Mikiyasu Nakayama United Graduate School of Agricultural Science

1. Institutional Aspects of International Water Management – Lessons from Mekong and Other River Basins – Mikiyasu Nakayama United Graduate School of Agricultural Science Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology Hiromi Yamaguchi Graduate School of International Languages and Cultures Nagoya University

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Mekong River Basin

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Flood and Drought in Ganges River

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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" !

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. San Juan River - Prospect for Future - 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).

27. 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.

28. "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.

29. SYMPOSIUM ON • “IMPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • AND GOVERNANCE • IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT” • 8 –9 October, 2003 • United Nations University • Tokyo, Japan • Convened by • Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology • and • United Nations University • For more information, contact Mikiyasu Nakayama at mikiyasu@cc.tuat.ac.jp

30. THANK YOU