Institutional Aspects of International Water Management
– Lessons from Mekong and Other River Basins –
Mikiyasu NakayamaUnited Graduate School of Agricultural Science
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
Hiromi YamaguchiGraduate School of International Languages and Cultures
Nagoya University
Roles of River Basin Organization (1)
• Provision of common arena for member states to regularly meet and discuss common issues.
• Resolution of conflicts among member states.
• Developing coordinated water resources development and management scheme.
Roles of River Basin Organization (2)
• Securing assistance from donor countries and development aid agencies.
• Promoting information sharing among various countries and agencies.
• Sharing of costs and benefits in water resources development and management.
Mekong River Basin as a Good Model ?
• Mekong Committee (now Mekong River Commission) is regarded a "model" of river basin organization.
• "Mekong Spirit" is highly applauded.
• Institutional aspects make big differences in the way how an international water system should be managed by riparian countries.
Lower Mekong River Basin
• Mekong River is an international river with six riparian countries, namely Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.
• Four riparian countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam), out of six basin countries, constitute the lower Mekong river basin.
• Lower Mekong river basin covers 609,000 sq. km (about 77% of the Mekong's total catchment) and includes almost all of the Lao PRD and Cambodia, one third of Thailand, and two third of Vietnam.
Mekong River Basin
History of Mekong Committee
• Established in 1957 by stewardship of the U.N.
• Large-scale water resources development was envisaged.
• Objectives included hydro-power, irrigation, flood control, etc.
• Seven "cascade" of dams in main stream were planned.
Was Original Aim Met?
NO!
• No large dam was built on the main stream.
However...
• The Mekong Committee still has reasons to be a model.
Roles Effectively Played
• As coordinating mechanism of the basin countries for more than 30 years.
• As focal point of development aid provided by donor countries and organizations.
• To maintain transparency about development plans within the basin through document center
• Collection and distribution of hydrological data in the basin (to any individual or organization).
Can Basin OrganizationResolve Conflicts?
• World Bank served as mediator between India and Pakistan in 1950's.
• Hungary and Slovakia asked International Court of Justice for judgements.
• International Joint Commission between Canada and U.S.A. proved instrumental in this regard.
• Mekong Committee failed to resolve the conflict between Thailand and Vietnam in early 1990's.
Is "Integrated Development" Possible in the Real World?
• Resolution on the knotty problem of selecting and sequencing projects came about by sacrificing optimization of economic output to sociopolitical realities in the Columbia river.
• "Indus River Treaty" adopted between India and Pakistan in 1960 was materialized only at a sacrifice of the integrated water use system.
• The concept of "integrated development" was less visible in the new agreement adopted by Mekong countries in 1995.
Is "Sharing of Benefits" Really Feasible in International Water Systems?
• The era of "Harmon doctrine" has gone.
• The "1997 Convention" has become de-facto code of conduct.
• Basin countries are now obliged to cooperate.
• Transition from "monopoly of benefits by upstream countries" to "sharing of benefits among riparians" needs a mechanism.
Information Transparency
• Transparency in Mekong Committee by guidance of U.N.?
• Anyone can obtain hydrological data at cost.
• Document center served as archives of hydrological data, project documents, research papers, news clips, meeting minutes, etc.
• Issues on Mekong are well covered by mass media.
Mekong versus Ganges
• Hydrological data are classified in India.
• No document archives for Ganges.
• 28 thesis on Mekong and 3 on Ganges by the AIT graduates.
• Amount of available information has made differences.
Flood and Drought in Ganges River
Farakka Barrage…
• India constructed the "Farakka Barrage" in 1970.
• The aim was to divert water during low flow period (i.e. dry season) into Hoogly River.
• The Farakka Barrage can not control floods.
• However, a leader in Bangladesh accused the Farakka Barrage as the cause of a large flood.
• Implications of Farakka Barrage in dry season are still not well apprehended by the public.
• "Information Transparency" was lacking.
Internet-Based Tools and DSS for Public Participation
• Arguments on “Development or Environment” has been very “hot”.
• No common understanding as a sound ground for talks exists among interested parties.
• DSS has been developed by several institutes, while access to them has been very limited.
• DSS as Internet-based tools should serve as a sound common ground for public participation.
UNEP's Support for DSS Development
• How water resources may be used more efficiently by collaboration of Zambezi riparian states?
• UNEP asked IIASA (in Austria) to develop a DSS.
• DSS proved useful as a tool for planning.
• In spite of “Information Transparency” maintained by UNEP, only small number of people could use the DSS due to limited access to stand-alone DSS.
• Now, DSS can be made accessible through internet as ”DSS-on-WEB" !
Issues of San Juan River Observed by a Japanese Visiting Fellow in Costa Rica
Problems in Perception by the Public:
• Highly concentrated population in the capital of San Jose.
• Lack of interests in the "hinterland" river by those in the capital.
• Rivers are regarded as "dust bins" rather than resources.
• Very limited exposure to the public by mass media.
Problems in Approaches by Government in the past:
• Not regarded as water "resources" but as "nuisance".
• Government is not keen to let citizens know the issue.
• Weak institutional settings to deal with international water issues by Government.
• Too much reliance upon donor countries and agencies, both in terms of financial and human resources.
• Frequent changes in ”national priorities” by new governments (to be established every 4 years).
• Too much of democracy - very lengthy decision making process.
Encouraging progress:
• Government at last became serious.
Concerns:
• Absence of "National Master Plan" concept.
• Lack of proactive involvement by Government.
• Too many stake holders - subsequent many changes in project components and priorities (to confuse donors).
San Juan River - Prospect for Future -
Conclusion
• Conflict resolution is not always possible.
• Integrated management may not be materialized.
... however ...
• Provision of a common arena works well.
• Information transparency is useful and essential.
… and …
• Commitments must be made by Governments.
• "Information Transparency” and ”Public Participation” appear useful and instrumental to promote collaboration among basin countries.
• Institutional setting makes a big difference.
• ”DSS-on-WEB” should be instrumental to promote public participation and should be field-tested.
• More case studies should be carried out to obtain clues for successful public participation with DSS.
SYMPOSIUM ON
“IMPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND GOVERNANCE
IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT”
8 –9 October, 2003United Nations University
Tokyo, Japan
Convened by
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technologyand
United Nations University
For more information, contact Mikiyasu Nakayama at [email protected]
THANK YOU
