In international development, conflict is often used as shorthand for violent conflict, and avoiding conflict is considered a priority. But “it’s important to recognize that conflict is not always bad and cooperation is not always good,” says Ken Conca in this week’s episode of “Backdraft.”

New norms and ideas in international water law and governance, for example, like water as a human right and the importance of protecting the environment, have been spearheaded by activists, local communities, and networks of actors who were “outside of the system,” says Conca, professor of international relations at American University. Their ideas and priorities only became part of the conversation by confronting the powers that be.

“People who hadn’t been part of participatory political process were sort of pushing their way in, creating conflict in the process, but doing it in a way that was actually quite productive in terms of better policies,” he says. If you’re interested in improving governance of a basin or equity, such “productive conflict” isn’t necessarily something to avoid and may be in fact be something to encourage.

Likewise, not all cooperation is inherently good. Conca points to the World Bank requirement for a cooperative agreement to be in place between riparian nations in a shared basin before lending money. “That’s a good practice as far as it goes…but under those circumstances there’s a danger that cooperation starts to become the end in itself, rather than simply the means to an end… It’s important that we look at the content of that cooperation.”

Collaboration at one level, like national governments deciding to modernize a basin, may impose costs at another level, threatening traditional livelihoods or even displacing people.

“If one of our responses to living in a climate change word is going to be to rework our infrastructure around water, then we’re inherently going to be creating controversies, we’re going to inherently be in the space of conflict, we’re inherently going to be creating winners and losers,” says Conca.

To minimize the chances of violent conflict and maximize the chances of sustainable, equitable development, Conca suggests a few guiding principles:

1. Decentralize: Rather than focusing on one large project, governments should promote a “broader suite of responses” that can be more targeted and flexible.
2. Remember the end goal: Especially with large infrastructure projects, which pose significant technical and financial challenges, Conca warns that the project itself can become an end in and of itself. “It’s important to pull back and ask what are the water-energy needs of the basin and how do we achieve them in a low-cost and robust, flexible manner,” he says. “If we take that approach and start to pit the more familiar kinds of responses to the new kinds of alternatives – solar, wind, renewable, small-scale hydro – you start to see many more possibilities.”
3. Be conflict-sensitive: Tools like USAID’s Water and Conflict Toolkit can help identify the winners and losers at the start of an intervention, allowing project designers and implementers to better manage conflict of all kinds, including productive and non-productive, and peacebuilding opportunities.

As climate change interacts with natural, social, and political processes, the complexity of responding will only increase. “The central premise of Backdraft,” says Conca, “is there’s as much conflict potential in the policies you embrace and the adaptations and in the adjustments to the problem that you make as there is in the problem itself.”