How to Incorporate System Archetypes into Water Conflicts Analysis: Application in Euphrates, Nile, Zambezi, and Lake Kivu Transboundary Basins

Abstract

This paper introduces and fleshes out a systemic method designed to develop a holistic understanding of states’ behavior in transboundary water conflict and cooperation. Such an approach leverages causality analysis to capture the deep structural characteristics that shape the hydropolitics dynamics and may lead to the evolution of destructive behaviors with severe consequences. The paper does so by using the concepts of the system archetype. The system archetype analysis offers insight into the underlying structures from which the dynamics of hydropolitics emerge over time—cycles of conflict and cooperation. The approach provides riparian states with a diagnostic tool to recognize patterns of destructive behaviors in the management of shared water resources and warning signs that are usually too long overlooked. Using four case studies from different continents, this paper shows how a systems archetype approach is useful for developing a big-picture understanding of the hydropolitical problem, its dynamics, and potential resolution pathways. The systemic lessons learned from these case studies can be used in other contexts, helping policymakers anticipate the destructive and constructive dynamics leading to conflict and cooperation.

Painted Water—A Concept to Shape Water Negotiation Strategies in Shared River Basins

“…For instance, geopolitically, if three out of four pillars of the hydrohegemony concept [37], including bargaining, material, and ideational powers, skew towards the upstream states already enjoying geographical power, described as "Bully and bullied" situation [47], the transition highly tends to convert into complex classes. In contrast, if an equilibrium of power occurs between the upstream and downstream states, described as an "escalation" situation [48], the upstream states cannot easily maintain their hydraulic mission. As a result, the classes barely develop into complex ones and will play out within a range that imposes less pressure on downstream states.…”

“…In that regard, Ethiopia focuses on its geographical hegemony so that Amer (2015) casts serious doubt on increasing the dam's size and storage capacity compared to earlier plans in Ethiopia by opening a debate on whether the objective of the dam is actually more about controlling water flow than about the production of hydropower [55]. On the other hand, Egypt highlights past dependency and uses its regional and international power to destabilize Ethiopia's hydraulic mission [48,57]. This escalation is entirely compatible with what Zeitoun and Warner posit that "upstream-ers use water to get more power, downstream-ers use power to get more water" [37] (p. 46).…”