Title:
A new framework for water conflict resolution
A new framework for water conflict resolution
Author(s)
McMahon, George F.
Advisor(s)
Editor(s)
Hatcher, Kathryn J.
Collections
Supplementary to
Permanent Link
Abstract
The recent collapse of the ACT/ACF
Compact negotiations discloses significant
shortcomings in traditional approaches to resolution of
transjurisdictional water conflicts involving multiple
stakeholders. Without full acknowledgement of the
broader external issues fueling the conflict and without
collaboration by the parties to eliminate extraneous
sources of intractability, the core dispute is unlikely to
be correctly framed and the negotiations may be illinformed
as a consequence. Poor framing can prevent
consensus on core objectives and constraints and
misdirect the formulation, analysis and evaluation of
water management alternatives. Consensus remains
elusive, the diligent efforts of the parties
notwithstanding. At the core of the ACT/ACF
negotiations were models for simulation of operational
alternatives, which, while sophisticated, addressed
primarily symptoms, e.g. flow deliveries, water
consumption, reservoir operations, drought response,
etc., as opposed to causes of the conflict. The
ACT/ACF conflicts demonstrate that incomplete
characterization of the parties, issues, social system,
and processes framing the conflict contributes to the
difficulty and expense of the core modeling, and more
importantly makes disclosure of satisfactory solutions
around which consensus can be fashioned unlikely.
The author proposes to synthesize widelyrecognized
elements of successful conflict resolution to
create a new framework for management of water
conflicts. The procedure involves the following four
steps:
• Identification of sources of intractability in the
parties, issues, social system, and process
• Conflict re-framing to eliminate or minimize
sources of intractability
• Consensus on core problem definition, core
objectives and constraints
• Parameterization of satisficing core models,
consensus on management alternative
The author conceptually describes the
processes of re-framing and consensus management
pending proof-of-concept demonstration. New or
existing ‘off-the-shelf’ models may be applied to
analysis of the core problem. The entire conflict
management process is iterative; should the core
modeling disclose new sources of intractability that
prevent consensus, previous steps may be repeated to
re-frame the conflict and/or re-define core objectives
and constraints. Some components of the proposed
conflict management framework may be suitable for
integration within computer-aided decision-support or
expert systems, depending on the number and
complexity of parties and issues involved.
Sponsor
Sponsored by:
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Water Science Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Water Resources Institute
The University of Georgia, Water Resources Faculty
Date Issued
2005-04
Extent
Resource Type
Text
Resource Subtype
Proceedings