OVERVIEW

2. OVERVIEW • Area = 3.2 mill. Km2 (1.25 mill.miles2) top 5 largest river basin in the world • It covers 17% of the continental surface • Five countries: Brazil (46%), Argentina (27.5%), Paraguay (13.5%), Bolivia (9%), Uruguay (4%) • Combined population = 208.5 million (1997) • Paraguay lies completely in the basin • Main rivers: Paraguay, Parana, Pilcomayo, Uruguay, La Plata • Man – made obstructions impact on farming and cattle grazing downstream  more deforestation, silt held back

3. OVERVIEW • Downstream riparian states share interest in natural flood  projects in the “Pantanal” would impact on them • River navigation important role for Brazil and Argentina, but only lower 500 km navigable for large vessels • Parana – La Plata only access to ocean for Bolivia and Paraguay • Good agricultural and navigational potential though the pool of hydroelectric power it possess is the biggest potential(in the basin and in the world)

4. HISTORY • Basin members are sovereign since early 1800  175 years of conflict & cooperation between them • Long history of colonial domination has left both: Latin America unity idea and rivalries and suspicions (territorial & boundary conflicts) • Last mayor conflict 1932-35 “Guerra del Chaco” between Bolivia and Paraguay, though at present still exist boundary disputes between riparians • Former military rule has left strong and authoritarian tendencies • Political stability and democratic administration rule for the 5 countries nowadays  tendency to cooperate and integrate

5. HYDROPOLITICS • Basin has a peculiar physical geography and national borders demarcation produces a complex riparian structure  riparian and co – riparian • History and territorial legacies influence greatly though the last 20 years has seen tendency to regional cooperation • Basinwide cooperation dates back to 1932 • Declaration on Industrial and Agricultural use of International rivers, 1933  principle of previous consultation • Several treaties and agreements until 1969, the La Plata Basin Treaty  problem was the treaty overlooked economic integration and focused on other issues rather than water resources development

6. ITAIPU • Brazil & Paraguay combined Itaipu project (1973) • Itaipu project took 20 years; 17 to construct • $US 15 billion • Most of the cost covered by Brazil • 12.6 million KWh • Electricity owned & shared equally by both countries • One party can buy excess of power not used by the other at a fixed price  Paraguay subsidizing Brazil…!?

7. ITAIPU

8. HIDROVIA • Project main objective to develop a 3,400 km shipping canal on the Paraguay and Parana rivers • Communicate Brazil’s interior territory and Paraguay with Atlantic Ocean • Feasibility studies supported by IDB and the United Nations Development Program • Important negative impact over hydrology and environment, not mentioning capital costs

9. PROBLEMS & ISSUES • Lack of common strategy • National organizations, if any, ineffective to achieve efficient management, reasonable financing strategies and socioeconomic goals • Conflicts between energy production and river navigation • Environmental awareness not an important issue • MERCOSUR  economic integration  does it mean effective basin management?

10. DISCUSSION • Should small riparian countries act jointly in order to achieve certain goals in transboundary water management? In other words, would it be a better strategy for weak riparian countries to ally and work together to gain more leverage against large riparian countries in water resource management? • Do conflict and/or cooperation depend greatly in the fact that one or more countries are upper/downstream riparian or co-riparian? • Was La Plata Basin Treaty (1969) a success? In general, What should a treaty cover or deal with in the development and use of a basin’s water resources?

11. DISCUSSION • Who benefit the most from the Itaipu Accord (present and future)? Did sovereignty have any influence in the outcome of the project? If so, should this experience be used in the decision making of future projects (within de basin countries)? • Does the need for energy justify a project like Itaipu with all the social, cultural and environmental impacts?

12. DISCUSSION • Would an economic/commercial agreement between countries that share a common basin help or pave the roadway to achieve a multilateral management of the basin (Ex: MERCOSUR)? • Is the hydrovia a feasible project for the basin? From an economically point of view? What about an environmentally point of view?