Conference Proceedings
Reference
Discourses in hydropolitics: why and how? A new conceptual framework for understanding the interplay between transboundary
waters and politics through discourses
EZBAKHE, Fatine, BRETHAUT, Christian
Abstract
We are witnessing blooming initiatives for the measuring and monitoring of hydropolitical tensions. The rationale is straightforward: to get ahead of the crises curve, we need to identify potential water conflict hotspots. This, in turn, is achieved by using a wide range of quantitative indicators – from precipitation patterns and water use to demographic trends – and new data analytic techniques such as machine learning and remote sensing. Yet, the likelihood and intensity of tensions related to water resources rise as the rate of change within a basin exceeds the institutional capacity to absorb that change. In other words, hydropolitics is also about institutional arrangements, actors and agendas, and thus qualitative analysis should remain a major component for hydropolitics research. We build on recent calls for more research on the role of discourses in shaping hydropolitics and propose a new conceptual framework, inspired by critical discourse theory, for a systematic discursive approach to hydropolitics. The added value of our framework is two-fold. First, our framework identifies four categories of discourses [...]
EZBAKHE, Fatine, BRETHAUT, Christian. Discourses in hydropolitics: why and how? A new conceptual framework for understanding the interplay between transboundary waters and politics through discourses. Conference on Transboundary Waters in IR (TWIR). Budapest, Hungary : Eötvös Loránd University, 2021
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:151328
DISCOURSES IN HYDROPOLITICS:
WHY AND HOW?
A new conceptual framework for understanding the interplay between transboundary waters and politics
through discourses.
Fatine Ezbakhe & Christian Bréthaut
Monitoring (and forecasting) water conflict, why?
Source: Hydropolitical tension (projected), TWAP (2016)
Monitoring (and forecasting) water conflict, why?
Source: WPS Global Early Warning Tool (2021)
Monitoring (and forecasting) water conflict, why?
Source: GHLPWP (2017)
“As a matter of a long-term vision, the Panel advocates the establishment of a strong global
data system and monitoring mechanism on the basis of existing work. Its task should be
to monitor and analyze water quality issues globally and especially in transboundary basins and aquifers, with a view to providing reliable information
to the public on short notice”.
New project: Monitoring for international hydropolitical tensions
The likelihood and intensity of tensions related to water resources rises as the rate of change
within a basin exceeds the institutional capacity to absorb that change.
New project: Monitoring for international hydropolitical tensions
WP1
WP2
WP3
WP4
Confirmation of basins at risk through event data
Identification of basins at risk for hydropolitical tensions
In-depth, qualitative analysis of hydropolitical tensions
Geovisualization of the hydropolitical tensions
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD) (Basins, treaties and
agreements, RBOs, hydropower sites)
Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD) (Events)
Case studies (Policy frameworks, Actors configurations, Discourses)
Global level analyses
Basin level
analyses Case studies (Policy frameworks,
Actors configurations, Discourses)
Discourses as an analytical tool to
understand (transboundary) water politics
Discourses are not synonym to language
• Discourses are “sets of rules” enabling practices and being reproduced (or transformed) by them.
• Discourses are always embedded in a medley of institutions.
• Discourses are inherently political.
Discourses as an analytical tool to
understand (transboundary) water politics
• Discourses constructed by the different actors
around (and beyond) the basin define the problems associated with water and their potential solutions.
• Deployment of these discourses affect the policy- making process.
• Construction and deployment of these discourses
can reveal the power relations between actors of the basin.
Sanctioned discourse as the appropriate lens?
• “Normative vision in which the thought process of an analyst or a political actor is locked” (Trottier 1999)
• “Prevailing or dominant discourse that has been legitimized by the discursive elite within the water sector at any one
moment in time” (Turton 2000)
• “A discourse is sanctioned or not by the extent to which the policy is the result of what social theorists call a hegemonic convergence” (Allan 2003)
• “The sanctioned discourse is determined by those in power, and by elites that can affect the sanctioned of discourse”
(Feitelson 2002)
• “A dominant discourse is the prevailing opinion and views”, whereas “the sanctioned discourse is the one legitimized by someone” (Hussein 2016)
Sanctioned discourse as the appropriate lens?
• Why should we focus on the sanctioned discourse, and not the dominant or hegemonic?
• How does a given discourse become a sanctioned one?
• What are the factors behind these discursive processes?
• Is there a connection between the actors’
constellations behind the discourses and the resulting international hydropolitics?
Our conceptual framework: 4 typologies of discourses
DISCOURSE INSTITUTIONALIZED
DISCOURSE
SANCTIONED DISCOURSE DOMINANT
DISCOURSE
HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
Structuration
Institutionalization
Legitimization
Future steps
• First case study to test our conceptual framework (Sixaola river basin between Costa Rica/Panama).
• Future case studies to clarify the open questions (features, processes, explanatory factors, patterns).
• Cross-analysis between case studies analysis and global analysis.
Thank you for your attention!
Fatine Ezbakhe
Christian Bréthaut
Bréthaut et al. (Upcoming) Exploring discursive hydropolitics: a conceptual framework and research agenda
