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 mikiyasu@cc.tuat.ac.jp

THANK YOU