3.5 Theoretical Framework
3.5.3 Conflict transformation theory
81
relates to the degree each has internalised shared norms and values. When shared norms are not internalised, greater levels of external enforcement are required (see Baland & Platteau, 1996, in Ratner, 2013 p. 195). Bruns (2005, p. 6) noted that rights are useless when there are no means to enforce them. If thorough conflict resolution mechanisms and sanctions are absent, then problems such as unchecked upstream abstraction and mining of aquifers are inevitable.
Vincent and Elinor in Turner (2007, p. 4) argued for use of the term ‘common pool’ rather than
‘common property’ for that class of resources that are particularly problematic to human institutions because of the difficulties of bounding or dividing them, excluding or controlling the activities of potential users. Canal water is a common pool resource: it can be used jointly, because of the high cost of excluding a landowner with commendable land; and its consumption is subtractive in the sense that water applied to A’s land is not simultaneously available for B’s. So, when water is scarce, congestion is likely, manifested in conflict, hoarding, and yield reductions where water arrives too late. When water management institutions are unable to address resource competition, their credibility and legitimacy are reduced in the eyes of the stakeholders (see Ratner et al., 2013, p. 195). This undermines shared values among local actors and lead to resource claims by external actors that disregard local institutions. Groundwater fulfils the same common pool criteria. Water forms vital parts of the livelihoods of large sections of the population in developing countries, and the issue of how to prevent their over-exploitation as population grows is of great importance for development policy.
82
encourage and condition violent political and social conflict. These specifically consist of activities addressing political and social transformation in relation to water governance.
Reich, (2002, p. 112) argued that conflict transformation is a holistic and multi-faceted approach to managing conflict in all its phases. The goal of conflict transformation is therefore to establish a positive peace (see Young, 2010, p. 279). Miall (2004, p. 3) contended that this term denotes an ongoing process of change in the relations, behaviour, attitudes and structures from negative to positive. Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and transforming the relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of society that supports the continuation of conflict. The above argues that in the water sector, conflicts over water access can be transformed by directing people towards mutual access to water and at the same time making hierarchies involved in water governance responsive to the needs of the users.
Lederach (2003) posited that conflict transformation theory views peace as centred and rooted in the quality of relationships. This includes both face-to-face interactions in drawing water and the ways in which the society structure its social, political, economic, and cultural relationships. In this sense, peace is a ‘process-structure’, a phenomenon that is simultaneously dynamic, adaptive, and changing. Botes (2003) observed that conflict transformation, “is defined by intentional efforts to address the natural rise of water conflict through non-violent approaches that address issues and increase understanding, equality, and respect in relationships”. To increase justice people must have access to political processes and expression the choices that shake their being. This is relevant to this study, as it seeks to understand how people are involved in formulation and implementation of formal policies to water access.
Conflict transformation theory deals with social justice issues and identity, livelihoods and political power-sharing, the aim being to achieve institutional and structural transformation in the long run (see Lederach, 2003, p. 3). Peace is made from within the society in a conflict to access water rather than by external experts and interveners, even if the latter may bring much needed and welcome ideas and support. According to Lederach (2003, p. 3), Conflict Transformation Theory suggests, that “there is need to develop capacities to engage in change processes at the interpersonal, inter-group, and social-structural levels”. Reich, (2002, p. 10) suggested that “one set of capacities points toward direct, face-to-face interaction between
83
people or groups” in competition to access water. This requires a capacity to understand and sustain dialogue among water users as a fundamental means of constructive change (Botes, 2003).
Many of the skill-based mechanisms that reduce violence are rooted in communicative capacities to exchange ideas, find common definitions, and move toward solutions. But dialogue also plays a crucial role in the maintenance or change of social structures. Through dialogue, these structures can be modified to be more responsive and just. Thus, local people need to be continuously engaged throughout the process of water management. Lederach (1995), cited by Miall (2004, p. 4), argued:
Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the human and cultural resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses through which we do not primarily ‘see’ the setting and the people in it as the ‘problem’ and the outsider as the ‘answer’. Rather, we understand the long- term goal of transformation as validating and building on people and resources within the setting.
The process of transformation first transforms attitudes by changing and redirecting negative perceptions. People in a conflict over water have negative connotations of each other.
Secondly, it transforms behaviour, and lastly, transforms the conflict itself by seeking to discover, define, and remove incompatibilities between the parties. Water access policies should therefore have components which deal with conflicting behaviour among water users at all levels. Conflict transformation, as described by Lederach (2003), does not suggest that conflict is simply eliminated or controlled; rather we need to recognise and work with its
‘dialectic nature’. By this he means that social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships, yet once it occurs, it changes (i.e., transforms) those events, people, and relationships that created the initial conflict. At the personal level, conflict transformation involves the pursuit of awareness, growth, and commitment to change which may occur through the recognition of fear, anger, grief, and bitterness. These emotions must be outwardly acknowledged and dealt with in order for effective conflict transformation to occur. HEKS (2012) argued that certain orientations can become ‘cultures of violence’ or manifestations of
‘cultural violence’, which conflict transformation aims to convert into ‘cultures of peace’
transforming material and structural conditions. Policies must be designed that alter the nature or distribution of water or territorial basins, or reform water governance institutions.
84
According to Miall (2004, p. 12), conflict transformation usually involves a variety of actors such as development and humanitarian organisations, international NGOs concerned with conflict prevention and transformation, states and inter-governmental organisations, parties to a water conflict and other relevant groups within the affected societies. International organisations prevent local water conflicts from becoming violent and changes in the water governance structures of the societies result in some impressive transformations. Development and humanitarian agencies, carry out capacity-building and support for indigenous conflict handling capacity. The role of states includes supporting and sustaining local groups and social movements, building peace constituencies, strengthening conflict management capacity, empowering key actors, organisational development and networking and training. The local actors as the users of the resources themselves have the greatest responsibility, and the greatest opportunity, for transforming their own conflicts.