Justice Legerdemain: Does International Water Law mislead and misdirect? Convention using AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) via multi-agent games

Transcription

1 Justice Legerdemain: Does International Water Law mislead and misdirect? Testing the utility of the UN Watercourses Convention using AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) via multi-agent games Bruce Lankford

2 Introduction Contention International Water Law as a framework for water allocation: at best; utopian vision / guide or non- charitably; hydrologically- or at worst; counter-productive to water allocation Disciplinary perspective: How useful is the UN Watercourses convention (UNWCC)? Water Lawyer: Post-hoc agreeing equity not defining! Diplomat: Challenge status quo invitation to engage Water manager: One tool within an iterative cycle Water modeller/statistician: naïve, imprecise

3 Methodology Limited opportunity to test ideas Transboundary water allocation via multi-agent games in IWRM training sessions: Allocated Mekong, Nile and Zambezi waters using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Four workshops; data collected individuals in each Gov/NGO scientists and water officers Included one student group Photo: Ana Cascao AHP sessions last only 90 minutes training workshops had one other Excel exercise and the River Basin Game.

4 Origin of exercise How did this begin? Invited by Zambezi/SADC. Ramboll Concerned with water Allocation in the Zambezi River Basin part interested in supporting the putative ZAMCOM. Operationalizing the Principle of Equitable and Reasonable Utilization respective territories utilise a shared watercourse in an equitable and

5 UNWCC Article 6 Factors relevant to equitable & reasonable utilization (a) Geographic, hydrographic, hydrological, climatic, ecological and other factors of a natural character; (b) The social and economic needs of the watercourse States concerned; (c) The population dependent on the watercourse in each watercourse State; (d) The effects of the use or uses of the watercourses in one watercourse State on other watercourse States; (e) Existing and potential uses of the watercourse; (f) Conservation, protection, development and economy of use of the water resources of the watercourse and the costs of measures taken to that effect; (g) The availability of alternatives, of comparable value, to a particular planned or existing use. The weight to be given to each factor is to be determined by its importance in comparison with that of other relevant factors. In determining what is a reasonable and equitable use, all relevant factors are to be considered together and a conclusion reached on the basis of the whole.

6 Properties of Zambezi riparians Each country may have an advantage Most populous Malawi Poorest Tanzania Greatest area in basin Zambia Wealthiest Botswana Greatest current use Zimbabwe Greatest runoff Zambia

7 Constructed an Excel AHP model Principles of proportional allocation reflecting the properties and needs of the riparian countries

8 Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Explore multiple criteria Built an Excel Spreadsheet model A hierarchy with a goal, criteria and priority scoring Goal = greatest (or fairest) allocation of water in basin to a given country amongst riparians <future use> Criteria = runoff, population, GDP, area, present use, etc. E.g. runoff = (0.8), population = (0.2), GDP = (0.0) Users adjust weighting to each property Weight criteria to favour or compromise their perspectives Graphs to compare <current use> against <future use>

9 Method within workshops Multi-agent games Procedure Divided class into riparian countries Demonstrated functioning of model Groups select scores that benefit their country Collate all country scores into 2 nd Worksheet Automatically determines average metagroup outcome (So each country carries equal weight for metagroup outcome) State that this is the country- political -play at a water conference Re-enter data for all countries Compare outcomes (toggle spreadsheets) Photo Ana Cascao Photo Ana Cascao

10 Most strategic choices (political) Correct country-centric selection! Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

11 Example 1: strategic choices (political) Selection from April 2010 Swaziland training Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

12 Example 2: strategic choices (political) Selection from Feb 2009 Malawi training Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

13 All four: strategic choices (political) Average of four sessions Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

14 Playing as scientists: greater spread Average of four sessions Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

15 Difference: From politicians to scientists Average change for countries Angola Namibia Botswana Zambia Zimbabwe Tanzania Malawi Mozambique On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use

16 Averages; politics, scientists, difference Average change for all criteria Role-play Politicians Role play Scientists On area Runoff Population GDP pp Future GDP pp HDI Current use Difference (+7%) (+ 63%) (+42.5%) (-43%) (-34%) (-10%) (+5%)

17 Piechart outcomes - political

18 Piechart outcomes - scientists

19 Results Outcomes Voting as country- nearly matches expected Small attempts are made at this stage to select weights that 2 nd BUT both role-plays once averaged over eight riparians provide a much more equitable apportionment than current use And then, there is no difference between science and political Level of discomfort / disquiet at outcome high.

20 Discussion International water law is not prescriptive Allows post-hoc ratification and agreement of equity in eyes of court Then are the codified principles too detailed? Is a semblance of prescription and method offered (legerdemain)? The inclusion of so many factors and means to average between Plays to the hegemon if conditions allow Zambian scientists on two different occasions stated they now see no reason Zambia not to ratify ZAMCOM = to maintain hegemony. Excessive change? Level of discomfort high amongst participants Participants believed current use emphasised but not translated

21 Conclusions Within sample-frame of training course on water allocation The UNWCC idealistic in aspiration and practice. Via AHP; principles have potential to guide water allocation. Principles do not immediately offer a functional informative guide for utilitarian water allocation. AHP be used for democratic transparent dialogue. UNWCC utility rather managed via role-playing, decisionaids, dialogue But believe UNWCC could be treated naively.

22 Further refinement Test three role-plays Politicians Scientists Water lawyers Explore with benefit sharing spreadsheet ( ) Extend over 2-3 days, not 1-2 hours. Invite multiple seniorities and test country-weights Current use + iterative incremental + water development + efficient use demonstrated + catchment based + seasonal