Mekong River Commission

1. Mekong River Commission Strengths and shortcomings: a comparative approach

2. MRC vs. Int’l Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) – Mandates MRC: “to promote and co-ordinate sustainable management and development of water and related resources for the countries’ mutual benefit and the people’s well-being by implementing strategic programs and activities and providing scientific information and policy advice” ICPDR: to enforce EU Legislation, specifically the “Directive Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water” Policy  This is an umbrella agreement seeking to secure good water status in all EU waters by 2015

3. The River Basins • Mekong: 6 States, 70 Million Inhabitants • 4 of the 6 Nations are members to the regime (MRC) • China and Myanmar, participate only as “dialogue partners” • Basin came under MRC governance in 1995 • Danube: 14 States, 80 Million Inhabitants • 14 of 14 States are members to the regime (ICPDR) • Basin came under ICPDR governance in 1999

4. Legal Authority • MRC: as an “int’l body,” retains the power to enter into agreements w/donors and the int’l community at large • Formed by member states’ “agreement” • Member states not compelled to implement its decisions • Legal authority diminished by membership vacancies • ICPDR: not freestanding, but created by EU directive • Exists alongside other EU environmental regimes • Member states compelled to adopt/strengthen domestic legislation to implement ICPDR decisions

5. Stakeholder Participation • MRC: no clear strategy for outside party engagement, but participation “strongly encouraged” • NGO participation limited in Laos and Vietnam by one-party State structures • Only member States participate in meetings/decisions • ICPDR: clearly developed “DRB Strategy” for engaging outside parties • “observer status” for e.g. NGOs, private industry, inter-gov’t orgs that “demonstrate strong interest or active engagement in Danube protection/H2O management” • Observers participate in ICPDR meetings/decisions

6. Funding • MRC: mix of parties and outside donors • Member States contribute equally to budget, totaling 45% of operating costs (doesn’t include program costs) • Historically financed largely by UN and int’l community • UNDP remains single largest program sponsor • ICPDR: no outside donors • EU contributes ≤2.5% of administrative costs; member States pay remaining expenses • Specific organizational “financial rules”

7. Organizational Structure • MRC: Permanent Secretariat + “Council” + “Joint Committee” • Annual meetings (observers may be invited) • Rules of procedure set by Council, composed of a rep from each member State • ICPDR: Permanent Secretariat + “Delegations” • Delegates: each country can nominate 5 individuals, and each delegation runs the ICPDR for a year • Rules of procedure remain regardless of delegation • Permanent or ad hoc “Expert Groups” for specific issues

8. Information and Notification • MRC: Member States must notify Joint Committee of all “uses” on river and tributaries • Distinct rules/protocol for wet/dry season • ICPDR: Member States must notify ICPDR “uses”, as well as 6 other enumerated informational categories • Member states also share data, regulatory changes, etc.  States must then enter into consultations per ICPDR framework if x-boundary impact likely

9. MRC Limitations • Sovereignty issues / MRC’s hortatory ethos • Non-participation by China and Burma • Economic and developmental status of member States • No clear strategy for integration of non-gov’t actors • Lack of sophistication in information sharing