OKACOM and the Okavango basin

Many highlight the ability of treaties to govern utilisation and reduce conflict potential by fostering collaboration between the riparians of the Okavango basin. However treaties have for various reasons been criticised for their vague and lucid nature, and as a result in a lot of cases have proven to be ineffective at encouraging collaboration between states. This blog post will look at OKACOM and its widely claimed effective impacts on collaborative adaptive management in terms of institutional and ecological resilience. 

A key focus for the parties of the Okavango basin are the environmental needs, and these according to Green et al. (2013) are of higher importance than the domestic needs, the delta rich with wildlife provides a massive source of tourist income, with the region widely being acknowledged for its ecotourist appeal. The threat of development on the river would pose significant impacts on critical sediment transported channel shifting that is essential to biodiversity and fertility. There are several treaties that serve to foster collaboration and sustainable use of the resources of the Okavango. First of all there is the 1994 agreement between the governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia on the establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). With three delegations representing the contacting parties, the functions of the commission outlined in the agreement states, as an example, "the prevention of pollution of water resources and the control over aquatic weeds in the Okavango River Basin." Whilst the agreement outlines specific tasks to ensure the sustainability of the basin the agreement is sparse and lacking detail and substance. Thirteen years later a similar agreement came into force that establishes three separate branches of OKACOM: hydrological, biodiversity and institutional task forces (OKACOM, 2007). Once more, this agreement emphasises the need for "equitable allocation" of resources, yet thus far has struggled to quantify and allocate such resources due to ongoing demand and supply evaluations and council formations (OKACOM 2010). Beyond this there are other frameworks that operate to encourage cooperation, such as the 2010 Protocol on Hydrological Data Sharing for the Okavango River Basin, which exists to provide accurate information on floods droughts and pollution magnitudes. This aspect is intrinsically linked to OKASEC which feeds back to OKACOM.  What we can understand from this is that there is a centralisation of the agreements and taskforces whom operate for the region as a whole. I agree with academics such as Green et al. 2013 that this is a fundamentally positive aspect to managing the resources within the basin. 

It is important to mention the multi-scalar nature of treaties and fostering riparian collaboration. In the case of the Okavango basin, crucially there is the strong framework of OKACOM, that despite resigning itself to the occasional vague use of words, has been relatively effective thus far at keeping relations peaceful between the countries and honing in the priorities of the basin, namely to environmental protection and the sustaining of ecotourism within the region. However, as I will discuss in upcoming posts, it is the interplay between local, regional and international interests that has enabled OKACOM to so far be successful. It will be interesting to see however, when the allocation regime is established within the region, what impacts this will have on the so far smooth collaborative work that has been done.