STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

Department of Economic History and International Relations

Master's Thesis in International Relations
Spring Term 2021

Student: Felicia Widing

Supervisor: Elisabeth Corell

Water and conflict

- A case of hydropower, justice and water rights in Albania

Keywords: [Water conflict, Water grabbing, Hydrosocial, Justice, Echelons of

rights]
Abstract

This thesis concerns the struggles related to a hydrosocial conflict prompted by the plan for
hydropower development in the river Vjosa, Albania. Despite the controversial nature of
hydropower, the quest for renewable energy has increased the interest in hydropower
development globally. Renewables require a large amount of water, and the benefits are often
reallocated to powerful players, which has caused concerns over water grabbing, power,
justice, and rights. This study aims to examine the linked levels of contestation in the conflict
over the hydrosocial territory of Vjosa, through legal and non-legal mechanisms. Further, the
thesis uncovers underlying values and assumptions regarding the river and hydropower. For
this purpose, the theoretical framework of political ecology and Echelons of rights are used.
The echelons of rights are used to analyze the material, while political ecology is used as a
lens for the overarching framework. The Political ecology lens on justice and territorialization
contribute to enhanced understandings of the importance of social movements in contesting
injustices and mismanagement of the environment. By interviewing social movements and
domestic energy companies, as well as analyzing the environmental impact assessment, the
results indicate that the understanding of the river and hydropower both differ and coincide,
and how legal instruments do not only suppress people but can be used as a tool by social
movements.
Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor Elisabeth Corell for providing support and encouraging
words during this process.

A big thank you to my family and friends for their support and practical help. Especially, and
maybe most importantly, reminding me of the world outside of this thesis.

I would also like to thank all of my interviewees. Without them, this thesis would not have
been possible.

Finally, I would like to thank Maja and Lucia, for providing company and support during the
lonely times of writing a thesis during a pandemic.
Table of contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Research Aim & Research Questions ........................................................................... 4
1. 2 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 5
1. 3 Disposition ...................................................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical framework................................................................................... 6
2.1 Political ecology .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Political ecology and water ..................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Water justice and rights........................................................................................ 11
2.2 The Echelons of rights .................................................................................................. 12
2.2.1 Echelons of rights analysis .................................................................................... 13
3. Previous research .......................................................................................... 15
4. Methodology .................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Methods and materials ................................................................................................. 21
4.3 Semi structured Interviews.......................................................................................... 22
4.4 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 24
4.6 Critique of method and material ................................................................................ 24
5. Results ............................................................................................................ 25
5.1 The neoliberal turn and the conflict of hydropower ................................................. 25
5. 2 The four echelons of conflict....................................................................................... 27
5.2.1 Conflict over resources ......................................................................................... 27
5.2.2 Conflict over rules ................................................................................................. 30
5.2.3 Conflict over regulatory control .......................................................................... 32
5.2.4 Conflict over problems and solutions .................................................................. 34
6. Discussion ...................................................................................................... 36
7. Conclusions.................................................................................................... 42
8. References...................................................................................................... 43
9. Appendices..................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A. Interviewees and personal communication ............................................... 52
Appendix B. Interview guide ............................................................................................. 52
1. Introduction
Global environmental politics are complex, involving a range of actors, inter-state relations,
international law, and international organizations addressing environmental problems (Vogler,
2014, 342). Further, development is contested, and different views on governance have
caused conflict between individual and collective interests (Hanlin and Brown, 2013). Water
issues are especially contested, and the governance of water resource can be referred to as
wicked problems since management often involve contradictory and complex problems,
surrounded by competing values and decisions. Dealing with wicked problems is often highly
controversial with different subjective understandings of reality (Wester, de Vos, and
Woodhill, 2004; Whatmore, 2009). It creates an uneven distribution of benefits as well as
conflicts over different development views (Hanlin and Brown, 2013). One of the reasons for
conflict is due to water governance practice projects, such as the construction of dams and
hydropower (Chellaney, 2011) causing interventions in the hydro-social cycle. These
renewable energy transformations could be understood through global patterns, where
conflicts emerge due to different interpretations and values between the actors involved and
the economy and its instruments for globalization (Hess and Fenrich, 2017).

Widely applied water governance practices, such as constructing water infrastructure, are
globally regarded as expert-oriented, technical, and/or scientific issues (Sayan, 2016) and
proponents acknowledge hydropower as important in solving a range of development
problems, while opponents state that these are outweighed by significant cost (Keating, 2019).
The Paris agreement commits countries in the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
sustainable energy policy is essential to decarbonize the economy (Kuzemko, 2019).
Hydropower is further acknowledged by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change as a key cornerstone in the implementation of the Paris Agreement
(UNFCCC, 2021).

The means to achieve a low carbon energy system and sustainability has become a contested
space, with different heterogeneous claims from different actors, and with uneven distribution
of the negative impacts (Avila, 2018). Even though there has been a decrease and dismantle
of hydropower in many developed countries due to its socio-environmental issues, it is now
undergoing a new construction boom, mainly financed by foreign direct investments in
developing countries with emerging economies (Moran, et al. 2018, 11891), narrated globally

2
in the name of sustainable development (Cole, Elliott and Strobl, 2014) and rhetorically
detached from socio-economic contexts favoring market-driven and technocratic natures
(Sayan, 2016, 3). The amount of ecological distribution conflicts registered in EJatlas reflects
how these tensions are growing globally and risks have been spotted at multiple locations
around the world where conflicts arise over local impacts, repression, and criminalization
(EJatlas, 2021).

Renewables are spatially extensive, demanding more surface area than e.g fossils to produce a
certain amount of power (Scheidel and Sorman, 2012). Land and water grabbing might
therefore become a growing issue in the expansion of renewables (Kay and Franco, 2014),
(re)allocating natural resources into the hands of a few. Changing global dynamics of climate,
energy, finance, and food has resulted in a new interest in the water perspectives of resource
grabbing (White et al., 2012) and for questions on justice and environmental sustainability.
While land grabbing is well researched within International relations (Schilling, Saulich and
Engwicht, 2018), water as both a target and a phenomenon has received less attention
(Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013). According to Franco et al (2013), examining water
grabbing requires an understanding of questions such as water rights, and by informing and
transforming the global debates on water issues, power could be steered towards social and
environmental justice (Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013).

One of the most dynamic developments of hydropower is set to take place in the Balkan
region (Schwarz and Vienna, 2020) and all Western Balkan countries are planning large
investments in hydropower, encouraged by the EU’s ambitious climate and energy targets
(Bankwatch Network, 2021). In total, 3431 projects are planned and a majority of the
hydropower plants are planned in the rivers of Albania, despite the fact that this has caused
opposition with the local population and scientists (Charmberlain, 2018). Renewable energy,
especially hydropower, remains a top priority for the government (National agency of natural
resources, 2019, 9) and efforts to improve the business climate in the country have resulted in
an influx of foreign investment in the field of hydropower (Dujisin, 2010).

Although required by Albanian law, affected communities are often neither informed nor
consulted before the construction begins (EJatlas, 2021). The EU Commission has stated that
some of the most dramatic cases for infrastructure ignoring local impacts were caused in
Albania, where the construction of dams violated national and international regulation for

3
environmental protection, and local people lost assets without being compensated (Krauze &
Vallesi, 2018, 7). The Hydropower projects, known to have negative environmental and social
impacts (Schwarz, 2012; Vejnovic, 2017), have historically caused conflicts in the country.
Between the year 2012-2016 conflicts over hydropower caused 36 arrests and 6 causalities,
including one murder and one attempted murder. Water rights are considered to be the main
cause of conflict (Quendro, 2017, 6-7).

The river Vjosa is often referred to as Europe’s last wild river. It flows from Greece where it
is named Aoos, to Albania where it is named Vjosa, and flows into the sea just north of the
Norta lagoon. It has a highly unique biodiversity and livelihoods depending on it. In total, 8
dams are planned in Vjosa, and an additional 23 hydropower plants are planned on its
tributaries. Resistance towards the building of the dams has been fierce from the beginning
and is still ongoing (Save the Blue Heart of Europe, 2021).

This paper examines the opposition of civil society against hydropower development within
the waterscape Vjosa. To analyze the different dimensions of conflict and contribute to water
grabbing literature, the ‘echelons of rights analysis’ (ERA) is used (Zwarteveen and Boelens,
2014; Boelens, 2015).

1.1 Research Aim & Research Questions

The governance of water is a complex issue, causing conflict globally. Even though
hydropower is globally promoted as sustainable, the literature on water grabs and hydropower
are increasing, and questions of justice are emerging. There is a need to study environmental
conflicts to grasp struggles and contribute to more socially just and environmentally
sustainable arrangements (Scheidel et al., 2018). This thesis will contribute to international
relations and to the literature on water grabbing by providing a case study and hopefully
contribute to the global debate on water issues and governance and inform policy, through the
focus on contestation and rights. Due to the planned hydropower boom in Albania, and the
history of differentiated impacts and conflicts, this thesis will study the contestation and right
in the conflict over water through the case of hydropower. The aim of the thesis is to examine
the linked levels of contestation in the conflict over the hydrosocial territory of Vjosa.
Drawing on the echelons of rights, I will achieve this by answering the following questions:

4
 • Who has access to the resource and the hydraulic infrastructure, and for what purpose?
• What are the rules in conflict?
• What are the regulatory control and strategies used by different stakeholers?
• What are the underlying values used to articulate problems and solutions?

1. 2 Limitations
The theoretical framework of political ecology, water justice, and echelons of rights has
guided the research in this thesis. It provided a framework for interpreting the research
findings. The theoretical framework also provided a background for the collection of
empirical material and implied a set of ideas to structure the collection and analysis of data. It
has guided the purpose, the aim, collection, and analysis.

The research is limited to the river Vjosa, presenting empirical material collected from actors
involved in the water conflict, with a special focus on NGOs as important counterweights to
prevailing valuation languages. Originally, I received a scholarship to conduct fieldwork in
Albania, but due to the ongoing pandemic and restrictions, I could not travel to Albania.
Accessibility to some actors was therefore out of my control and I have had to adapt the
strategy and method of the research to current conditions. Further, some documents were not
available in English and could therefore not be included in my analysis, such as water laws.
Possible biases are accounted for in relevant sections.

1. 3 Disposition
The thesis is structured in seven different sections. After this introduction, the theoretical
framework and the analytical framework is presented. Second, an overview of existing
research on resource and conflict is presented, with a focus on water grabbing, justice and
rights, and the hydropower discourse1. This is followed by a presentation of my research
design, methods, and ethical implications. A short presentation of Albania, the neoliberal turn,
and hydropower development is presented before the analytical tools re applied to my
empirical data and presented to answer my research questions, followed by a discussion.
Finally, a conclusion is drawn from the analysis of my empirical material.

1
When referring to discourse in this paper, I refer to discourse as a general term and specific ideas, not to
discourse analysis

5
2. Theoretical framework
Previous research shows that resource governance and conflict is a complex issue that has
been researched through various disciplines (Schilling, Saulich and Engwicht, 2018). Water
conflicts relate to more than resource abundance and causal effects, it includes aspects of
justice and power and is not solely a technical issue. The aim of the thesis is to examine the
linked levels of contestation in the conflict over the hydrosocial territory of Vjosa, through the
case of hydropower. The theoretical framework will structure the analysis.

International relations has engaged in the study of hydropower, water, and conflict through
the relations of international actors and international flows (Wolf, Yoffe and Giordano, 2003;
Rieu-clarke, 2015; De Stefano et al., 2017; Mohtar et al., 2018; Lavers and Dye, 2020). The
link between water and conflict is often researched through concepts such as scarcity (e.g see
Grünwald, 2018), acknowledging a causal link between scarcity and conflict, and hydropower
is considered as one critical factor that can contribute to this conflict (Sovacool and Walter,
2019). In 1995, The world bank president suggested that “the wars of the next century will be
about water” (qtd. in Wolf, A. T., Kramer, A., Carius, A., & Dabelko, 2005, 83). However,
on an international scale, it seems like water more often leads to cooperation than conflict
(Grech-Madin et al., 2018), and on a local scale, conflict seems to be part of complex
dynamics of different trade-offs. According to Hileman, Hicks and Jones (2016), conflicts
tend to be overlooked when water scarcity is not the causal factor (Hileman, Hicks and Jones,
2016). Zwarteveen and Boelens (2014) argue that research on water contestations need to
analyze why certain views on justice reproduce or challenge relations of power. They note
that there is a “strong policy push to make water rights transferable through the
uniformization of rights systems”, interpreted by some scholars as “enclosure of commons” or
“accumulation by dispossession”, which will cause a more structural, or “silent takeover”,
rather than causing water wars (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).

Critical normative approach of green theory within IR offers a differing positioning then
economic theories (Eckersley, 2013, 248) and an ecological view of green theory offers a
more radical view, and political ecology, rooted in interdisciplinary science, allows an
ecological perspective on political thought and a political understanding of the environment in
International relations (Dyer, 2017). I believe that political ecology is suitable as a framework
for this thesis, since it offers alternatives to neo-Malthusian understandings of water and
conflict, beyond causal relationships (Robbins, 2004), and recognizes power relations as

6
essential in access and use to resources, as well as knowledge justice claims about the
environment, and explores civil society resistance and articulated claims.

My analysis takes a post-positivist approach, inspired by critical theory and critical realism.
Critical theory critiques society through analysis of political oppression and construction of
knowledge, with the aim of changing society (Forsyth, 2003). This was considered an
appropriate point of departure due to previous knowledge of human rights violations (ABA,
2019) and deficiencies in public participation mechanisms in the hydropower development in
Albania (European commission, 2020). In order to study the water conflict and different
valuation languages, I employ social constructivism to look at particular interests and
perceptions. The nature of knowledge is informed insight and the material has contributed to
such insights through various rounds of reflection. I follow a transactional and subjectivist
epistemology, where the researcher and situated others might influence the research (Guba
and Lincoln, 1994). Reflection of my role as a researcher is therefore important throughout
the thesis. The results from this study are the reflected realities in the specific context, by the
researcher.

Political ecology is used as a critical point of departure for this thesis and for interpreting the
results. First, political ecology will be presented, followed by an understanding of water
justice and rights through a political ecology lens.

2.1 Political ecology

Political ecology emphasizes the relationship between nature, politics, and economics, but its
definitions vary. Some stress the importance of political economy (Blaikie and Brookfield,
1987), while other look at environmental change (Watts, 1985) or political institutions (Peet
and Watts, 1996). At its heart, political ecology seeks to explain the ‘complex relations
between Nature and Society through careful analysis of social forms of access and control
over resources’ (Watts and Peet, 2004, 4). As such, central to political ecology is the idea of
access to natural resources, and how some people, some of the time, are able to control it to
exclude others (Matthews and Geheb, 2014). Political ecology hence contributes with an
understanding of how nature can be transformed into a resource related to human needs and
practices (Le Billon, 2001). Justice is at the core of these studies.

For the purpose of this thesis, I will follow Joan Martinez Aliers (2002) definition of political
ecology as the study of ecological distribution conflicts, referring to access and control over

7
natural resources. It can be defined as collective actions responding to environmental
intervention (including human communities) (Martinez Alier, 2002). It could be viewed as a
critique against environmental economics, reducing resources into market prices, and
internalizing externalities into the economic system, often studied as economic distribution
conflicts. Escobar (1996) criticizes this line of work for not dealing with the ecological and
cultural dimension, and ecological distribution conflicts exist in “the context of economies,
cultures, and forms of knowledge” (Escobar, 2006, 8).

Poststructural thinking has become influential in thinkings of power in Political ecology.

Escobar (1996) argues that in the context of power, the study of the relationship between
society and nature needs to consider discourses and practices constructing nature. A post-
structuralist political ecology hence reflects what Escobar refers to as “the growing belief that
nature is socially constructed” (Escobar, 1996, 325). He further describes how nature and
capital have been articulated by different regimes, exemplifying with sustainable
development. From this perspective, developed reflects a certain discourse of nature and
discourse reflects specific articulations of knowledge and power, through which social reality
comes into being. Escobar (1996) claims that capital is entering an “ecological phase”, where
aspects of nature become internal to capital (ibid, 326). According to Escobar, since the
launching of the sustainable development discourse, there has since been a reinforcing effect
of epistemologies and technologies visions, searching for ways to manage nature and
resources in ways to make the most out of it (ibid). The economic, ecological and cultural are
intertwined, and by unpacking the articulations of nature, dominant assumptions about nature
and society are put forth.

2.1.1 Political ecology and water

The evolving field of political ecology of water is inspiring to our understanding of nature and
society (e.g Heynen, Kaika and Swyngedouw, 2005; Boelens, 2009; Cook and Bakker, 2012;
Rodríguez-Labajos and Martínez-Alier, 2015), and explicitly holds an understanding of
society, nature, and technology as mutually constitutive, forming hydrosocial networks
(Swyngedouw, 2009).

Political ecologists have questioned the understanding of water as ‘the hydrological cycle’,
through which water is often seen as a commodity, through a technological and economic
lens, to be extracted and used for development (Rodríguez-Labajos and Martínez-Alier,

8
2015). Instead, they chose to speak of water using the term hydrosocial (Cook and Bakker,
2012; Linton and Budds, 2014; Duarte-Abadía, Boelens and Roa-Avendaño, 2015; Boelens et
al., 2016; Adams et al., 2019). The hydrosocial cycle is defined by Linton & Budds (2014,
175) as a “socio-natural process by which water and society make and remake each other
over space and time” (Linton and Budds, 2014). It draws on thinking of the social
construction of nature. Through the lens of political ecology, water flows to money and
power, and water and water services favor the powerful (Heynen, Kaika and Swyngedouw,
2005). In the case of Albania, the access to the water and the hydraulic infrastructure hence
reflects power relations. The notion of the hydrosocial is of importance for our understanding
of the socio-nature and relating power relations.

The notion of hydrosocial territories is another aspect of the hydrosocial cycle. It is described
by Boelens (2016) as “the outcome of interactions in which the contents, presumed
boundaries and connections between nature and society are produced by human imagination,
social practices and related knowledge system” (ibid, 2). This is for instance evident when
water governance practices cause interventions in a territory. A hydrosocial territory can be
imagined, materialized or planned and have contested functions and values. The hydrosocial
territory creates inclusion and exclusion, defines development, and causes uneven distribution
of benefits and burdens. Projects and interventions often correspond to needs elsewhere.
Different visions about the world and desired changes creates a hydrosocial territory, by
humanizing nature and water, based on political, social and cultural visions (Boelens, 2016).
Through the struggles of different visions, actors try to define and influence water
governance. Examining water and hydraulic infrastrcture is important in the context of this
thesis to understand “who – and based on what imaginaries and knowledge systems –
designs(ed), controls(ed) and has(d) the power to (re)produce specific hydrosocial networks
and territories” (Boelens, 2016, 4). Actors seek to install their own regimes, involving
relationships, rules, and social actions. Actors have different power to realize their
representation fo territory (Hommes, Boelens and Maat, 2016). Through the lens of political
ecology, the understanding of hydrosocial territory will contribute to understandings of water
governance, and how the construction of territories generates inequalities in benefits for
different actors. Further, it highlights how the dominant ways of constructing environmental
problems cause political exclusion and misrecognition, and how dominant solutions are
challenged by alternative visionings. From this understanding, the notion of the hydrosocial
offers an alternative vision to the dominant neoliberal thinking of water.

9
According to olitical ecology and its engagement with water issues, calls for justice take
various forms, such as water grabbing, which causes ecological distribution conflicts globally.
Injustices are central to this literature, as well as water privatization and its legal frames and
how water benefits private interests, both foreign and domestic (Mehta, Veldwisch and
Franco, 2012b). Water grabbing is ultimately a source of control grabbing, and the power to
control the resource and benefit from it, which draws on Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) theory of
access. According to this theory, access is defined as “the ability to derive benefits from
things” (Ribot and Peluso, 2003,153). This is often further discussed as “accumulation of
dispossession”, illustrated by Harvey (2003) with numerous capitalist activates that cause
degradation, and by drawing on the example of privatization of common property, in which
states usually have a key role (Harvey 2003. 67; 148). From this point of view, large
hydropower plants are often justified since it contributes to development and de-carbonization
known as what is best for the common good or “local pain for national gain” (Roy, 2000).
Water hence plays a key role in questions of justice, as well as water privatization and its
legal frames and how it benefits private interest.

However, I will expand on the theory of access by drawing on Franco et al (2013), stating that
water grabbing is “the capturing of control, not just of the water itself, but also of the power
to decide how this will be used—by whom, when, for how long and for what purposes—in
order to control the benefits of use” (Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013, 1654). By this
definition, water grabbing moves beyond solely the struggle for resources and acknowledges
the struggle for decision-making power, and enclosure of the commons by privatization.
According to de Bont et al., (2016) all of these levels of contestations are emphasized in the
echelons of rights framework (de Bont et al., 2016). It is useful for studying confrontation
over governance and water resources and can contribute to an understanding of water
grabbing, which according to Kay and Franco (2014) requires an understanding of rights (Kay
and Franco, 2014).

Drawing on presented post-structuralism and Marxist thought, I will look at the privatization
of natural resources, and how different articulations of knowledge and power. Before
presenting the Echelons of rights analysis, our understanding of water justice and rights,
crucial for the analytical framework, will be presented through the lens of political ecology.

10
2.1.2 Water justice and rights
Water justice can be considered as an application of the wider notion of environmental justice
(Rodríguez-Labajos and Martínez-Alier, 2015, 539). Justice is needed to understand
exclusion, social struggle, or political claims, and Perreault (2014) argues that while much
understanding of justice refers to equity, equity can not be understood apart from a theory of
justice and understanding of rights (Perreault, 2014). Zwarteveen and Boelens (2014) provide
an understanding of water justice through the lens of Political ecology which draws on its
relational character and contextuality (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).

Fraser (2000) and Schlosberg (2004) argue that theories that draw on distributive models of
justice do not acknowledge “social, cultural, symbolic and institutional conditions underlying
poor distributions in the first place” (Schlosberg, 2004, p. 518). Literature on environmental
justice has contributed with a broadened understanding of rights, which moves beyond
distributional issues. Schlosberg (2004) draws on Fraser (2000) and suggests a conception of
justice, which besides distributional justice includes procedural justice (decision making) and
recognition (e.g specific practices and rights) (Schlosberg, 2004). Zwarteveen and Boelens
(2014) suggest that water justice should draw on Schlosberg’s conception of justice, and also
include a fourth sphere of water justice referred to as ‘socio-ecological justice’ since
resources are embedded in delicate socio-environmental environments and are important to
livelihood security (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014). Yaka (2019) frames socio-ecological
justice as “the relational existence of human and non‐human ecologies as a matter of justice”
(Yaka, 2019). According to Zwarteveen and Boelens (2014), concepts of efficiency and
modernity are important in understanding the fight for water rights and justice, and water is
often framed in neoliberal thinking, hence reflecting certain political ideology and beliefs
regarding nature and development (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).

I recognize both the material and economic dimension (redistribution) as well as its political
and cultural dimension (participation and recognition), taking place in a hydrosocial territory
of struggles for socio-ecological justice. According to Boelens (2009), legal justice
constructions proclaim uniform justice where all are equal to the law but where the state has
the decision-making power. It ignores cultural characteristics and interests. Formally
accredited justice and socially perceived justice are needed to understand (in)justice (Boelens,
2009). From our understanding of water justice, rights are explicit to particular settings, and
norms and water control practices constitute rights (see Boelens & Zwarteveen, 2005).

11
Another important aspect in the contestation over water and water justice is scale, including
an understanding of how scales are used by hydrosocial dynamics and networks through
political struggle (Brown and Purcell, 2005). For instance, appreciating justice in
interventions in a watershed depends on the boundaries set for that watershed (Zwarteven and
Boelens, 2014). The choice of scale itself could be contested. Further, Zwarteven and Boelens
(2014) argue that scales could also be used to promote a certain development view, such as
when interventions in water cause injustices but are viewed as a mean for development by the
government through financial contributions. This relates to our previous understanding of
processes of dispossession as an integral part of capitalism on a global scale (Harvey, 2003).

2.2 The Echelons of rights

What should be evident by now is that water problems in political ecology tend to be
contested, and the production of hydrosocial territories is related to the political ecology of
access and control over resources. Those who benefit from a resource in material and
economic terms often imply negative outcomes for others. To ground the analysis, the
boundaries between nature, society, and technology are questioned by studying a hydrosocial
territory. Further, I have conceptualized water justice and rights which is of importance for
our understanding of the echelons of rights.

The echelons of rights analysis (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014) is useful for studying linked
levels of abstraction within a resource management conflict (Stoltenborg and Boelens, 2016).
ERA can be applied to ‘conceptually and empirically distinguish several mutually linked
levels of abstraction within a natural resource management (e.g., water governance) conflict’
(Stoltenborg and Boelens, 2016, 455). The framework departs from a political ecology
understanding of water contestation and justice, and acknowledges the importance of scale
and jumping scale to make injustices disappear (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).

The echelons of rights analysis was presented at The Third World Water Forum in 2003 by
Boelens (2003) and is highlighted by the alliance Justicia Hídrica/Water Justice 2 as a means to
“understand processes of water and water rights accumulation and the resulting conflict”
(Justicia Hídrica, 2021). It has been used in various studies over water contestation e.g in the

2
Justicia Hídrica/Water Justice is a broad international alliance, working on research, capacity building, and
action, with the objective of contributing to water justice

12
study of struggle for water rights/ water rights arenas in the Andes (Boelens, 2008b) water
grabbing in Tanzania (de Bont et al., 2016) and water grabbing and mobilization in southern
Spain (Prieto López, Duarte-Abadía and Boelens, 2021). Previous research has mainly
focused on the local level, e.g the people living in the direct area where intervention in the
water has caused conflicts, but it has also been used by Taylor, Longboat and Grafton (2019)
to provide a justice critique of OECD´s principles of water governance from the perspective
of indigenous rights. Further, it has been proven to be useful in studying how different actors,
such as Business groups, social actors, and the government, defend their rights (Prieto López,
Duarte-Abadía and Boelens, 2021).

2.2.1 Echelons of rights analysis

This section will describe the Echelons of rights, providing an analytical framework to study
the linked levels of water contestation. An introduction and a discussion of its building blocks
will be provided along with a clarification for how it will be used to answer the research
questions.

The analysis consists of four echelons, which can be referred to as the four R:s, namely
Resources, Rules, Regulatory control, and Regimes of representation. First, access and
distribution of resources are examined. Further, it looks at rights and obligations, roles and
responsibilities of users, criteria for allocation based on the heterogeneous values and
meanings given to the resource. The third step is analyzing decision-making power. In the
fourth echelon, all the echelons are linked together into one convincing framework
(Stoltenborg and Boelens, 2016). The framework draws on legal pluralism perspectives, but
further acknowledges strategies employed by different actors, including non-legal
mechanisms. This is of importance to include access to information, and material means, as
well as the context for the legal systems.

Resources
The first echelon refers to struggle over resources, e.g struggle over water, access, and
withdrawal, as well as to material means to concretize water rights, such as technological
artifacts, labor, financial resources, and labor (Boelens, 2008a). Important in this echelon is
who has access to the water and the hydraulic infrastructure (Stoltenborg and Boelens, 2016),
and answers the questions “Who has access to the resource and the hydraulic infrastructure,
and for what purpose?”

13
Rules
The second echelon acknowledges that the conflicts also occur over contents of rules, norms,
and laws, determining distribution and allocation of water (Stoltenborg and Boelens, 2016).
Key elements are the bundles of rights and obligations, roles and responsibilities of users, the
diverse ideas and constructs of fairness, and the criteria for allocations based on values and
meanings assigned to water (Boelens, 2008). This echelon answers the question ‘What are the
rules in conflict?’

Regulatory control
The third echelon acknowledges the contestation over water in regards to struggles over
authority, and differentiation of access to decision-making (Boelens, 2008a). This echelon
will focus on the decision making powers and question the dominant value and institutional
framework in policies. This echelon further acknowledges scalar politics in strategies used by
the actors (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014) and answers the question ‘what are the regulatory
control and strategies used by different stakeholders?’

Regimes of representation
The last echelon binds all the echelons together, studying the contestation regarding problems
and solutions. The regimes of representation “sets the rules of the game” by legitimizing the
use and distribution of a resource; the contents of rules; the regulatory control or authority”.
Linkages are made between the moral, political and institutional linkages among the technical
and social, human and natural, theoretical and practical worlds of water (Boelens, 2008a).
This echelon will focus on how actors articulate and legitimize projects by looking into how
they define the projects, and answers the questions ‘What are the underlying values used to
articulate problems and solutions?’

Most of the research using the framework has conducted discourse analysis to analyze
underlying values. However, de Bont et al., (2016) concluded that discourses had less
explanatory value in their study, where conflicting narratives were mainly constructed in
relations to different interests, mainly economic (de Bont et al., 2016). Inspired by their
conclusions, I will adjust the analytical framework and sort the material using content
analysis. Even though the framework has mainly emphasized the local level in terms of the
people living in the area of interventions, I will test the framework for another context, in the

14
conflict in Albania. I will analyze the Hydropower development in Vjosa as a hydrosocial
territory partly planned by foreign investors and supported by the Albanian government,
confronted by the alternative perspectives presented by the campaign “Save the blue heart of
Europe” and its local partners in Albania. The notion of the hydrosocial explores the
conflicting valuation of the development and water rights, and draws links between
ecological, cultural, and economic aspects. From our theoretical understanding, water is often
viewed through neoliberal thinking, while PE offers the notion of the hydrocosial for
alternative understanding.

3. Previous research
Before moving on to methodology, I will present a summary of some of the existing literature
regarding water conflict and rights.

Some key strands of literature within the debate on resource governance and conflict depart
from the resource curse, environmental security,y and land grabbing. The resource curse
refers to when a country has an abundance of a resource, which might negatively affect its
socio-economic development (e.g see Le Billon, 2001; Coller and Hoeffler, 2005; Frankel,
2010) Thomas Homer-Dixon has been much influential in the work on environmental security
(eg see Schilling et al., 2017), focusing on the link between scarcity and conflict, drawing on
neo-Malthusian perspectives (Homer-Dixon, 1994). However, these perspectives focus on the
correlation between resource abundance and conflict, or correlation between variables of
climate and conflict and has received critique from political ecologists, emphasizing the risk
of these oversimplifications and the importance to engage with the social, political, and
institutional contexts in resource-related conflicts (Peluso and Watts, 2001). Political ecology
avoids this environmental determinism, instead emphasizing uneven power relations and
justice (Le Billon and Duffy, 2018). Monsees, Beveridge, and Moss (2016) write that most
studies on water and conflict tend to solely focus on physically violent conflict, even though
conflict more often take the form of social or political tension (Monsees, Beveridge and Moss,
2016).

The field of water grabbing has not been explored to the same extent as land grabbing.
Literature on land grabbing provides research on social conflict related to large-scale (foreign)
acquisitions of natural resources. One of the strengths identified by Schilling, Saulich, and
Engwicht (2018) in the literature on land grabbing is its ability to highlight the impact of

15
global demands on a local level. However, a gap on the other hand is the linkage between
conflict and grabbing (Schilling, Saulich and Engwicht, 2018). Further, authors have
acknowledged that water rather than land might be the main reason for land grabbing and that
in many cases water is the object of the grab itself (Mehta, Veldwisch and Franco, 2012a).

Political ecologists have been prominent with research within the field of water grabbing and
hydropower, and often engage with exploring the politicization of the environment via
conflicts (Matthews, 2012; Bene, 2018; Shrestha, Joshi and Clément, 2019). Research often
highlights that there are large-scale business deals involved in the grabbing, referring to land
area and capital (Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013). However, this fixation of size has
resulted in a focus on water volume instead of access to water concerns (MAB, 2009). Mehta,
Veldwisch and Franco (2012) provides a broadened understanding of water grabbing
and directs attention to the benefits of the use of water reallocated to powerful players not
only through land deals, but also through mining, energy and hydropower projects (Mehta,
Veldwisch and Franco, 2012a). A common denominator amongst these different applications
is the dimension of injustice and power, thus the notion of ‘grabbing’. Further, water
privatization and its legal frames, as well as increased involvement of private actors in the
construction of infrastructures and the diversion of waters to benefit private interests, both
foreign and domestic, is considered important in this literature. Privatization targets both the
infrastructure and the service, as well as the resource itself (Bakker, 2007; Wagle et al., 2012;
Block and Nelson, 2015).

Literature on water grabbing and hydropower points to the physical capturing of waters
through infrastructures, as well as to the legal frames forged by powerful actors to secure the
long-term exploitation of water resources (Işlar, 2012). Kay and Franco (2014) argue that
narratives justifying water grabbing often refer to land as “marginal” or resources as
underexploited, or the economic scarcity perspective. Reforms of water and energy sectors are
often promoted by regional and multilateral banks, and privatization and deregulation is
promoted in the name of efficiency (Kay and Franco, 2014). Avila (2018) further examines
renewable energy conflicts and shows that proponents often argue from an ecological
modernization perspective, while opponents tend to highlight environmental justice, or
environmental conservation (Avila, 2018). Van Koppen (2007) concluded that poor
hydrological knowledge and weak enforcement often provide opportunities for investors and
provides backing from the state (Van Koppen, 2007).

16
Mehta et al (2012) describe how water grabbing usually takes place, and the impacts on the
environment and social groups. She refers to the fluid nature of water and its hydrologic
complexity, interacting with fuzziness between illegality, formal and informal rights, unequal
power relations, uncertainties regarding jurisdictions and administrative boundaries as well as
negotiation processes, the slippery nature of water. Combined with material, symbolic and
discursive characteristics of water, the slippery nature of water causes sites for conflict
impacting rights (Mehta, Veldwisch and Franco, 2012a). De Bont et al., (2016) refers Mehta
in their study, describing how companies made use of the fluid nature of water, combined
with technical and institutional knowledge, to secure access over water in the case of
contestation of water distribution between peasants and agribusinesses in Nduruma, Tanzania
(de Bont et al., 2016)

According to Kay and Franco (2014) hydropower is one of the key drivers in water grabbing
and Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch (2013) argues for the need to bring water issues to the fore
in the context of resource grabbing and acknowledged the need to include questions about
water rights (Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013). If viewing water as the primary object of
grabbing it causes reallocations between formal and informal water rights, and the benefits of
use. They exemplify by referring to the case study by Işlar (2012), concluding that
hydropower development in Turkey was made possible through neoliberal reforms generating
formal rights to rivers and stram for a specific amount of time (Işlar, 2012 in: Franco, Mehta
and Veldwisch, 2013). Further, Sosa and Zwarteveen (2012) show how private mining
operations in Peru cause distributional concerns, changing the amount of quality available to
downstream users (Sosa and Zwarteveen, 2012).

In the collection Liquid relations different authors contributes with a deeper understanding of
the relationship between water rights, legal complexity and power. They argue that it is not
only access to water that is contested, but that conflict also occur over norms, laws and in
decision-making power. Further, they argue that public decision making often serves
symbolically, differentiating powerful and powerless (Roth, Boelens and Zwarteveen, 2005).
Further, in a study of water grabbing and water rights by Stoltenborg and Boelens (2016) they
show the importance of scalar politics, and how multi-actor alliances were able to strengthen
the countermovement discourse towards gold mining.

17
The doctoral dissertation by Del bene (2018) is interesting to highlight due to its focus on
social movements and water grabbing. With the help of Political ecology and environmental
justice, Del Bene shows how social movements have contributed to broader understandings of
territory and the relations of people within it, through their struggle against water grabbing
and dams and different values around water. This is exemplified with claims such as ‘water is
life’. Further, she argues that the spiritual dimension should not be neglected, since many
burial sites are located close to the rivers. The loss of these places hence causes a loss of
connection to the place. She concludes by stating that hydropower is undergoing a
construction boom in new areas in the search for sustainable energy. Since Balkan is
especially targeted, there is a need to expand research on conflict to these areas (Bene, 2018)

When reviewing literature within the area of socioeconomic impacts and conflict of
hydropower I found an amount of research, especially with a focus on hydropower in Asia
and the Mekong basin (eg. see Baruah 2017; Bene, Scheidel, & Temper, 2018; Lee, 2015;
Matthews, 2012). Some studies on water grabbing, hydropower, and conflict been carried out
in Europe, but have mainly focused on dam building-nations such as Turkey (e.g see Işlar,
2012; Borras, Franco & van der Ploeg, 2013) or solely the land grabbing debate (Borras,
Franco and van der Ploeg, 2013). Even though Albania has been highlighted as a key area for
hydropower development (Wagner, Hauer and Habersack, 2019), research on hydropower
development in Albania seems to be scarce in academic research. Further, political ecology as
a research field has contributed with much research on the socio-environmental conflict on a
local level in the context of hydropower bams, but I experience with handbooks such as “The
Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology” by McCarthy, Bridge, & Perreault, (2015), that the
gaze of Political ecology and conflict has mainly been focused outside of Europe. This could
to some degree be explained by its theorization of power as looking at the exploitation of
western countries in third world countries and to understand political dynamics surrounding
struggles in the “third world” (Bryant, 1998). According to Bene (2018), there is a need to
expand research on socio-environmental conflict in targeted regions, such as Albania, where
hydropower projects are highly conflictive (Bene, 2018, 226-227).

This research will contribute to the literature on water grabbing through the study of a water
conflict and contribute with understandings of water rights, in the context of Albania. For this
approach, various authors have chosen the ERA approach, which has contributed to
understandings of water rights as producing and reproducing social power relations and water

18
justice (Boelens, 2009). However, these studies have mainly been focused on indigenous
rights in countries outside Europe (Boelens, 2008b; de Bont et al., 2016; Stoltenborg and
Boelens, 2016), even though it has been applied to international documents (Taylor, Longboat
and Grafton, 2019) and social movements struggle for water justice in Spain (Prieto López,
Duarte-Abadía and Boelens, 2021). I will modify the framework to look at water grabbing
and mobilization for environmental justice, the businesses the state, and opposing movements
in the case of hydropower development in Vjosa, Albania. Even though discourses are
emphasized in the framework, de Bont (2016) concludes that discourses don’t always
contribute to an increased understanding of specific cases. The case study could contribute as
a reference for future studies in the area.

4. Methodology
In this chapter, I will clarify my research method, the data collection, and analytical work, as
well as criticism of the method and material used. The aim of the study was to examine the
linked levels of contestation in the conflict over the hydrosocial territory of Vjosa

To answer my research questions I have applied a qualitative approach. Some of the distinct
features of this approach are an epistemological approach that is interpretative and a
constructivist ontological approach (Bryman, 2011, 40-41). Since I am interested in the
different perceptions about the resource in relation to hydropower development, the conflict,
and the development visions, a qualitative approach is desirable since it offers flexibility to
gain an in-depth understanding of subjective realities. Further, this is done to gain an in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon in a specific context. The social entities in this thesis are
perceived as the constructions of the actors´ perceptions and actions.

According to Hileman, Hicks and Jones (2016) studies of water conflicts usually engage with
causal explanations, which might overlook complex interactions which are better researched
on a case-by-case basis (Hileman, Hicks and Jones, 2016). A qualitative case study research
design has been employed which has provided a deep, holistic view of the phenomenon in a
specific context. The research engages with “the qualitative nature of experience” within a
specific context (Simons 2009, 5) which is useful to study the complexity and the
“particularity” or “uniqueness of a single case” (Simons 2009, 21). Data has been collected
mainly through qualitative semi-structured interviews with relevant actors and complemented
with information from other sources such as documents and reports. The Environmental

19
Impact assessment for Poçem has also been studied. Secondary data provided by the NGOs
were used to identify the major stakeholders and to present the case of hydropower
development in Albania.

The reason for choosing Albania as the country of study is due to the ongoing opposition
towards hydropower, which could give insight to how the prevailing development paradigm
manifests itself on a local scale, and understanding of the opposing views, in order to
understand and prevent the emerging conflicts in hydropower development globally. Since
water conflicts are context-specific, case studies for different locations are still needed. A
better understanding of local conflicts can provide important insights for formulation of new
policies and frameworks (Funder et al., 2010). The focus of Political ecology has mainly been
in places generally referred to as the “third world” (Forsyth, 2008) and Del bene (2018)
argues that there is a need to examine emerging economies, especially since hydropower
development is escalating in these countries (Del bene, 2018), which made Albania
interesting as an object of study. The reason for choosing Vjosa is due to its unique ecological
features, and since the hydropower plans have caused opposition, attracting a wide range of
actors and alliances internationally.

The main actors involved in the hydropower debate over the Vjosa river have been identified
by documents provided by the NGOs and domestic energy companies and through interviews.
At first, I reached out to local NGOs collaborating with the international campaign “Save the
blue heart of Europe”, and since they have grounded experience they could help identify
stakeholders. The campaign against hydropower mainly focused on the large hydropower
plants Poçem and Kalivaç, built as Public-private partnership (PPP) through Build-operate-
transfer (BOT) schemes. Ayen is the largest shareholder, while a state-owned Albanian power
company holds a smaller share of the ownership (Vejnović and Gallop, 2018). Documents
from the NGOs provided me with information on the concessionary companies and the
investors of the two hydropower plants of focus (Table 1).

Table 1. The two largest plants in Vjosa, and the largest investors(in money)3
HPP Largest investors
Poçem Ayen Enerji
Kalivaç Ayen Enerji

3
Information received from a local NGO.

20
4.2 Methods and materials
At first, I gathered information about the different actors and searched for information. I took
departure from literature and actor mapping done by the NGOs on their websites, before
turning to national policy documents and laws. The law on Public Private Partnerships was
important due to my water grabbing approach. but I turned to informants for additional
information.

My goal was to conduct interviews with actors on the local, national and international level.
The-nation state was considered important, since according to Lavers and Dye (2020) the
nation-state is often overlooked in research on resource grabbing, but is important to include
since they are often the decision-makers (Lavers and Dye, 2020). However, no employees at
the international companies responded to my request for interviews, and only one government
official responded, contributing with some information on the EIA process through email. To
include these perspectives I turned to Policy documents and laws, Environmental impact
assessment (EIA)4 and information provided by the company’s website. For an understanding
of the incentives of hydropower, I turned to a combination of scientific literature, grey
literature and policy documents, providing information regarding FDI5, the law on PPP, EIA
and incentives for hydropower, which has been referred to in relevant sections in the
empirical analysis.

Interviews were used as a primary source to receive the actors´ perception of the resource and
hydropower development. However, I also had to turn to the EIA and Ayen company
webpage for additional information. Ayen was the only company providing information on
their webpage. The material used for analysis is summarized in Table 2.

4
The EIA is carried out by an external company on the request of the construction company. It is further
approved by the Ministry of Tourism and Environment. I deemed it would provide some insights into the views
of the construction company and government, since they are responsible of the documents.
5
Foreign direct investment are investments made by a party in another country .

21
Table 2. Material used for analysis
Resources - Interviews
- Environmental impact assessment
- Ayen webpage (corporate social responsibility and ethics, Annual report)
Rules - Interviews
- Environmental impact assessment
- Ayen webpage (corporate social responsibility and ethics, Annual report)
Regulatory control - Interviews
- Environmental impact assessment
- Ayen webpage (corporate social responsibility and ethics, Annual report)
Regimes of - Interviews
representation - Environmental impact assessment
- Ayen webpage (corporate social responsibility and ethics, Annual report)

4.3 Semi structured Interviews

The qualitative interview is often used within interpretive or interpretative philosophies
(Bryman, 2011, 341) and was therefore suitable for the thesis. Since some comparisons
between different stakeholders´ perceptions have been made, I conducted in-depth semi-
structured interviews, consisting of pre-determined themes with open-ended questions. This
form of interview is especially useful for finding patterns (Evans, 2018, 2). At the same time,
the semi-structured interview allows the respondents to speak freely, exploring subjective
viewpoints (Bryman, 2011, 413), which was important since I was interested in the
respondents' experiences and interpretations. The interview guide was divided into different
themes that overlapped and intertwined with the echelons or rights. The complete interview
guide can be found in Appendix B.

The interviews were conducted between February and April 2021. The reason for conducting
interviews with a wide range of actors was to try to understand the opposing views of the
hydrosocial territory and hydropower development. The criteria used was that the actors were
involved in hydropower development in the Vjosa river, namely the Poçem or Kalivaç
project, since the thesis is limited to the waterscape of Vjosa. I conducted six Interviews, all
around one hour, with people involved in the hydropower discourse in Vjosa river. All
interviews were conducted in English. The interviews provide three different voices from the
development discourse, i.e. NGOs, an academic professor, and energy companies in Albania.
These informants are important in the debate since they all have the ability to influence the

22
decision-making in the country. The energy company is state-owned and it could be argued
that it indirectly represent the government. All of the NGOs could be referred to as
environmental NGOs, even though they also highlight social issues of hydropower.

A criterion for choosing informants was that they were preferably English-speaking. In
Albania, a large part of the population speaks English since it is taught at schools (Sen Nag,
2017), and the respondents I reached out to spoke English. However, since the interviews
were conducted in a second language this might be considered a constrain on the study. I have
followed the recommendations of Brinkmanns (2008) to give informed consent and
knowledge of the aim of the interview (Brinkmanns, 2008). In some cases, the themes of the
interview questions were sent to the informants in advance through e-mail. This was largely
due to the fact that some of the informants wanted to see the questions beforehand, and I
wanted the informants to feel comfortable doing the interview, by knowing the topics of the
interview. I also wanted to make sure we interpreted the questions the same way. However,
this is also a possible bias since they were given the opportunity to think through their
answers, which might have caused less spontaneous answers. Voice recording was used
during the interviews and then transcribed, and the respondents were given the choice to read
through the transcripts after the interviews. The interviews were conducted as single
interviews. Some information has also been provided by personal communication, and a
description of these respondents can be found in appendix A, and are also referred to by
numbers.

The interviews have been conducted by video-calling, using the software zoom. The
interviews have been recorded but with informed consent. All of the respondents was given
the opportunity to read through the transcripts, even though worth noting is that no one
responded with any comments. Conducting interviews in person would have allowed me to
understand the context better and would have provided another atmosphere. This was not
possible to conduct due to the ongoing pandemic and travel restrictions. However, video
interviews were considered a good alternative, especially since it requires less time from all
involved and the interviewee could choose a safe environment to answer the questions. It is
the closest to in-person interviews (Krouwel, Jolly and Greenfield, 2019). Additional ethical
considerations for video-interviews were taken into account (Iacono, Symonds and Brown,
2016), and the participants´ identity was verified through social media. All the interviewees
was given the option to be anonymous, and since some preferred to remain anonymous I have

23
chosen to treat all interviewees anonymously to be consequent. A description of the different
groups of interviewees can be found in appendix A. The interviewees will further be referred
to with numbers throughout the thesis.

I interviewed representatives from different NGOs since they have different roles in the
debate and could provide information from different scales. Save the blue hearts of Europe, an
international organization, was included since they are active in Albania and collaborate with
local NGOs. It would have been interesting to include the perspective of the people living in
the area for the planned hydropower development. This would have provided a local
perspective from the people whose livelihood would have been directly affected by the
hydropower. However, since I was not able to travel to Albania and internet connection is
lacking in many rural parts, I had restrained access to conduct interviews and accessibility
was out of my control.

4.4 Data analysis

The method applied for structuring and analyzing the data was content analysis. Qualitative
content analysis is “probably the most prevalent approach to the qualitative analysis of
documents” (Bryman, 2011, 557), and is an approach that involves searching for
underlying themes in the chosen texts. Thematic coding was used to organize the material in
different common themes or ideas. Content analysis was also used to structure the material
from the interviews, categorizing the material according to the ERA analysis. The interview
questions were considered a basis for the analysis, and the ERA and justice constituted
categories. The environmental impact assessment was also analyzed according to the ERA.
The material was read to get a comprehensive understanding, before reading the material
again and taking notes. The material was then categorized following the analytical
framework.

4.6 Critique of method and material

A common critique towards case studies is that the findings are not generalizable compared to
those of surveys. Further, “the sample of one” might also be considered a weakness for those
engaging with large samples, and especially to inform public policy (Simons and Simons,
2020). However, I argue along with advocates of case studies that a case study offers a
different kind of general conclusion, it is designed to generate theories (Hammersley, Gomm

24
and Foster, 2011). Further, there was a need to understand complexity in depth. However,
misunderstanding of case study mainly derives from issues of theory, reliability, and validity,
commonly highlighted in social science as scientific method (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

It is important to reflect upon data validation and reliability throughout the research process.
The goal of the thesis is not to generalize, but to create an understanding of power relations,
impacts and contestation over water rights in this specific context. Neither the goal is to be
representative, but rather to understand the interviewees viewpoint. This is especially
important due to my framings, which puts a lot of emphasis on site-specific and subjective
context. The approach is that there is no objective truth. The positivistic grounding and classic
understanding of validity and reliability is therefore less applicable on this study (Bryman,
2011, 411) which takes on a constructivist approach, since I am especially interested in
subjective understandings (Ibid: 42). Knowledge is shaped by the people involved in
creations, and I have therefore reflected upon my own position and how it shaped the results,
by being reflexive and transparent. From a humanist or post-structuralist approach, one might
say that objectivity is impossible to achieve. Valentine (2005) argues that it is better to
account for this and state the possible bias (Valentine, 2005, 111-113).

If local people would have been included in the research, other themes might have emerged,
especially since the priorities of the resource might differ from the ones of the NGOs. The
same needs to be stated regarding the government and international companies. The thesis
presents the subjective views of the opposition, and when NGOs talk about the livelihood of
the locals they are expressing their own views.

5. Results
5.1 The neoliberal turn and the conflict of hydropower
In the 1990s, Albania commenced economic reforms, moving from a closed economy towards
a free market economy (Muharremi, 2020). The flows of foreign direct investments in
Albania has been rising since the 2000s (The World Bank, 2021), and hydropower is
considered as a key area for investment (Unctad, 2020). Since 2006, Albania has incentivized
the expansion of independent hydropower plants by awarding long-term concessions and
providing feed-in tariffs at favorable prices. Various reforms have been set up by the

25
government to boost FDI, such as Feed in Tariffs and new laws on PPP (Personal
communication 8, May 2021).

Harmonizing with European directives is one of the main instruments for Albanian energy
policies, as well as increasing renewable sources (National Agency of Natural Resources of
Albania, 2019). Most of the hydropower plants are built as PPP through BOT schemes. In
Albania, the ”law on concessions and public private partnership” is the main legal act related
to concession contract, amended in 2013 (law no 125/2013) The concession/PPP contract
gives the power company the right to the resource for a fixed period of time, initially no
longer than 35 years (law no 125/2013). During this time, the hydropower plant and energy
produced is in most cases attributed to the company and the free market, which is encouraged
by the European free trade agreements (Personal communication 8, May 2021).

All hydropower plants are subject to environmental impact assessments and follow the legal
frameworks for EIA. This includes procedures for information and public involvement in
environmental decision-making. The ministry of environment and tourism is responsible for
approving the EIAs undertaken and the responsibility for public hearing lies at the national
agency of environment, regional agency for environment in the certain area, the
developer/company and the municipality (Personal communication 7, May 2021).

In 2009 the Albanian government commissioned a study to investigate the hydropower

potential for the Vjosa river. The study envisioned 25 hydropower plants in the river, which
caused opposition among civil society and interest groups, demanding a river without Dams.
In 2020, the numbers of planned hydropower plants in the Albanian catchment exceeded to 31
(8 in Vjosa, 23 on tributaries) causing strong opposition. In 2017 a lawsuit was filed by
Riverwatch and EuroNatur, together with 38 affected residents which ended up in a legal case
against the developer and the government of Albania, on the ground of shortcoming in the
EIA document and deficient public consultations. The hydropower project Poçem was
stopped. However, the decision to rule against the construction by the administrative court in
Tirana is at the moment being appealed (EJ atlas, 2021), and after the court’s decision on
Poçem the government launched procedures for a tender regarding the hydropower plant
Kalivaç (Rama et al., 2019).

26
According to a study conducted by the NGO EcoAlbania with support from the European
Commission, conflicts over hydropower caused 36 arrests and 6 causalities between 2012-
2016. Water rights are considered to be the main cause of conflict (Quendro, 2017, 6-7).

5. 2 The four echelons of conflict

This section will analyze the hydrosocial conflict, through the case of Vjosa, by examining
three actors: The opposition 6 towards the hydropower, the business group, and the
government. The aim is to identify the competing claims in the conflict through the four
dimensions in echelons of rights.

5.2.1 Conflict over resources

This echelon will present the results regarding the disputed resource access and management
of water, as well as the infrastructure and financial/material means for management of water.
It relates to the questions of who has access to water and hydraulic infrastructure, and for
what purpose?

Access to water was disputed by the social movements, and the government and hydropower
companies. The dispute concerning access to the resource and how water should be managed,
as well as the material means to concretize water rights.

One of the echelons mostly recognized by the interviewees was the conflict over resources.
Even though acknowledged by all informants, the aspects of access highlighted by the
interviewees differed. All interviewees from the opposition acknowledged that hydropower
would cause alterations in the river, causing scarcity for humans as well as non-humans.
Interviewees from the domestic energy company did not mention the local livelihoods when
referring to the Vjosa, but instead acknowledged that hydropower would change nature
(Interviewee 5, 6), hence acknowledging access for the non-human.

Discussions regarding the purpose for access to water were mainly directed towards the
ecological value of the Vjosa river, as well as local-livelihoods. The ecological value of the
Vjosa river was highlighted by all the interviewees. The need for water for agriculture was

6
When referring to opposition, I refer to the people involved in the campaign against hydropower, namely the
NGOs and the academic professor

27
highlighted by the opposition, referring to how agriculture is an important source of income
for local people (Interviewee 1, 2, 3). They all agreed that the river should flow free and that
traditional use should be promoted, as well as eco-tourism (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4).
Interviewees from social movements expressed that the new water users start to build, without
notifications or consulting traditional water users whose access to the water will change
(interviewee 1, 2). One person from the domestic energy company highlighted the socio-
economic perspective when referring to how hydropower creates jobs for the people living
close to the river (Interviewee 5)

The cultural values of the river were only highlighted by the opposition. One interviewee said
that Vjosa is part of the identity of the country “if they destroy it, they destroy part of our
identity” (Interviewee 2), further describing how the river in many ways is considered
spiritual (Interviewee 1, 2). The opposition further highlighted how the traditional use of the
river is outweighed by the benefits the hydropower will bring for some people. All
interviewees from the opposition believe that the purpose of the infrastructure is to produce
more energy, but that the energy is sold international and that the profit goes into the pockets
of the few owners of the hydropower plant (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4), referring to the European
free trade agreement. Further, they express that the local people will lose history, graves,
everything, “Basically they become poor refugees” (interviewee 2). The interviewee talks
about how he witnessed communities fighting for their lives, since they had to leave
everything they have, deleting their identity and history with one decision “it is a modern
invasion, colonization. The companies does not care if they destroy ecosystems”(interviewee
2).

Regarding the purpose of access to water and to the hydraulic infrastructure, the opponents
expressed that the river needs to be conserved for traditional use and that they did not
perceive any benefits from the hydropower. The domestic energy companies stated that they
did not want hydropower in the Vjosa river, but also acknowledged that during some
circumstances, hydropower might be needed if better assessed, since the country needs
renewable energy for energy security, energy poverty, and for development (Interviewee 6,
7), also referring to how climate change will increase drought and reduce the efficiency of
existing power plants. The issue of energy security and energy poverty discussed are
acknowledged in the country’s energy strategy, especially in the rural parts and during
droughts.

28
Further, all but one of the opponents express that the purpose of building hydropower is
money, and therefore it is difficult to come up with solutions (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

“The driver is not the energy, it is the money, and as soon as the driver is money this
discussion is ... you know we can talk and talk for hours elaborating other ways of getting
energy, but at the end of the day we are talking in a vacuum cause actually it is not the energy
that drives it is the money” (Interviewee 1)

However, both interviewees from the domestic energy companies discussed that Albania is
rich in water resources, and hence it is a good strategy to make use of the resources to
produce renewable energy. Even though skeptical of BOT since they still not had experienced
any transfer, they acknowledged the need to develop hydropower to provide energy security
and development (Interviewee 5, 6)

The environmental impact assessment did not acknowledge the changes in access to water
that he construction of the hydropower plant would cause to the same extent as the
interviewees. However, listing negative impacts, loss of access to water is mentioned, as well
as change of lifestyle. However, this is followed by the statement that“Positive impacts will
exceed in number and mass the negative impacts, if we are going to make a comparison” (GR
Albania, 2015, 58). When referring to the purpose of the infrastructure, the report states that
“Dams have an incredible positive social impact” (ibid, 57) and that projects producing
electricity by HPPs are included in the list of priorities and recommendations at the global
level (ibid, 78) The report envisions hydropower in the river as a means for climate mitigation
and to provide energy security (ibid, 78).

Ayen does not directly acknowledge questions of access rights in neither its Codes of Ethics
And Social Responsibility (Ayen, 2021a), nor in their annual report 2019 (Ayen, 2021b).
However, Part of the company’s vision is “to convert natural and renewable sources into
energy and bring them for the country’s economy”(Ayen, 2021b). They state that their annual
report provides information regarding their environmental and social work, in which they
acknowledge that wind power contributes to an increased share of renewable energy and
domestic energy security, but no examples are given related to hydropower (Ayen, 2019).
Regarding the purpose of the infrastructure, Poçem is not mentioned. However, regarding

29
Kalivac they state that the energy is marketed across Europe. The report also states that power
plants are important due to the increased population, the future industrial power, and Turkeys
energy demand (ibid).

5.2.2 Conflict over rules

This echelon is linked to the third level but presents how the construction of fairness and
criteria for allocation are based on values assigned to water.

The conflict in Albania was also related to rules and regulation, and frequently mentioned by
the opposition was the neoliberal policies that had converted water rights through the law on
PPP, which was perceived to have favored the international energy companies. Regulations
regarding the process for EIA were also frequently mentioned.

All of the interviewees questioned the BOT transfer schemes. The opposition perceived that
the water rights are transferred to hydropower companies, giving them access to the water to
produce energy which creates a sense of unjust distribution (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4). This
refers to the law on PPP (law no 125/2013), which transfer the rights of the water to the
energy company for at least 35 years. One interviewee expressed that “hydropower
companies are allowed to use the water as a public good, while the local populations loses
their rights for traditional use” (Interviewee 1). Further, two interviewees state that the
benefits from this transfer of water rights does not benefit the local population and does not
combat energy poverty in rural areas since the energy is allowed to be sold to where most
beneficial (Interviewee 1, 3), here referring to the free trade agreements. The interviewee
from the domestic energy companies does not believe that the BOT schemes will provide any
benefits, but one interviewee expresses that “The BOT, it is a good price, and a free market
(…) but we have not yet seen any experience of transferring it” (interviewee 5). Further, the
interviewee believes that mistakes are being made since the private companies are interested
in profit, more than the environment (Interviewee 5).

The regulations regarding the EIA process were also mentioned by all of the interviewees.
The opponents mentioned the EIA process both as an enabler for international hydropower,
due to weak enforcement of laws and lack of human resources, as well as a tool that had been
used by the NGOs to stop hydropower development. One interviewee described how they
through multi-actor alliances received resources from the international community to conduct

30
a lawsuit against Poçem on the deficiencies of the EIA. Through legal assistance and research
produced by academics, they won the law case postponing the construction of the hydropower
plant (interviewee 1). The interviewees from the domestic energy companies believe that
mistakes has been made, but that the process is generally good (Interviewee 5, 6)

The different values assigned to the water was in many cases similar between the domestic
energy company and the opposition. The opponents presented ideas related to socio-eco
justice, while the environmental impact assessment and the hydropower companies mainly
talked about development, cheap energy, and energy security. Social and environmental
aspects were considered important by the opposition, while less highlighted or even
downplayed in the EIA. However, all of the interviewees recognized the economic dimension
of the water, mainly referring to eco-tourism.

All the interviewees acknowledged the unique ecological value of Vjosa, even though the
opposition did not want any hydropower in any river since it destroys both social and
environmental values. Even though the interviewees from the domestic energy companies did
not want hydropower in Vjosa, referring to environmental values, they acknowledged that
Albania is rich in water resources and that large hydropower plants are an efficient means for
energy production in other rivers (Interviewee 5, 6). The opponents perceived that the
negative impacts outweighed the positive impacts, but that this was not acknowledged by the
government since they had only protected parts of the Vjosa since the law case, and that this
did not include the location where Poçem is planned. As previously mentioned, the plan for
hydropower development, commissioned by the Albanian government, was opposed by the
opponents. When asked about this, the interviewees described how they presented an
alternative vision for the hydrosocial territory, to establish Europe’s first wild river national
park (interviewee 1, 2, 3). Regarding the statement done by the prime minister, the
respondents were critical. They questioned why only parts of Vjosa was protected by law and
said that the fight against hydropower is not over (Interviewee 1, 3)

The EIA acknowledged the different values assigned to the river when describing the area,
such as economic, social, and environmental. The river is considered important for eco-
tourism, biodiversity, and local livelihoods (GR Albania, 2015). The report suggests the
specific location of the hydropower plant since it would allow better use of the hydropower
potential downstream of Vjosa (ibid, 49). No ecological, cultural, or social values are

31
explicitly taken into account for the location of the hydropower plant, even though they are
acknowledged, as well as mitigation measures (ibid). The report further acknowledges that the
number of positive impacts will contribute to renewable energy supply in the area and that it
complies with regulations (Ibid, 78). The construction company, part of Ayen, is described as
“a company interested in renewable resources for energy production by investing in use of
the water sources of Vjosa River in construction of Poçem Hydropower project”.

Ayen states that they follow the procedures for the environmental impact assessment and that
the projects contribute to climate mitigation (Ayen, 2019). No information is provided
regarding the chosen location for the hydropower plant. In the company vision, they refer to
domestic energy, and how renewable energy sources will be brought into the country’s
economy. Further, they state that they invest in renewable energy, due to their framework on
social responsibilities, and that each investment is environmentally friendly (Ayen, 2021b).

5.2.3 Conflict over regulatory control

This echelon presents the contestation over water as struggles over authority, and presents the
strategies used by the different actors.

Various actors have been active in shaping the hydrosocial territory of Vjosa. Formal
authorities consist of governmental bodies, but actor alliances have used different forms of
authority through social network, research, information sharing, and various campaigns.
Project promoters defend the projects by referring to laws and policy, energy security, climate
mitigation, and development while opponents deploy laws on public participation and
environmental protection to defend the river. Other strategies are used to include and exclude
various people from decision-making.

The hydropower development was previously supported by the government and business
alliances, but in 2017 the opposition filed a lawsuit against the government and the developer
which stopped the construction. The main argument was deficiencies in the EIA and public
consultation. This lawsuit was considered a huge success amongst the interviewees (1, 2, 3,
4). All of the interviewees acknowledge deficiencies in the public consultation process, and
one opponent called these “totally fake processes hidden from public” and describes that they
have not received information regarding a single one of the hearing (Interviewee 1). This
perception was shared among all of the opponents (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4). Further, the

32
interviewee describes how they have found signatories that in reality were dead people “it has
been evident in a numerous of cases, seems to be routine now” and that consultation has been
conducted in communities far away from the construction sites (Interviewee 1). However,
construction permits were given to Kalivac just a few months after, and the interviewees
discussed that this shows that they need laws in place to protect the river (Interviewee
1,2,3,4,6).

According to the laws, the Albanian ministries are responsible for the development plan, but
much responsibility is put on the international companies regarding the EIAs and public
hearings. However, NGO representatives present at the hearing of the court case says that it
has to be postponed several times since no representatives from the National Agency of
Environment attended the session even though they are a defending party in this case
concerning the public consultation process and environmental declaration, referring to the law
on EIA procedure. Further one of the international companies was not presents. Two
interviewees perceived that this was a strategy, by postponing it so the license outdated the
court case would disappear (interviewee 1, 3).

According to the opposition, the political atmosphere and the defense of the companies
interests have been strong. The social movements tellsthe story of how the state became a tool
to attack Vjosa and that the people building the dams were often criminals protected by the
people in power, and that they sent the police to intimidate civil society, rather than protect
Albanian law.

“There has been cases where guns were pointed at us or violence was used, and both the
government and the police was involved with these people, the HPP developers. First they cut
the water, then they bring in armed people and bulldozers, and threaten the natives, and then
force them to relocate.”(interviewee 2).

All of the interviews suspected corruption and perceived that the economic interest from the
government and international companies was great. One interviewee from a domestic energy
company tells the story of how international companies have invaded villages, cut off the
water, and how local people were forcefully moved without receiving any information
(Interviewee 6).

33
The social movement cooperated with various NGOs and academics, from a local to
international level, creating multiscale alliances. The NGOs also cooperated with local majors
as well as the local population, providing information regarding the project (Interviewee 1, 3).
The NGOs organized demonstrated, petitions, allegations to national and European courts,
and collaborated with different artists to organize concerts, trying to evoke feelings connected
to the river (Interviewee 1, 3). Further, to challenge the imagined hydrosocial territory, the
movement made alliances with academics, providing risk assessment, biodiversity surveys,
and assessments for alternative energy sources, as well as cooperated with legal attorneys
(Interviewee 1, 3, 4). The opposition considers the alliances, providing legal help and
academic resources, were especially helpful for winning the court case, referring to how the
EIA report and procedure were not in line with regulations (Interviewee 1, 3, 4)

As information provided by a representative from the ministry of tourism and environment,

the EIA reports and processes are means to ensure public participation and fulfillment of
requirements. The EIA ensures that all regulations have been followed. As previously
mentioned, the report acknowledges deficiencies in lack of data for measurements of flow.
The project is further defined as a solution to climate mitigation and energy issues since
it“(…) would be a great help in solving the problem of electricity supply in the area” (GR
Albania, 2015, 78). The project further aims at “Protect or rehabilitate the natural
environment through new positive interventions, special construction works in the context of
this project or in parallel with the project (…)”(ibid, 6). It acknowledges the different worlds
of water by its description of the area, but as mentioned it states that the positive outcomes
outweigh the negative outcomes (ibid).

The documents studied from Ayen does not provide any articulation of the specific project,
but states in general that “The need to invest in a new electricity generation facility will
become more and more important in order to meet the energy demand that will arise from the
increase in our population and industrial power at the future” (Ayen, 2019).

5.2.4 Conflict over problems and solutions

The echelon regimes of representation bind all the previous echelons together to look at how
problems and solutions are articulated. This section goes further by answering the questions
‘What are the underlying values used to articulate problems and solutions?’

34
After previous sections, it seems like the interviewees agree on many points, even though
highlighting different aspects. They seemed to agree that Vjosa specifically should not be
subject to hydropower development (interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). However, representatives
from the domestic companies believed that large hydropower plants was important as a means
for development and climate mitigation (interviewee 5,6) but also highlighted how it might
not be economically beneficiary to invest in other areas of energy since the area will become
drier due to climate change (Interviewee 6). The EIA referred to global norms for renewable
energy as well as climate mitigation and energy security (GR Albania, 2015, 78). The
economic perspective of progress was most evident in the material studied from Ayen, with
the mission to bring natural resources into the economy (Ayen, 2021a). The opposition
instead was clear on the message that they did not want any hydropower dams in any river,
since the social and environmental impacts were too big (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4)

Ayen claims that they respect regulations concerning the environment, consumers, public
health, and ethics and that all of their investments are environment friendly and do not
damage the natural or historical context of a country, referring to that they produce energy
from renewable sources (Ayen, 2021a). They also refer to how the investment will bring
economic growth (Ayen, 2019). Further, the EIA states that it will provide employment, new
roads and welfare to the local economy and that they work with new technology to minimize
impacts (GR Albania, 2015) . The arguments on distributive justice were central to the energy
companies, expressed as employment opportunities. Both the domestic energy company
(Interviewee 5, 6) as well as the EIA stated that the project would bring employment to the
area (GR Albania, 2015). Another argument made in the EIA was that it would provide
energy to areas with energy problems (ibid).

The opponents on the other hand argued that employment was only offered for a short amount
of time (Interviewee 1,2,3) and that it would only benefit a few since the energy is sold to
where it is most profitable and the economic benefits go into the hands of a few (Interviewee
1, 2, 3, 4). The resistance towards the privatization of the river was intertwined with values
transcribed to the river and the movement strived to defend the public access to the territory
as well as its ecological value. They highlighted cultural values of the river, which was
expressed by one interviewee as their ‘indetity’ (interviewee 2), and the value of traditional
use (Interviewee 1) as well as the values of the river “which cannot be measured in economic
terms” (Interviewee 1, 3). The EIA acknowledged the negative impacts from a technical

35
perspective as various infrastructure from flooding, but also distributional concerns regarding
access to water, and concerns of distribution as lifestyles and displacement. The EIA also
stated that positive impacts, such as energy and climate mitigation, outweighed the negative
impact (GR Albania, 2015). The movement instead argued that there were risk for water
scarcity for humans as well as non-humans (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4), while the domestic energy
companies did not acknowledge this risk in the interviews (Interviewee 5, 6).

In the interviews, it was evident that interviewees perceived that some of the Albanian laws
could be used to the advantage for hydropower development due to deficiencies (interviewee
1, 2, 3, 4, 6) However, the civil society also used regulations as part of their strategy, and
turned to laws for the protection of the river, which was made possible by alliances. Alliances
also made it possible to challenge the imagined territory with academic research, showing
negative impacts and alternative (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4).

Opponents appear to be questioning the viability of the win-win solutions presented by the
environmental impact assessment (social, political, environmental) (GR Albania, 2015),
instead calling it a loose-loose-loose scenario (interviews 1, 2, 3). One interviewee argues that
the beauty of the river cannot be measured in monetary terms, and that the local population
stands to lose in the scenario of hydropower development, while the profit goes to a handful
of people (Interviewee 1, 2, 3, 4).

6. Discussion
Before I move on to the concluding discussion I will present a short summary of the four
echelons. In Resources I have shown the differentiated access to the water and infrastructure,
as well as for what use. In Rules I have shown the conflict over rules. In Regulatory control I
have shown the views on decision-making power, with a special focus on perceived
participation. In Regimes of representation all the echelons are bound together, and I have
shown how the different actors define the projects and the river. The analysis that the conflict
is surrounded by dynamics of power relations and exposes different strategies used by the
different actors.

This thesis has shown that the conflict over water in Albania relates to more than
distributional justice, but also procedural justice, recognition, and socio-ecological justice.

36
There are different valuations of the river between the different stakeholders, where the
movements to a higher degree acknowledged the social dimensions of water, while the
company documents referred to bringing a resource into the economy” and development,
which reminds us of what Escobar (1996) refers to as capital entering an “ecological phase”,
turning nature internal to capital (Escobar, 1996). Referring back to the neoliberal reforms in
the country, the country has set up several reforms to boost FDI, such as a tax reform
advantageous to foreign investors (Personal communication 9, May 2021). Drawing on our
theoretical understandings of nature and society, the hydropower proponents seem to value
natural resources as a mean to boost the economy, while the movements highlight other
values of letting the river run free and the intervention in nature was perceived by the
movement as capitalist activities for production elsewhere (Harvey, 2003). Drawing on Ribot
and Peluso’s theory of access (Ribot and Peluso, 2003) the interviewees all described how the
configurations of BOT mainly provided benefits for the international companies and energy
for countries abroad. However, our broadened understanding of access as “the capturing of
control, not just of the water itself, but also of the power to decide how this will be used—by
whom, when, for how long and for what purposes—in order to control the benefits of use”
(Franco, Mehta and Veldwisch, 2013, 1654) provides an understanding of the importance of
the state, providing water rights through regulations and privatization. Water privatization and
its legal frames seemed to benefit the private interests, rather than the interest of the people.
The legal pluralism allowed the companies to capture the control over water and how it would
be used for a specific amount of time through PPPs, similar to the findings of (Işlar, 2012).

Even though the material from the international companies was limited, some implicit
assumptions will be reflected upon. The value of the river seemed to mainly be measured in
economic terms. In the EIA the benefits that the hydropower would provide in terms of
development were considered as more important than the ecological value and the local
livelihoods . Development in their view was reflected as the global norms of renewable
energy, and energy security, referring to the Paris agreement (UNFCCC, 2021). The
movement presented an alternative vision, where development was considered the right for
development of the people and the river without intervention. They contributed with broader
understandings of the river, similar to the findings of Del bene (2018).

In Albania, the formal authorities have the decision-making power by law, while construction
companies are responsible for the EIA process. However, other actors have power in

37
decision-making through their position, influence, social opinion, resources and role in
creating values. Further, the public-private partnerships challenge the original boundaries
between official authority structures. The people’s right to water was circumvented through
the lease of the Vjosa river to hydropower concessionaries. This could be denoted to
neoliberal reforms, which was pointed out by Işlar (2012) as the enabler for hydropower
development in Turkey (Işlar, 2012).

The arguments that hydropower is for the greater good is questioned by the opponents, stating
that the water degradation triumphs the benefits the government states that hydropower will
provide, which causes a sense of injustice. The interviewees argue that even though there are
laws in place to protect the region socio-environmentally and culturally, political power has
welcomed hydropower in the area, and questioned how different aspects of justice were taken
into consideration.

It could be argued that the companies made use of what Mehta et al (2012) called the “fluid
nature of water”, to secure access over water, similar to the findings of de Bont et al (2016).
However, while previous research shows how technical and institutional knowledge was used
by companies to secure access over water (de Bont et al., 2016), the case of this research is
complex. It could be argued that technical and institutional knowledge was used by the NGOs
to challenge the companies and the state in the court case of Poçem, since knowledge
regarding deficiencies and shortcomings in the EIA acquired by technical and juridical
expertise generated a victory for the NGOs in the court case.

Multiscale coalitions played a similar role in the case of Vjosa as they did in the study by
Prieto López, Duarte-Abadía and Boelens (2021) since local resistance received support and
resources from their coalitions. What was interesting regarding the regulatory control was the
impotence of multiscale alliances as a strategy for the opposition to present their alternative
vision. Referring to scale, and how scale can be used to diminish injustices (Zwarteveen and
Boelens, 2014) the EIA acknowledges how negative social and environmental impacts are
outweighed by the social impacts and the global norms of decarbonizing society, which could
be discussed as a strategy of jumping scale, promoting certain development views and
diminishing certain injustices by changing scale to the national and global. One could argue
that this is an expression of Roys (2000) “local pain for national gain” (Roys, 2000), or even

38
global gain. Further, scale was considered by the NGOs as a strategy by the companies, when
conducting public hearings at places far from the site of hydropower.

Knowledge can be seen as actively created by the companies, since they are in charge of
monitoring the environmental quality and EIA processes, therefore providing linkages
between power, knowledge and truth. However, this is challenged by the NGOs, creating
alliances with various academics to provide research and claim their truth, and provide
alternative conclusions on the established truth. The NGOs acts as counter-movements to the
established truth offered by the hydropower, providing a different vision for the hydrosocial
territory. They actively spread information in press releases, to the villages, by filing law
cases and arranging campaigns and seminars.

The different arguments seem to be mainly the one on progress and the one on environmental
justice, similar to arguments found by Avila (2018) on eco-modernization and justice (Avila,
2018). Opponents highlighted distributional justice, recognition, and socio-ecological justice,
while proponents of hydropower believed that the projects will contribute to climate
mitigation, economic development, and energy security. This is also similar to the findings in
López, Duarte-abadía and Boelens, (2021). Opposing views can be found between those who
value the river as “life” and those who views the river as a volume to produce electricity, an
argument evident in much poltical ecology literature, stating that water needs to be viewed as
a hydrosocial cycle, instead of technical (Linton and Budds, 2014)

I would argue that hydropower norms contributed to legitimizing particular interests in using
and managing the local natural resources, as well as certain development visions. For
instance, the negative impacts of hydropower were downplayed in the EIA, only stating that
the positive impacts outweigh the negative.

However, what I found especially interesting in the case of Vjosa was that the relationship
between the actors are not purely conflictual. The opponents as well as the domestic energy
companies agree to the extent that hydropower should (preferably) not be built in Vjosa, even
if the view of hydropower in general differs. Opponents wish to see no more hydropower at
all, while the companies acknowledge that there might be a need for some hydropower, but
that they should be built on strategic locations. It could be argued that interest to invest in
hydropower by the international companies seemed to weigh higher, than the social and

39
environmental aspects highlighted by the domestic companies and NGOs. The public-private
partnerships seem to challenge the original boundaries between official authority structures,
and this temporary occupancy has generated questions about who benefits from the
hydropower and who has the legal/legitimate power. All of the Interviewees questioned the
value brought to the country by the PPPs.

I would also like to draw a connection to the study by (Van Koppen, 2007), research which
concluded that poor hydrological knowledge provided opportunities for investors to receive
backing from the state (Van Koppen, 2007). Even though not an explicit connection can be
made, the EIA stated that there was a lack of data, and the NGOs stated that there was alack
of data regarding the river and that they, therefore, established academic alliances which were
important in court case of Poçem, stating that there were deficiencies in the EIA. This shows
the importance of NGOs to present alternatives and challenge the prevailing paradigm of
Vjosa as a resource that should be turned into energy.

Political ecology has mainly engaged with the study of natural resource conflict in “third
world” countries, however, there seem to be similar patterns in Albania as found elsewhere.
Since the research on first-world countries is mainly researched through Urban political
ecology, this research makes an important contribution to political ecology. I have shown
interlinks in a conflict, and that it is not only related to causal relationships and distributional
concerns, but rather knowledge and meaning seems to be of great importance, which could be
further evaluated in future research.

The analysis reveals the dynamics of the power relations in the conflict over hydropower and
exposes different strategies used by the various actors (legal tools, alliances, knowledge
production). We can also see that on the surface the conflict evolves around water rights,
access to the river and use purpose and practices. However, the conflict also evolves around
rights regarding the right to impose a decision, the right for recognition and socio-ecological
justice. Only looking at distributional justice would therefore have been insufficient in this
case. If only scarcity would have been viewed as the causal factors for the conflict, important
aspects would have been missed.

By analyzing a case in Albania using the ERA analysis, through the lens of Political ecology,
I have shown how local struggles around water and environmental intervention in Europe,

40
takes similar forms as in Latinamerica (Del Bene, 2018) South Africa (de Bont et al., 2016)
and Asia (Dao and Phuong, 2014). It would have been interesting to include distributional
concerns considering physical availability of water as well and look at changes in the
availability of water for downstream and upstream users similar to Sosa and Zwarteveen
(2012). However, this was not possible due to lack of data, but might be a direction for future
research in the area.

Only looking at resource access would not have been insufficient in uncovering the different
visions and struggles connected to the imagined hydrosocial territory, and the framework
helped uncover struggles related to water, decision making and political framing. Most studies
that have applied the framework have conducted discourse analysis, but as de Bont et al.,
(2016) concluded in their research, discourses seemed to be of limited importance in their
case, hence I applied the framework using content analysis. The conflicting views in this case
seem to be constructed mainly in relation to specific interests, economic or environmental
justice, and these are were well captured even though not applying discourse analysis.
However, it might be of interest to engage with discourse analysis for similar cases to better
capture underlying values and convictions.

The material used could be considered a limitation. Including water law and Policy would
have strengthened the analysis of regulatory control, and which actors that were able to
influence water law. However, the law on PPP was frequently mentioned by the interviewees
and seems to be of greater importance in the conflict for the NGOs. Interviewing more actors
would have provided a deeper understanding of the case and a deeper understanding of which
actors were allowed in decision-making spaces. Further, if the international companies would
have participated in an interview, other aspects might have been addressed than the ones
highlighted in the written material. Including local people in the analysis would have been
especially interesting from the perspective of recognition, since it could have contributed with
insight about diversity, identity and culture and how this forms injustice for certain socially
and culturally rules and practices of water. This could have contributed with insights
regarding the acceptance of alternative water management and recognition of women and
peasant users, which in turn might have provided a deeper understanding of representational
justice (Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014).

41
7. Conclusions
This thesis departure from political ecology and water justice, to study the contestation over
water rights in Vjosa, Albania. The water grabbing approach and the legal plural analytical
framework acknowledged the importance of laws, hence laws on privatization and
responsibilities of the EIA process were included. What I have argued in this thesis is that the
conflicts over water rights in the context of hydropower is a global phenomenon that could be
attributed to different valuation of resources and different means for development. What was
especially interesting was that the arguments regarding hydropower in the Vjosa coincided in
many ways between the domestic energy companies and the opposition, even though the
views of hydropower as a means for developing differed.

Using the ERA as an analytical framework I have shown that the conflict goes beyond access
to water resources, and includes shortcuts in procedures for policies and laws. Further, I have
shown how NGOs can work as a powerful countermovement to prevailing paradigms, and
how scalar politics was used as a strategy by the NGOs as well as in the EIA.

The result of this study shows the complex interactions of power between different actors in
steering a process of water governance. Even though the results show how companies were
able to capture water physically and legally, it also shows how the social movements, through
alliances, were able to use some of the same legal mechanism to defend the area.

This study does not offer any solution to the issue of the area, but offers an interpretation of
the social structures and disputes regarding water. Despite the limitations of the study, the
empirical findings provide an understanding of the problem as much more complex than what
I first believed when I took departure. However, what seems evident is that it is of importance
that decision-making processes include all stakeholders to avoid future conflicts, in order to
capture different values of a resource. The role of NGOs was utterly important to confront
unsustainable measures and in the battle for human and non-human rights.

42
8. References
ABA (2019) Communities under pressure. Findings from Valbona, Albania. American Bar
Association Center for Human Rights

Adams, E. A. et al. (2019) ‘Land dispossessions and water appropriations: Political ecology
of land and water grabs in Ghana’, Land Use Policy. Elsevier, 87(June), p. 104068. doi:
10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104068.

Avila, S. (2018) ‘Environmental justice and the expanding geography of wind power
conflicts’, Sustainability Science. Springer Japan, 13(3), pp. 599–616. doi: 10.1007/s11625-
018-0547-4.

Ayen (2019) Annual report 2019.

https://www.ayen.com.tr/belgeler/2019%20Ayen%20YK%20Faaliyet-
Annual%20Report%20BASKI.pdf (Accessed: 30 May, 2021)

Ayen (2021a) Code Of Ethics And Social Responsibility. Available at:

https://www.ayen.com.tr/eng/Kurumsal.aspx?sayfa=etiksosyal (Accessed: 21 May 2021)

Ayen (2021b) Our vision and mission. Available at:

https://www.ayen.com.tr/eng/Kurumsal.aspx?sayfa=vizyonmisyon (Accessed: 21 May 2021)

Bankwatch Network (2021) EU-backed energy projects will harm people and the
environment in the Western Balkans, Article from 2013-10-13. Available at:
https://bankwatch.org/press_release/eu-backed-energy-projects-will-harm- people-and-the-
environment-in-the-western-balkans.

Baruah, S. (2017) ‘Whose river is it, anyway? The political economy of hydropower in the
Eastern Himalayas’, Water Conflicts in Northeast India, pp. 116–144. doi:
10.4324/9781315168432.

Bene, D. Del (2018) ‘Hydropower and Ecological Conflicts : From resistance to

transformations’, PhD thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Del Bene, D., Scheidel, A. and Temper, L. (2018) ‘More dams, more violence? A global
analysis on resistances and repression around conflictive dams through co-produced
knowledge’, Sustainability Science. Springer Japan, 13(3), pp. 617–633. doi: 10.1007/s11625-
018-0558-1.

Le Billon, P. (2001) ‘The political ecology of war: Natural resources and armed conflicts’,
Political Geography. Pergamon, 20(5), pp. 561–584. doi: 10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4.

Le Billon, P. and Duffy, R. (2018) ‘Conflict ecologies: Connecting political ecology and
peace and conflict studies’, Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1), pp. 239–260. doi:
10.2458/v25i1.22704.

Blaikie, P. . and Brookfield, H. (1987) Land degradation and society. Edited by P. . Blaikie
and H. Brookfield. London and New York: Methuen.

43
Boelens, R. (2003). Local rights and legal recognition: The struggle for indigenous water
rights and the cultural politics of participation. Paper presented at The Third World Water
Forum, Kyoto, Japan, 16‐23 March 2003.

Boelens, R. (2008a) The rules of the game and the game of the rules. Normalization and
resistance in Andean water control. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Boelens, R. (2008b) Water Rights Arenas in the Andes: Upscaling Networks to Strengthen
Local Water Control. Water Alternatives. 1(1): 48‐65

Boelens, R. (2009) ‘The politics of disciplining water rights’, Development and Change,
40(2), pp. 307–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01516.x.

Boelens, R. (2015) Water, power and identity. The cultural politics of water in the Andes.
New York: Routledge.

Boelens, R. et al. (2016a) ‘Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective’, Water

International. Routledge, 41(1), pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898.

de Bont, et al. (2016) ‘The fluid nature of water grabbing: the on-going contestation of water
distribution between peasants and agribusinesses in Nduruma, Tanzania’, Agriculture and
Human Values. Springer Netherlands, 33(3), pp. 641–654. doi: 10.1007/s10460-015-9644-5.

Borras, S., Franco, J. and van der Ploeg, J. (2013) ‘Land concentration, land grabbing and
people’s struggles in Europe: Introduction to the collection of studies’, Land Concentration,
land grabbing and people’s struggles in Europe. Available at:
https://www.tni.org/files/download/land_in_europe-jun2013.pdf.

Brown, J. C. and Purcell, M. (2005) ‘There’s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology,
the local trap and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon.’, Geoforum, (36), pp.
607–624. doi: doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.09.001.

Bryant, R. L. (1998) ‘Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review’,
Progress in Physical Geography, 22(1), pp. 79–94.

Bryman, (2011) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Kina: Liber

Charmberlain., L. (2018) Eco-masterplan for Balkan Rivers. Edited by G. W. Schwarz,

Ulrich,. FLUVIUS, Floodplain Ecology and River Basin Management et al. Vienna.
Available at: https://balkanrivers.net/en/content/eco-masterplan.

Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J. R. and Strobl, E. (2014) ‘Climate Change, Hydro- Dependency, and
the African Dam Boom’, World Development, 60, pp. 84–98.

Coller, P. and Hoeffler, A. (2005) ‘Resource rents, governance, and conflict’, Journal of
Conflict Resolution. Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 625–633. doi:
10.1177/0022002705277551.

Cook, C. and Bakker, K. (2012) ‘Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm’, Global

44
Environmental Change. Elsevier Ltd, 22(1), pp. 94–102. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.011.

Dao, N. and Phuong, B. L. (2014) ‘Rethinking development narratives on hydropower in

Vietnam’, Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region: Political, Socio-Economic and
Environmental Perspectives, (May), pp. 173–197. doi: 10.4324/9781315867588.

Duarte-Abadía, B., Boelens, R. and Roa-Avendaño, T. (2015) ‘Hydropower, encroachment

and the re-patterning of hydrosocial territory: The case of hidrosogamoso in Colombia’,
Human Organization. Society for Applied Anthropology, 74(3), pp. 243–254. doi:
10.17730/0018-7259-74.3.243.

Dujisin, Z. (2010) ‘ALBANIA: Last Outpost Beckons Foreign Capital’, IPS. Available at:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41360. (Accessed: 30 May 2021)

Dyer, H. (2017) ‘Green Theory’, in McGlinchey, S., Walters, R., and Scheinpflug, C. (eds)
International Relations Theory. Bristol: E-International Relations, pp. 84–90.

Eckersley, R. (2013) ‘Green Theory’, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M., and Smith, S. (eds)
International relations theories: discipline and diversity. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 247–265.

EJatlas (2021) The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice. www.ejatlas.org (Accessed: 2

May, 2021)

Escobar, A. (1996) ‘Construction nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology’,

Futures, 28(4), pp. 325–343.

European commission (2020) Commission staff working document. Albania 2020 report.
Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. 2020 Communication on. Brussels. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/default/files/albania_report_2020.pdf
(Accessed: 19 May 2021).

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative Inquiry,

12(2), pp. 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363.

Forsyth, T. (2003) Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. London:
Routledge.

Forsyth, T. (2008) ‘Political ecology and the epistemology of social justice’, Geoforum, 39,
pp. 756–764. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.12.005.

Franco, J., Mehta, L. and Veldwisch, G. J. (2013) ‘The Global Politics of Water Grabbing’,
Third World Quarterly, 34(9), pp. 1651–1675. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2013.843852.

Frankel, J. A. (2010) The natural resource curse: A survey Working Paper 15836.
Massachusetts. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15836 (Accessed: 5 May 2021).

45
Fraser, N. (2000) ‘Rethinking recognition’, New Left Review, May/June, pp. 107–120.

Funder, M. et al. (2010) ‘Understanding local water conflict and cooperation: The case of
Namwala District, Zambia’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. Elsevier Ltd, 35(13–14), pp.
758–764. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2010.07.022.

GR Albania (2015) Profoundal environmental impact assessment report for the construction
of HPP Poçem. Republic of Albania

Grech-Madin, C. et al. (2018) ‘Negotiating water across levels: A peace and conflict
“Toolbox” for water diplomacy’, Journal of Hydrology. Elsevier B.V., 559, pp. 100–109. doi:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.008.

Grünwald, R. (2018) ‘Role of the Water Security in International Relations: The Mekong
River Basin Case Study’, (May), p. 202. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30225.89449.

Guba, E. . and Lincoln, Y. . (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitiative Research. Handbook

o. London: SAGE publications.

Hammersley, M., Gomm, R. and Foster, P. (2011) ‘Case Study and Theory’, in Case Study
Method. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 234–258. doi: 10.4135/9780857024367.d17.

Hanlin, R. and Brown, W. (2013) ‘Contesting development in theory and practice’, in Hanlin,
R. and Brown, W. (eds) International Development in a Changing World. Creative commons
attribution, pp. 31–48. Available at: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/international-
(Accessed: 24 March 2021).

Hess, C. E. E. and Fenrich, E. (2017) ‘Socio-environmental conflicts on hydropowerThe São

Luiz do Tapajós project in Brazil’, Environmental Science and Policy. Elsevier Ltd, 73, pp.
20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.005.

Heynen, N., Kaika, M. and Swyngedouw, E. (2005) ‘Urban political ecology politicizing the
production of urban natures’, In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics
of Urban Metabolism, pp. 1–20. doi: 10.4324/9780203027523.

Hileman, J., Hicks, P. and Jones, R. (2016) ‘An alternative framework for analysing and
managing conflicts in integrated water resources management (IWRM): linking theory and
practice’, International Journal of Water Resources Development. Routledge, 32(5), pp. 675–
691. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2015.1076719.

Homer-Dixon, T. (1994) ‘Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict – Evidence from

Cases International Security’, 19(1), pp. 5–40.

Hommes, L., po, R. and Maat, H. (2016) ‘Contested hydrosocial territories and disputed water
governance: Struggles and competing claims over the Ilisu Dam development in southeastern
Turkey’, Geoforum. Elsevier Ltd, 71, pp. 9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.02.015.

Iacono, V. Lo, Symonds, P. and Brown, D. H. K. (2016) ‘Skype as a Tool for Qualitative
Research Interviews’, Sociological Research Online, 21(2), p. 12. doi: 10.5153/sro.3952.

46
Işlar, M. (2012) ‘Privatised Hydropower Development in Turkey: A Case of Water
Grabbing?’, Water alternatives, 5(2), pp. 376–291.
Justicia Hídrica (2021) Key concepts : Alianza Justicia Hídrica. Available at:
http://justiciahidrica.org/key-concepts/?lang=en (Accessed: 28 April 2021).

Kay, S. and Franco, J. (2014) ‘The Global Water Grab: A Primer’, Green Planet Blues, pp.
342–356. doi: 10.4324/9780429322204-34.

Keating, M. (2019) ‘International Political economy and the Global Governance of

Hydroelectric Dams’, In: Elgar, E. (eds) The Handbook of the International Political
Economy of Energy and Resources.

Van Koppen, B. (2007) ‘Dispossession at the Interface of Community-based Water Law and
Permit Systems’, in Van Koppen, B., Giordano, M., and Butterworth, J. (eds) Community-
based water law and water resource management reform in developing countries. CAB
international, pp. 46–64.

Krauze, Kinga. Vallesi, S. (2018) D3 .6 Impediments to barrier planning and stakeholder

conflict resolution EU Horizon 2020 project.

Krouwel, M., Jolly, K. and Greenfield, S. (2019) ‘Comparing Skype (video calling) and in-
person qualitative interview modes in a study of people with irritable bowel syndrome-an
exploratory comparative analysis’, BMC Medical Research Methodology. BioMed Central
Ltd., 19(1), pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0867-9.

Kuzemko, C. (2019) ‘Re-scaling IPE: local government, sustainable energy and change’,
Review of International Political Economy. Routledge, 26(1), pp. 80–103. doi:
10.1080/09692290.2018.1527239.

Lavers, T. and Dye, B. (2020) ‘Theorising the Political Economy of Dams: Towards a
Research Agenda’, SSRN Electronic Journal, (March), pp. 1–25. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3538193.

Lee, S. (2015) ‘Benefit sharing in environmental governance: Beyond hydropower in the

Mekong River Basin’, The International Handbook of Political Ecology, pp. 189–200. doi:
10.4337/9780857936172.00022.

Linton, J. and Budds, J. (2014) ‘The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-
dialectical approach to water’, Geoforum. Elsevier Ltd, 57, pp. 170–180. doi:
10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008.

MAB (2009) ‘Water, Mining, Agribusiness and the Energy Model: For What? For Whom?’,
in M.S, E., Jonsen, J. a, and Suarez, S. M. S. (eds) Red Sugar, Green Desert. FIAN
International, FIAN Sweden, HIC-AL and SAL.

Martinez Alier, J. (2002) The Environmentalism ofthe Poor. London: Elgar.

Matthews, N. (2012) ‘Water grabbing in the mekong basin - An analysis of the winners and
losers of Thailand’s hydropower development in Lao PDR’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), pp.
392–411.

47
Matthews, N. and Geheb, K. (2014) ‘Framing a political ecology of Mekong Basin
hydropower development’, Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region: Political,
Socio-Economic and Environmental Perspectives, (1959), pp. 17–31. doi:
10.4324/9781315867588.

Mehta, L., Veldwisch, G. J. and Franco, J. (2012a) ‘Introduction to the special issue: Water
grabbing? Focus on the (Re)appropriation of finite water resources’, Water Alternatives, 5(2),
pp. 193–207.

Mehta, L., Veldwisch, G. J. and Franco, J. (2012b) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue: Water
Grabbing? Focus on the (Re)appropriation of Finite Water Resources’, 5(2), pp. 193–207.

Mohtar, R. et al. (2018) ‘Governing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus Related to Hydropower

on Shared Rivers-The Role of Regional Organizations’, Frontiers in Environmental Science |
www.frontiersin.org, 6, p. 153. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2018.00153.

Monsees, J., Beveridge, R. and Moss, T. (2016) ‘Addressing water conflicts through context-
specific institutional analysis: A handbook for research projects and programmes’, in
Integrated Water Resources Management: Concept, Research and Implementation. Springer
International Publishing, pp. 243–265. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25071-7_11.

Moran, E. F. et al. (2018) ‘Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century’, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(47), pp. 11891–11898.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1809426115.

Muharremi, O. (2020) ‘DISCUSSION: CHALLENGES AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS IN ALBANIA AND WESTERN BALKAN
COUNTRIES’, Central European Business Review. Economics - Prague, Faculty of Business
Administration, 9(4), pp. 96–111. doi: 10.18267/j.cebr.242.

National Agency of Natural Resources of Albania (2019) Renewable energy. Available at:
www.akbn.gov.al/%0Awp-content/uploads/2019/06/RenewableEnergy.pdf.

Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996) Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social

movements. London: Routledge.

Peluso, N. L. and Watts, M. (2001) Violent Environments. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Perreault, T. (2014) ‘What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a
theorization of justice in water governance’, Water International. Routledge, 39(2), pp. 233–
245. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2014.886843.

Prieto López, A., Duarte-Abadía, B. and Boelens, R. (2021a) ‘Territory in conflict: land
dispossession, water grabbing and mobilization for environmental justice in southern Spain’,
International Journal of Water Resources Development. Routledge, 00(00), pp. 1–25. doi:
10.1080/07900627.2020.1854693.

Quendro, E. (2017) Assesment Study 2017- identification of water related conflicts related to
hydro power projects in Albania. Available at https://www.ecoalbania.org/wp-

48
content/uploads/2017/04/Water_conflict_study-2017-1.pdf (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

Rama, A. et al. (2019) Media and environmental cases in Albania. Media reporting of five
selevted environmental cases. Available at: https://www.ecoalbania.org/en/2019/10/01/media-
and-environmental-cases-in-albania-2/ (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

Ribot, J. C. and Peluso, N. L. (2003) ‘A theory of access’, Rural Sociology, 68(2), pp. 153–
181. doi: 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x.

Rieu-clarke, A. (2015) ‘Transboundary Hydropower Projects Seen Through the Lens of Three
International Legal Regimes – Foreign Investment, Environmental Protection and Human
Rights’, International Journal of Water Governance, (1). doi: 10.7564/13-ijwg36.

Robbins, P. (2004) Political Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rodríguez-Labajos, B. and Martínez-Alier, J. (2015) ‘Political ecology of water conflicts’,

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2(5), pp. 537–558. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1092.

Roth, D., Boelens, R. and Zwarteveen, M. (2005) Liquid Relations : Contested Water Rights
and Legal Complexity. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Save the Blue Heart of Europe (2021) Vjosa river. https://v2.balkanrivers.net/en/key-

areas/vjosa-river (Accessed February, 2021)

Sayan, R. C. (2016) ‘A Political Ecology of “ Apolitical ” Water Governance — Lessons

Learned from Turkish Experience’, International Journal of Water Governance, 4(14), pp. 1–
18. doi: 10.7564/15-IJWG101.

Scheidel, A. et al. (2018) ‘Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability: an

overview and conceptual framework’, Sustainability Science. Springer Japan, 13(3), pp. 585–
598. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0.

Scheidel, A. and Sorman, A. H. (2012) ‘Energy transitions and the global land rush: Ultimate
drivers and persistent consequences’, Global Environmental Change, 22(3), pp. 588–595.

Schilling, J. et al. (2017) ‘Resilience and Environmental Security: Towards Joint Application
in Peacebuilding’, Global Change, Peace & Security.

Schilling, J., Saulich, C. and Engwicht, N. (2018) ‘A local to global perspective on resource
governance and conflict’, Conflict, Security & Development. Routledge, 18(6), pp. 433–461.
doi: 10.1080/14678802.2018.1532641.

Schlosberg, D. (2004) ‘Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political

theories’, Environmental Politics. Taylor & Francis Ltd , 13(3), pp. 517–540. doi:
10.1080/0964401042000229025.

Schwarz, U. (2012) Balkan rivers- The blue heart of Europe. Hydromorphological Status and
Dam Projects. Report. Vienna.

Schwarz, U. and Vienna, F. (2020) Hydropower Projects on Balkan Rivers 2020 Update.

49
Available at: www.euronatur.org (Accessed: 4 January 2021).

Shrestha, G., Joshi, D. and Clément, F. (2019) ‘Masculinities and hydropower in India: A
feminist political ecology perspective’, International Journal of the Commons, 13(1), p. 130.
doi: 10.18352/ijc.920.

Simons, H. (2009) Case study research in practice. London: Sage.

Simons, H. and Simons, H. (2020) ‘Case Study Research: In-Depth Understanding in

Context’, The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2014), pp. 675–703. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.29.

Sosa, M. and Zwarteveen, M. (2012) ‘Exploring the politics of water grabbing: the case of
large mining operations in the Peruvian Andes’, Water Alternatives, 5(2), pp. 360–375.

Sovacool, B. K. and Walter, G. (2019) ‘Internationalizing the political economy of

hydroelectricity: security, development and sustainability in hydropower states’, Review of
International Political Economy. Routledge, 26(1), pp. 49–79. doi:
10.1080/09692290.2018.1511449.

De Stefano, L. et al. (2017) ‘Assessment of transboundary river basins for potential hydro-
political tensions’, Global Environmental Change. Elsevier Ltd, 45(April), pp. 35–46. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.04.008.

Stoltenborg, D. and Boelens, R. (2016) ‘Disputes over land and water rights in gold mining:
the case of Cerro de San Pedro, Mexico’, Water International. Routledge, 41(3), pp. 447–467.
doi: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1143202.

Swyngedouw, E. (2009) ‘The Political Economy and Political Ecology of the Hydro-Social
Cycle’, Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, (August(142)), pp. 56–60.
doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704x.2009.00054.x.

Taylor, K. S., Longboat, S. and Grafton, R. Q. (2019) ‘Whose Rules? A Water Justice
Critique of the OECD’s 12 Principles on Water Governance’. doi: 10.3390/w11040809.

The World Bank (2021) Foreign direct investment, net inflows (BoP, current US$) - Albania |
Data. Available at:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=AL (Accessed: 2
May 2021).

Unctad (2020) World Investment Report 2020. United nations

https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2020_en.pdf (Accessed: May, 2021)

UNFCCC (2021) How Hydropower Can Help Climate Action. Available at:
https://unfccc.int/news/how-hydropower-can-help-climate-action.(Accessed February, 2021)

Vejnovic, I. (2017) ‘Broken Rivers- The impact of European- finances small hydropower
plants on pristine balkan landscapes’, Bankwatch Network https://bankwatch.org/wp-

50
content/uploads/2017/12/broken-rivers-bankwatch-study-on-hydropower-in-the-balkans-
merged.pdf (Accessed April, 2021)

Vejnović, I. and Gallop, P. (2018) ‘Financing for hydropower in protected areas in Southeast
Europe: 2018’, (March), pp. 1–72. Available at:
https://balkanrivers.net/sites/default/files/Financing-hydropower-southeast-Europe-web-
fin.pdf.

Vogler, J. (2014) ‘Environmental issues’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P. (eds) The
Globalization of world politics. An introduction to international relations. 6th edn. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 342–493.

Wagner, B., Hauer, C. and Habersack, H. (2019) ‘Current hydropower developments in

Europe’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Elsevier B.V., 37(i), pp. 41–49.
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.002.

Watts, M. . (1985) ‘Social theory and environmental degradation: the case of Sudano-
Sahelian West Africa’, in Gradus, Y. (ed.) In Desert development: man and technology in
sparselands. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 14–32.

Wester, P., de Vos, H. and Woodhill, J. (2004) ‘The enabling environment. Discussion
Paper’, in FAO Conference on Water for Food and Ecosystems.

Whatmore, S. (2009) ‘Mapping knowledge controversies: Environmental science, democracy

and the redistribution of expertise’, Progress in Human Geography, (33(5)), pp. 587–599.
White, B. et al. (2012) ‘The new enclosures: Critical perspectives on corporate land deals’,
Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), pp. 619–647.

Wolf, A. T., Kramer, A., Carius, A., & Dabelko, G. D. (2005) Managing water conflict and
cooperation, State of the world 2005. Washington, DC.

Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S. B. and Giordano, M. (2003) International waters: identifying basins at
risk, Water Policy. Available at: www.worldwater.org/conflict.htm. (Accessed: 10 February
2021).

Yaka, Ö. (2019) ‘Rethinking Justice: Struggles For Environmental Commons and the Notion
of Socio-Ecological Justice’, Antipode. Blackwell Publishing Inc., 51(1), pp. 353–372. doi:
10.1111/anti.12422.

Zwarteveen, M. Z. and Boelens, R. (2014) ‘Defining, researching and struggling for water
justice: some conceptual building blocks for research and action’, Water International.
Routledge, 39(2), pp. 143–158. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2014.891168.

Law no 125/2013 on Concessions and Public Private Partnership, Republic of Albania

51
9. Appendices
Appendix A. Interviewees and personal communication
Index of interviewees and personal communication
Interviewee 1 NGO, local partner of “Save the blue heart of Europe” campaign
Interviewee 2 NGO, dealing with environmental sustainability in Albania
Interviewee 3 NGO, organizer of “Save the blue hearts of Europe campaign”
Interviewee 4 University professor active in Scientists for Vjosa
Interviewee 5 Employee at state owned energy company in Albania
Interviewee 6 Employee at state owned energy company in Albania
Personal Employee at ministry of tourism and environment
communication 7
Personal Employee at state owned energy company in Albania
communication 8

Appendix B. Interview guide

Below are the questions asked during the semi-structured interviews. However, since the
interviews were semi-structured, the conversations were rather open ended and departure in
different directions. The questions were asked to make the informants reflect from the
perspective of the social movement or domestic energy company. The academic professor
was active in scientists for Vjosa and was therefore considered part of the social movement,
although able to contribute with a slightly different perspective

NGOs

• How do you perceive the Vjosa river?

• Do you perceive that Vjosa river provides any benefits? (general, personally)
• Perceptions about hydropower development in Albania?
• Perceptions on hydropower development in Vjosa? (Benefits? Social impacts?
Environmental impacts?)
• How do you perceive the opposition between the different actors involved in
hydropower development? Responsibilities?
• How would you frame the issue?
• Perception on PPP (BOT)?
• Strategies used?
• Responsibilities?
• Perceptions about information regarding hydropower development and public
participation? (EIA process)
• Possibilities to influence decisions regarding hydropower and Vjosa?
• What is your development vision for Vjosa river?

52
Companies

• How do you perceive the Vjosa river?

• Do you perceive that Vjosa river provides any benefits? (general, personally)
• Perceptions about hydropower development in Albania?
• Perceptions on hydropower development in Vjosa? (Benefits? Social impacts?
Environmental impacts?)
• What are the drivers for building hydropower in Albania?
• What are the challenges in building hydropower plants in Albania?
• How do you perceive the opposition towards hydropower in Vjosa?
• What is your experience of PPP (BOT)?
• How do you experience the process of gaining the necessary authorizations?
• How do you approach the communities?
• How does the company work to distribute information about the project?
• Responsibilities?
• How do you undertake EIAs?
• What is your development vision for Vjosa river?

53