Research Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative approach to analysing two case studies; the NELSB as a sub-set of the Nile River basin, and Orange-Senqu River basin, in terms of the role that norms play in determining state behaviour and riparian relations. It will be proven that not only do different states (and therefore different regions i.e. SADC and NELSB regions)

11_{Securitisation is defined as a situation where low politics issues, such as water resource management, is}

associated with the high politics issues of national survival, potentially resulting in a rapid spiral of conflict that would be difficult to predict or manage (Turton, 2003a: 79).

react differently to the same global norms but the mechanisms by which norms are socialised within states differ, which localises and transforms the norm into something unique to a specific context. As such, it is hypothesised that global norms become translated differently depending on domestic configurations. Moreover, an uneven landscape exists comprising of multiple normative orientations and institutional developments with norm convergence occurring from the top-down, laterally, as well as from the bottom-up. It is therefore imperative to understand domestic processes in order to understand the political effects of global/regional ideational structures. This investigation is particularly interested in local variations in socialisation processes and effects, while not ignoring the strong overall regional impact of ideational phenomena. For this, a comparative analysis based on two case studies was necessary. Moreover, in cases where norm contestation occurs, a multi-levelled analysis is imperative to understanding which norms gain acceptance and why.

The methodological approach employed can be divided into two phases: 1). Theoretical i.e. literature research and 2). field research. The literature phase was largely based on a textual analysis conducted through a mixed-method conceptual lens. A descriptive and explanatory application of this theoretical approach in the case studies was then undertaken. A literary attempt was made to trace the development of the global norm set of transboundary co-operation in the NELSB and the Orange-Senqu River basin, as well as review regional norm convergence.

Several of these norms have been codified in international law. From several Constructivist points of view, therefore, adherence to international law is one important indicator of the socialisation of international norms. Sources of international law used in this investigation include international, regional and basin-wide treaties; customary international law; “the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations” and (as “subsidiary means”) judicial decisions and “teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations” as stipulated in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).12

12 _{Examples of “teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of various nations” in transboundary water}

governance and international water law, include the 1966 Helsinki Rules, developed by the ILC, and although not legally binding, these rules have considerable influence in determining the equitable apportionment of water from international river basins. Additionally, the 1992 Dublin Principles formed the basis for the

A crucial indicator of international norm effects used in this investigation is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (the UN Convention), adopted in 1997 to mitigate the impending water crisis by using legal means to resolve transboundary watercourse disputes. However, the UN Convention is not yet in force, and therefore, no legally-binding mechanism exists at the international level to ensure compliance and conformance to global norms. As such, using international water law as a sole indicator of norm effects would not explain acceptance, compliance or resistance to norms at a local level. Process-tracing research is therefore necessary to ascertain the extent of socialisation of normative principles in terms of implementation, compliance and reception as well as its effectiveness. This translates into the need to include policy alignment and harmonisation as an indicator of normative convergence, but also to review the incremental development of behavioural convergence through concepts of benefit-sharing in order to explore socio-political processes as drivers and barriers to this convergence.

A second category of important indicators used in this study are legal acts, policies and other multilateral agreements of international and regional organisations/institutions. International and regional organisations teach states new norms of behaviour as well as help disseminate them (Finnemore and Sikkink, 2001: 401).

The second phase of data collection involved field research in the Orange-Senqu River basin (extensive fieldwork included visits to all four riparian states: South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Lesotho) and the NELSB (countries visited included Uganda and Rwanda), and employed a mixed-method data collection strategy consisting of semi- structured interviews, informal discussions, email correspondence, and participatory approaches such as workshops, focus groups, closed meetings and participant observation techniques to determine the relationships between global, regional and domestic norms. These methods form the bulk of process-tracing research on implementation, compliance and effectiveness of global principles amidst existing domestic and regional norms. Here

IWRM concept, and comprises of four guiding principles for the management of international freshwater resources: 1). Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment; 2). Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels; 3). Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water; and 4). Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognised as an economic good.

too, the tracing of norms and norm development in (re)defining identities was significant as this illustrated the degree to which individuals identify with particular norms. The interview and focus group sources can be found in Appendix two, informal discussion participants in Appendix three, email correspondence in Appendix four, list of SADC Water Division participants in policy harmonisation discussion in Appendix five, and a list of closed meeting participants in Appendix six (Appendix seven includes the proceedings of the closed meeting).

Additionally, the majority of participants consulted i.e. interview, workshop and focus group participations, informal discussants, email responders etc. can be classified as members of the epistemic community. Comprising of technical experts, academics, researchers, policy and decision-makers, and other government officials, this community drives the transboundary water governance discourse in Africa, as a result of the technical nature in which water resources are viewed and managed. Since this investigation sought to sketch a realistic picture of normative convergence at the regional level, as well as the power asymmetries that come into play in multi-level transboundary governance, a deliberate, self-selecting sample of individuals was chosen to reflect the dominance of scientific and political voices in determining the normative environment. While there is a danger in this approach producing data that affirms this investigation’s main hypothesis of regional normative convergence, due to participants’ vested interests in regional co- operation at the political level, the chosen theoretical framework’s prioritisation of shared understandings and collective expectations of appropriate behaviour accepts the preponderance of the epistemic community voice(s). The important actors that determine the normative transboundary governance environment at the regional level are precisely those individuals who make up this community, and consequently, those interviewed. That said however, it is important to note that the epistemic community does not represent an entirely homogenous grouping ideationally, sharing similar perspectives on everything i.e. co-operation is good, conflict is bad. Indeed, differences in understandings do exist, and this was closely observed, as it provides insights into norm resistance and or norm manipulation, localisation and transformation. In an attempt to triangulate the results from the research interviews, perspectives were also obtained to give insight into local and international contexts. As such, local advocacy coalition representatives and activists,

farmers, entrepreneurs were also consulted to provide insights on the challenges of bottom- up norm convergence. Similarly, international policy advisors and experts were also interviewed for their perspectives on the origin and nature of the global norm set of transboundary water co-operation, its applicability at other levels of scale, and appropriateness to advancing regional normative convergence.

Finally, the respective river basins were examined in detail within their real-life contexts. As case studies are usually multi-dimensional analyses a number of actors, mechanisms, institutional procedures and causes were identified within the study’s domain. As such, a single unit of analysis does not confine this study. For instance, the role of non- state interest groups exist on the sub-national, basin, regional and international levels, states on international, national and basin levels, while transnational bodies blur the lines between national, regional and global levels of analysis. This multi-layered approach to the levels of analysis is challenging and presents a complex but more holistic and integrated picture to the impact of norms. Their interplay may be cohesive and harmonious, but may also be disjointed and conflictual. In short, not only do variations in norm effects exist due to variations in domestic (nature of states) and regional structural contexts (political, cultural, ethnic, historical co-operation or lack thereof), but also norm effects differ as a result of the variations in the interplay of norm diffusion and/or contestation.