Evaluating trust and shared group identities in emergent social learning processes in the Zambezi river basin

Participatory approaches are increasingly becoming popular in transboundary river management. Participatory approaches account for system complexity, enhance ownership, representation and support responsibility among all actors. These approaches involve dealing with different stakeholder perspectives at multi-scales and within different institutional settings while addressing complex social-ecological issues. Social learning has been used in participatory approaches to address such complexity by facilitating interactions among diverse actor groups, and at the same time developing actors’ relational capacities to support a shared problem framing. In transboundary river basin management, facilitated social learning processes can support diverse actors to better stimulate the building of a collective understanding in basin planning, resource use or in decision-making processes. Social learning is a dynamic process that occurs through social interaction at different levels. Scholars distinguish between the process of social learning (such as facilitated or emergent processes) and the outcomes of social learning (such as improved decisions, concerted action or transformed relationships). Despite advancements in the discourse, relational features in social learning processes have not received much attention, particularly in emergent (non-deliberative) processes. Such dynamics can greatly impact both processes and outcomes of learning. For example, in the Netherlands, social learning was hindered due to distrust between farmers and nature conservation groups, preventing open dialogue on problem framing. This study contributes empirically by addressing knowledge gaps concerning relational features in social learning processes. Based on a review of the natural resource management literature, we identified trust and identity as two relational features that shape social learning processes. We use the concept of learning space (opportunities for interaction, deliberation and reframing) to evaluate social learning processes. We evaluate past emergent transboundary river basin cooperation processes in the Zambezi basin to understand how relational features shape learning spaces and in turn impact cooperation. We ask: How do trust and shared group identity influence social learning processes and impact transboundary river basin cooperation processes in the Zambezi basin? Specific research questions: (a) How do trust and shared group identities shape processes occurring within learning spaces in the Zambezi river basin? (b) How do learning spaces influence transboundary river basin cooperation processes in the Zambezi river basin? The paper introduces the conceptual framework (learning space, trust, shared group identity), then presents methods and the empirical case, followed by results, discussion and conclusions.

The conceptual framework draws on literature on social learning, trust, social identity, and communities of practice. Relationship between social learning and learning space: Social learning in resource management integrates diverse knowledge, develops relational capacities, and supports perspective-taking. Definitions vary; Pahl-Wostl et al. describe social learning as context-embedded processes leading to outcomes, while Keen et al. emphasize collective action and reflection. Reed et al. (2010) define social learning as a change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to wider social units or communities of practice through social interactions. Social learning outcomes are commonly grouped into cognitive (knowledge), relational (relationships, trust), and normative (norms, values). To assess both deliberative and emergent processes, the concept of learning spaces is used: arenas for interaction, deliberation, and reframing. Evidence of learning spaces includes structural-learning spaces (institutions, frameworks), physical-learning spaces (forums for interaction), and process-learning spaces (self-organized responses to triggers). Learning spaces stimulate relational capacities and negotiations of roles, problem framings or perspectives; relational features (trust, shared identities) can influence these processes. Trust: Trust impacts knowledge transfer and interpersonal relations, enabling openness and transparency. Following Hartman (2002), trust is operationalized as competence trust (belief in ability to do the job), integrity trust (belief the other will act predictably and protect interests), and intuitive trust (the relationship “feels right”). Competence trust is further operationalized as ability (experience, knowledge, skills, information), resources (physical or social), and power (decision-making, agenda-setting, domination). Integrity trust involves transparency, accountability, participation, and responsibility. Intuitive trust is driven by perceived alignment of values, norms and attitudes. Identity and shared group identities: Social identity theory addresses in-group/out-group dynamics; groups form on commonalities but need not be homogeneous. Shared group memberships can facilitate trust. Identity is shaped through participation in group practices. Using the communities of practice lens (Wenger, 1998), shared group identity is conceptualized via: joint enterprise (shared goals and accountability), mutual engagement (active participation), and shared repertoire (skills, history, culture, discourses). In natural resource management, practices include flood management, information sharing, and decision-making. The framework links learning spaces, trust, and shared identities, acknowledging triggers (e.g., flooding events) and intermediate outcomes (e.g., improved relations, mistrust, power asymmetries).

Study design: A single in-depth case study (Yin, 2014) was conducted to understand how trust and shared group identities influence learning spaces and transboundary cooperation processes in the Zambezi basin. Multiple data sources were used for triangulation: document/literature review, key informant interviews, participant observation, and informal conversations. Case context and phases: The focal phenomenon was transboundary basin cooperation practices, with regional and national actors as units of analysis. The Zambezi basin case was selected due to its active river basin organization (ZAMCOM), a long history of cooperation, and established rapport with stakeholders via the Horizon 2020 DAFNE project. Cooperation processes were analyzed across three phases: Phase 1 (1940s–1960s), Phase 2 (1970s–1980s), and Phase 3 (1990s–2017). Data collection: Document reviews (reports, strategies, protocols; all in English) mapped the history of cooperation and the evolution of trust/identity. The first author attended three basin-wide meetings in Lusaka, Zambia (September 2017): Zambezi Basin Stakeholder Forum (ZBSF), Joint Project Steering Committee (JPSC), and ZAMCOM Technical Subcommittee on Hydrology (ZAMSCOH). These meetings aimed to deliberate among eight riparian states on cooperation and planning; they aided access and rapport building. Interviews: Purposive sampling targeted actors (i) involved in basin management, (ii) belonging to a community of practice, and (iii) holding key national/regional roles. Eighteen in-depth reflective interviews were conducted (mostly face-to-face in Lusaka; one via Skype): Angola (1), Botswana (2), Malawi (1), Mozambique (2), Namibia (3), Tanzania (2), Zambia (2), Zimbabwe (1), Zambezi River Authority (1), and ZAMCOM (3). Interviews reflected on past and current basin processes. Informed consent was obtained; participation was voluntary and based on availability. Limitation: small sample size. Observations and informal conversations: Approximately 10 hours of participant observations were recorded across the three meetings. Informal conversations occurred during breaks and field trips, enhancing understanding of ongoing processes and practices, including the enactment of agreed recommendations. Data handling and analysis: Interviews and meetings were audio-recorded (with consent), transcribed, and coded using MaxQDA. Open and concept coding were conducted in three cycles, generating themes such as cooperation shaping, trust building, and identity markers. Patterns were compared and contrasted to elucidate dynamics of trust and shared identity in social learning processes. Supplementary material lists documents and coding details. Case background: The Zambezi basin spans eight riparian states (Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe), ~1.3 million km², serving ~40 million people. Only ~20% of surface water is economically exploited (hydropower, irrigation, mining/industrial/domestic supply, fisheries). Cooperation history includes Kariba Dam operations and navigation agreements. Cooperation phases: Phase 1 (colonial treaties; liberation movements; hydropower/trade development), Phase 2 (post-independence development priorities; SADCC/SADC; ZACPLAN), Phase 3 (economic/environmental priorities; strategic basin management; ZAMCOM establishment in 2004; ratification in 2011; Zambia’s ratification in 2013; Malawi in process). ZAMCOM coordinates equitable and reasonable utilization via committees and forums (ZBSF, JPSC, ZAMSCOH, JOTC, ZAMTEC) and protocols (e.g., data sharing 2016, notification of planned measures).

- Trust and shared group identities pre-dated formal water cooperation, rooted in cultural/historical ties (e.g., Ubuntu collectivism), liberation history, and regional integration efforts (SADCC/SADC). - Trust evolved across three phases: intuitive trust (shared culture/history) → integrity trust (accountability/participation via regional institutions) → competence trust (capabilities, resources, and power operationalized through ZACPLAN and later ZAMCOM). - Institutional structures (structural-learning spaces) such as SADC water protocols, ZACPLAN, and ZAMCOM created arenas for interaction, deliberation, and reframing, strengthening trust and shared identity over time. - Delays and tensions occurred due to national vs. regional priorities, transparency, and power asymmetries. Notably, Zambia delayed signing/ratifying ZAMCOM (agreement signed 2004; ratified 2011; Zambia ratified 2013), citing sovereignty and equitable utilization concerns, which strained integrity and intuitive trust. - Persistent issues included transparency and timeliness in data/information sharing, especially upstream–downstream dynamics (e.g., Zambia–Mozambique), and questions about ZAMCOM’s technical/legal capacity. - Formalized protocols improved cooperation: the Rules and Procedures for Sharing of Data and Information (2016) and Procedures for Notification of Planned Measures enhanced data sharing and joint planning (e.g., dam synchronization via JOTC; adoption of ZAMWIS by ZRA). Interviewees reported improved access to data post-protocols. - ZAMCOM’s governance (committees, forums, rotational leadership in council of ministers) fostered accountability, inclusivity, and transparency, reinforcing shared group identities and trust. - Learning spaces identified: process-learning (regional integration), structural-learning (SADC, ZACPLAN, ZAMCOM, protocols/tools), and physical-learning (ZBSF, committees). These spaces facilitated social learning outcomes (improved relations, institutionalization, data-sharing norms).

Findings address how trust and shared identities shape learning spaces and, in turn, cooperation. Trust is foundational for social learning and collective action. In the Zambezi basin, trust development followed a trajectory from intuitive (shared culture/history and liberation experiences) to integrity (accountability and participation via regional structures) and ultimately competence (capacity and institutional authority through ZAMCOM). Shared group identity, nurtured through long-term regional processes (SADC) and basin-specific practices (ZACPLAN/ZAMCOM), catalyzed trust and sustained engagement. Breakdowns in trust—stemming from transparency issues, power asymmetries, and tensions between national and regional priorities—slowed deliberations (e.g., protracted ZAMCOM negotiations) and hampered learning. Structural-learning spaces (ZAMCOM) were instrumental in rebuilding trust by providing clear rules, roles, and mechanisms for interaction, conflict resolution, and decision-making. Protocols on data sharing and notification institutionalized norms, enabling reframing and joint action (e.g., synchronized dam operations). Nurturing shared identities (interconnectedness, interdependency, mutual respect, responsibility) and leveraging communities of practice contributed to mutual engagement and a shared repertoire, underpinning integrity and competence trust. Concrete institutional provisions (e.g., ZAMCOM Articles 13–16 on equity, participation, data sharing) illustrate how rule-based environments promote social learning and cooperation. Overall, the interplay of trust, identity, and learning spaces explains the emergence and consolidation of transboundary cooperation in the basin, while highlighting vulnerabilities when trust declines.

This study examined how trust and shared group identities shaped processes within learning spaces and influenced transboundary cooperation in the Zambezi basin. Integrating literature on social learning, trust, social identity, and communities of practice, we used learning spaces (arenas for interaction, deliberation, and reframing) to evaluate emergent processes. Trust and shared identities were interrelated and crucial to actor interactions and cooperation. Declines in trust stagnated social learning, while leveraging shared identities helped stimulate cooperation—though not guaranteeing it, given the dynamic nature of relational features. Process-, structural-, and physical-learning spaces (e.g., regional integration; ZAMCOM institutions, tools, and protocols; stakeholder forums) supported changes in understanding and practice over time, fostering social learning and institutionalization. Structural-learning spaces enabled binding commitments and enduring shared practices, contingent on prior development of trust and shared identity. Contributions include advancing social learning scholarship by explicitly incorporating relational features, and offering practical insights for transboundary water governance: build trust by understanding its drivers, nurture shared identities, enhance transparency (e.g., data sharing), promote inclusive participation, and address equity and power asymmetries through clear institutional rules. Future research should explore additional relational features (e.g., power) in social learning, test the framework in deliberative processes and other cases, and broaden empirical bases with larger, more diverse interview samples.

- Single-case design limits generalizability; analytical generalization is to theory rather than populations. - Interview sample size was small (18) relative to the basin’s stakeholder diversity; future work should include broader samples across riparian states and actor types. - Reliance on document review for historical phases may introduce source biases; triangulation mitigated but cannot eliminate this. - Data confidentiality restricts public access to datasets. - Findings are context-specific; applicability to other basins requires caution and further testing, including in deliberative learning settings.