3.2 Theories of Conflict and Cooperation Over Transboundary Watercourses
25
emotional mobilising power of water renders intra-basin cooperation an easy subject
for national(istic) political rhetoric. Therefore, transboundary water disputes often
arise or remain unresolved due to domestic political determinations (Dinar 2008).
Indeed, some authors even contend that it is “water nationalism”—an ideological
proposition linking water to state-building and nation-making—that is the main driver
of transboundary water conflicts (Allouche 2005). Take, for example, the notorious
Gabˇ cíkovo-Nagymaros dispute which seems to remain unresolved for decades due to
competing political narratives in Slovakia and Hungary surrounding the construction
of the Gabˇ cíkovo hydropower complex, leaving no room for a common ground
acceptable in both countries (Baranyai and Bartus 2016).
Certain authors underline the central role of political leaders in the emergence
or resolution of water disputes. Records show that when politicians at most senior
level engage in the resolution of transboundary water problems the chances of a
rapid solution rise significantly (Dinar 2008). Likewise, national political leaders
may choose to exploit the negative mobilising force of transboundary water issues
in view of its potential impact on the decision-maker’s public image and re-election
potential (Subramanian et al. 2014).
3.2.4.6 Capacity Shortages
Managing co-riparian relations demands significant administrative, financial and
technical capacities. Some countries, especially developing ones, however, often
lack the resources to establish or maintain robust mechanisms for transboundary
water cooperation. This does not only pose an evident technical barrier, but may
also give rise to a fear that they may not be able to negotiate an optimal deal or fully
benefit from a new or existing governance framework. This is particularly problematic
where there are large discrepancies among riparian states in terms of hydrology,
ecology, infrastructure, economics, etc. Examples include the cumbersome and wary
negotiations in the Nile and the Zambezi basins, where certain countries deliberately
impede or frustrate negotiations, even if they are likely to benefit from the eventual
cooperation regime (Subramanian et al. 2014).
3.2.4.7 Cultural Factors
Transboundary water issues often revolve around core values and cultural constructions that date back to generations. These cultural or psychological factors (or the
“national water ethos” coined by Aaron Wolf) may determine how a nation “feels”
about its water resources. Such factors may include the “mythology” of water in
national history, the religious dimensions of water, the importance of water in national
security discourse, etc. (Delli Priscoli and Wolf 2009). The importance of these
domestic cultural factors tends to intensify in a transboundary context.
Likewise, cultural differences (stereotypes of neighbouring nations, enemy
images) can become major hindrances to cooperation. This applies particularly
25
emotional mobilising power of water renders intra-basin cooperation an easy subject
for national(istic) political rhetoric. Therefore, transboundary water disputes often
arise or remain unresolved due to domestic political determinations (Dinar 2008).
Indeed, some authors even contend that it is “water nationalism”—an ideological
proposition linking water to state-building and nation-making—that is the main driver
of transboundary water conflicts (Allouche 2005). Take, for example, the notorious
Gabˇ cíkovo-Nagymaros dispute which seems to remain unresolved for decades due to
competing political narratives in Slovakia and Hungary surrounding the construction
of the Gabˇ cíkovo hydropower complex, leaving no room for a common ground
acceptable in both countries (Baranyai and Bartus 2016).
Certain authors underline the central role of political leaders in the emergence
or resolution of water disputes. Records show that when politicians at most senior
level engage in the resolution of transboundary water problems the chances of a
rapid solution rise significantly (Dinar 2008). Likewise, national political leaders
may choose to exploit the negative mobilising force of transboundary water issues
in view of its potential impact on the decision-maker’s public image and re-election
potential (Subramanian et al. 2014).
3.2.4.6 Capacity Shortages
Managing co-riparian relations demands significant administrative, financial and
technical capacities. Some countries, especially developing ones, however, often
lack the resources to establish or maintain robust mechanisms for transboundary
water cooperation. This does not only pose an evident technical barrier, but may
also give rise to a fear that they may not be able to negotiate an optimal deal or fully
benefit from a new or existing governance framework. This is particularly problematic
where there are large discrepancies among riparian states in terms of hydrology,
ecology, infrastructure, economics, etc. Examples include the cumbersome and wary
negotiations in the Nile and the Zambezi basins, where certain countries deliberately
impede or frustrate negotiations, even if they are likely to benefit from the eventual
cooperation regime (Subramanian et al. 2014).
3.2.4.7 Cultural Factors
Transboundary water issues often revolve around core values and cultural constructions that date back to generations. These cultural or psychological factors (or the
“national water ethos” coined by Aaron Wolf) may determine how a nation “feels”
about its water resources. Such factors may include the “mythology” of water in
national history, the religious dimensions of water, the importance of water in national
security discourse, etc. (Delli Priscoli and Wolf 2009). The importance of these
domestic cultural factors tends to intensify in a transboundary context.
Likewise, cultural differences (stereotypes of neighbouring nations, enemy
images) can become major hindrances to cooperation. This applies particularly