPC), will be examined through a Constructivist theoretical lens, in terms of their applicability to furthering an understanding of multi-level normative frameworks. Through the use of the Orange-Senqu River basin, and the Nile Equatorial Lakes sub-basin (NELSB) as case studies, it is argued that norm convergence is possible, and is occurring in both case studies analysed, although to varying degrees as a result of different causal factors and different biophysical, historical, socio-political and cultural contexts. This is demonstrated through an examination of regional dynamics and domestic political milieus. Notwithstanding their varying degrees of water demand, Orange-Senqu and NELSB riparians present fairly different political identities, each containing existing constellations of norms, which have affected the ways in which they have responded to the influence of external norms, how the norm is translated at the local level and to what extent it is incorporated into state policy. In so doing, the interface between international norms and regional/domestic norms will be explored in an attempt to understand which norms gain acceptance and why. It is therefore advocated that a multi-level interpretation of norm development in Africa’s hydropolitics is essential to an understanding of the interconnectedness of context, interests and identities. Each level of scale, from the international to the subnational, give meaning to how norms are translated and socialised, and how they in turn, transform contexts.