kynan witters hicks, global perspectives capstone, april 2014 -- final draft

Courtesy of James F. Scott Photography

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES CAPSTONE

TRANSBOUNDARY WATER SHARING, THE

PRESERVATION OF ECOSYSTEMS, AND HUMAN

WELL-BEING

KYNAN WITTERS HICKS

DR. FAITH PAUL, METHODS ADVISOR

DR. KAREN ECKERT, CONTENT ADVISOR

GLBL 497

APRIL 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms 1

Acknowledgments 3

Executive Summary 5

Abstract 11

Introduction 13

Background 20

Early Civilizations 20

Industrial Revolution 23

Large-scale Dam Construction 25

21st Century: Era of Scarcity 28

Water and Conflict 29

History of Water Law and Management 32

Integrated Water Resource Management 33

Changing Global Trends 35

Globalization and Regionalization 35

Climate Change 37

Theoretical Elements 38

Model Framework 40

Case Study I - Danube River Basin 46

Geography and Management 47

Context Elements 51

Management Elements 75

Outcome of Sustainability 78

Case Study II - Mekong River Basin 81

Geography and Management 82

Context Elements 87

Management Elements 119

Outcome of Sustainability 121

Danube and Mekong River Basins: A Comparison 124

Analysis 129

State of the River Environment, Ecosystems, and Natural Processes 129

Political and Socio-economic Context Variables and Management Variables 131

Final Remarks 140

Conclusion 141

Bibliography 146

Kynan Witters-Hicks, Global Perspectives Capstone, April 2014 Page 1

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CEP Core Environment Program

DRB Danube River Basin

EU European Union

GEF World Bank Global Environment Facility

GMS Greater Mekong Subregion

GNP Gross National Product

GWP - CEE Global Water Partnership, Central and Eastern Europe

HBC Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company

HDI Human Development Index

ICDPR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

ICJ International Court of Justice

IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management

MRB Mekong River Basin

MRC Mekong River Commission

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGO Non-governmental Organization

UN United Nations

UN ECAFE United Nations Economic Commission for Asia

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WFD Water Framework Directive

WWF World Wildlife Fund


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project could not have been completed if it weren't for a few key people.

These individuals have been instrumental in giving me the inspiration, support and guidance

needed to conduct the research and write this paper. First I would like to thank Dr. Faith Paul for

embarking on this journey with me from the very beginning. From the stages of initial research

to the final writing of the paper, Dr. Paul has met with me regularly to discuss the contents and

methods of my study and paper. Second I would also like to thank Dr. Karen Eckert whose

guidance and direction has also been a significant help in forming my ideas, conducting my

research, and writing my paper. She would always make time for me in her very busy schedule

to discuss ideas and give me helpful feedback. Third I would like to thank my parents who have

instilled in me a love for the environment and for people. The core values of this paper largely

come from my upbringing and my parent's ideals of respect and admiration for spiritual and

practical value that nature brings to our world. Lastly, I would like to thank all of the fellow

members of my capstone class and my friends who have been at my side while I have worked on

this project. This accomplishment is not the result of my efforts alone, but the faith and support

that others provided along the way.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rivers are the life-blood of almost every freshwater ecosystem on Earth and the keystone

of human existence. They directly and indirectly provide a variety of provisioning, supporting,

regulating and cultural services to humans, who depend on these services to thrive.

Unfortunately, as the world’s freshwater ecosystems and reservoirs are increasingly degraded or

declining, the 21st century has been characterized as the age of water scarcity. This presents a

number of challenges for people who depend on river ecosystems for their well-being. In order to

tackle these challenges, researchers and water managers must create management frameworks

that adequately safeguard freshwater ecosystems.

Freshwater, largely sourced from rivers and lakes, has shaped the development of human

civilization from the formation of early civilizations (ca.7000 B.C.) through the industrial

revolution (beginning in the late 18th

century) and the construction of large-scale dams

(beginning in the 20th

century). The First World War shifted the water management paradigm

dramatically. Before World War I, waterways were managed for navigation. The war, however,

pushed water managers to think about how the world's water resources would withstand the

intensive use and pollution from heavy industry. After World War II, two international

documents were created to articulate a comprehensive framework for the management of

international waterways. Today the United Nations recognizes an established set of holistic and

cross-disciplinary principles, called Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), as a best-

practice framework for international water management. The purpose of IWRM is to manage

water with regard to the three principles of sustainability: economic prosperity, social equity, and

environmental sustainability.

Methods of Study: This study looks at the ways in which riparian nation-states sharing an

international watercourse can manage for sustainability across diverse geographical regions and

political and socio-economic contexts in order to effectively provide for the welfare of people

and the protection of ecosystems.

Central Question: How riparian states sharing an international watercourse can

implement IWRM best-practice management principles across diverse geographical regions and

political and socio-economic contexts in order to effectively provide for the welfare of people

and the protection of ecosystems?

Thesis: In order to answer this question, this study theorizes that the extent to which

riparian states sharing an international watercourse are able to effectively provide for the welfare

of people and the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the natural, political, and socio-

economic contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which the three pillars of IWRM

are implemented; namely, participate actively and equitably, protect and preserve ecosystems,

and include stakeholders in decision-making.


Variables: In order to test this thesis, the study analyzes two independent variables to

understand how riparian countries sharing an international watercourse can successfully and

sustainably manage a transboundary watercourse in order to protect river ecosystems and provide

welfare for people (the dependent variable in this study). The independent variables are (1) the

degree to which IWRM best-practice management principles are implemented and (2) the impact

from the political, socio-economic and natural contexts that support and constrain sustainable

management.

Case Studies: This study applies these variables in two distinct geographical regions:

The Danube River Basin and the Mekong River Basin. These river basins were selected because

they offer both positive and negative examples of how contextual circumstances can both

support and inhibit the implementation of best-practice management principles of IWRM and

sustainable management for the protection of ecosystems and provision of human well-being.

Case Study I – Danube River Basin (DRB)

The Danube River is the second largest river in Europe, touching 19 countries in Central

and Eastern Europe. Historically it has been an important passageway for transportation and

trade, and currently it serves as a principle driver of the European economy. Similarly, the DRB

is a central hydrological vein for a variety of riparian ecosystems. Contextual and management

variables are summarized below, with comments on the extent to which sustainability has been

achieved.

Context Variables:

Political

Strong regional political integration with the formation of the European Union

Strong legal and policy structures for water management that protects ecosystems

and provide for public well-being at the regional level

o Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides legal structure

o International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICDPR)

provides institutional structure

Water management decision-making is decentralized

Decisions made at the national level are supportive of the common good and

basin-wide environmental protection

Country interests are diverse and sometimes conflict

Water management structure supports and facilitates IWRM including:

o regional (river-basin) thinking

o environmental/ecosystem protection

o decentralization of management

ICDPR is generally regarded as a good example for coordinating comprehensive

and integrated river-basin management in practice.


Literature critiques the ICDPR for focusing efforts too much at the state level and

not enough at the regional and local levels.

Problems with implementation of IWRM exist at local levels because of:

o Rapidly shifting responsibilities

o Lack of funding

o Insufficient cooperation among water management authorities

Socio-economic

Increase in democratic decision making, government accountability, transparency,

and encouragement of public participation in planning.

Greater awareness and sensitivity to environmental problems

Very high - high HDI

Greater liberalization and internationalization of water markets; the private sector

plays a significant role in water resource management

The majority of the public feels that environmental problems directly affect them

and that action should be taken to address these problems

Water pollution is the most important issue to public

Strong policy and legal structure that puts great importance on including public

and private stakeholders in the water management decision-making

Strong regional institutions that include stakeholders at the regional level

ICDPR engages with three different kind of stakeholders at regional level:

o observer organization and scientific experts.

o private sector

o general public stakeholders

Literature finds that WFD or ICDPR does not guarantee equitable representation

of stakeholder feedback. Roles of different actors are not institutionally defined.

Natural

Significant pollution in the Danube River from organic, nutrient, and hazardous

substance contamination.

Significant alterations or obstructions to the natural hydrological flows of the

Danube River.

Wetlands are in critical decline

Sturgeon, "a species of basin-wide importance," are severely threatened due to

hydrological alterations, obstructions and pollution.

Management Variables:

Active and equitable participation

EU countries in the DRB either actively participate or have a desire to actively

participate in IWRM.


Non-EU countries in the DRB participate to some degree in applying principles of

IWRM.

Stakeholder inclusion

The WFD and ICDPR provide a framework for public stakeholders provide

feedback to water management decision makers.

Scholars criticize the WFD and ICDPR for not guaranteeing equitable

representation of different kinds of stakeholders (i.e. private enterprise and public

community members)

Environmental protection and regulation

There is a legal structure from the European Commission and the WFD for the

protection and regulation of water quality and ecosystems in DRB.

Outcome of Sustainability: Overall the managing institutions of the DRB have made great

strides toward implementing principles of IWRM and sustainable management. The WFD and

ICDPR have outlined several principles that fall in line with the IWRM framework, including the

creation of a platform for which stakeholders can participate in planning and decision making,

encouraging active and equitable participation of all riparian countries within the DRB, taking

steps to confront environmental challenges facing the DRB and seeking to protect both the

quality of water and the integrity of natural ecosystems.

Case Study II – Mekong River Basin (MRB)

The Mekong River plays an important role in both Southeast Asia and in the world

because it is a vital source of water and nutrients for globally transported agricultural products,

cheap energy production, and thriving ecosystems. The yearly floods bring an influx of silts and

nutrients which buoy the Mekong's natural ecosystems, provide food and water for local people,

and sustain agricultural crops. Contextual and management variables are summarized below,

with comments on the extent to which sustainability has been achieved.

Context Variables:

Political

Strong regional political integration with the formation of the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) and

Mekong River Commission (MRC).

o GMS and MRC provide institutional structure for water management.

Absence of legal and policy structures for water management that protect

ecosystems and provide for public well-being at the regional level.

Water management is largely centralized

GMS promotes trade, investment and economic growth, and primarily excludes

provisions for environmental protection

MRC attempts IWRM but is hindered by lack of political interest


MRC and GMS are generally regarded as a bad example for coordinating

comprehensive and integrated river-basin management that considers ecosystem

protection and social well-being in practice.

Decisions made at the national level are often made in support of national

interests and hinder cooperative basin-wide environmental protection

Country interests are diverse and sometimes conflict

Socio-economic

Large portion of population live in rural areas

Low levels of democracy

Widespread poverty

Low - very low HDI

Regional pressures for development encourages rapid economic growth

Society primarily supported by agrarian economy

Majority of Lower Mekong Basin local economy highly dependent on the water

from the Mekong River to make a living.

Rapidly changing occupational structure.

Absence of policy and legal structure that includes stakeholders in decision-

making.

MRC engages with select community stakeholders through the Mekong

Integrated Water Resource Management Project.

GMS only includes select NGOs and international organizations in decision-

making, and is largely exclusive of other stakeholders.

Literature generally agrees that centralized management hinders stakeholder

involvement.

GMS and the MRC do not provide an open forum for public stakeholder

involvement in decision-making at regional level.

Natural

Different reports on water quality and impacts of pollution.

MRC reports that even though the Mekong River had been "impacted" or

"severely impacted" by human activities, the quality of the river for agricultural

use and the health of aquatic species is largely not affected.

Literature reports "high" salinity levels, varying pH levels and sometimes severe

acidification, and "significant" increases in total phosphorus concentrations.

Significant alterations or obstructions to the natural hydrological flows of the

Mekong River.

Effects of alterations and obstructions are felt by people in the Lower Mekong

Basin who depend on the natural flow of waters for their livelihood.

Significant declines in fish populations due to hydrological alterations,

obstructions and overfishing.


Management Variables:

Active and equitable participation

Countries generally cooperate when they have similar interests.

Mekong countries generally don't actively participate in IWRM.

Stakeholder inclusion

Both the MRC and the GMS include selected stakeholders, often international

organizations and NGOs, with less emphasis on public stakeholder feedback.

Literature states that stakeholder representation in water management decision-

making is largely non-existent.

Environmental protection and regulation

There is no legal structure for environmental protection and regulation.

The MRC plays a weak role in conducting environmental assessments and

coordinating environmental protection projects.

Outcome of Sustainability: Even though scholars find that IWRM is incredibly important

to the Mekong Region and its associated ecosystems in order to maintain environmental integrity

(and therefore to support locally dependent economies), sustainable development of the Mekong

River that supports the protection of ecosystems and the provision of social well-being is largely

non-existent. Country interests for economic growth and large-scale infrastructural development

inhibit environmental consideration and protection and limit engagement with most stakeholders.

Conclusions

The findings of this study provide valuable insights related to managing aquatic

ecosystems to safeguard ecological functioning and provide for humankind. The primary

findings are summarized below.

Pollution, hydromorphological alterations and obstructions, and the destructions of

wetlands are degrading and destroying river ecosystems – and negatively impact

those who directly and indirectly benefit from rivers' ecosystem services.

Both structure and agency are important and necessary in facilitating effective

sustainable water management and tackle current water challenges.

Strong legal, policy and institutional structures at the regional level are needed first in

order to support basin-wide implementation of IWRM

Decentralization of management, facilitated by regional policy and institutions

structures, is critically important to empower national and local water managers to

implement projects of IWRM.

High levels of individual freedom and democracy encourages public participation in

decision-making and often facilitates more sustainable water management.

Poverty inhibits the ability of people to take part in decision-making because people

lack adequate resources to engage with decision-makers.


ABSTRACT

The capacity of freshwater rivers to provide a variety of supporting, provisioning,

regulating, and cultural ecosystem services is threatened, leading many researchers to call the

21st century the age of water scarcity because the world's freshwater ecosystems and reservoirs

are rapidly degrading and declining. As a result, water managers need to find ways to manage

rivers that cross political boundaries in order to address a three-part challenge to: conserve

freshwater resources and ecosystems, provide for human well-being, and mitigate jurisdictional

conflicts. Management, however, is constrained by the diverse natural, political, and socio-

economic circumstance in which the rivers are place. Therefore, the central question of this study

is how can riparian states sharing an international watercourse manage for sustainability across

diverse geographical regions and political and socio-economic contexts in order to effectively

provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems? In an analysis of the diverse

political, socio-economic and natural contexts in two different geographical regions, the Danube

River Basin and the Mekong River Basin, this study finds that the extent to which riparian states

sharing an international watercourse are able to effectively provide for the welfare of people and

the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the natural, political, and socio-economic

contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which they implement three pillars of

Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) for successful transboundary water sharing:

participate actively and equitable, protect and preserve ecosystems, and include stakeholders in

decision-making.


INTRODUCTION

Water must be present for human life to exist on the planet. Since the development of the

first civilization in Mesopotamia, water has played a central role in the history of mankind's

qualitative experience on Earth. Water is a nourishing substance that gives breath to all life, and

access to it is key to human survival and progress. People are often intrigued by water's unique

natural properties in which a strong electromagnetic bond is formed between water molecules.

These unique properties give water distinct characteristics like surface tension and high specific

heat. Just as water molecules form strong bonds with each other, mankind is closely bonded with

this valuable resource and its services. Throughout history, humans have developed tools and

systems for managing their water resources and harnessing the properties of water to their

benefit. However, today freshwater is becoming a scarce resource. With the advent of population

growth, modernization, and now climate change, greater numbers of people and countries

compete for diminishing water resources. Therefore the challenge for mankind's survival in the

21st century will depend on our ability to address a three-part challenge to: conserve freshwater

resources and ecosystems, provide for human well-being, and mitigate jurisdictional conflicts.

The 21st century is being called the age of water scarcity because the world's freshwater

ecosystems and reservoirs are quickly degrading and declining.1 The decline has its origins in

1776 when James Watt created an invention that harnessed the power of water and started a

chain of events that would ultimately pollute and over-use the world's freshwater resources.

Watt's invention of the first modern and efficient steam engine launched the world into an

industrial revolution, and the explosion of innovative ideas and technologies that resulted used

the world's natural resources at an unprecedented rate. As countries modernized with increasing

1 Steven Solomon, Water: The Epic Struggle For Wealth, Power, and Civilization (New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publishers, 2010): 4.


speed and intensity, they expanded their borders and built capital in the form of land, labor and

resources in order to provide resources for the industrial machine and to generate economic

growth and wealth. In 1780, industrial growth in Britain quadrupled form 1 to 4 percent per

year.2 Western European nations were the first colonizers and they exploited both people and

resources within their colonies (Green 1999: 277).3 While this is considered a period of progress

for the developed world, is has come at a great cost for the exploited and the exploiters in the

21st century.

In 2002, the Nobel Prize-winner chemist, Paul Crutzen, commented that mankind had

exited the Holocene, a geological characterization that refers to a period of relative climate

stability over the last 11,700 years, and entered a new Epoch called the Anthropocene. The

Anthropocene is defined by the extensive impact of human activity on the natural environment.4

Crutzen's estimate of the human footprint on Earth's ecosystems agrees with data released by

international research organizations. According to the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MEA), a global assessment conducted between 2001 and 2005 of the consequences

of ecosystem change for human well-being and the actions needed to promote conservation and

the sustainable use of ecosystems, approximately 60% of ecosystem services examined are

degraded or used unsustainably. The costs of such degradation are both substantial and growing.5

The data suggest that mankind's current path is destroying the immediate environment upon

which we depend for survival.

2 Ibid., 223.

3 A. Green and K. Troup, The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in twentieth-century history and theory (New

York, NY: New York University Press, 1999): 277. 4 Jan Zalasiewicz, "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" GSA Today 18, no. 2 (2008): 4-8.

5 Walter V Reid et al, "Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis," Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005): 1.


The resources and services given to us by Earth's ecosystems, and particularly freshwater

ecosystems, are invaluable. They are the cement that holds our communities, countries, and

world together. Rivers, in particular, are the life-blood of almost every natural ecosystem on

Earth and the keystone of human existence. They are the veins that carve through Earth's

landscape housing, regulating and nourishing vast varieties of flora and fauna. Flood seasons in

watersheds sustain vast amounts of forest, providing building materials and food, and in Sub-

Saharan Africa, the MEA identified five direct services that rivers and aquifers provide to the

people: water for domestic consumption, water for industry (primarily used for mining and coal-

fired electricity generation), hydroelectric power generation, irrigated agriculture and

maintenance of aquatic ecosystems.6 Research conducted on freshwater resources in Sub-

Saharan Africa documents that they are declining, and will continue to decline as a result of

population growth, changing consumption standards as living standards rise, and climate

change.7 This trend in Sub-Saharan Africa is not unique. A world with growing demographic

and environmental pressures will face challenges to maintain sufficient reservoirs of usable

freshwater. If the quantity and quality of water continues to decline, then the well-being of

human life will suffer as well.

Water is very often an unevenly distributed resource and declining freshwater ecosystems

disproportionately affect groups of people who rely more directly on a river’s goods and

services. The MEA found that "the harmful effects of the degradation of ecosystem services (the

persistent decrease in the capacity of an ecosystem to deliver services) are being borne

disproportionately by the poor, are contributing to growing inequalities and disparities across

6The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ed. R. Biggs and R.

J. Scholes (Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2004): 44. 7 Ibid.,


groups of people, and are sometimes the principle factor causing poverty and social conflict."8

Underserved populations are less easily able to adapt if a good or service that they have been

depending on is taken away. Similarly declines in water quantity and quality can have significant

consequences to human health. The MEA found that 1.7 million deaths occur as a result of

disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene. Furthermore, the MEA finds it "highly

certain" that both the continued degradation of wetlands and the continued decline in water

quantity and quality will result in further impoverishment of human health.9 Therefore it is not

only crucially important to understand how to address water issues in order to protect natural

ecosystems, but to improve the well-being of individuals who are directly affected by declines in

water quality and quantity, and related ecosystems.

As sources of water become increasingly scarce, it will become progressively more

difficult for countries to secure adequate freshwater resources to support their people and their

own development requirements. Mankind dealt itself an uneven hand when it created political

borders. International watercourses flow indiscriminately through landscapes without regard for

political boundaries and, as a result, countries are forced to negotiate with each other for control

over freshwater resources. Stress from climate change, pollution, and water scarcity cause an

increase in competition among states for remaining water resources. In some cases negotiations

turn volatile and result in conflict. On March 22, 2012, World Water Day, the U.S. Intelligence

Council released a report on Global Water Security stating that wars over water are unlikely

within the next 10 years, but "water challenges - shortages, poor water quality, floods, - will

8Reid, 2.

9 Stuart Butchart et al, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water (Washington D.C.: World

Resource Institute, 2005): 48.


likely increase the risk of instability and state failure, [and] exacerbate regional tensions...."10

Therefore in order to preserve Earth's natural ecosystems, provide for the well-being of humans,

and mitigate conflict over water resources, water managers need a framework to understand both

the complexity of water issues and the ways in which mankind can manage for the three-part

challenge. Within the last two decades scientists, researchers, and water professionals have

begun to develop ways to manage water in rivers and lakes that flow across boundaries.

The concept of transboundary water management may sound relatively simple, but its

application is placed in a context of complex natural, societal, and political interactions. As Islam

and Susskind explain in their book Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach To Managing

Complex Water Networks, “Complex problems – and that is what most water management

problems are – involve interactions that are both unknowable and unpredictable.”11

The

uncertainty of water issues and contextual circumstances make transboundary water sharing

agreements very challenging. The Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of

International Watercourses (Appendix 1) helps stakeholders to navigate these challenges and to

successfully form agreements and implement policies that help to protect vital ecosystems,

provide for the well-being of humans, and reduce conflict over water.

This paper seeks to contribute to the dialogue of concerned individuals and researchers

who are addressing the issue of the degradation of water ecosystems across the globe as a result

of pollution, over-exhaustion, changes to water flow and land cover, intensification of climate

change and, most importantly, lack of proper management. It finds that, in theory and practice,

the principles of transboundary water management outlined in the Convention on the Law of the

10

David K Kreamer, "The Past, Present, and Future of Water Conflict and International Security," Journal of

Contemporary Water Research and Education 149, no. 1 (December 2012): 88. 11

Shafiqul Islam and Lawrence E. Susskind, Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing Complex

Water Networks (New York, NY: RFF Press, 2013): xiii.


Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, or documents like it, are useful in

holistically managing water ways. It is generally agreed upon by researchers and water

practitioners that these principles facilitate peaceful cooperation, protection of ecosystems, and

human well-being. If this is the case, however, why are riparian regions not rushing to adopt

these principles? One possibility is that there are constraining historical, political, and socio-

economic circumstances that prevent certain regions from working to cooperatively manage

water resources. This paper will explore examples of positive and negative transboundary water

management from two case studies, the Danube River Basin (DRB) and the Mekong River Basin

(MRB), to explore the central research question: how can riparian states sharing an international

watercourse manage for sustainability across diverse geographical regions and political and

socio-economic contexts in order to effectively provide for the welfare of people and the

protection of ecosystems?

The DRB and the MRB are both situated in different historical, political, and socio-

economic contexts. These contexts have shaped how each region has managed their water

resources and provided for the well-being of its people. Despite the differences, however,

parallels exist in the types of problems that they face and the ways that integrated management

tools can be used to address challenges. This paper will show that there are key indicators within

the framework of transboundary water management that are consistent between the two case

studies, and that contribute to riparian states' ability to provide for the welfare of people,

protection of ecosystems, and mitigation of conflict. Therefore the thesis of this study explains

that the extent to which riparian states sharing an international watercourse are able to effectively

provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the

natural, political, and socio-economic contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which


they implement three pillars of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) for successful

transboundary water sharing: participate actively and equitable, protect and preserve ecosystems,

and include stakeholders in decision-making.

The discussion will include (1) a brief overview of significant historical events during

which water shaped the development of civilizations and mankind shaped the state of freshwater

ecosystems, (2) an analysis of how changing global trends in the 20th and 21st centuries, such as

globalization, regionalization, and climate change, are affecting the way in which water is

managed, (3) major theoretical propositions that inform and shape my content and analysis, (4)

the theory and principles of IWRM and managing for sustainability, (5) a discussion of methods

used in this study, (6) an analysis of transboundary water management in the DRB using a set of

independent and dependent variables, (7) an analysis of transboundary water management in the

MRB using the same set of independent and dependent variables, (8) a comparison and analysis

of transboundary water management in the two case-study regions that pulls out key points of

similarity and difference between the two regions, and (9) a conclusion with a final set of

findings and remarks.

In this study a certain number of ways of knowing shape the way that I observe and

analyze these issues. I will use a braided approach of the interpretivist,12

Annales,13

and critical

inquiry ways of knowing. Looking at issues of transboundary water management through an

interpretivist’s eyes shows me that managing water in the DRB and the MRB is very much

situated within a historical, political, social, and cultural context that makes each case study

12

Interpretivism is a way of knowing that looks for "culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of

the social life-world." The central point of the interpretivist way of knowing is that the way we interpret action,

events and meaning is shaped by our culture. Source: Michael Crotty, The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning

and Perspective in the Research Process (Australia: Sage Publications, 1998): 67. 13

Annales is a school of thought, founded in 1929 in France, which approach historical thinking and research with a

totale lens. This means that Annales historians view all aspects of society as part of historical reality, and they

attempt to draw upon the methods of various disciplines in order to gain a more holistic understanding of history.

Source: Green, A. and K. Troup, 88.


unique. At the same time, using an Annales approach, I recognize that IWRM requires water

managers to use a cross-disciplinary lens in order to make decisions that take into account

changing social, political, and environmental circumstances. Approaching water management

form a totale lens facilitates more effective management. Finally, I employ the critical inquiry

lens because knowledge must be connected to action, and I challenge current models of water

management on the basis of outcomes. I argue that the principles of IWRM provide for more

comprehensive and effective management and help to prevent future conflict. These ways of

knowing guide my point of view and influence the way that I present my arguments.

BACKGROUND

Early Civilizations

Freshwater from rivers and lakes has shaped the development of human civilization from

hunter-gatherer communities to stationary agrarian societies to the industrialized 21st century.

The environmental historian, Peter Coates, describes rivers as a "sinuous blend...not just of

geology, ecology, and climate, but of economics, technology, politics, and human imaginings."14

Coates' observation accurately portrays the important role that rivers have played in shaping

almost every aspect of human society. Humans have harnessed the power of water in order to

perpetuate their own economic development, but the intensive use of water for developmental

reasons has come with a trade-off in ecological destruction. The following section will explore

ways in which many of the major historical turning points of the last 9000 years have been

marked by mankind's ability to control water from large lakes and rivers. The rate at which

mankind uses freshwater resources increases in both geographical scope and intensity over time,

14

Peter Coates, A Story of Six Rivers: History, Culture and Ecology (London, UK: Reaktion Books, 2013): 12.


and eventually the world's economic development will be threatened by Earth's declining ability

to supply freshwater. While the future of the quality and quantity of water resources is uncertain,

mankind's path forward will be influenced by its ability to manage rivers in a way that does not

follow the current model of ecological destruction, and that allows rivers to provide the services

they have given mankind for centuries.

The first major period in human history when water shaped civilization began with the

establishment of irrigated agriculture. The earliest records of irrigated agriculture point to the

Middle East's Fertile Crescent roughly 10,000 years ago.15

Before the establishment of

civilizations, hunter-gatherer societies roamed the land in search of new resources that could

supply their immediate needs. With the invention of agriculture, nomad cultures settled down

and transformed prairies into fields of wild barley and emmer wheat grasses.16

The soil,

however, soon lost its fertility and farmers were forced to slash and burn new plots of land to

grow their crops. By approximately 7000 B.C., farmers had constructed irrigation canals that

delivered streams of water to their crops.17

This was a revolutionary design because it allowed

farmers to stay in one place with all of their food and water requirements met. This forever

changed the way that people survived and organized themselves, and encouraged large numbers

of people to congregate in city centers. In 8000 B.C. about 4 million hunter-gatherers roamed the

Earth. After 5000 B.C., however, the human population doubled every 1000 years and by 1000

B.C., the world population reached approximately 50 million.18

The only condition for these

ancient cities was that there needed to be a source of water close at hand.

15

Steven Solomon, Water: The Epic Struggle For Wealth, Power, and Civilization (New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publishers, 2010): 19. 16

Ibid. 17

Ibid., 20. 18

Ibid., 23.


All of the first major civilizations developed in semiarid environments alongside large,

flooding and fertile rivers.19

The floods seasons were vitally important for agriculture because

they predictably brought fresh soils and nutrients from upstream to nourish planted crops. These

rivers also served as a conduit for trade and transportation. The first civilizations are thought to

have emerged in Mesopotamia along the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and these

were followed by major civilizations in Egypt along the Nile River, India along the Indus River,

and China along the Yellow River. These were the first societies to harness the great potential of

rivers, and the first to develop large-scale economies, urban politics, and diverse cultures using

engineering knowledge to provide water.

Egypt is an excellent example of a society that truly valued water for its provisioning,

regulating, and spiritual services. The Nile River was the only source of irrigation for agriculture.

Planting was arranged so that the floods arrived at the peak of the agricultural cycle, which

resulted in productive crop yields and layers of fertile black silt. The Greek historian Herodotus,

who visited Egypt in 460 B.C., described the flood season as the "gift of the Nile" due to its life-

giving powers.20

The river also shaped almost all aspects of Egyptian culture and society. The

Pharaoh of Egypt was seen as the absolute sovereign over the river who, in the Old Kingdom,

was believed to be a living god who owned both the land and the river. Furthermore, information

about the cyclic flows of the Nile and the planting season was secretly guarded by Egyptian

priests. It has even been observed that the rise and fall of dynasties in Egypt are correlated with

the variations in the Nile's flood season.21

Years with heavy floods produced a surplus of food,

which would establish political unity between the upper and lower regions of Egypt's Nile

Valley. During these times of harmony and productivity, grand temples and monuments were

19

Ibid., 25. 20

Ibid., 26. 21

Ibid., 27.


erected as cultural centerpieces of prosperity and development. On the other hand, years with

lower flood levels were the dark ages for the Egyptian civilization. These years were

characterized by disunity and dynastic collapse.22

For the Egyptians, the Nile River literally

shaped the civilization's ability to progress and live in peace. Over the next 2000 years, water

would continue to have a significant influence on society.

Industrial Revolution

The second major period of rapid development and innovation occurred in the late 18th

century in Europe. Britain had become the leader in technologies that revolutionized traditional

modes of manufacturing and transformed the global economy.23

Britain's growth began when a

few entrepreneurs who developed ways to efficiently harness the energy of water and other

natural resources and used this energy to more efficiently manufacture goods and services. As a

result Britain grew its economy, developed a strong navy, and expanded their influence and ideas

around the world. Its success can, in part, be attributed to water.

The industrial revolution came about in two phases: the modernization of the cotton

textile industry and the development of iron.24

Geographically, Britain was blessed with

abundant sea and inland water resources. Entrepreneurs in Britain quickly utilized the energy of

fast-flowing rivers by inventing the water wheel. The water wheel provided a constant stream of

energy, which in 1771 could power 1000 spindles at a single time, which produced a superior

quality of cotton thread compared to textiles made by hand.25

It was not until the invention of the

steam engine, however, that Britain became the leader in the production of textile and iron.

22

Ibid. 23

Ibid., 212. 24

Ibid. 25

Ibid., 221.


Thomas Newcome is credited for the invention of the first steam engine, which essentially acted

as a large water pump. The steam engine lifted about 10 gallons of water 153 feet with each

pump stroke.26

The second phase of the industrial revolution, spurred only by the invention of

the steam engine, centered around the production of cast iron. All of the heavy industries in

Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were dependant on the production of iron. With

the combination of the power of steam and the strength of iron, Britain's already well-developed

navy grew to be the dominant military force in the world. Britain's influence quickly spread

across the globe, and it established a global monopoly over the textile market.27

However,

Britain continued to face a serious problem that threatened to jeopardize its growth.

In order to keep up with the incredible energy demand of its expanding industry, Britain

needed a reliable supply of coal. As coal miners dug deeper into the earth, they found it

increasingly challenging to supply the demand. Mining for coal required digging beneath the

water table, which often resulted in flooding. The further that they mined beneath the water table,

the more flooding they experienced. Miners depended upon the steam engine to pump water out

of the mines, but the old steam engine was thermally inefficient and burned large amounts of

coal in order to heat the water into steam. In a short period of time, Britain faced a fuel shortage

that forced them to import half its iron and outsource one-third of its shipbuilding.28

Like the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, technological innovation saved Britain

from its conundrum. James Watt first patented a new 9 horse-power steam engine in 1767 that

was more efficient and could be placed anywhere that coal, wood, or fuel was obtained. This

new design not only made it possible for miners to rapidly and economically pump water from

flooded coal mines, but also significantly increased the rate of manufacturing output. Between

26

Ibid., 225. 27

Ibid., 212. 28

Ibid., 213.


1789 and 1802, raw cotton imports in Britain to be manufactured into cloth multiplied by a factor

of 12, from 5 million pounds to 60 million pounds.29

Watt's invention changed the course of

human activity because it proved that improving technology could make manufacturing more

efficient and more productive. The Industrial Revolution encouraged countries to develop with

greater speed and intensity. At the same time, however, the rapid development encouraged a

cycle of natural resource acquisition and disposal, which over-exploited and polluted Earth's

water resources.

Large-scale Dam Construction

A third major phase in human development and progress began in the 20th century and,

again, came about as a result of man's ability to control water from rivers and lakes. In 1936 the

United States constructed the world's first large-scale dam on the Colorado River. The Hoover

Dam was a scientific, technological, and engineering feat of a scale that had never been

attempted before. It stood at 726 feet high, which was more than twice as high as any other dam

on earth.30

It created the world's largest man-made reservoir, Lake Mead, which could hold up to

two times the annual flow of the Colorado River and, by 2000, it supplied water to some 30

million people in the southwestern cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, and Las Vegas.

Furthermore, the dam was truly a revolutionary design because it improved navigation and

drinking supply, and allowed for the generation of hydroelectric energy through the use of

turbines. Before, dams were designed primarily for irrigation and flood control.31

The

construction of the Hoover Dam marked a moment of pride in U.S. history because it not only

illustrated the United States’ ability to control the water from its largest rivers, but symbolized

29

Ibid., 223. 30

Ibid., 330. 31

Ibid, 331.


the country’s growing influence, wealth, and power even in the midst of a great economic

depression. It served as a message to the rest of the world that the United States was at the

forefront of development and technological ingenuity. The United States’ design spurred foreign

nations to replicate its model, which resulted in boom of dam building on almost every major

river on the planet.

Large-scale dams changed the fabric of human interaction, power, and development

because it allowed developing countries to more quickly climb the economic ladder toward

economic wealth and political influence. Dams provide cheap hydroelectricity and freshwater

that increases capabilities for irrigation and food production, power generation for cities and

industrial factories, and provisions of healthy drinking water. The rise of the Soviet Union was

possible, in part, as a result of the construction of large-scale dams. Joseph Stalin built dams on

the Volga River in 1937 and then on other major rivers such as the Dnieper, Don, and Dniester.

Stalin was quoted to have said that "water which is allowed to enter the sea is wasted."32

The

Soviet Union increased its water use by a factor of eight in the 60 years after the 1917 Bolshevik

Revolution and greatly contributed to the development of their industrial might.33

Similarly,

Chairman Mao Zedong in China whole-heartedly supported the construction of dams as he

worked to restructure Chinese society toward communism.34

By the end of the 20th century

China had constructed approximately 22,000 large dams, which was nearly half of the world's

total.35

In 2006 it constructed the Three Gorges dam on the Yangtze River, which modeled the

Hoover Dam in the sense that it was China's "linchpin in its bid for an accelerated economic

32

Ibid., 258. 33

Ibid. 34

Ibid. 35

Ibid., 359.


transformation."36

At the close of the 20th century approximately 45,000 dams had been erected

world-wide and during the global peak of dam-building in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s an average of

13 dams were being constructed every day. The explosive growth of large-scale infrastructure on

rivers facilitated some of the most encompassing transformation of the natural planet in human

history. These changes had both positive and negative implications for global economies and

natural rivers.

For example, after large-scale infrastructure provided for the expansion of irrigation

systems and increased power generation for urban centers, mankind altered the natural landscape

in order to grow greater amounts of food and enlarge urban centers to accommodate a growing

population. Irrigation almost tripled in half a century after 1950 and covered approximately 17%

of the world's arable land to produce 40% of its food.37

The expansion of irrigation spurred the

Green Revolution near the end of the 20th century when farmers and researchers worked

together to create high-yielding strains of stable crops that were highly responsive to intensive

inputs of water and chemical fertilizer. This method of food production created a variety of

hybrid foods that were engineered and adapted to grow in adverse conditions. This resulted in

crop surpluses across the developing world in the 1960s and '70s. Between 1970 and 1991, the

number of hybrid varietals increased from under 15% to 75% of the developing world's wheat

and rice crop while yields multiplied by three times.38

The intensification of water use has helped

to produce greater amounts of food for a growing population and contribute to economic

development, but it has put incredible strain on the world's water supplies. Entering into the 21st

century, the world began to recognize that healthy and available water supplies were becoming

increasingly scarce.

36

Ibid. 37

Ibid., 360. 38

Ibid., 360.


Today the construction of large-scale dams is a controversial and cross-disciplinary topic

that requires politicians, environmental and social scientists, economists, and engineers to

consider a wide range of trade-offs. It has generally been thought that dams promote economic

development and generate wealth, but the World Bank, which supports the World Dam

Commission and has invested $75 billion for large dam projects in 92 countries, recently

concluded that the majority of large dams "ended up costing far more, profitably irrigated less

cropland, produced less hydroelectric power, and delivered much less water to cities than

originally advertised."39

This statement suggests that the construction of dams has come at a

greater cost to countries than the benefits they provide, and the study does not account for the

displacement of some 80 million people,40

the disproportionate distribution of economic benefits,

the spread of diseases like malaria to the rural poor, and the ecological alterations and destruction

that have resulted from dams.

21st Century: Era of Scarcity

The first United Nations World Water Development Report, published in 2003, declared

that "at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Earth, with its diverse and abundant life

forms, including over six billion humans, is facing a serious water crisis."41

Researchers report

that water resources are both diminishing and being polluted as a result of the growth of the

agricultural and industrial sectors as well as drivers such as population growth, economic

development, and climate change. The fourth United Nations World Water Development Report,

published in 2012, declared that the global groundwater abstraction rate has at least tripled over

39

Solomon, 240. 40

Ibid. 41

World Water Assessment Program, Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water

Development Report, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (Paris, France: United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2003): 4.


the past 50 years, which in some areas is exceeding the rate of recharge.42

Furthermore, it is

predicted that the state of the world's water will get worse if no corrective action is taken.43

As

water resources decline, it becomes increasingly difficult for local, national, and regional

communities to find sufficient amounts of water to supply their political and economic agendas.

In many cases this forces groups of people to compete for remaining resources. While many of

these situations are resolved diplomatically and peacefully, there are many instances around the

world where water disputes result in violence. The goal of current water management

frameworks is to find peaceful solutions to water disputes. In order to understand these

frameworks and how they mitigate conflict, it is useful to understand the sources and nature of

water conflict.

Water and Conflict

Water is a resource that is unevenly distributed in both space and time and conflict results

from what author Steven Solomon describes as the "political fault line [that] is erupting...

between water Haves and water Have-Nots...."44

The "Have-Nots" make up a significant

proportion of the world's population. Approximately one-fifth of the world's population lacks

access to at least one gallon per day of safe water to drink and two-fifths do not have an

additional five gallons needed daily for adequate sanitation and hygiene.45

These people often

depend on their government to supply them with the necessary resources; however, almost every

country struggles to find enough water resources to meet their needs. Solomon describes

42

World Water Assessment Program, Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk: The United Nations World

Water Development Report 4, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (Paris, France:

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2012): 5. 43

World Water Assessment Program, Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water

Development Report, 4. 44

Solomon, 4. 45

Ibid., 370-71.


freshwater to be the "Achilles' heel" of fast-developing countries like China and India, which

both are dangerously close to exhausting water resources necessary to feed their people and

expand their industries.46

The following two examples will demonstrate how water conflict can

take place at the national and international levels and can be detrimental to local populations.

Between 2004 and 2006, East Africa experienced an extended drought that affected 11

million people and killed large numbers of livestock. During this period, tribal groups in Kenya

and Ethiopia began to fight over groundwater wells. In Ethiopia, competing "well warlords" and

"well warriors" bitterly fought for what they saw as their rightful sources of water.47

The fighting

grew so intense that the Ethiopian government intervened and ended the conflict – but not before

250 people were killed and many more injured. In Kenya the fighting occurred between the

Maasai and Kikuyu tribes, and also required government intervention. After the conflict was

resolved, one villager was quoted by the Washington Post saying, "Thirst forces men to this

horror of war."48

These instances in East Africa illustrate that violent conflict over water has real

human consequences and often requires financial and military resources from governments to

resolve. The situation becomes more complicated, however, when disputes are international.

The Chenab River is a major river in India and Pakistan and a source of contention

between the two countries. The river forms in the upper Himalayas and flows through the Jammu

and Kashmir regions of India into the Punjab region of Pakistan. In 1999, India began

constructing a large-scale dam called the Baglihar Dam which generates about 450 Megawatts of

power for the Jammu and Kashmir states. Pakistan, however, claims that the dam violates

the1960 Indus Water Treaty which stipulates that a certain amount of water must flow across the

border from India into Pakistan. The Economist reports that Pakistanis see India's construction of

46

Ibid., 5. 47

Ibid., 80. 48

Ibid.


the Baglihar Dam as an "intensifying Indian threat to their existence, a conspiracy to divert,

withhold or misuse precious water that is rightfully theirs."49

While a large-scale conflict has not

resulted from the dispute, small scale threats of violence do exist. B.G. Verghese, an Indian

writer, claims that "Water is the latest battle cry for jiadis. They shout that water must flow, or

blood must flow."50

A local Pakistani terror group named Lashkar-e-Taiba regularly threatens to

blow up India's dam. This example illustrates that if the governments of India and Pakistan don't

proactively work together to find a diplomatic solution, the Biglihar Dam could be a source of

violent controversy in the future – with the potential to escalate.

While violence is used a source of conflict resolution over water in many places in the

world, international organizations are working with countries and regions to find ways to address

challenges of diminishing water resources peacefully. In fact, the Woodrow Wilson International

Center for Scholars reported that "instances of cooperation between riparian nations

outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between 1945 and 1999."51

It claims that water is

so important that countries can't afford to fight over it. All around the world regions are proving

their ability to develop management frameworks that will reduce the potential for conflict and

promote cooperation. This paper will illustrate more in-depth how countries can mitigate conflict

over water.

49

"Unquenchable thirst: A growing rivalry between India, Pakistan and China over the region's great rivers may be

threatening South Asia's peace," The Economist, November 19, 2011, accessed December 29, 2013,

http://www.economist.com/node/21538687. 50

Ibid. 51

Aaron Wolf et al, Navigating Peace: Water Can Be A Pathway To Peace, Not War, Environmental Change and

Security Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Report no. 1, (2006).


History of Water Law and Management

Around the time period of World War I, the water management paradigm shifted

dramatically. Before World War I, waterways were managed for navigation. The war, however,

pushed water managers to think about how the world's water resources would withstand the

intensive use and pollution from heavy industry. International and private organizations started

to develop general guidelines for the management of the quality and quantity of the world's

waterways. Although these guidelines were never meant to be legally binding, they were to be

used by governing bodies to influence and reinforce law.52

After World War II, two international documents were created, which formed the most

comprehensive framework for the management of international waterways yet. The first was the

Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers formed by the International

Law Association in Helsinki, Finland (Appendix 2). The Helsinki Rules established guidelines

for the "reasonable and equitable" sharing of a common international waterway.53

It laid the

foundation for next international water management framework called the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of the International Watercourses. Very

similar to the Helsinki Rules, the Convention is described as a "flexible and overarching global

legal framework that establishes basic rules and standards of cooperation between riparian states

on use, management, and protection of international watercourses."54

The UN Convention was a

groundbreaking document because it called for the communication and cooperation of

international bodies and its purpose is to address legal weakness, provide policy guidance, foster

political stability, establish a fair playing field for all participation states, and incorporate social

52

Heather L. Beach, J. Joseph Hewitt, and Edy Kaufman, Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Resolution Theory,

Practice, and Annotated References (Tokyo; New York: United Nations University Press, 2000): 9. 53

Ibid. 54

Flavia Loures, Dr. Alistair Rieu-Clarke, and Marie-Laure Vercambre, "Everything you need to know about the

UN Watercourses Convention," (World Wildlife Fund, 2010).


and environmental considerations.55

The Convention cannot be legally enforced because it only

has 19 contracting states, 16 short of the number required to enter into force,56

but it still serves

as a model for holistic management to governments, international organizations, and non-profit

organizations.

Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)

The UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of the International

Watercourses embodies a set of principles established in the 1930s that is holistic and cross-

disciplinary in its approach. Today these set of principles are regarded as IWRM. While there are

a variety of interpretations on the definition of IWRM, its primary purpose is to provide a

management framework to achieve the three principles of sustainability: economic prosperity,

social equity, and environmental sustainability. To this end, Islam and Susskind define IWRM as

"a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and

related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner

without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the environment."57

The concept of IWRM is not new, but it is only within the last 30 years that it has been

widely recognized and applied. There are two key elements of IWRM that make it a useful water

management framework for protecting river ecosystems and providing for the well-being of

people. First, IWRM is a dynamic framework that accounts for the changes that are always

occurring in political, socio-economic, and environmental circumstances. Because water

management is tied to these contextual elements, an effective water management framework is

55

Ibid., 10. 56

Dr. Alistair S. Rieu-Clarke, "The Role and Relevance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational

Uses of International Watercourses to the EU and Its Member States," (The British Yearbook of International Law,

2008): 389. 57

Islam and Susskind, 6.


dynamic. Figure 1 shows that IWRM provides for ongoing evaluation of management

frameworks and changes to management approaches as political, socio-economic and

environmental circumstances shift.58

Second, IWRM accounts for the benefits and services

provided to humans by natural river ecosystems, and seeks to protect these services for our

continued benefit. Figure 2 shows that highly managed watercourses reduce the benefits

provided by natural systems.59

Furthermore, the total benefit from highly managed systems

declines over time. IWRM seeks to strike a balance between managing a watercourse (i.e.,

constructing hydroelectric dams and diverting water for irrigation) and protecting the natural

integrity of a river ecosystem.

Figure 1: Figure 1 shows the dynamic processes of IWRM that account for on-going evaluation of management

frameworks and changes to management approaches as the political, socio-economic and environmental

circumstances shift. 60

58

UN Water, Introduction to the IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level, The United Nations World Water

Assessment Programme (2009), 5. 59

Anna Forslund, "Securing Water for Ecosystems and Human Well-being," Global Water Partnership (2009): 23. 60

UN Water, Introduction to the IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level, 5.


Figure 2: Figure 2 shows the cumulative long-term benefits provided by natural river ecosystems and managed river

systems. The cumulative benefits are measured by adding the total benefits provided by both natural river

ecosystems and managed river systems on a scale of the river being not managed at all to being highly managed.61

CHANGING GLOBAL TRENDS

Globalization and Regionalization

At the beginning of the 21st century, following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the

end of the Cold War, global political and economic relationships began to shift toward greater

regional integration and the intensification of globalization. The bi-lateral relationship between

NATO countries and the former USSR fragmented, and countries began to form new bonds with

nation-states within their regions. At the same time, the effects of intensifying globalization send

people, ideas, commodities, capital, and technology across the globe with greater speed than ever

before. Sebastian Conrad, a professor of history at the Feie Universität in Berlin and an expert on

trans-national and global approaches to history, explains that:

61

Forslund, 23.


Regions, while constituting the strategic frame of reference of historical actors, also

need to be understood as entities that emerged under the pressures of the international

state-system and capitalist integration.... regionalisms are not only based on shared

characteristics, and are not made entirely from within, but are also responses to forces

from without and to larger processes of global integration.62

Conrad emphasizes that the effects of globalization and "the pressures of the international state-

system and capitalist integration" have shaped regions as they are today. These dual trends of

globalization and regionalization have had significant impacts on water management practices

over the past two decades.

As natural resources have become increasingly scarce because of destructive human

activities, regions have come to see that they need to collaborate and create management

frameworks that use these declining resources more responsibly and equitably. Conrad explains,

We believe that physical forms which cross national boundaries -- rivers, forests,

ecologies, ocean currents -- not only remain important, but have become more so as

humans have accelerated their degradation and depletion. The regions that have been

shaped by this geography -- beyond nations -- will have to respond to this threat

collectively or regionally.63

Conrad's statement illustrates that regions are bound together by their geography and,

consequently, they share their environmental challenges. Regions also have to grapple with the

growing presence of transnational and multinational corporations wanting a stake in remaining

resources. In an article that discusses the relationship between capitalism, globalization, and the

environment, James O'Connor explains that "'[C]orporations construct the problem of the

62

Sebastian Conrad and Presenjit Duara, Viewing Regionalisms from East Asia (Washington D.C.: American

Historical Association, 2013): viii. 63

Ibid.


environment... of how to remake nature in ways that are consistent with sustainable profitability

and capital accumulation.'"64

He states that corporations see the degrading global environment as

part of an "ecological revolution" in which corporations must reorganize in order to survive.65

This highlights the fact that corporations have been and are highly active in regions across the

world, seeking to take advantage of local resources – including freshwater – for the purpose of

making profit.

Climate Change

Like regionalization and globalization, climate change is a global trend that influences

water management. CO2 levels in the atmosphere rose dramatically over the course of the 20th

century, causing changes both to local weather patterns and global climate. These changes have a

number of side-effects including extreme oscillations in annual weather patterns resulting in

heavy rain events, draught, and heat waves – all of which negatively impact water reserves by

causing shortages and/or severe flood events. Either way, the effects of climate change are

harmful to human well-being and make water management increasingly unpredictable and

unknowable. Timothy Luke, an expert on environmental and cultural studies, explains that

"...these climate changes are so rapid, profound, and fundamental, that this new unwanted global

environment, which is tied closely to rising levels of industrial by-products and waste, will be

more unpredictable and uncertain for established climatologically science."66

Because climate

change makes water management unpredictable, water managers must factor into policy

64

James O'Connor, Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism (New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1998): 238. 65

Ibid. 66

Timothy W. Luke, "An Unwanted World: Global Warming as an Alternative Globalization," in Alternative

Globalizations: Conference Documents, ed. Jerry Harris, Global Studies Association: 2006 Annual Conference

(Chicago, IL: ChangeMaker Publications, 2006): 305.


decisions and environmental and economic strategies that account for the potential effects of

climate change on the environment, society, and economy.

THEORETICAL ELEMENTS

In order for water managers to use current models for holistic water management, such as

the UN Watercourse Convention, they must take into account certain theoretical elements that

shape thinking. To understand this, the discussion and analysis in this paper will use a set of

theoretical propositions, which are natural, political, and social in nature, that are critical to

understand and have shaped the design of this study and inform the outcomes.

The first theoretical element that this paper will consider is the proposition that mankind's

current path of capital accumulation and ecological destruction has the potential to have long-

term consequences on both economic growth and the well-being of humans. In Limits to Growth,

a study published by Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows, these researchers

used system dynamics theory and computer modeling to analyze the long-term implications of

physical growth in the world's population material economy. They found that humans are

currently engaged in an ecological overshoot in which we are using the Earth's natural resources

at a rate that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Based on these results, they warn that "humanity

might have to divert much capital and manpower to battle these constraints, possibly so much

that the average quality of life would decline sometime during the twenty-first century."67

Mankind's current path is one of destruction and collapse. If humanity wants to continue to

survive and grow its economies, it will have to act in a way that replenishes the Earth's

ecosystems and gives back the resources that it has taken away.

67

Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, (Vermont:

Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004): x.


The second theoretical element that this paper will consider is that mankind's ability to

address the problems of the world's deteriorating environmental state will depend upon political

cooperation. Jeffrey D. Sachs, a world-renowned professor of economics and leader in

sustainable development, conveys this concept in his book Common Wealth: Economics for a

Crowded Planet when he writes "In the twenty-first century our global society will flourish or

perish according to our ability to find common ground across the world on a set of shared

objectives and on the practical means to achieve them."68

Sachs makes this statement with the

knowledge that the environmental problems that the world faces span across political borders. As

it becomes increasingly imperative that countries need to start addressing world-wide ecological

issues, cooperation needs to come to the fore and humanity will need to find ways to negotiate

and make compromises in a way that is best for the global community.

The third theoretical element that this is considered in this paper is that social agency and

the expansion of social freedoms promote sustainable environmental, economic, and social

development. Most countries measure development as how much the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) grows every year. However Amartya Sen, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and

the book Development as Freedom, sees development as overcoming social and environmental

deprivations. He says that "development can be seen, it is argued here, as a process of expanding

the real freedoms that people enjoy."69

As people are given greater freedom to think, act, and

take part in decision-making, they are empowered to control their social, political, and

environmental networks. Sen has found that not only has the expansion of social freedom helped

to address deprivations such as poverty and ecological destruction, but it has also contributed to

68

Jeffry D. Sachs, Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, (New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2008): 4. 69

Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knoe, Inc., 1999): 3.


the accumulation of the Gross National Product (GNP).70

It is important to note, however, that

just as society shapes its social, political, and environmental networks, it is also constrained by

the social, political, and economic opportunities available to it.

MODEL FRAMEWORK

As stated in the introduction of this paper, the central question of this study is how can

riparian states sharing an international watercourse manage for sustainability across diverse

geographical regions and political and socio-economic contexts in order to effectively provide

for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems? In order answer this question,

researchers need a model that accounts for both the best-practice elements of international water

management, the complexity of water management, and its relationship with political, socio-

economic and natural factors that either support or inhibit sustainable management of

international watercourses. This study has adopted and developed elements for a model (Figure

3) that considers both best-practice management principles of international water management

and supporting and constraining contextual factors in order to answer the central research

question.

70

Ibid., 5.


Figure 3: Figure 3 shows the model that this research paper will use in order to assess how riparian countries can

sustainably manage for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems and apply best-management

principles of IWRM.

In order to understand how riparian countries sharing an international watercourse can

successfully and sustainably manage an international watercourse in order to protect river

ecosystems and provide for the welfare of people (the dependent variable in this study), this

study will evaluate two sets of independent variables in two different case-study regions. The

two independent variables in this study are (1) the degree to which the best-practice management

principles of IWRM are implemented and (2) the political, socio-economic and natural context


elements that support and/or constrain sustainable management. The following paragraph will

explain each independent variable in more detail.

The theoretical elements, explained above, form the core principles of IWRM thinking

and the three-best management principles that I have chosen. Even though there are a variety of

IWRM best-management principles recognized by the United Nations in the Convention on the

Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, I have chosen three of the

more noteworthy principles in the IWRM framework that specifically support the protection of

river ecosystems and human well-being, as follows:

1. Active and equitable participation in transboundary management - Cooperation across

geographical units (countries, regions, etc.) in transboundary management enables better

ecological management, which provides benefits to the river, wetlands, and related

ecosystems. Cooperation can also increase food and energy production, improve

irrigation and contribute to poverty reduction.71

2. Inclusion of public and private stakeholders in decision-making - Participation from

public and private stakeholders (i.e., community members, non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), research institutions, private sector participants and donors) at

regional72

, national, and local levels enhances transparency, decision-making and

enforcement of water laws. The inclusion of a variety of stakeholders allows water

management decisions to be tailored to different values and, as a result, strengthens

integration and reduces the potential for conflict.73

3. Environmental protection and regulation - Measures for environmental protection and

regulation at the regional level are critically important for basin-wide protection of

71

UN Water, Transboundary Waters: Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities (2008): 3. 72

Unless indicated otherwise, "regional" refers to groups of nation-states sharing a common geographical location. 73

Ibid., 9.


aquatic ecosystems. Environmental protection and regulation at national and local levels

are also important, but they must coordinate with regional-level management.

While these three management principles are crucially important for sustainable management

that protects river ecosystems and provides for human welfare, they cannot be successfully

implemented outside of certain political, socio-economic and natural context elements. These

context elements often differ by region and can be seen to either support or constrain water

managers' abilities to sustainably manage international watercourses. This paper has identified

certain variables under each of the context elements that shape whether managers can

successfully implement these best-practices and, therefore, sustainably manage for the protection

of river ecosystems and the welfare of people. The variables are explained below:

1. Political

i. Political integration and democratic decision-making in regional institutions,

policy and legislation - strong political integration, legal and policy structures

for water management, and decentralizing of management often support

cooperation over water management projects and objectives, and facilitates

basin-wide environmental management. Similarly, democratic decision-

making fosters greater trust across nation-states and enhances transparency

and government accountability in decision-making.

ii. Individualism vs. cooperation among nation-states in decision-making -

Decisions made at the nation-state level that are supportive of the common

good often mitigate conflict over water resources and facilitate cooperation

over basin-wide environmental protection. Decisions made individually by


nation-states, without consulting other nation-state stakeholders, often do not

encourage basin-wide environmental protection, and risk causing harm to

another riparian countries and sparking conflict.

iii. Water management structure - Water management structures (i.e. legislation,

management institutions, governmental frameworks) can either encourage or

inhibit sustainable water management. Strong structures often empower water

management agents (i.e. government officials, water authorities, community

members) to management water sustainably and implement best-practice

principles of IWRM.

iv. Water management in practice - Water management institutions and actors at

regional, national and local levels must reflect legislation, policy and

frameworks for sustainable water management at the structural level.

2. Socio-economic

i. Social and economic trends - Social and economic trends (i.e., levels of individual

freedom, poverty, market liberalization and urbanization) at regional, national and

local levels shape how public stakeholders, private water industries, and policy

makers participate in transboundary water management decision-making.

ii. Public norms and values - Understanding public norms and values can provide

key insights to decision-makers at regional, national and local levels into how

water should be managed in order to support the interests of the general public.

iii. Stakeholder representation in policy - Strong legal and policy structures at

regional, national and local levels that include public and private stakeholders

(i.e., community members, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research


institutions, private sector participants and donors) in decision-making often

facilitate more sustainable water management.

iv. Stakeholder representation in practice - Water management institutions and actors

at regional, national and local levels must reflect legislation, policy and

frameworks for stakeholder engagement at the structural level in order to facilitate

sustainable water management.

3. Natural

i. Pollution from industrial, agricultural, and urban waste - Pollution in a river basin

is dispersed across political borders, effecting multiple nation-states, and is

destructive to natural river ecosystems and inhibit the river's ability to provide

usable services to humans.

ii. Disruption of rivers' natural hydrological flows - Alterations and obstructions to

rivers' natural hydrological flow , often caused by man-made structures such as

dams and channels, can cause changes to the river's hydrological functions and,

consequently, its ecosystems. These alterations and obstructions in one location

often have basin-wide impacts.

iii. Destruction of wetlands, natural habitats, and/or fish populations - Wetlands,

natural habitats, and fish provide numerous services to humans in an entire river-

basin in the form of food, medicine, flood buffers, etc. Their destruction reduces

the benefits provided to people across the region.

The following sections will apply this model to two case study regions that have diverse

political, socio-economic, and natural environments: DRB and the MRB. These river basins were


selected because they offer both positive and negative examples of how contextual circumstances

can both support and inhibit the implementation of best-practice management principles of

IWRM and sustainable management for the protection of ecosystems and provision of human

well-being. An analysis of these case studies will be used to support or reject my thesis that the

extent to which riparian states sharing an international watercourse are able to effectively

provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the

natural, political, and socio-economic contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which

they implement the three pillars of IWRM: participate actively and equitable, protect and

preserve ecosystems, and include stakeholders in decision-making.

CASE STUDY I - DANUBE RIVER BASIN (DRB)

The Danube River is the second largest river in Europe after the Volga River and touches

19 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Historically it has played an important role in

Europe as a passageway for transportation and trade, and currently it continues to serve as a

principle driver of the European economy. Similarly, the DRB is a central hydrological vein for a

variety of riparian ecosystems. It houses a diversity of fish species and feeds into wetlands.

Because of the Danube's critical role in Europe, it is imperative that it continue to sustain

European economies, societal needs, and natural ecosystems. In order to assess the natural,

socio-economic, and political operating elements shaping how the river is managed, and

consequently the river’s ability to effectively provide for the welfare of people and the protection

of ecosystems, this paper will provide (1) a brief description of the Danube's geography and the

ways in which it is has been managed until the present, (2) an analysis of the natural, political

and socio-economic operating elements that either allow for or inhibit the implementation of


IWRM best-practice management principles, and (3) the degree to which IWRM best-

management principles have been implemented for the protection of ecosystems and the welfare

of people.

Geography and Management

The Danube River is a source of water for a significant portion of Europe. It flows

through nine countries in Central and Eastern Europe, including Albania, Austria, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine, and touches eight other countries

including Slovenia, Czech Republic, Moldova, Ukraine, and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Italy, Switzerland, Macedonia, Montenegro and Poland. The river begins in the Black Forest

Mountains in western Germany and runs 1,770 miles to the Black Sea Delta on the coast of

Romania. The Danube's watershed includes approximately 300 tributary rivers. 74

Before World War II the Danube was primarily used for navigation and it was a vital

passageway for countries to be able to efficiently transport goods and people. Management of the

Danube for navigation has its roots with the 1856 Treaty of Paris when The European

Commission of the Danube was established and representatives from each riparian country were

put in charge of managing the river's navigation routes. Their efforts were regarded as a huge

success in providing navigation for all European countries until World War I when international

navigation was interrupted due to war hostilities.75

After World War I, the Versailles Peace

Treaty of June 28, 1919 declared that the European Commission of the Danube, made up of

74

"Danube River," in Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition (Encyclopedia

Britannica Inc., 2013). 75

Beach et al., 84.


Great Britain, France, Italy and Romania would resume control over water management.76

However, an International Commission of the Danube was also created that included the

countries of Wurtemberg, Bavaria, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and

Romania in decision-making. Leading up to the start of World War II and the rise of the Nazi

German empire, the Danube River became a central vein for German economic transport, and

over 2 million tons of goods passed along the river in the peak economic year of 1936.77

When

war broke out, shared management of the Danube River was suspended.

After World War II, new political alliances were formed that required a new management

approach. In 1948, after a conference held to decide the future of management on the Danube

River, The Belgrade Convention was established and management was split between NATO and

USSR countries. The Convention gave the European Commission of the Danube semi-legislative

powers regarding navigation and inspection. The Eastern Bloc, which contributed the majority of

delegates to the conference, switched navigation over to the "exclusive control of each

riparian."78

Cooperation over the environmental quality of the river was a low priority.

During the Cold War the USSR acted with little regard for the quality of the environment,

which had terrible consequences on the state of natural ecosystems and the health of USSR

citizens. It considered economic development and military power to be a top priority and drew

extensively from the resources of heavy industry. Lignite coal was the main fuel source and

released high levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and other pollutants into the

air. The toxic pollutants fell from the sky in the form of acid rain and were absorbed into soils

and rivers. In the 1980s, sulfur dioxide levels in Czechoslovakia and Poland were eight times

76

Gordon E. Sherman, "The International Organization of the Danube Under the Peace Treaties," The American

Journal of International Law 17, no. 3 (July 1923): 451. 77

M. B, "The Germans on the Lower Danube," Bulletin of International News17, no. 21 (October 19, 1940): 1343. 78

Ibid., 85.


greater than in Western Europe. 79

At the same time radioactive and chemical pollutants from

manufacturing industries flowed unobstructed into rivers. Not only were these pollutants

destructive to natural ecosystems, but they were also harmful for people who relied upon river

water for drinking purposes. It was recorded that 80% of the children in the town of Espenhain in

East Germany developed bronchitis or heart ailments before turning eight years old. 80

Some

historians believe that one of the factors contributing to the USSR's breakup was popular

discontent with the state of the environment. Politicians in East Bloc countries looking to secede

from the USSR cited "its neglect for the environment" as one reason for becoming independent.

81 The devastating results of the USSR's mistreatment of the environment pushed riparian

countries to call for a different kind of management that would account for, among other things,

the quality of Europe's rivers.

By the late 1980s there were clear problems with water quality in the broad DRB region

that would require a more evaluative and holistic approach to water management. In 1985 the

Bucharest Declaration, signed by eight riparian states, introduced the concept of the integrated

approach to basin management, which viewed rivers as a greater system of related and

interacting parts (Appendix 3). Some of the key points from the Bucharest Declaration include

conserving water resources and their rational use...by incorporating the prevention and control of

Danube River pollution as an integral part of national policy of Danubian countries," and

"establish international long term co-operation based on multilateral and bilateral agreements."82

This was a progressive step in water management frameworks because it reinforced that rivers

79

Mary Ann Cunningham, "Eastern European Pollution," in Environmental Encyclopedia, 4th ed., Gale Virtual

Reference Library (Detroit: Gale, 2011), 1. 80

Chris Niedenthal, "Environmental Damage in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe," in Environmental Issues: Essential

Primary Sources, ed. Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner (n.p.: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2006), 1. 81

Ibid. 82

Varduca, Aurel, Ph.D. "The 1985 Bucharest Declaration: An important step toward danube water quality

protection." NATO ASI Series 24 (1997): 31-41.


had to be managed at the greater basin level and take into account the quality of its ecosystems.

In 1994 riparian countries and the European Union signed the Convention on the Cooperation for

the Protection of Sustainable Use of the Danube River, which called for sustainable and

equitable management of the Danube's surface and groundwater (Appendix 4). Some of the key

objectives for attaining this goal are the conservation, improvement and rational use of surface

waters and groundwater, the implementation of preventative measures to control hazards

originating from accidents involving floods, ice or hazardous substances, and measures to reduce

the pollution entering into the Black Sea.83

In 2000, the European Union established the European Union Water Framework

Directive (WFD) (Appendix 5). This is "a legally binding policy that establishes a common

framework for water management and protection in Europe and that commits to transforming the

European water sector."84

The WFD is a comprehensive management framework that covers all

bodies of water within the European Union including coastal waters. The key points in the WFD

are that it requires riparian states to cooperate on fundamental water management issues,

evaluate the quality of waters and related ecosystems and set objectives to maintain good

ecological status, coordinate large infrastructure projects, streamline legislation over water, and

include the public in decision-making.85

Today it serves as the foundation for all management

initiatives in the DRB.

83

"Danube River Protection Convention," International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

(ICDPR), last modified 2014, accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.icpdr.org/main/icpdr/danube-river-

protection-convention. 84

Maria Kaika, "The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing Social, Political and Economic

European Framework," European Planning Studies 11, no. 3 (2003), 299. 85

"Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive," Environment, last modified September 9, 2012,

accessed October 31, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm.


Context Elements

Political Considerations

After World War II, Europe experienced major changes to its political structure that have

influenced the ways in which European waterways are managed. The creation of the European

Community in 1951 (what is now the European Union) transformed the European landscape

from political and economic disintegration to a cooperative and cohesive group of countries and

economies, which aggregated decision-making at the regional and national levels. After the end

of the Cold War, countries that were once subject to the autocratic rule of the Soviet Union

shifted to democratic governments and began to extend certain freedoms to their people with the

opportunity to positively manage water and other resources, providing more democracy and

disaggregating decision-making at regional and national levels. These changes to the European

political system have had a defining effect on Europe's ability to manage its water. In particular,

the EU acts as a strong co-operational mechanism over water management that considers

environmental protection and the provision of social well-being, while increased democracy in

the former USSR countries not subsequently affiliated with the EU gives greater agency to the

public to partake in decision-making. To capture these developments and their implications for

water management this section will cover (1) the changing political circumstances after World

War II and subsequently the Cold War, (2) the degree of cooperation vs. individualism in

decision-making, (3) water management policy and (4) water management practice.

Changing Political Circumstances: The formation of the EU was a key event that

influenced the evolution of water management in Europe because the political and economic

integration that came about as a result of the formation of the EU allows for water management

legislation and institutions to organize at the regional scale. The concept of the EU was formed


in 1951 when six countries including France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and

Luxemberg formed a political and economic alliance in order to strengthen their security and

economic welfare in an increasingly competitive global market.86

In 1957 they signed a treaty

providing for a European Economic Community with the intent to allow goods, capital, services,

and people to flow freely within the European Community (the original for the EU). Between

1973 and 2004 the EU grew from six to 25 member states and its influence has touched almost

every aspect of public policy in Europe. Over time it has not only served as a milieu for greater

economic and political cooperation, but supported greater social integration, environmental

protection, and responsible resource management.

Similar to the creation of the European Union, the establishment of democracies in

Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War has greatly influenced water management, and

particularly in the DRB. Freedom House, an organization that rates countries on levels of

freedom based on civil liberties and political rights, found that all countries within the DRB with

the exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina are now “free”.87

These democracies have significantly

increased government accountability and transparency, and encouraged public participation in

planning and decision-making. While democracy generally supports positive water management

practices, however, it has introduced a series of new challenges for the DRB region.

The challenges that democracy has created for water management come with changes

made to the management structures at the national level. As a result of democracy, governments

started a process of political decentralization in which water management responsibilities were

shifted to regional and local authorities. Local authorities are often unprepared or unskilled to

86

Desmond Dinan, Even Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Lynne

Rienner, 2005), 2. 87

"Euruope," Freedom House, last modified 2014, accessed March 24, 2014, http://www.freedomhouse.org/

regions/europe#.UzDq-PldUs1.


handle these new responsibilities. For example Hungary is a case where a former Soviet-Bloc

country is having trouble coordinating effective water management between the state, regional,

and local levels. There are many different water management authorities in Hungary responsible

for different aspects of water management, such as agricultural water uses and water-related

public health, and responsibilities are scattered across these many authorities.88

In his study on

the implementation of IWRM, O'Regan describes, "The reality is that river basin management

objectives [in Hungary] are only being partially met and the required integration,

decentralization and subsidiary are currently only partially implemented."89

Therefore while

democracy has created a structure that encourages positive change, it has introduced a new set of

management challenges that countries will have to address.

Cooperation vs. Individualism: While decision-making has become increasingly

aggregated with the formation of the EU, interests at the nation-state level are diverse and

sometimes conflicting. The construction of large-scale dams is an example of an issue that has

the potential to cause a conflict of interest for two nation-states and, consequently, inhibit

cooperation. The conflict of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dams between Hungary and

Czechoslovakia is a good example of a project that has sparked hostilities between two nation-

states because they illustrate how two countries can have different development priorities. A

bilateral treaty for the construction of the dams was agreed on in 1977 by Hungary and

Czechoslovakia. However Hungary abandoned its work in 1989 due to long-term environmental

damage and Slovakia completed a modified version of the project on their side of the territory. In

1993, the two countries filed a suit against each other in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Hungary sued Slovakia for extensive transboundary environmental damage and Slovakia sued

88

Dermot O'Regan, Caroline Sullivan, and John Bromley, Local governance in Integrated Water Resources

Management in the Danube Basin: a working paper (n.p.: LoGo Water, 2007), 17. 89

Ibid., 26.


Hungary for treaty violations. The court found both parties to have neglected their legal

obligations under the 1977 treaty and asked the countries to negotiate in order to reach an

acceptable settlement.90

The surprising fact about this conflict, however, is not the outcome of

the court case but the fact that the dispute lasted through the fall of the Soviet Union and

communism, the disintegration of Czechoslovakia, successful political and economic integration,

and NATO and EU membership. This illustrates the degree to which nation-state interests play a

major role in how they think about environmental issues and move forward with development

projects.

After the resolution of the court case, the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dam project became a

landmark example of how diverse development priorities among countries can shape water

management. In this case Hungary valued the services provided by the natural aquatic

environment over the electricity generation provided by the dams and Slovakia valued the

opposite. Stephen Deets, an expert in post-communist democratization, argues that "in each state

the dam conflict became the symbolic focal point for broader debates on state identity and

direction. Because of how it became tied to questions about the nation and the country's political

and economic future and how these issues intertwined with conflicts in international norms, the

positions became irreconcilable."91

Deets' statement shows how development priorities at the

nation-state level can shape the ways in which the quality of water and aquatic ecosystems are

taken into account in decision-making.

Water Management Policy: The WFD is the central legislative framework for water

management in Europe and stipulates how water management is to be practiced. It came about

90

Phoebe N. Okowa and Malcolm D. Evans, "Case concerning the Gabcïkovo-Nagymaros Project

(Hungary/Slovakia)," The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47, no. 4 (July 1998), 696. 91

Stephen Deets. "Constituting Interests and Identities in a Two-Level Game: Understanding the Gabcikovo

Nagymaros Dam Conflict," Foreign Policy Analysis 5 (2009), 38.


when the Environmental Commission of the EU, the European Parliament, and the Council of

Environment Ministers wanted a more wide-reaching and inclusive approach to water policy.

After coming into force in 2000, the WFD outlines a series of objectives for water management

in the DRB including (1) to consider river management at the river-basin (regional) level instead

of at the nation-state level, (2) to establish a framework to protect and enhance status of all

waters, protect areas including ecosystems that depend on water, prevent their deterioration and

ensure long-term survival, and sustainable use of water resources, (3) implement measures of

IWRM such as providing for public participation and integrated economic approaches, (4)

require Member States to establish "competent authorities" that are responsible for the

implementation of EU water legislation in each river basin district, (5) encourage EU Member

States to achieve good surface and groundwater status by 2015, and (6) to set specific deadlines

for the EU Member States to produce Programs of Measures and River Basin Management

Plans.92

These objectives guide river management activities in the DRB, but do not preclude the

possibility that they are not implemented in practice.

Water Management in Practice: Although there are a variety of organizations that take

part in transboundary water management in the DRB, including the World Bank's Global

Environment Facility (GEF), the Global Water Partnership, Central and Eastern Europe (GWP-

CEE), and the World Wide Fund for Nature,93

the ICDPR is the primary organization responsible

for implementing the policies of the WFD into practice. It is recognized by the European Union

as "the platform for the implementation of all transboundary aspects of the EU WFD,"94

and is

responsible for developing programs that implement principles of IWRM and focus on

92

"Danube River Basin District Management Plan," International Commission for the Protection of the Danube

River, (2009), 1. 93

O'Regan et al., 9. 94

"About Us" International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, last modified 2014,

accessed February 17, 2014, http://www.icpdr.org/main/icpdr/about-us.


ecological and environmental protection, economic prosperity, and social well-being. In order to

assess the ability of the ICDPR in coordinating effective IWRM, this section will identify

positive examples of ICDPR programs and case-studies and compare them with discussions on

the ICDPR in peer-reviewed literature.

The ICDPR has developed a water management plan that is wide-reaching in scope both

in terms of the issues that it addresses (i.e., the construction of dams, flood prevention, and

ecosystem protection) and the ways it integrates management across the regional, national and

local levels. Figure 4 shows that the Danube River Basin Management Plan consists of three

levels of organization: the roof level (regional, basin-wide), the national level (nation-state,

regional) and the sub-unit level (local).95

Activities at the roof level are organized by the ICDPR,

which delegates tasks and activities to nation-states. Management at the national level is

coordinated by "competent authorities" (i.e. national government or independent organizations

that are in charge of key regional areas such as the Danube Delta), which then delegate to local

authorities. These different levels of organization illustrate the decentralization of management

responsibilities and the ways in which management at different levels are interrelating. At one

level, this form of management is effective because it gives national and local water authorities

the opportunity to manage their own water in a way that fits with their geographical location and

cultural ways of doing things while also taking into account the broader issues at the

international basin level. On the other hand, as mentioned before, national and local authorities

are adapting to the new responsibilities beyond wastewater management and water supply that

can facilitate or constrain the responses. Activities at the local and nation-state levels will

influence the ability of the Danube River Basin Management Plan to solve issues in the DRB that

cross political boundaries.

95

"Danube River Basin District Management Plan," 3.


Figure 4: Figure 4 illustrates the how the Danube River Basin Management Plan is implemented on three

scales: regional, national, and local. This figure demonstrates that management of the DRB is

decentralized.96

Austria is a positive example of a country that has decentralized management and is

making positive changes to better protect the Danube's aquatic environment and better provide

for the health of its people. Austria, one of the richest countries in Europe, is a federal republic

made up of nine states, which are further subdivided into 98 administrative districts that contain

2,300 local water authorities with "strong-self administrative power."97

The Federal Water Law

in Austria stipulates that water management policy and law must be implemented by each state

government office and district authority. As a result, Austria has made huge improvements to

protect the natural environment and has achieved "high standards" of emission reduction and

water pollution control.98

Furthermore Austria's capital, Vienna, is regarded as an

"Environmental Model City" in the DRB because it has coordinated with local government,

NGOs, business and industry, and the public to comply with both global and regional regulations

regarding water resources policy and management.99

While Vienna serves as a poster-child for

responsible and comprehensive IWRM in the DRB, O'Regan comments that it is an exception

96

Ibid. 97


Ibid. 99

Ibid., 13.


among other communities in the Danube Region.100

Therefore even though Vienna is a positive

example of IWRM in the DRB, its ability to provide effective change is most likely due to the

fact that it had the financial assets to support its efforts.

As illustrated by the Austria example, there are positive examples of where the ICDPR

are effectively coordinating the decentralization of management so that nations and local

communities can control for environmental protection the provision of social well-being. The

ICDPR is generally applauded by the EU and scholars in peer-reviewed literature for being a

positive example of coordinated water management across political boundaries. For example,

Majda Tafra-Vlahović, an assistant professor at the University of Dubrovnik in Croatia, claims

Since its creation in 1998 the ICPDR has effectively promoted policy agreements and the

setting of joint priorities and strategies for improving the state of the Danube and its

tributaries which includes improving the tools used to manage environmental issues in

the Danube basin.101

Tafra-Vlahović supports her argument by pointing to specific achievements made by the ICDPR

including the creation of a cooperative strategy for setting up the Danube River Basin

Management Plan, cooperation with stakeholders to build a common understanding of the

sustainable use of the Danube, the development of an emission inventory for pollution, etc.102

Tafra-Vlahović's findings suggest that the ICDPR has created a framework for water

management that successfully aggregates decision-making, engages with stakeholders, and

addresses environmental problems. However, other scholars point out shortfalls of the ICDPR's

ability to facilitate IWRM.

100

Ibid. 101

Helena Brautović and Dragana Brkan, "Public Relations Ethics and Ethical Codes," MEDIaNALI 3, no. 6

(November 2009): 183. 102

Ibid.


For example, some researchers are finding that the ICDPR does not successfully integrate

local, and some regional, water authorities in the DRB into water management decision-making.

O'Regan finds that "As a basin commission the ICDPR provides a good instrument for the

coordination of efforts across the different countries of the DRB towards a comprehensive and

integrated river basin management strategy and in meeting the obligations of regional

assessments and institutions." He also states, however, that "this and other transboundary

institutions often concentrate efforts at state-level when IWRM requires an equal focus on the

practical involvement of regional and local-level authorities and the participation of the

public."103

O'Regan is pointing out that decentralized management requires a balance of

participation and input from local water authorities, nation-state governments, and regional

organizations. Currently local water authorities are not being integrated sufficiently, which is

most likely a result of a mixture of factors such as rapidly shifting responsibilities, lack of

funding, insufficient cooperation between water management authorities.

At the end of his analysis of the Danube Region's ability to effectively implement

principles of IWRM into practice, O'Regan points out a series of challenges that local

communities in the DRB face as water management frameworks are quickly shifting. Three of

the most prominent are rapidly shifting responsibilities, lack of funding, and insufficient

cooperation between water management authorities.104

Rapidly shifting management

responsibilities stems from both the decentralization of management and the onset of

democratization in that last two decades. As water management is becoming more decentralized

and management responsibilities shift to the community level, local water authorities often have

not developed the skills and institutional capacities to adopt new water management practices

103


Ibid., 27-28.


that span beyond water supply and wastewater treatment. Similarly they often don't have the

financial resources to make rapid changes to the institutional structures at the community level.

In some municipalities a lack of financial capital is hindering water authorities to provide basic

water utilities, which put public health and ecosystems at risk. Furthermore community level

water authorities have not been able to effectively cooperation and dialogue both between

countries and within countries. This has contributed to disintegrated and disorganized water

management decision-making at all three levels of management. Each of these challenges can be

met, but it will take a coordinated effort by the ICDPR, nation-state governments, and local

water authorities.

Socio-economic Considerations

The Danube River flows through a region of the world where most people enjoy a

relatively high standard of living and freedom. According to the Human Development Index

(HDI) reports in 2011, a study that measures average achievements in health, knowledge, and

income, riparian countries within the DRB have both a "very high HDI" and "high HDI." Figure

5 depicts that Eastern countries in the DRB, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria

and Romania have a lower HDI than DRB countries in central Europe.105

The high standards of

living and freedom that these countries benefit from have implications in the way stakeholders

are represented in water management frameworks. To develop these key points and their

implications, this section will be divided into four sections and will cover (1) economic and

social trends in the DRB, (2) public values and norms, (3) public and private stakeholder

representation in policy (i.e. the WFD), and (4) public and private stakeholder representation in

practice.

105

UN Water, Status Report on the Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resource Management, 6.


Figure 5: Figure 5 shows Human Development Indexes in 2011 across the world.

106

Economic and Social Trends: Over the past two decades the Danube Region has gone

through a series of social and economic changes that affected the ways in which the Danube

River and its ecosystems have been managed. In order to more thoroughly understand these

changes, this paper will use a model developed by Maria Kaika, who is a professor of Human

Geography at the School of Environment, Education, and Development at the University of

Manchester. She identifies these shifts in social and economic trends as changes in social capital

at the regional, national, and local levels in European society. She defines social capital as "the

formal and informal norms, bonds and relationships and 'culture' of social interaction between

social actors and the degree of 'cohesion' within society that affect the ability of a society to

assimilate change or implement policies and reach goals."107

Figure 6 illustrates that social

capital is shaped by the activities and interactions of civil society, politics at the nation-state

level, and the private sector. This section will discuss how these three nodes influence the ways

in which public and private stakeholders able to participate in decision-making for the

management of waterways.

106

Ibid. 107

Kaika, 300.


Figure 6: Figure 6 shows how social capital (defined by Kaika "the formal and informal norms, bonds and

relationships and 'culture' of social interaction between social actors and the degree of 'cohesion' within society that

affect the ability of a society to assimilate change or implement policies and reach goals."108

) is formed by the

interactions of civil society, politics, and the private sector.109

Kaika identifies three factors of change in social capital in Europe that have been and are

affecting the ways in which water is being managed. The first is an increase in the number of

actors in water management and changes to their individual roles. As a result of greater

liberalization and internationalization of water markets, the private sector has begun to play a

new and significant role in the field of water resource management and has important stake in the

control of water resources. One of the most prominent private actor in the water sector in the

DRB is the multinational Coca-Cola corporation. The regional subsidiary of Coca-Cola, Coca-

Cola Hellenic Bottling Company (HBC), is one of the largest bottlers of non-alcoholic beverages

in Europe including bottled drinking water. In their "Corporate Social Responsibility" report

Coca-Cola HBC illustrates a commitment to protect the DRB and, preserve the environment, and

improve access to safe drinking water by actions such as "reducing relative water consumption

by 40% compared to 2004" and "raise awareness of water sustainability."110

Furthermore,

countries in the DRB have developed partnerships with private companies, such as Aquatim in

108

Ibid. 109

Ibid. 110

Coca-Cola Hellenic, Sustainable values. Sustainable living: Social Responsibility Report 2011, 20, accessed

March 30, 2014, http://www.coca-colahellenic.com/~/media/Files/C/CCHBC/documents/ar-2011cocacolahellenic-

csrreport.pdf.


Romania, to supply water and wastewater services. Private water companies (e.g., Coca-Cola)

have the potential to promote protection of the Danube's ecosystems through education projects

and research funding. However, the private sector has also created a need for increased

environmental regulation. Nongovernmental organizations have responded to this need as

research institutions and lobbyists pushing governments to keep tighter reigns on industry.

The second factor is an increase in the number of power centers and scales of decision-

making in water management. Kaika shows that management of watercourses in Europe has

moved from a "centralized, Keynesian, state-led and state-controlled management (government)

to a post-Keynesian management based on fragmented decision-making clusters

(governance)."111

In other words, water management is now delegated to complex and

interacting groupings of institutions at the local, regional, and international levels. As mentioned

above, challenges can arise when decision-making is fragmented if water authorities do not

communicate and collaborate.

The third factor is an increasing awareness and sensitivity to environment problems.

There is a concern among water managers that as the urban sector expands humans make a larger

ecological footprint. The urban sector has expanded from 51.5% in 1950 to 79.1% in 2011 and is

predicted to reach 82.2% by 2050.112

This has made the conservation of water a central concern

in dialogue about water management. Each of these changes are unique to the 21st century and

heavily influence the way people in the DRB think about the environmental issues associated

with water and the ways in which water management tools can be used to address these issues.

Public Values and Norms: When compared to the multitude of issues that Europeans care

about at the political, social, economic, and environmental levels, concern for the environment is

111

Kaika, 302. 112

United Nations Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision (New York:

2012), 11.


low on the list. Most Europeans, however, think that protecting the environment is important to

them. In a survey carried in 2013 in 34 countries or territories in Europe, 27 of them member

states of the EU, researchers asked each respondent "What do you think are the two most

important issues facing (Our Country) at the moment?" As illustrated by Figure 7, the most

popular answers were 'unemployment,' 'economic situation,' and 'rising prices of inflation.' Only

between 4% and 5% answered 'the environment, climate and energy issues.'113

In a different

survey, however, conducted between in 2011 in 27 member states of the EU (Some 26,825

people were interviewed face-to-face in their native tongue) respondents were asked how

important the environment was to them personally. An overwhelming 95% of people answered

that protecting the environment was important to them personally (Figure 8).114

These statistics

show that while environmental protection may not be as high of a priority for Europeans as other

issues, protecting the environment is still of great importance. Furthermore Europeans think of

man-made disasters (oil spills and industrial accidents, etc.) and water pollution to be central

dangers to the state of the environment. In the same survey conducted in 2011, researchers found

that when asked, "from the following list, please pick the five main environmental issues that

you are worried about" between 39% and 42% of them responded that man-made disasters were

the main environmental issues they were worried about, and between 41% and 42% answered

water pollution (Figure 9).115

Therefore, it can be inferred that water management and regulation

of man-made pollution are priorities for the EU public relative to protecting the environment.

113

European Commission. "Public Opinion in the European Union." Standard Eurobarometer 79, (2013), 19. 114

European Commission. "Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment." Special Eurobarometer 365,

(2011), 9. 115

Ibid., 29.


Figure 7: Figure 7 illustrates the results of a public opinion survey carried out in 2013 in 34 countries or territories

in Europe, 27 of them Member States of the EU, researchers asked each respondent "What do you think are the two

most important issues facing (Our Country) at the moment?" The results show that concern for environment, climate

and energy issues are low. 116

Figure 8: Figure 8 shows the results of a survey conducted between in 2011 in 27 Member States of the EU (Some

26,825 people were interviewed face-to-face in their native tongue) respondents were asked how important the

environment was to them personally. Results show that an overwhelming 95% of people answered that protecting

the environment was important to them personally. 117

116

European Commission, "Public Opinion in the European Union," 19. 117

European Commission, "Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment," 9.


Figure 9: Figure 9 shows the results of a survey conducted between in 2011 in 27 Member States of the EU (Some

26,825 people were interviewed face-to-face in their native tongue) respondents were asked how important the

environment was to them personally. Results show that between 39% and 42% of responded that man-made

disasters were the main environmental issues they were worried about and between 41% and 42% answered water

pollution.118

Stakeholder Representation in Policy: The WFD puts great importance on including

stakeholders in the water management decision-making process because from the EU's

perspective making responsible and effective management decisions requires balancing the

interests and opinions of diverse groups. The WFD includes a provision that water management

institutions must "...encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the

implementation of this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river

basin management plans."119

This provision requires institutions to provide accurate and up-to-

date information as well as consult with relevant groups or organizations such as scientific

118

Ibid., 29. 119

Rieu-Clarke, "The Role and Relevance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of

International Watercourses to the EU and Its Member States," 410.


institutions and research bodies.120

Furthermore even though water management institutions

cannot require active involvement from the public, they can offer an open door for feedback and

conversation.

Stakeholder Representation in Practice: While the WFD provides the legislative

framework for stakeholder participation, the ICDPR takes practical steps in including the public

in the decision-making process. The ICDPR, however, is criticized by scholars in peer-reviewed

literature for not including stakeholders equally. This section discuss the ways in which the

ICDPR seeks stakeholder engagement and discussions of the ICDPR's ability to receive

meaningful stakeholder feedback in literature.

As with the WFD, the ICPDR puts "special emphasis" on promoting public participation

in water management decision-making and is the first international river basin management

group to create a strategy for including stakeholders.121

It coordinates activities in order to

connect with stakeholders on three levels: (1) with observer organizations and scientific experts

(i.e. NGOs and research institutions), (2) with the private sector, and (3) with the general public.

The ICDPR organizes round-table discussion with "selected stakeholder groups," allows e-mail

correspondence between the ICDPR and representatives of professional stakeholder

organizations, provides a questionnaire to the public and professionals, and organizes

Stakeholder Forums to discuss the Danube River Basin Management Plans for "invited

stakeholders."122

Furthermore, the ICDPR connects with businesses through the 'Business

Friends of the Danube' program. This program was developed jointly by the ICDPR, the Coca-

Cola Company, Coca-Cola HBC, and the Austrian Broadcasting ORF. These groups signed a

120

Ibid. 121

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), " Danube River Basin Strategy for

Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning 2003-2009," 3. 122

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), "Public Participation Process 2009,"

(2009), 2-3.


Memorandum of Understanding in 2005 for the joint protection and preservation of the Danube

River. Businesses that are part of the 'Business Friends of the Danube' program help to organize

and finance environmental education events that promote awareness of environmental issues

surrounding the Danube River and the ways that these issues can be addressed. The ICDPR

regards this program as "very successful" because of all it has done to promote the protection of

the Danube River.123

At the surface level it would seem that the ICDPR effectively sets the stage for active

public involvement. In reality, however, the extent to which a truly diverse group of

representatives from professional organizations, private industries, and the general public can be

represented equally is much more complex. Kaika finds that the provision of "active public

involvement" in the WFD "neither guarantees a fully inclusive participatory process, nor

excludes the implication of relations of social power in the ability of each actor (or stakeholder)

to participate." 124

In other words, the WFD cannot ensure that each stakeholder is represented

equally because, in part, the roles of different actors are not "institutionally defined."125

The

forming of the WFD is an example of how public participation was skewed toward special

interest groups. For example in the drafting of the WFD, the European Commission opened the

door for participation. However the Commission invited specific groups such as water suppliers,

chemical and fertilizer industries, representatives from the agricultural sector, NGOs, and private

water industries. Because they were invited as special interest groups, they had an advantage at

attaining information related to the management of the Danube River and at influencing policy in

a certain direction. On the other hand, the Commission did remain "fully open and carefully

123

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), "Business Cooperation: Business

Friends of the Danube," last modified 2014, accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-

projects/business- cooperation-business-friends-danube. 124

Kaika, 303. 125

Ibid.


considered" suggestions from stakeholders who participated on their own.126

This example

illustrates that decision-making is often more heavily influenced by official organizations and

interest groups.

Similar to how equally representing a diversity of interest groups is challenging, the

relationship between liberalization of water markets and increasing participation of the private

sector in water management, regulation, and environmental protection is complex. Private water

industries pursue their interests at the national level by lobbying the European Parliament and the

European Commission through their European association: Eureau. These industries generally

support a policy of "full cost pricing" which means that they can raise the price of water in the

name of "environmental protection."127

Similarly the implementation of the WFD gives water

industries an extra benefit because it lowers the cost of water treatment in order to provide an

incentive for industries to treat their water. However a new regulation included in the WFD

challenges water industries' ability to accumulate profit. The WFD 'user pays principle' stipulates

that the water supplier and possibly the consumer should bear the burned of the environmental

cost due to damage caused by the use of water, which makes it more costly for industries to

abstract water.128

As a result certain water industries try to find loopholes around stricter

licensing measures. Furthermore the 'user pays principle' is also controversial because it

stipulates that consumers could have to bear a portion of the environmental cost. This is

included, in part, because farmers, who see themselves as water consumers, are often very

polluting to waterways via nutrient contamination. However farmers argue that they should not

be subject to full cost pricing because higher water prices means higher agricultural prices.129

126

Ibid. 127

Ibid., 306. 128

Ibid. 129

Ibid., 306-307.


These examples show that even though the WFD is tailored to accommodate a diversity of

interests, some of its elements are contentious across the board.

Natural (Ecosystem) Considerations

As a result of both historic and current activities in Europe, the quality of the DRB's

aquatic ecosystems are degraded. The degraded quality of the river's water is a result of a

mixture of factors including (1) the impact of pollution on the quality of water (2) the disruption

of the river's hydrological flows, and (3) the destruction of wetlands and key fish populations.

This study will use the results of an assessment conducted by ICPDR and evaluate the quality of

the DRB based on the three factors listed above. Researchers from ICDPR classify the quality

and quantity of by ecological and chemical "status." "Good ecological status" is defined in terms

of the quality of the biological community, the hydrological characteristics and the chemical

characteristics of DRB's ecosystems. "Good chemical status" is defined in terms of compliance

with all the quality standards established for chemical substances at the European level.130

Impact of Pollution on Water Quality: The three main contributors of pollution in the

DRB are organic, nutrient, and hazardous substance contamination. The 2009 Danube River

Basin District Management Plan, issued by the ICPDR, reported that 58% of the DRB was at risk

due to organic pollution, 65% due to nutrient pollution, and 74% due to hazardous substances.131

Figure 10 illustrates places along the length of the river in which the DRB is either at risk,

possibly at risk, or not at risk from each of the three pollutants. It indicates that the latter stretch

of the river, after Hungary, is most affected by contaminants. This is most likely due to the fact

that most pollutants, when introduced to the river, flow downriver and negatively affect lower

riparians.

130

"Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive." 131



Figure 10: Figure 10 illustrates places along the length of the Danube River in which the DRB is at risk, possibly at

risk, or not at risk from hydrological alterations, hazardous substances, nutrient pollution, and organic pollution. The

country abbreviations are as follows: DE - Germany, AT - Austria, SK - Slovak Republic, HU - Hungary, HR -

Croatia, RS - the Republic of Serbia, RO - Romania, - BG - Bulgaria132

Disruption of Hydrologic Flows: The obstruction of rivers' natural passageways often has

negative implications for riparian ecosystems and some local economies. River corridors are

interrupted in order to develop large-scale dams for the production of hydroelectricity, alter

passageways for navigation, or create buffers to protect from floods. For these purposes three

key pressures can be identified for the obstruction or alteration of environmental flows: (1)

interruption of river and habitat continuity (i.e. hydroelectric dams), (2) disconnection of

adjacent wetlands/floodplains, and (3) hydrological alterations. Even though these man-made

developments manipulate the river in a way that makes it more useful for energy production and

economic growth, they are destructive for to natural habitats and local economies that depend on

those habitats.

Man-made obstructions and alterations then alter the natural flow and continuity of

rivers, which are essential for the transportation of nutrients and aquatic populations in self-

sustaining natural habitats. As explained above, the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dams located in

132

Ibid., 6.


Hungary and Slovakia are one of the most controversial projects in the DRB. The dams alter a

20km stretch of the Danube and their construction created a large reservoir. While they provide

low cost and renewable energy to millions of people and also jobs that bolster the economy,133

they also catastrophically reduce fish populations. In combination with the construction of the

two large Iron Gate dams in Romania, scientists at the Laboratory of Fishery Research and

Hydrobiology in Bratislava predicted annual harvest of fish from the Danube River would fall

75% within two years of the completion of the large-scale dams because the dams would disrupt

fish migration patterns and kill millions of fish.134

Since the publication of this prediction fish

have been dying off in large numbers, including a staple fish in the DRB: Sturgeon. This statistic

illustrates that the production of cheap hydroelectricity can come at a great trade-off to fisherman

who depend of an abundance and diversity of fish populations to survive.

Like much of the rest of the world, Europe has steadily been developing more dams and

river alterations over the past fifty years, which has been dramatically transforming riparian

landscapes. In 2009 there were 1,688 barriers located within the DRBD rivers with catchment

areas >4,000 km2

and 600 of those barriers were dams. As illustrated in Figure 11 the upper

regions of the Danube in Germany and Austria are most affected by significant hydro-

morphological alterations. This is primarily due to the fact the dams in the lower regions don't

allow fish populations to migrate north, which negatively affects upper riparians. The middle and

lower regions of the Danube, upstream of the Gabcikovo Dam and downstream of the Iron Gates

Dam to the Black Sea, have significant stretches of free flowing water.135

The construction of

large-scale dams are truly an international issue because their impacts are regional. The

133

Brian Erskine, "Disaster on the Danube," Harvard International Review 16, no. 2 (1994). 134

Ibid. 135



implications of dams constructed in the lower stretches are felt by countries hundreds of miles

away. Therefore, solutions to the problems caused by dams must be negotiated internationally.

Figure 11: Figure 11 comes from a study called the Joint Danube Survey 2 in 2007 in order to determine how

hydromorphological alterations and obstructions on the Danube River affected the natural flow cycles of the river.

The survey created 5-class evaluations for three categories (1. channel, 2. banks, 3. floodplains) The 5 classes were

calculated as a mean of the three categories with Class 1 being more natural and class 5 being less natural.136

Destruction of Wetlands and Key Fish Populations: In order to maintain the health of the

DRB it is important to take into account the variety of related ecosystems and natural cycles that

play a role in the greater river basin. Maintaining these ecosystems helps to uphold the quality of

the Danube River's waters and continues to provide its provisioning, regulating, and cultural

services. Two of these related ecosystems are wetlands and fish habitats. Understanding the

status of wetlands and fish habitats are useful indicators for evaluating the overall health of the

river. The following two paragraphs will look at the status of wetlands and of Sturgeon, a vital

fish species in the DRB.

136



Wetlands play an important role in freshwater environments because they provide a

habitat for a variety of fish and other fauna, hold and purify water, act as a buffer to prevent

floods, and overall have a positive effect on water status. Unfortunately wetlands are in critical

decline as Europeans develop over these natural areas. The primary causes of wetland

destruction in Europe are the expansion of agriculture and engineering rivers for navigation,

flood control, and power generation so that the waters are diverted away from wetlands areas.

Since the 19th century, less than 19% of former floodplain area remains in the DRB. Since the

1950s engineering endeavors have accounted for approximately 1/2 of the DRB's wetlands being

disconnected from rivers.137

Despite their rapid demise, however, the ICPDR has identified 95

wetlands that have potential to be re-connected to the Danube River. Figure 12 indicates large

areas of declining wetlands that could be rehabilitated.

Figure 12: Figure 12 indicates areas in which wetlands and floodplains in the DRB (>500 ha or which have been

identified by the Danube countries of basin-wide importance) have the potential to be reconnected and/or improved

by 2015 and beyond.138

The country abbreviations are as follows: DE - Germany, AT - Austria, CZ - the Czech

Republic, SK - Slovak Republic, HU - Hungary, SI - Slovenia, HR - Croatia, BA - Bosnia and Herzegovina, RS -

the Republic of Serbia, RO - Romania, BG - Bulgaria, MD - Moldova, UA - Ukraine.

137

Ibid., 21. 138

Ibid., 22.


The Danube River houses a multitude of fish species. One of them, Sturgeon, the ICPDR

declared as "a species of basin-wide importance."139

Like wetlands, populations of Sturgeon are

declining. As study published in 2006 on the status of Sturgeon populations in the DRB reported

that of the six species of Sturgeon, one has gone extinct, four are close to extinction, and the

status of the sixth is unknown. Furthermore migratory sturgeons have become extinct on the

upper and middle stretches of the Danube due to overfishing and hydrological alterations to the

river.140

The state of Sturgeon populations on the Danube is an indicator that the Danube's

ecosystems are threatened. At the current rate at which Sturgeon are becoming extinct, it will not

be long before no more Sturgeon exist in the river if nothing is done to reverse their decline.

Management Elements

Active and Equitable Participation

The nature of water management in Europe requires active and equitable participation by

most riparian countries. The ICDPR notes that the DRB is "the world's most international river

basin" because it includes 19 countries and more than 81 million people of different cultures.141

While this fact might suggest that the DRB is one of the most difficult river basins to manage,

the creation of the EU, the WFD, and the ICDPR has created an environment in which most

riparian countries are required to participate. The WFD is a legally binding document that

stipulates that countries must implement practices of responsible water management if they are

to continue to be a member of the EU. In this sense, membership with the EU is an incentive to

manage water responsibly. However the reach of the DRB stretches beyond the European Union.

139

Ibid., 72. 140

Jürg Bloesch, Tim Jones, Ralf Reinartz, and Beate Striebel, eds, Action Plan for the conservation of sturgeons

(Acipenseridae) in the Danube River Basin, Publication no. 144, (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2006), 141

"Countries of the Danube River Basin," International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, last

modified 2014, accessed February 24, 2014, http://www.icpdr.org/main/danube-basin/countries-danube-river-basin.


Six countries are not member states of the EU including, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovian,

Serbia, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine.142

These countries are not required

by law to adhere to the same principles of water management as EU Member States, but O'Regan

has found that "all countries in the basin, including the non-EU Accession countries, move

towards applying the same general principles of water resource management and regulations,

such as those of the Water Framework Directive."143

Stakeholder Representation

As mentioned above the EU puts great importance on the inclusion of stakeholders in

providing feedback for water management decision makers. The WFD states that water

management institutions must "...encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the



Consequently the ICDPR has a series of different platforms that

allow stakeholders to connect with decision makers through email, public questionnaires and

surveys, discussion forums.145

However there has been some criticism among scholars in peer-

reviewed literature that question the ICDPR's ability to receive valuable feedback equally from

all public stakeholders. Kaika finds special interest groups invited by the ICDPR to provide

feedback, such as scientific research organizations, NGOs, and private water enterprises, have an

advantage over public stakeholders in gaining crucial information and influencing decision-

making more heavily. Therefore, while the ICDPR does make an effort to include a diversity of

142

Raimund Mair, "River Basin Management in the Danube Basin," International Commission for the Protection of

the Danube River, accessed March 26, 2012,

http://freshthoughts.eu/userfiles/file/pptmrc/3River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20the%20Danube%20Basin.

pdf. 143



International Watercourses to the EU and Its Member States," 410. 145

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), " Danube River Basin Strategy for

Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning 2003-2009," 3.


voices and interest groups in planning and management, their approach to receive meaningful

stakeholder feedback may not foster equality in stakeholder involvement.

Environmental Protection and Regulation

The quality of water and aquatic ecosystems in the DRB is of great importance to water

managers at the international level. Both the European Commission and the WFD have

established mechanisms to protect the environmental quality of Europe's river

systems. The EU created the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of

wild fauna and flora which requires member states to take into account the protection of natural

habitats and wildlife in their decision-making.146

Similarly, the WFD addresses the need to regulate pollutants entering the river and

requires the formation of a list of priority pollutants that are subject to cessation or phasing out in

order to eliminate the existence of hazardous chemicals in the river.147

Furthermore, the WFD

stipulates that Member States must comply with the 1985 Environmental Impact Assessment

Directive which "requires that 'projects likely to have significant effects on the environment...' be

subject to environmental assessment."148

This illustrates that environmental protection is a key

consideration for the EU, which has incorporated measures to protect Europe's waterways and

ecosystems. However the extent to which nation-states and local communities are able to

effectively protect the environment will depend on the interests of decision makers and their

ability to adapt to new management responsibilities.

146

Alistair S. Rieu-Clarke, "An Overview of Stakeholder Participation - What Current Practice and Future

Challenges? Case Study of the Danube Basin," Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and

Policy 611, no. 18 (2007), 5. 147

"Danube River Basin District Management Plan," 16. 148




Water management authorities at the nation-state and local level, in certain cases,

struggle to implement the environmental management practices stipulated by the European

Commission and the WDF. O'Regan finds that "Local authorities are increasingly having their

roles extended from delivering water supply and wastewater management to having active

involvement in other parts of the broader water cycle and components of IWRM such as land

management and spatial planning, public health and safety, flood prevention, and pollution

control, and other environmental aspects of water resource management."149

When these local

authorities are not organized or prepared to handle these extra responsibilities, then the quality of

environmental regulation outlined in the WDF is not realized. However one of the most

important steps to protecting the environment is awareness of the issues. DRB countries are

generally making an effort to change in order to adhere to rules of the WFD.

Outcome of Sustainability

Overall the managing institutions of the DRB have made great strides toward

implementing principles of IWRM and sustainable management. The WFD and ICDPR have

outlined several principles that fall in line with the IWRM framework including the creation of a

platform for which stakeholders can participate in planning and decision-making, encouraging

active and equitable participation of all riparian countries within the DRB, taking steps to

confront environmental challenges facing the DRB and seeking to protect both the quality of

water and the integrity of natural ecosystems. Similarly regional, national, and local water

authorities are making an effort to put the policy elements of the WFD into practice. In his report

on the use of IWRM principles in the DRB, O'Regan states:

149

O'Regan et al., 26.


"The [Local governance in Integrated Water Resources Management in the Danube

Basin] report finds that basin nations are, if not working towards, applying water

resources policy, regulation and management based on European and internationally

recognized principles: managing water at the river basin level; integrating water quantity

and water quality management issues; applying the ‘polluter-pays’ principle; ensuring

participation of stakeholders in decision-making; treating water as an economic good;

and putting water management into the context of ‘sustainable development’ - some of

the elements of IWRM."150

This shows that countries are at least attempting to utilize the principles of IWRM in order to

that their water resources can be utilized sustainably for many years into the future. Not only will

this have impacts for the quality of water and aquatic ecosystems, but it will also improve the

lives of those who depend on the river for its services to survive. While the DRB is starting to be

managed holistically, there are still challenges ahead. As countries have begun to decentralize

management and incorporate principles of IWRM, they have met barriers. O'Regan finds that

challenges in transitioning to IWRM include:

Rapidly shifting responsibilities

Incoherence and unpredictability of laws and policy

Lack of policy integration

Insufficient inter-regional cooperation and different systems of basin governance

Lack of finance

Inadequate institutional and human resources

Poor information and data

Haphazard systems of public information and participation

Need to manage pricing, develop partnerships and regulate the private sector

Regaining/maintaining public and consumer trust151

150

Ibid., iii. 151

Ibid., 27-28.


While each of the challenges that O'Regan has identified inhibit the ability of nation-

states and local communities to implement principles of IWRM, there are some challenges that

are more of a barrier to progress than others. Romania serves as an example of a country that is

trying to implement principles of IWRM into practice but is stagnated by some of the more

prominent challenges in the DRB referenced in peer-reviewed literature. These factors include

lack of finance, rapidly shifting responsibilities, insufficient inter-regional cooperation and

different systems of governance within the basin, inadequate institutional and human resources,

and regaining/maintaining public and consumer trust.

Romania is a country that has a natural diversity of aquatic ecosystems from the

mountain streams in the Ural Mountains to the coastal wetlands in the Danube Delta. Because of

its great ecological diversity, Romania has begun to adopt principles of IWRM into practice at

national and local levels by making economic and legislative changes in order to adhere to EU

laws and directives.152

However Romania is an economically poor country and struggles from a

lack of finances to implement IWRM projects and a lack of coordination and cohesion among

water authorities at different institutional levels. As Romania controls 80% of the Danube Delta,

it needs to coordinate management at local, national and regional levels. Currently, however,

there is not enough dialogue, trust and mutual understanding between local water authorities and

the people they represent, and between local communities and national and regional water

authorities. Furthermore local institutions and stakeholders need to engage more in conversation

about IWRM.

The Baia Mare Municipality, a region that suffers from critical pollution and

environmental degradation, is facing challenges of passive NGOs and citizens, disorganized

152

Ibid., 19.


management structures, and lack of harmonization with EU environmental directives.153

The

Baia Mare Municipality has expressed a desire to begin to implement IWRM programs but

rapidly shifting political and economic systems as well as lack of finances inhibit their ability to

make substantial progress. Therefore while Romania has been partially successful in adopting

strategies of IWRM such as including local stakeholder feedback, integrating water, energy and

transport policies, and thinking at the basin-level, they are constrained by certain institutional

and economic shortcomings.

As illustrated by the Romania case, many water authorities in Europe still have a long

ways to go to set up a system in which all actors have the knowledge, experience, and resources

to manage water sustainably. Similarly they have to reconcile conflicts of interests and

development priorities with the health of DRB ecosystems and the well-being of the people.

These are complex tasks, but the European community has already made steps forward to

manage water holistically that put them ahead of most of the rest of the world.

CASE STUDY II - MEKONG RIVER BASIN (MRB)

The Mekong River plays an important role in both Southeast Asia and in the world

because it is a vital source of water and nutrients for globally transported agricultural products,

cheap energy production, and thriving ecosystems. Every year between June and November

monsoon rains cause torrents of water to rush through the MRB in a flood that accounts for 80 to

90% of the river's total flow.154

This flood brings an influx of silts and nutrients which buoy the

Mekong's natural ecosystems, provide food and water for local people, and sustain agricultural

153

Ibid., 21. 154

"Hydrology," Mekong River Commission, last modified 2014, accessed February 28, 2014.

http://www.mrcmekong.org/the-mekong-basin/hydrology/.


crops. Rice is the predominant crop in the MRB and is sold all over the world. Because of the

Mekong River's critical role in providing for both local livelihoods and the global market, it is

important that it be able to continue to meet the needs of economies, local communities, and

natural ecosystems. Similarly to the DRB it is important to assess the natural, socio-economic,

and political elements that shape how the river is managed and its ability to provide for the

welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems, and compare it with the DRB. Therefore, as

done with the Danube case, this paper will provide (1) a brief description of the Mekong's

geography and the ways in which it is has been managed until the present, (2) an analysis of the

natural, political and socio-economic operating elements that either allow for or inhibit best-

practice management principles of IWRM to be implemented, and (3) the degree to which best-

management principles of IWRM have been implemented for the sustainable management of the

Mekong River basin pertaining to the protection of ecosystems and the welfare of people.

Geography and Management

The Mekong River is the 12th longest river in the world and the 7th longest in Southeast

Asia. It runs through six countries including Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and

Vietnam and supports over 70 million people.155

It is divided into an upper and a lower basin.

The upper basin flows through China and Myanmar and constitutes 24% of the total catchment

area, and the lower basin runs through Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Before the river

enters into Vietnam, it splits into two smaller rivers called the Tien River and Bassac River.

155

Olli Varis, Cecilia Tortajada, and Asit K. Biswas, eds, Management of Transboundary Rivers and Lakes, (Berlin:

Springer, 2008), 209 PDF e-book.


These two rivers flow to the Mekong Delta where they are divided into even smaller rivers

known as the Rivers of Nine Dragons.156

Beginning in the 1950s, cooperative and coordinated management in the MRB was very

productive. In 1957 the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia (UN ECAFE) predicted

that developing the main stem of the river would allow for the production of electricity,

expansion of agriculture, reduction of the threat of flooding, and improved navigation. UN

ECAFE immediately called for the "comprehensive development of the river"157

and close

cooperation among riparians in order to facilitate the management of water projects. The same

year, the four lower riparian countries including Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam formed

the Committee for Coordination of Investigations of the Lower Mekong (a.k.a. Mekong

Committee). This was the first regional water management body that had the cooperation of all

four riparians in the lower Mekong basin and substantial support from the international

community. The objective of the committee in its early stages was primarily to conduct

feasibility studies in order to "promote, coordinate, supervise, and control the planning and

investigation of water resources development projects in the Lower Mekong Basin."158

As a

result the four members began to set up hydrological monitoring stations and programs for aerial

mapping, surveying and leveling. By 1965 20 countries and 11 international organizations had

pledged more than $100 million to the Committee and became known as the 'Mekong club' for

their generous donations.159

These lower countries had embarked on a project that would form

the foundations of management in the MRB for years to come.

156

Ibid., 209-10. 157

Beach et al., 108. 158

Ibid., 109. 159

Ibid.


The early success of the Committee is evidenced by the increased trust between nations

due to greater political integration and the continuation of cooperative relationship over water

management despite political hostilities. This is evidenced by a treaty signed in 1965 by

Thailand and Laos for developing hydroelectric power potential on the Nam Ngum tributary

river that runs through Laos. The agreement was made because Thailand had an electricity power

demand and Laos did not have the financial resources to develop a dam.160

At the same time,

however, Thailand and Laos were fighting on opposing sides of the Vietnam war. Laos was a

conduit for communist militias moving from Vietnam to Thailand and Thailand was a strong ally

of the United States in the fight against communism. Close to 80% of all American bombing

missions flown against North Vietnam and Laos were conducted from air bases in Thailand.161

Despite these hostilities, however, the flow of electricity and capital from the Nam Ngum project

continued to flow between the two countries. This illustrates that the development of water

projects and hydro-electricity potential outweighed any political disagreement between these two

Asian countries.

In the 1970s Southeast Asia saw a shift in water management strategies in the MRB when

the Mekong Committee moved from investigation and feasibility studies to add plans to

implement large-scale development projects. In 1970 the Mekong Committee formed the

Indicative Basin Plan (Appendix 6), which included a basin-wide management plan for the next

30 years that encompassed extensive development for power generation, flood control, irrigation,

and navigation projects. The plan outlined the construction of three of the largest hydroelectric

160

Ibid., 110. 161

Arne Kislenko, "A Not So Silent Partner: Thailand's Role in Covert Operations, Counter-Insurgency, and the

Wars in Indochina," The Journal of Conflict Studies 24, no. 1 (2004), accessed February 26, 2014,

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/292/465.


power projects in the world, which included 7 dams on the main stem of the Mekong river.162

However the plan was received with skepticism by some countries and none of the planned dams

were ever built. As a result of this failure, the Mekong Committee met in 1975 to redefine its

goals, which were put together in a 'Joint Declaration of Principles' (Appendix 7). In this

document the Committee included the definition of "reasonable and equitable use [of

waterways]" based on the 1966 Helsinki Rules.163

This was the first definition like this to be used

in any international water agreement and represented the first signs of IWRM being included in

any framework for the management of the MRB.

In the late 1970s, certain political events in the Mekong region crippled the Mekong

Committee's ability to manage water resources effectively. In 1978 Cambodia was forced to

withdraw its participation in the Committee due to political violence and turmoil and the

Committee was reduced to 'interim' status. In 1975 in Cambodia, the communist guerrilla group

Khmer Rouge took over the government and claimed Cambodia as the Republic of Democratic

Kampuchea. Khmer Rouge began a campaign to transform the former Cambodia into a radical

communist state, which involved destroying cities, eliminating the social elite, and targeting

Vietnamese and Chinese minority groups. In 1978 the Vietnamese responded to the attacks on

their nationals and replaced the Khmer Rouge's government with a more mild form of

communist rule that was sympathetic to Vietnamese interests. Peace was not established until

1991, however, and democratic elections were subsequently held in 1993. When Cambodia

rejoined the Mekong Committee in 1991, funding and support for the Committee had dropped

significantly.

162

Beach, et al., 110. 163

Ibid.


Water management was reworked in the 1990s after political volatility in the late 1970s

and 1980s in the Mekong region destroyed the Committee's ability to effectively manage the

MRB and support development projects. Two new primary management bodies were formed that

are responsible for joint water management and development projects. The two bodies, however,

have very different priorities. The first regional organization, the Greater Mekong Subregion

(GMS), was formed in 1992 with the assistance of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The

GMS is comprised of representative from all six countries in the MRB including Cambodia,

China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. The core focus of the GMS is on economic

development, integration and political rapprochement and it is not as concerned about

environmental regulation and protection. However, the GMS does include select environmental

non-governmental organizations like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).164

The second regional

organization, the Mekong River Commission (MRC), was formed in 1995 as a result of the

Mekong Committee's decision to again change their approach to water management. The MRC

is focused on the four lower riparians of the MRB, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and

operates as a treaty-based intergovernmental cooperation. Its key goals are to implement

principles of IWRM by focusing on "cross-cutting themes" such as environmental protection,

human resource development, poverty reduction, gender equity, and public participation.165

While there is evidence showing that the MRC is beginning to dialogue with China and

Myanmar, there is no indication in the literature that the MRC and the GMS cooperate or

coordinate projects. Separately, both of these organizations are the primary facilitators of

transboundary water management in the Mekong Region today.

164

Oliver Hensengerth, "Transboundary River Cooperation and the Regional Public Good: The Case of the Mekong

River," Contemporary Southeast Asia 31, no. 2

(August 2009): 331. 165

Varis et al., 215.


Context Elements

Political Aggregation and Dis-aggregation

The political landscape in the Mekong region has gone through a series of changes over

the past two decades that have implications for the ways in which the water resources in the

MRB are managed. After the Cold War and the disintegration of alliances between third-world

countries and the Soviet Union and NATO alliances, countries in the MRB formed new political

and economic coalitions, which resulted in what researchers call "the second wave of

regionalism."166

The first wave of regionalism had started with the formation of European

Economic Community in 1957.167

This new regionalism in Southeast Asia was sparked by

economic liberalization of trade and encouraged the formation of region organizations such as

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the GMS and MRC. These organizations

promoted political and economic integration. Many of these organizations, such as the GMS and

the MRC, promote the development of large-scale infrastructure projects on waterways in order

to spurr economic trade, growth and, to an extent, the protection of aquatic environments and the

well-being of people. Political interests, however, largely conflict with enviornmental and social

considerations. Therefore, similarly to the Danube case, in order to assess the degree to which

political frameworks in the MRB facilitate or inhibit the protection of the environment and the

well-being of people, this section will evaluate (1) changing political trends tending toward

greater regionalization (2) the degree of cooperation vs. individualism in decision-making, (3)

water managment policy, (4) and water management practice.

166

Hensengerth, 338. 167

Dilip Das, "Regionalism In A Globalizing World: An Asian-Pacific Perspective," Center for the Study of

Globalization and Regionalisation, CSGR Working Paper No. 80/01, September 2001, 2, accessed April 2, 2014,

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2001/wp8001.pdf.


Changing Political Trends Tending to Greater Regionlization: The second wave of

regionalim occured in Southeast Asia after countries that were once bounded by Soviet and

NATO alliances during the Cold War could freely manage their political and economic resources

in a way that contributed to their own growth. During the Cold War economic resources were

largely directed outward toward the two superpower nations, the United States and the Soviet

Union. These two countries organized and managed "supra-regions."168

With the break-up of the

Soviet Union, however, East and Southeast Asian countries became increasingly independent

and their economic energies were directed inward. For example, in 1998 trade between East and

Southeast Asian countries accounted for under 33% of all imports and exports; after 1998, it rose

to 52% and has risen since.169

The principle driver of growth has been capitalist business and

multi-lateral organizations.

Entering the 21st century, Southeas Asia not only became a cross-roads for flows of

people, culture, technology and finance, but the stage for several transboundary economic zones.

Two of the most prominant economic zones are managed by ASEAN and the GMS Economic

Coopeartion Programme. Similarly to the EU, ASEAN is a an economic and poltical

organization started in 1967 in Bankok, Thailand with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration by

its founding fathers, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillippines, Singapore and Thailand. The

purpose of ASEAN is to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development

and promote regional peace and stability. ASEAN claims that "it has found success in

developing the basis for an open and inclusive regionalism with commitments to regional

prosperity and grace."170

Similarly the GMS Economic Cooperation Programme is desigend to

168

Sebastian Conrad and Presenjit Duara, Viewing Regionalisms from East Asia (Washington D.C.: American

Historical Association, 2013), 26. 169

Ibid. 170

Ibid., 28.


enhance economic relations among the six countries in the MRB. The combination of the second

wave of regionalism and greater economic and political integration has implications for water

management because it encourages joint water management projects such as hydropower and

navigation projects. Greater cooperation, however, does not preclude the possibility that certain

Mekong countries can make decisions based on individual interests and without the consent of

other riparian countries. For example some scholars find that China has a more authorities role in

the GMS due to strong self-interest in economic gains from hydropower.171 Individualism vs.

cooperation in decision-making will shape the Mekong Regions ability to effectively manage for

ecosystem protection and the provision of human well-being at the basin-level.

Cooperation vs. Individualism in Decision-Making: Despite the new-found cooperation

among countries in the Mekong region, countries still have diverse priorities and aspirations

concerning water management, economic development, and environmental protection. Table 1

illustrates the differences in priorities between countries. Mayanmar is not listed because

literature on the development priorities for Maynmar is not readily availabe. However Myanmar

is not a participating country with the MRC and, therefore, is probably not as concernded with

environmental protection at this time.

171

Hensengerth, 331.


Development priorities for MRB countries

Country Thailand Laos Vietnam Cambodia China

Priorities Interest in

irrigation for

agriculture.

Supports

construction

of Chinese

dams

Interest in

development of

hydropower

resources. Seeks to

attract Thai,

Chinese, and

Vietnamese

investment into

hydropower sector.

Critical of Chinese

dams in part

because it blames

China for increasing

salinization of the

Mekong Delta

where close to 50%

of Vietnam's annual

rice crop is

produced.

Concern about the

well-being and

maintenance of

natural hydrological

flows into the Tonle

Sap Lake region.

Suspicious of

Chinese dams.

Focus on large-scale

infrastructural

development.

Prioritizes

economic

development over

environmental

considerations.

Table 1: Table 1 illustrates the various development priorities for six countries in the Mekong Region. Myanmar is

not listed because literature on the development priorities for Myanmar is not readily avialable. Results show that

each country have different interests and priorities. 172

Three of the five countries listed are interested in or support the construction of large-

scale dams mainly for the purposes of economic development. Vietnam and Cambodia, both

lower basin countries, are more concerned about the impacts that dams can have on the natural

environment and, most likely, local economies. Vietnam and Cambodia are more under-

developed than the other countries in the basin (illustrated later in the paper) and the are more

vulnerable to changes to the river flows and ecosystems.173

These diverse aspirations cause

problems in regional water management decision-making because each nation has distinct

objectives.

China plays an important role in water management decision-making in the MRB

because it sits at the head of the Mekong River and its decisions impact the integrity of the river

in every other Mekong basin country. In the late 1970s, China went through an economic

transformation that illustrated their "super-Confucian" determinitaion to transform nature with

the emerging technologies of the age.174

In 1978 the Chinese leader, Deng Ziaoping, started to

accelerate economic growth by allowing capitalist forces to control the economic market and

172

Ibid., 329. 173

Mekong River Commission, State of the Basin Report 2010 (2010), 45. 174

Solomon, 431.


allow for some decentralization of decision-making. This provided for considerable investment

in water infrastructure projects such as large-scale dams. In half a century, China has erected

85,000 dams and one-fouth of them are giant dams. China's abrupt economic growth has caused

severe environmental problems. The World Bank estimated that about 6%, over half, of China's

national GDP growth should be canceled out due to air and water pollution damages to

ecosystems and human health. China's state environmental protection agency estimated that the

annual cost of envrionmental loss is 8% to 13% of GDP, which negates all of China's economic

growth.175

As a result of its rapid development, studies have shown that Chinese dams capture

30% of the mean annual run-off coming from China, which causes lower flood flows during the

wet season and a shift in time when the peak of the flood season occurs.176

Therefore China's

developmental activites have been and continute to be damaging to the Mekong River.

Water Management Policy: The two primary transboundary water management

organizatons in the MRB are the MRC and the GMS Economic Cooperation Programme. These

two organizations have different goals and objectives. The MRC claims to utilize principles of

IWRM such as environmental sustainability, social equity, and economic profitablity.177

The

GMS, in contrast, focuses almost wholly on joint infrastructural projects for trade and economic

development. The following section will look at each organization at the structural level and

evaluate the implications for water management.

The MRC is the only organization that works with the lower-basin countries in the

Mekong Region to facilitate projects that attempt to meet their common intrests and, like the

ICDPR, implement principles of IWRM. The MRC states, " The Mekong River Commission

175

Ibid., 441 176

Mekong River Commission, State of the Basin Report, 187. 177

"Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management Project," Mekong River Commission, accessed March 5,

2014. http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/programmes/mekong-integrated-water-resourcesmanagement-

project/.


(MRC) is the only inter-governmental agency that works directly with the governments of

Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam on their common specific interests—joint

management of shared water resources and sustainable development of the Mekong River."178

While the MRC is an important facilitator of economic and political integration of the four

lower-basin countries, the absence of China and Myanmar as MRC partners inhibits holistic

management in the Mekong Basin. Figure 13, however, illustrates that the MRC has engaged in

dialogue with both China and Myanmar. For example, in 2010 at the Summit in Hua Hin,

Thailand China shared its real-time hydro-meteorological data during the dry season for the first

time with the MRC.179

Figure 13 also shows that the MRC works with various donor groups,

cooperating institutions, line agencies, and development partners such the European Union, the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the World Bank.180

With cooperation

from the lower-basin countries, dialogue with China and Myanmar, and participation from

partnering organizations, the MRC is setting the stage for effective transboundary water

management in the Mekong Region.

178

"About the MRC," Mekong River Commission, accessed March 3, 2014, http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-

mrc/. 179

Mekong River Commission, The Mekong River Commission, 1. 180

"Development Partners and Partner Organizations," Mekong River Commission, accessed March 6, 2014.

http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/agreements/agreementApr95.pdf.


Figure 13: Figure 13 illustrates the structure of the MRC and its interactions with countries and organizations. The

three lower-basin countries, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam are member countries of the MRC and

China and Myanmar are dialogue partners.181

In 1995, when the MRC was established, the MRC made a commitment to implement

principles of IWRM. The operational structure of the MRC Secretariat is divided into four

categories including planning and division, environment division, technical support division, and

operations division. Each of these divisions manages projects on integrated water management

issues such as development projects like sustainable hydropower, environmental assessment and

protection and flood management and mitigation. Similarly the MRC has created a Mekong

181

Ibid., iii.


Integrated Water Resources Management Project in order to coordinate integrated planning

approaches to address the complex and overlapping issues concerning the health of the Mekong

River and the people living within the MRB.182

The MRC is the only regional water management

organization that attempts to implement IWRM practices and searches for holistic ways to

manage water resources in a way that is sustainable for the environment and people.

In contrast to the MRC, the GMS is primarily development oriented and focuses on

activities that strengthen economic and political integration. Hensengerth refers to the GMS as a

direct product of "the second wave of regionalism" because it aligns with the goals of East and

Southeast Asian nations to increase efforts to bolster cross-border economic activities within the

region.183

Unlike the legislative framework of the WFD in the Danube Region, the goal of the

GMS is to provide a non-legally binding enviornment, known as "soft regionalism"184

that helps

countries improve infrastructure in order to promote trade, investment, and economic growth.

The countries also agree that human resource dvelopment and environmental development are

key considerations in GMS activities.185

Unlike the ICDPR in the DRB, there is no founding

document that pre-determines the complex structure of the GMS, but only a set of non-binding

agreements and a basic institutional set-up consisting primarily of working groups, ministerial

meetings and summits.186

While the GMS's activites are primarily focused on large-scale

infrastructure projects, it did create the Core Environmental Program (CEP) in 2006 in response

to the growing environmental impacts of rapid economic development. Administered by the

ADB and overseen by environmental ministries of all six Mekong countries, the GMS focus on

182

"Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management Project." 183


Ibid., 342. 185

The Greater Mekong Subregion Economic Cooperation Program Strategic Framework 2012–2022 (n.p.: Asian

Development Bank, 2011), 2. 186

Hensengerth, 334.


assessments, planning, piloting, innovation, and monitoring and particularly addresses issues

with biodiversity, climate change, and the well-being of local livelihoods.187

Unlike the MRC,

the GMS has support and particiaption from all six countries in the MRB and is a powerful actor

in supporting developmental projects along the Mekong River.

Water Management in Practice: There are elements to both the MRC and the GMC that

exemplify both positive and negative examples of water management for environmental

protection and the well-being of people. For example both the MRC and the GMC have

developed environmental programs, such as the CEP, that work directly to help mitigate negative

impacts of large infrastructural projects and promote a policy of environmental responsibility.

There is, however, a large amount of skepticism and critique in peer-reviewed literature of the

abilities of the MRC and the GMS to effectively manage for the protection of the aquatic

environment and the well-being of people in the Mekong region. In particular, the exclusion of

China and Myanmar from participation in the MRC and the diverse national priorities

concerning water management and development inhibit the holistic management capacities of

the MRC and the GMS.

The following section analyzes the discussion in peer-reviewed literature about the ability

of the MRC and the GMS to manage for environmental and social sustainability and includes a

few case studies to provide examples for conversations taking place in the literature.

There are differing views in the literature as to the usefulness of the MRC in facilitating

effective IWRM for the protection of the river environment and the welfare of people. Islam and

Susskind, authors of the book Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing Complex

Water Networks find that the MRC agreement signed by each of the four lower-basin countries

187

"The Core Environment Program," Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environment Program, last modified 2014,

accessed March 3, 2014, http://www.gms-eoc.org/the-program.


in 1995 is a good example of non-zero-sum thinking when the actions of one country will not

negatively impact that of another country. The authors explain that the MRC has developed a

system in which each stakeholder country is "guaranteed...that its top priority concern would be

met [and that] "Ultimately, rules developed by the Commission provided assurances that all

notifications of proposed uses would allow sufficient time before the onset of the dry season for

all riparians to make appropriate adjustments."188

In other words, the MRC has developed a way

of managing water resources that allows each lower-basin country to achieve their goals in a way

that does not harm the river environment and that allows other countries to reap the full services

provided by the Mekong River. Similarly Marko Keskinen, a University lecturer and researcher

with the Water and Development Research Group states that "the MRC is arguably the most

suitable organization for basin-wide impact assessments."189

Impact assessments are crucially

important for the protection of the river environment because they help researchers understand

the nature and severity of the environmental problems in the MRB and the ways in which actors

are best able to solve these problems. While these two scholars offer positive views of the MRC,

there are also negative perspectives.

While the MRC may be the most suitable organization to facilitate IWRM, their current

methods are not necessarily seen as effective. Keskinen points out that, unlike the DRB, the

MRC does not have a "common impact assessment approach that would be applied

systematically by the commission and its national committees"190

and that adequately address the

"actual impacts of complex, crosscutting processes such as flood pulse..."191

Keskinen, therefore,

is arguing that the MRC cannot adequately assess the impacts of large-scale infrastructural

188

Islam and Susskind, 129-130. 189

Marko Keskinen, "Water Resources Development and Impact Assessment in the Mekong Basin: Which Way to

Go?" Ambio 37, no. 3 (May 2008), 194. 190

Ibid. 191

Ibid., 196.


projects on the health of the river environment or evaluate the complex political, social and

environmental processes involved in an IWRM approach. Furthermore Dr. Oliver Hensengerth, a

professor in the department of social sciences at Northumbria University, criticizes the MRC and

a partner program called the Mekong Water Resource Assistance Strategy organized by the

World Bank to supplement the MRC's activities for its "one-sided focus on hydrological instead

of environmental issues, insufficient attention of the views of civil society stakeholders in the

formulation of the strategy's recommendations, and the downplaying of the influence China's

dams have on the lower Mekong basin."192

According to these scholars, the MRC is not

sufficiently practicing the principles of IWRM by (1) not adequately assessing and addressing

environmental problems, (2) focusing too much on large-scale infrastructural development and

(3) not including the public in decision-making. However this may not be because the MRC is

incapable of facilitation IWRM, but because the lower-basin countries have other priorities.

Perhaps one of the greatest threats to the MRC's ability to implement principles of IWRM

for the protection of aquatic ecosystems and the well-being of people that is discussed in the

literature is the narrow view of Mekong region countries toward large-scale infrastructural

development for the purposes of economic development. When the MRC was formed in 1995, its

adoption of IWRM principles did not reflect the interests of its member countries but of its

donors. Therefore the activities of the MRC are constrained by a double standard. Hensengerth

explains that,

As long as countries in the subregion are concerned with domestic issues only, ranging

from economic to political stability, regional cooperation is synonymous with enhancing

economic cooperation in order to spur domestic development. IWRM concerns are

therefore likely to be overridden by national economic considerations.193

192


Ibid., 342.


This statement suggests that the MRC's inability to effectively provide for the protection of the

river environment and the welfare of people is largely because the majority of the lower-basin

countries are more interested in promoting national development and international trade. The

way that most countries do this is investing in large-scale infrastructural projects, like dams,

which often conflict with environmental considerations.

A good example of a development project that embodies the disconnection between

developmental priorities and environmental and social consideration is the Nam Pong dam and

reservoir in Thailand. The dam was constructed in the 1960s and early 1970s as an early dam

project. As a result of a report conducted by the South East Asia Technology Company for the

Thai National Energy Authority, researchers identified a series of benefits and costs to the

projects. Benefits of the dam included improved local water supply, the creation of a thriving

fishery (which improved the diets and levels of income for local farmers and fisherman) and

increased paddy rice yields. The costs, however, included an extra fee to export the hydro-

electric to cities (rural electrification was not provided), poor sanitation and health conditions for

people living near the reservoir, and the deforestation of large amounts of forests. The report

concluded that the social and ecological costs are a result of poor management and design.194

While this dam was constructed approximately 50 years ago, and significant changes have

occurred to help promote greater sustainability of dam construction, similar ecological and social

problems still exist.

While there is little literature published about the GMS and its relation to the protection

of the river environment and social well-being, it is apparent that the GMS focuses almost

completely on economic and political integration for the purposes of bolstering regional trade

and development. Hensengerth explains that "water resources are considered part of national

194

Ibid., 342.


development plans. Therefore, central governments are anxious to keep the development of

water resources under their control."195

Centralized decision-making hinders the participation of

both public stakeholders and environmental NGOs and representatives of affected community

areas. Even though the GMS did establish the CEP for the purposes of environmental

consideration and protection, the CEP is largely understaffed and too small to make a significant

impact.196

Furthermore China is a significant actor in the GMS because of its strong self-interest

in economic gains from infrastructural development. The combination of China's dominating

role in the GMS, and the development priorities of other MRB countries, preclude effective

environmental management.

An example of China's strong role in the GMS is its economic and political partnership

with Thailand. Both Thailand and the Yunnan province of China, which sits at the head of the

MRB, play a lead role in pushing GMS projects. Since 1999 China has worked toward

developing the Western and Southwestern parts of its country to overcome economic disparities.

It realized that joining the GMS would help to develop the Yunnan Province, a land-locked area,

and achieve its economic goals.197

Similarly, Thailand is the most developed country in the

region and is interested in being a transport hub and investment center for the Mekong region. In

1993 China and Thailand formed a cooperation over Mekong River navigation on two GMS

projects: the Upper Lancang-Mekong River Navigation Improvement Project and they Mekong

Delta Navigation Improvement Studies. Supported by China, Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand.

China invested 40 million yuan to have a channel dredged and was the most active country in

pushing water transport in the Mekong River. As a result Thai exports to the Yunnan province

195

Ibid., 337. 196

Ibid. 197

Siriluk Masviriyakul, "Sino-Thai Strategic Economic Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion (1992–

2003)," Contemporary Southeast Asia 26, no. 2 (August 2004): 305.


increased from 96.76 million baht (2.99 million USD) to 2225.59 million baht (68.88 million

USD) in 2001. This increase of close to $66 million USD in just 3 years illustrates the great

economic benefits GMS projects have contributed.198

While this is a purely economic estimation

of developmental progress, the GMS is also coordinating projects to help protect the

environment.

It is important to note that the CEP started a biodiversity conservation project in 2006,

which is contributing to efforts to protect the variety of flora and fauna that exist within the

MRB. The goal of the project is "to address environmental degradation in critical biodiversity

areas by combining forest protection and rehabilitation measures with alternative livelihood

development."199

Between 2006 and 2011 seven pilot sites were chosen across five countries in

order to establish clear definitions of land use and harmonizing land management regimes,

support the restoration and maintenance of ecosystem connectivity, promote capacity building

within local communities and among government staff and secure sustainable financing

mechanisms by attributing proper valuation to ecosystem services and adapting best available

practices.200

The CEP claims that the program is going to have a significant impact on both the

health of the environment and the livelihoods of local communities. For example, in Cambodia,

the CEP will work with nearly 2 million hectares of forest and non-forest land and more than

34,000 households (ca. 150,000 people) are expected to benefit. 201

Even though the CEP might

have a small impact in the grand scheme of the GMS's activities, it does still make a difference.

198

Ibid., 315. 199

"Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Project (2011 onwards)," Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environmental

Program, last modified 2014, accessed March 4, 2014, http://www.gms-eoc.org/resources/biodiversity-conservation-

corridors-project-2012-onwards-. 200

"Biodiversity Landscapes and Livelihoods," Greater Mekong Subregion Core Environmental Program, last

modified 2014, accessed March 4, 2014, http://www.gms-eoc.org/biodiversity-conservation-corridors-initiative. 201

"Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Project.



Approximately 60 million people live in the Lower Making Basin and many live in rural

and poor conditions. The 85% of the total population that live in rural areas are more dependent

on Mekong River services and are subject to the uncertainty of floods and other disasters, lack of

land ownership, and consequences from regional and national economic failures.202

Alebel Belay

(UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education) believes that "developing the economic potential

of the Mekong system for domestic use for hydropower, navigation, irrigation and drought

management is the key to fighting poverty and increasing people's welfare."203

In contrast, other

experts cite the impacts that developmental activities have on rural communities reliant on a

healthy and thriving river ecosystems to survive. Therefore, similarly to the Danube case, in

order to understand the ways in which the well-being of public stakeholders is represented and

protected by transboundary water management frameworks this section will evaluate (1)

economic and social trends in the MRB, (2) public norms and values, (3) public stakeholder

representation in policy (i.e., MRC, GMS) and (4) public stakeholder representation in practice.

Economic and Social Trends in the MRB: Since the end of the Cold War, Southeast Asia

has experienced steady economic growth. Figure 8 illustrates that every country in the Lower

Mekong Basin experienced rapid economic growth since the early 1990s with Cambodia and

Vietnam showing the highest GDP by 2007.204

Economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 spurred

countries to invest even more in infrastructural development in order to bolster energy trades and

investment from other countries and private enterprises. Furthermore Medhi Krogkaew, a

professor, researcher, and expert on economic development in Asia, points out that because

202


Alebel Abebe Belay, Shah Md. Atiqul Haq, and Vuong Quoc Chien, "The Challenges of Integrated Management

of Mekong River Basin in Terms of People's Livelihood," Journal of Water Resources & Protection 2, no. 1

(January 2010): 62. 204

Mekong River Commission, State of the Basin Report, 29.


countries in the Mekong Region are at different levels of development, the poorer countries, such

as Lao and Cambodia, are forced to develop more rapidly in order to be valuable trading partners

with Thailand, Vietnam and China.205

Therefore much like the EU community in the Danube

Region, the Mekong countries see each other both as economic competitors and allies, which

encourages rapid development and is an incentive for continued growth.

Figure 14: Figure 14 illustrates the economic growth among the four lower-basin countries in the Mekong Region

both in percentage annual increase and gross increase in GDP. The graphs show that every country in the Lower

Mekong Basin experienced rapid economic growth since the early 1990s with Cambodia and Vietnam showing the

highest GDP by 2007.206

Unlike the Danube Region and despite the rapid economic growth and investment in

large-scale infrastructure, The Mekong region is still very much an agrarian society. Agriculture

is the single most important economic activity in the Lower Mekong Basin and the primary

social user of water.207

Rice-farming is the primary agricultural activity in the lower basin and

50% of rural households make a living by the sale of rice. The next 25% of rural households

make a living on the sale of fish. Figure 15 shows that about 62.6% of the economically active

population in the lower basin has a main occupation that is water related and 38.3% as a

205

Medhi Krongkaew, "The development of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS): real promise or false

hope?," Journal of Asian Economics 15 (2004):993. 206


Ibid., 51


secondary occupation.208

Over the 5 years before 2010, however, almost one in every six

households have had to change occupation because of declining productivity and services of the

Mekong River's ecosystems.209

This documents clearly that environmental changes to the natural

state of the river are causing problems for local populations.

Figure 15: Figure 15 shows the percentage of the economically active that hold water related and non-water related

jobs as either their main occupation or secondary occupation in the Lower Mekong Basin. The results show that a

significant portion of the population hold water related occupations.210

The problems that local farmers and fisherman are having in the lower basin are likely

linked to the construction of dams in the lower and upper Mekong basin. Since 2006, there have

been at least 11 proposals for large-scale development on Mekong tributaries on the Lao, Lao-

Thai and Cambodian sections of the lower Mekong Basin, which have significant support from

the private sector. Similarly China completed its forth large dam on the Lancang-Mekong river

in the Yunnan province and four more are planned to be constructed by 2025.211

Two of these

large dam and reservoir storage projects are located in Xiaowan and Nuozhadu, which is

expected to be finished in 2015. These two dams represent 90% of the total reservoir storage

208

Ibid., 48. 209

Ibid., 47. 210

Ibid., 48. 211

Ibid., 184.


volume from the four dams in China which is about 30% of mean annual runoff in this stretch of

river. The MRC has already found that effects of these two dams on the Mekong River flow

regime include lower flood flows during the wet season and a shift in time when the peak of the

flood season occurs. Similarly higher river flows were recorded during the dry season.212

These

changes to the flow regime in the upper basin of the Mekong likely contribute to the problems

that local communities are having in the lower basin. More dams will only make the problems

more severe.

Similar to the Southeast Asian economy, the population in the Mekong region is growing

at a considerable rate. Although the rate of population growth has slowed, increases in the

population density are expected to increase well past 2050.213

One study found that that the

population grew from 63 million in 1995 to over 72 million in 2005. The researcher predicted,

using national population growth rates and data from the UN on key population statistics for all

Mekong Basin countries, that if the natural population increase rate decreases over time, then the

population will grow by 60% by 2050. If the natural increase is kept constant at level it is at in

2000, the 2005 record of 72 million people will double.214

Because population growth rates now

are decreasing, population trends are likely to follow the first scenario. Even at this lesser level,

the increase in population will contribute the problems facing Southeast Asia because it will

cause increased competition for available resources, there will be less land for agriculture, and

likely increased poverty.

Today, a significant portion of the population in the Mekong region live in poverty. Table

2 compares the rates of poverty in each of the six Mekong countries. Cambodia has the highest

212

Ibid., 187. 213

Sokhem Pech and Kengo Sunada.,"Population Growth and Natural-Resources Pressures in the Mekong River

Basin," A Journal of the Human Environment 37, no. 3 (May 2008), 219. 214

Ibid., 220.


rate of poverty at 35%. Cambodia is less developed than most of the other Mekong countries and

70% of its rural population depends on a subsistence economy. Similarly even though there has

been significant economic growth in the Mekong region, widespread poverty continues to exist.

For example Lao has experienced an annual 507% increase in GDP since 2000. However 30% of

its population lives below the poverty line and 40% do not have not safe drinking water. This

suggests that the economic gains from development are not being distributed equally to the poor.

One of the questions that decision-makers are going to have to consider is what will contribute

more to the eradication of poverty? Will it be infrastructural and economic development or the

preservation of healthy ecosystems and natural river flows?

Poverty in MRB Countries

Country Thailand Laos Vietnam Cambodia China Myanmar

Poverty

Statistics

Reduced

poverty by

27% be-

tween 1990 -

2006. Social

inequalities

are wide-

spread.

Widespread

poverty,

malnutrition.

30% of popu-

lation live below

poverty line and

40% have no

safe water.

Rate of poverty fell

from 75% in 1990 to

15.9% in 2006.

Inequality and social

differences are higher

than ever. 44.9% of

rural population live

under poverty line and

18.3% urban.

35% of

population

living below

national

poverty line

and 15-20%

living in

extreme

poverty.

13.4% of

population

lives

below the

poverty

line.215

32.7%

live

below

the

poverty

line.216

Table 2: Table 2 shows the different levels of poverty in all six countries in the MRB. Results show that poverty is

relatively high in most countries.217

One of the primary challenges that the public in Southeast Asia faces is a lack of

democratic decision-making. According to Freedom House, Thailand is the only country that has

an electoral democracy that is rated as "partly free."218

Table 3 shows that every other country in

215

"China," Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, accessed March 7, 2014,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html. 216

"Burma," Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, accessed March 7, 2014,

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html. 217

Ibid., 45. 218

"Asia-Pacific," Freedom House, last modified 2014, accessed March 3, 2014,

http://www.freedomhouse.org/regions/asia-pacific#.UxSvdfldUs0.


the Mekong Region is not governed by an electoral democracy and is classified as "not free" by

Freedom House. However Larry Diamond, the founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy,

sees a different trend in East and Southeast Asia's future. He predicts that as a result of a more

educated society and higher income, democratization will come within a generation.219

Today the

lack of democratic decision-making in each of the Mekong countries except Thailand severely

inhibits the public's ability to provide valuable feedback to decision-makers. If Diamond's

predictions are correct, democratization could bring substantial changes to water management

frameworks because decision-making would likely become more decentralized and decision

makers would listen more closely to what the public truly values.

Democracy Statistics in MRB Countries

Country Thailand Laos Vietnam Cambodia China Myanmar

Democracy

Statistics

Partly free:

rated 4.

Government

is electoral

democracy

Not free:

rated 6.5.

Electoral

democracy

Not free:

rated 6.0.

Not an

electoral

democracy

Not free:

rated 5.5.

Not an

electoral

democracy

Not free:

rated 6.5.

Not an

electoral

democracy

Not free.

Rated 5.5.

New

democracy

after the

military

handed over

power to the

government

in 2011

Table 3: Table 3 shows levels of democracy and freedom in all six MRB countries. The results come from Freedom

House, which is an organization that rates countries on a scale of 1 through 7 with 1 being the most free and 7 being

the least free. Results show that Thailand is the only country that is rated as "partially free" and the rest are "not

free."220

Public Values and Norms: Because close to 85% of the population in the MRB live in

rural areas, and many live near rivers, lakes and wetlands, it can be assumed that many people in

the Mekong basin value the services provided by the natural hydrological flows of the river. In

219

Aim Sinpeng and Andrew Walker, "Democracy in Southeast Asia: A new generation's take," New Mandala,

March 26, 2012, [Page #], accessed March 3, 2014,

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/03/26/democracy-in-southeast-asia-a-new-generations-take/. 220

"Asia-Pacific," Freedom House, last modified 2014, accessed March 3, 2014,



order to support this argument, a socio-economic study was conducted on the Tonle Sap Lake

region in Cambodia. The study gathered data from databases and six participatory village

surveys in an area that encompassed 1158 villages. The study area was divided into five

topographic zones based on elevation, and the purpose of the study was to observe specific

socio-economic characteristics, and consequently, similarities and differences between the zones

in terms of land use, natural resources, and vulnerability to the possible changes in water

resources.221

The study "indicated clearly" that the livelihoods of the population in the Tonle Sap

area are very closely connected with the annual hydrological cycle of the lake.222

Furthermore, it

found that people living closer to the Tonle Sap Lake were generally poorer, less educated, had

fewer livelihood options and, therefore, were more vulnerable to changes in the aquatic

ecosystem. People who lived further from the lake generally owned agricultural land, mostly rice

fields, which also depend on water from the Mekong river. The study noted that the rice fields

are also "particularly vulnerable to changes and year-to-year variations in floods."223

This study

shows that people living in rural areas and in a largely agrarian economy value the natural water

flow cycles of the Mekong River. If dams upstream disrupt these cycles, they would likely

conflict with the interests of these rural people.

Stakeholder Representation in Policy: At the surface level the MRC and the GMS do

little to adequately hear from and represent public stakeholders in decision-making. Unlike the

WFD in the Danube region, the guiding document of the MRC established in 1995 does not

mention any mechanism that would allow stakeholders to provide feedback, nor does it make

any mention that stakeholder representation is important to the MRC's decision-making

221

Marko Keskinen, "The Lake with Floating Villages: Socio-economic Analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake,"

International Journal of Water Resources Development 22, no. 3 (September 2006): 472. 222

Ibid., 474. 223

Ibid., 472.


processes. However the MRC does coordinate a Mekong Integrated Water Resource

Management Project that aims to, in part, improve social welfare by targeting vulnerable

populations, and particularly women and children. This project claims to include civil society

groups, NGOs, and other community based organizations of targeted populations that "represent

the interests of the disadvantaged, women and children, and the environment."224

Although,

unlike the ICDPR in Europe, the MRC does not appear to have a forum for which stakeholders

can freely provide meaningful input. Similarly, the GMS involves provincial governments, the

business community, select NGOs like the WWF and international organizations like the United

Nations Development Programme in their decision-making.225

However, like the MRC, they

target specific stakeholders and don't have a mechanism that would allow public stakeholders to

give feedback. The absence of one of these mechanisms in the MRC and the GMS severely

limits their ability to make decisions that have the interests of all stakeholders in mind.

Stakeholder Representation in Practice: Ultimately peer-reviewed literature that

discusses the inclusion of public stakeholders in water management decision-making agree that

valuable and equitable stakeholder participation in this area is largely nonexistent. Hensengerth

argues that the GMS hinders involvement of affected riparian localities and environmental NGOs

because central governments decide to what degree other stakeholders and interest organizations

can participate.226

Furthermore, he finds that there is a discrepancy between the lives of local

inhabitants and the benefits provided to enterprise and governments as a result of large-scale

infrastructure development.227

This shows that the activities of countries don't reflect the interests

or values of local people. Local communities more directly experience the negative

224

Ibid. 225


Ibid., 337. 227

Ibid., 339.


environmental impacts of large-infrastructure projects but don't receive many of the benefits.

Similarly Keskinen argues that "large-scale development interventions seems - despite their

ultimate objection of poverty reduction - to actually undermine the livelihoods of the poorest

groups by negatively impacting the availability of access to common pool resources, most

importantly fish."228

Therefore even though countries justify developmental projects like dams

with the claim that they will reduce poverty and improve the lives of all people, they appear to be

counterproductive to the well-being of local communities.

As mentioned above, one of the most noteworthy factors that inhibits public stakeholder

participation, particularly in the MRC, is the difference of interests between Mekong countries

and donor organizations that fund projects to manage the Mekong's water resources. When the

MRC adopted the use of IWRM principles in 1995, largely due to donor interests, participating

lower-basin countries made a commitment to comply with recommendations from the World

Commission on Dams before construction large-scale dams. These recommendations include

engaging in stakeholder dialogue and conducting environmental impact assessments. However,

most Mekong countries have rejected the commission's recommendations.229

For example Laos,

a country that sees hydropower as increasingly important as a foreign currency earner, selling

energy to its neighbors, constructed the Nam Theun 2 dam project. After examinations by the

World Commission on Dams, which involved extensive local consultation and environmental

assessment, the evaluations turned out to be highly negative. As a result the government of Laos

indicated that it might not follow the recommendations of the Commission.230

These types of

decisions at the country level preclude the possibility of public stakeholder participation and

228


Go?" 193. 229


Ibid.


their influence in decision-making because the views of public stakeholders are largely in

conflict with state interests.

Natural (Ecosystem) Considerations

The health of the natural waterways and ecosystems that exist within the MRB are

relatively disputed. Information distributed by the MRC on the quality of water and ecosystems

is not always consistent with information published in peer-reviewed literature, and is sometimes

criticized by experts as being inaccurate.231

In order to evaluate the state of the natural

environment, this study will consider three indicators of the health of natural waterways and

ecosystems including (1) the impact of pollution on the quality of water, (2) the disruption of the

river's hydrological flows, and (3) the destruction of fish population in key areas in the MRB.

Information will be presented from a variety of studies including from the MRC, GMS, and peer-

reviewed literature.

Pollution and Water Quality: Reports on the quality water in the MRB offer different, but

not always conflicting, interpretations of the Mekong River's water status. The macroscopic

studies conducted by the MRC generally find that, unlike the Danube Region, there are no severe

problems with the quality of water and natural ecosystems. Reports for peer-reviewed literature,

however, provide a view that is more locally focused and suggests that environmental problems

on the Mekong River require more cause for concern. The following analysis of the impacts of

pollution on the quality of the Mekong's water and ecosystems will use data collected from both

the MRC and peer-reviewed literature.

The results of a study conducted by the MRC on the suitability of water quality for the

production of agriculture and the health of aquatic species revealed that, in contrast with the

231


Go?" 194.


Danube River, water quality in the Mekong region is relatively good. The study, carried out

between 2007 and 2011, evaluated the quality of water based on the degree to which humans

impacted the river environment and whether the water was suitable for aquatic life and

agricultural use. A rating system for Water Quality Index (WQI) was developed based on a

review scientific literature and statistical characteristics of available data at the MRC Secretariat.

A rating system from < 7 to 10 is show in Figure 13 with a WQI of < 7 indicating that the river is

"severely impacted" or "poor quality" and a WQI of 10 indicating that the river is "not impacted"

or "high quality" (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Figure 16 shows the rating system which was used in a study conducted by the MRC between 2007 and

2011 that evaluated the quality of water based on the degree to which humans impacted the river environment and

the water was suitable for aquatic life and agricultural use. A rating system for Water Quality Index (WQI) was

developed based on a review scientific literature and statistical characteristics of available data at the MRC

Secretariat. A rating system from < 7 to 10 is show in Figure 13 with a WQI of < 7 indicating that the river is

"severely impacted" or "poor quality" and a WQI of 10 indicating that the river is "not impacted" or "high quality."


In order to retrieve this data, the MRC placed 17 monitoring stations on the Mekong

River and 5 on the Bassac River (Figure 17). The results showed that many of the monitoring

stations reported that the river has been mostly "impacted" or "severely impacted" by human

activities. There are only a few areas such as Houa Khong, Luang Prabang, Vientiane, Khong

Chaim, and Pakse that have been either "slightly impacted" or "not impacted." (Figure 18).

However, even though most of the river has been heavily impacted by humans, the quality of the

river for agricultural use and the health of aquatic species was not negatively affected. Figure 19

shows that almost all of the 22 Mekong and Bassac stations reported "excellent" quality of water

for the protection of aquatic life. The areas that were given a "B" rating were said to be a result

of an increase in total phosphorus levels and salinity intrusion from the East Sea.232

Similarly

Figure 20 illustrates that the quality of water is very suitable for general irrigation, paddy rice

irrigation, and the farming of livestock and poultry.233

These results suggest that humans in the

MRB are not producing enough waste or pollution to affect the quality of water in the Mekong

River. However, there is a discrepancy between the findings of the MRC and peer-reviewed

literature on the quality of water. As discussed in greater detail below, other researchers find

changes to the rivers chemistry which could have negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

232

Mekong River Commission, "The Lower Mekong Basin Report Card on Water Quality," 2013,

http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/report-management-develop/Water-QualityReport-Card-2013.pdf. 233

Ibid.


Figure 17: Figure 17 is a map of the Mekong Watershed that indicates where 17 monitoring stations on the Mekong

River and 5 on the Bassac River were placed in order to gather data for study that aimed to evaluate the quality of

water based on the degree to which humans impacted the river environment and the water was suitable for aquatic

life and agricultural use.

Figure 18: Figure 18 shows that at each of the 22 testing sites on the Mekong and Bassac river, the river had been

"impacted" or "severely impacted" by human activities.


Figure 19: Figure 19 shows that almost all of the 22 Mekong and Bassac stations reported "excellent" quality of

water for the protection of aquatic life. The areas that were given a "B" rating were said to be a result of an increase

in total phosphorus levels and salinity intrusion from the East Sea. 234

Figure 20: Figure 20 illustrates that the quality of water at each of the 22 testing sites on the Mekong and Bassac

stations was very suitable for general irrigation, paddy rice irrigation, and the farming of livestock and poultry. 235

234

Ibid. 235

Ibid.


Similarly to the previous report, the MRC published another study in 2008 on the quality

of water in the Mekong River. They found that "the results of the monitoring showed that water

quality of the Mekong River is still of good quality with only a few numbers pertaining to

dissolved oxygen and chemical oxygen demand samples exceeding the MRC Water Quality

Guidelines for the Protection of Human Health and Aquatic Life."236

Furthermore they reported

that pH levels, an important water quality parameter that has implications for the physiology of

aquatic organisms and the integrity of the water body as a whole, were "well within the water

quality criteria [of the MRC]" and that nutrient levels remained well below the MRC water

quality criteria for the protection of human health and the protection of aquatic life. 237

On the other hand an article written by three authors working for international

organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) and Universities did not match the MRC's report. They found "high" salinity levels

caused by saltwater intrusion, varying pH levels and sometimes severe acidification, and a

"significant" increase in total phosphorus concentrations that could have an effect on algae and

floating aquatic vegetation.238

Furthermore the authors find that rice production could increase

the risk for environmental degradation due to overuse of pesticides. These findings suggest that

environmental changes to the river's chemistry could be more severe than the MRC states.

Disruption of River's Natural Hydrological Flows: Maintaining the integrity of the

Mekong's natural flood-cycle is crucially important to the health of the MRB's natural

ecosystems and the well-being of the people. The annual influx of floodwater that courses

236

Mekong River Commission Environment Programme, 2011 Annual Water Quality Data Assessment Report, by

LY Kongmeng and Henrik Larsen, technical report no. 40 (Vientiane, Lao: Mekong River Commission, 2013), x. 237

Ibid., 18. 238

Belay et al., 66.


through the MRB constitutes more than 90% of the Mekong's total annual flow and 95% of the

total suspended sediment flux. A study on the use of IWRM on the Mekong River explains,

Floods play an important role in the development of the country as they carry and

distribute fertile silt into the floodplain for agricultural production, feed the food chain for

fisheries, provide water supply for people living along the river side, provide navigation

routes and necessary environmental functions...239

These authors also demonstrated that the Mekong's floods are an essential component of the

natural environment and the sustainability of local economies and livelihoods. Therefore, the

disruption of these floods have the potential to cause serious harm.

As in the Danube Region, an increase in the number of people living in the MRB and the

emphasis put on economic development has led to an increase in demand for the develoment of

water resources. To meet these needs, all regions of the MRB have established plans for the

construction of a significant number of water development projects that have the potential to

alter the natural courses of the Mekong River. These projects include the construction of dams

and reservoirs for hydropower or irrigation, deforestation and other land use changes (primarily

for urbanization and agriculture), inter- and intra-basin diversions, and the construction of roads,

embankments, levees and bank protection works.240

According to the GMS, a recent inventory of

potential and existing hydropower projects in six countries include 261 hydropower projects, 28

of which are under construction and 179 large projects identified as "probable" development sites

(Illustrated in Figure 21).241

Furthermore it is predicted that the total storage capacity of

239

Ibid., 67. 240

Robyn Johnston, and Matti Kummu, "Water Resource Models in the Mekong Basin: A Review," Springer

(October 8, 2011): 4,

http://www.mpowernetwork.org/Knowledge_Bank/Key_Reports/PDF/Journal_Papers/Johnston_Kummu_WaterRes

ourcesModels_Sept11.pdf 241

Ibid.


reservoirs will significantly increase from about 52km3 to over 100km

3 in 2022 (Figure 22).

242

Similar to how dam constructing has affected the Danube River, these projects would drastically

affect the continutiy of the Mekong's flow and restrain the stream of nutrients and sediments that

run from the upper basin to the lower basin. Similarly, as indicated above, it has been shown that

Chinese dams already store large amounts of run-off in reservoirs that would otherwise naturally

flow through the MRB. This data suggests that the increase in development projects in the future

could significantly affect the natural flood-cycle of the Mekong River.

Destruction of Fish Populations: The Mekong River supports a wide-diversty of fish

species, which are essential to the sustainabilty of local economies and livelihoods. The diversity

of wildlife in the MRB is second only to the Amazon River and the Congo River, and holds

between 500 and 1,300 species of fish.243

Belay explains that "Biodiversity in the Mekong River

Figure 21: Figure 21 shows the locations of where dams are either planned or have been constructed in six

countires. A recent inventory of potential and existing hydropower projects in the six countries include 261

hoydropower projects, 28 of which are under construction and 179 large projects identified as "probable"

development sites.244

242

Ibid. 243

Belay et al., 61. 244

Ibid.


Figure 22: Figure 22 shows the cumulateve active storage of dams and reservoirs that have been constructed in 6

countures. It is predicted that the total storage capacity of reservoirs will significantly increase from about 52km3 to

over 100km3 in 2022.

245

Basin is fundamental to the viability of natural resource-based rural livelihoods of population of

55 million people living in the Lower Mekong Basin-equivalent to more than 90% of the

population of the entire Mekong River Basin."246

The fish in the Mekong provide between 65

and 75% of the animal protein average for households in cambodia, and the total value of

Mekong fisheries is estimated to be around $2 billion per year.247

The sustainability of the

fishing industry in the MRB is inextricably linked with the protection of ecosystems and fish

populations. Right now, however, fish populations in key areas of the MRB are threatened.

One of the primary causes of fish decline in the MRB, apart from changes to the river

flow regime and environmental degredation, is over exploitation of fish populations. An

example of an ecosystem that has a diversity of fish and that is a crucial supplier of fish to local

economies is the Tonle Sap Lake ecosystem in Cambida. It is described by some as one of the

245

Ibid. 246

Ibid. 247

Brooke Peterson and Carl Middleton, Feeding Southeast Asia: Mekong River Fisheries and Regional Food

Security (Can Tho, Vietnam: International Waters, 2010), 1,7, accessed April 16, 2014,

http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/intrivers_mekongfoodsecurity_jan10.pdf.


most productive freshwater ecosystems in the world and "a key determining factor not only for

environmental sustainability but also for social equity and economic welfare."248

Recently,

however, the Tonle Sap ecosystem has experienced a serious decline in the number of larger fish

species, which is a common phenomenon when a population of fish is under severe pressure.249

At the same time the annual catch of fish in this area has been reported to increase from

approximately 80,000 tons of fish caught in 1998 to approximately 400,000 tons of fish in

2001.250

The authors of a study on the use of IWRM in the Tonle Sap region find a corrolation

between the number of large fish disappearing and the increasing number of catch rates, which is

most likely due to more industrialized fishing practices.251

The results of this study show that,

along with the pressures of environmental degredation, fish populations are also threated by

unsustainable fishing practices of relevant fisheries.

Management Elements

Active and Equitable Participation

Unlike the Danube Region with the EU, The Mekong Region does not have a strong

enough joint management mechanism that requires countries to cooperate over water

management projects. Although, after the Cold War, countries began to cooperate more closely

in order to strengthen economic partnerships, countries primarily make decisions that reflect

their individual interests. Because countries are primarily interested in infrastructural

development for the purposes of economic growth, they are willing to participate in economic

248

Ibid., 481. 249

Ibid., 489. 250

Ibid. 484. 251

Ibid., 489.


partnerships and projects with other countries. However countries are less likely to engage in

projects that contribute to the protection of aquatic ecosystems and the welfare of people.

Stakeholder Representation

As mentioned above public stakeholder representation in water management decision-

making in the Mekong Region is largely non-existent. The MRC includes targeted stakeholders

in its Mekong Integrated Water Resource Management Project but does not have a forum where

stakeholders can offer feedback. Similarly values held by most of the public, primarily in rural

areas, conflict with state interests. Currently most countries in the Mekong Region are focused

on rapid infrastructural development for the purposes of greater economic trade and growth.

Therefore, decision-making is largely centralized and does not include the input from the

general public.

Environmental Protection and Regulation

Provisions for environmental regulation in the Mekong region is missing because there is

not a concrete legal mechanism that would require countries to comply with environmental

standards. The MRC is currently the organization that plays the largest role in encouraging

countries to adhere to environmental considerations. However, as mentioned above, countries are

largely disinterested in following regulations that do not align with national interests. Keskinen

finds that there are organizations apart from the MRC, such as national line agencies,

universities, NGOs and regional actors, that play an important role in environmental

assessment.252

Although there is no common impact assessment approach that can be applied

systematically across the Mekong Basin and a lack of reliable data at both the local and national

252


Go?" 194.


levels. This means that organizations have different findings in assessment.253

Furthermore there

is a lack of understanding of the interdisciplinary cross-over of economic, social and

environmental issues and impacts.254

Therefore, not only is there a lack of environmental

regulation and assessment, but also a lack of understanding of the nature of the environmental

problems in the MRB.

Outcome of Sustainability

Even though scholars find that IWRM is incredibly important to the Mekong Region in

order to maintain the environmental integrity of the Mekong River and its ecosystems and,

consequently, to support local economies that depend on the Mekong River's natural services,

sustainable development of the Mekong River that supports the protection of ecosystems and the

provision of social well-being is largely non-existent. Many scholars in peer-reviewed literature

find that the concept of IWRM, that combines environmental, socio-economic, and political

approaches in management, is a new concept in the Mekong Region and is generally

underpracticed. For example Keskinen writes that "the drive for increased utilization of the river

and its resources is intensive as riparian countries search means for development, yet actual

impacts of these developments remain in many aspects unclear, and discussion about the most

sustainable development options is weak."255

The Mekong countries' strong focus on

infrastructural development and economic growth most often does not include a discussion about

sustainable development regarding environmental protection and social well-being. While this

253

Ibid., 194-195. 254

Ibid., 195. 255


Go?," 197.


disucssion is not taking place at the state level, however, there is significant dialogue among

scholars as to why IWRM practices are important for the Mekong Region.

One of the principle arguments for the application of IWRM in the MRB is that IWRM

will help to maintain the natural productivity of the river's ecosystems and flood pulse.

Researchers have found that the river's productivity is crucially important for the economic and

social prosperity of the majority for people in the Mekong Basin. As explained above, one of the

most productive areas in the basin is the Tonle Sap Lake and River ecosystem in Cambodia.

People living in this area depend heavily on the ecosystem's natural productivity and services as

a means of living. Dirk Lamberts, an associate researcher at the Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology,

Evolution and Conservation, writes:

...the communities living in the Tonle Sap ecosystem and other users of its natural

resources are particularly dependent on natural productivity. It forms the ultimate basis

for almost all the livelihoods in the area and is a key determining factor not only for

enviornmental sustainability but also for social equity and economic welfare.256

Lamberts' statement, and other studies conducted on the connection between the Tonle Sap Lake

and River ecosystem and social and economic well-being, illustrate that the natural state of the

Mekong River and its ecosystems are critically important to maintain and protect in order to

provide for the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the Mekong Region as a

whole. An IWRM approach is therefore both useful and essential in reconciling polilitical, socio-

economic, and environmental efforts to improve the Mekong Region.

While IWRM is regarded as critically important in the Mekong Region because of its

focus on cross-disciplinary courses of action, the political circumstances in the region currently

256

Dirk Lamberts, "The Tonle Sap Lake as a Productive Ecosystem" Water Resources Development 22, no. 3

(September 2006): 481.


inhibit the application of this holisitic management framework. Some scholars argue that it is too

challenging to implement IWRM in the whole Mekong basin because of differences in country

governance structures and national interests. Keskinen comments:

There have been arguments that IWRM would not be the most suitable approach on a

macro-scale, and particularly not in transboundary river basins, such as the Mekong,

where the differences in countries' governance structures together with national interests

and poitical rivalries make an integrated approach far more challenging.257

Keskinen's statement, however, that IWRM is not suitable in an environment of different

governance strucutres and national interests is only partially accurate. Other factors are invovled.

Strong national interests for infrastrucutral development without consideration of enviornmental

protections and local interests do inhibit holistic management. However, unlike the Danube

Region, the Mekong Region is missing a strong and legally binding joint management

mechanism that provides an incentive for countries to participate in activites that involve both

infrastrucutral development, environmental protection and public stakeholder inclusion.

Lamberts also states that another factor that inhibits that application of IWRM is a lack of

knowledge and understanding of environmental problems and the benefits of ecosystem

productivity.258

Therefore, the Mekong region has a long ways to go before it starts to practice

principles of IWRM as well as understand and protect the benefits provided by the Mekong

River's services.

257

Marko Keskinen, "The Lake with Floating Villages: Socio-economic Analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake," 464. 258

Dirk Lamberts, "Little Impact, Much Damage: The Consequences of Mekong River Flow Alterations for the

Tonle Sap Ecosystem," in Modern Myths of the Mekong (n.p.: Water & Development Publications, 2008), 491.


DANUBE AND MEKONG RIVER BASINS: A COMPARISON

The two case studies, the DRB and the MRB offer distinct models of how transboundary

rivers that cross through diverse geographical, political, and socio-economic landscapes are

managed. Because each river basin is placed within these different contexts, water management

is not going to be the same for their regions.

The central question for this paper is how can riparian states sharing an international

watercourse manage for sustainability across diverse geographical regions and political and

socio-economic contexts in order to effectively provide for the welfare of people and the

protection of ecosystems? In order to answer this question, this paper analyzes two independent

variables to understand how riparian countries sharing an international watercourse can

successfully and sustainably manage a transboundary watercourse in order to protect river

ecosystems and provide welfare for people (the dependent variable in this study). They are:

The degree to which the best-practice management principles of IWRM are implemented

The impact from the political, socio-economic and natural context elements that support

and constrain sustainable management

The analysis of these variables also tests the thesis of this paper: that the extent to which

riparian states sharing an international watercourse are able to effectively provide for the welfare

of people and the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the natural, political, and socio-

economic contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which they implement three pillars

of IWRM for successful transboundary water sharing: participate actively and equitable, protect

and preserve ecosystems, and include stakeholders in decision-making. One of the key claims

that this paper makes is that effective transboundary water management is dependent on the

interplay between water management structure and agency. Structure refers to the established


institutions and legal frameworks that dictate how water management is supposed to be carried

out, and agency refers to organizations and individuals who are practicing water management on

the ground. Both elements need to function exclusively be present in order for transboundary

water management to be holistic, productive, and useful. Table 4 will compare and contrast the

two case studies across the two sets of independent variables mentioned above and highlights

key elements of structure and agency that shape management in each region. The comparison

between the two case studies provides valuable insights into the factors that both support and

inhibit sustainable management of transboundary rivers for ecosystem protection and human

well-being.

Comparison Chart

Variables Case Studies

Danube River Basin Mekong River Basin

Context Variables

Political

Political integration

and democratic

decision-making in

regional institutions,

policy and legislation

• Strong regional political integration with EU

•Strong legal and policy structures for water

management that protects ecosystems and

provide for public well-being at the regional

level

- WFD provides legal structure

- ICDPR provides institutional

structure

•Water management decentralized

• Strong regional political integration with

ASEAN, GMS, and MRC

• Absence of legal and policy structures for water

management that protect ecosystems and provide

for public well-being at the regional level

- MRC and GMS are primary regional

institutions

• Water management centralized

Individualism vs.

cooperation among

nation-states in

decision-making

• Decisions made at the national level are

often supportive of the common good and

basin-wide environmental protection

• Country interests are diverse and sometimes

conflict

• Decisions made at the national level are often

made in support of national interests and hinder

cooperative basin-wide environmental protection

• Country interests are diverse and sometimes

conflict


water management

structure

• Water management structure supports and

facilitates IWRM including:

(1) regional (river-basin) thinking

(2) environmental/ecosystem

protection

(3) decentralization of management

• Two management structures facilitate regional

(river-basin) management: MRC and GMS

• GMS promotes trade, investment and economic

growth, and primarily excludes provisions for

environmental protection

• MRC attempts IWRM but is hindered by lack of

political interest

water management in

practice

• ICDPR is generally regarded as a good

example for coordinating comprehensive and

integrated river-basin management in practice

• Literature critiques the ICDPR for focusing

efforts too much at the state level and not

enough at the underlying regional and local

levels

• Problems with implementation of IWRM

exist at local levels because of:

(1) rapidly shifting responsibilities

(2) lack of funding

(3) insufficient cooperation among

water management authorities

• MRC and GMS are generally regarded as a bad

example for coordinating comprehensive and

integrated river-basin management that considers

ecosystem protection and social well-being in

practice

• Literature critiques the MRC for its inability to:

(1) assess environmental problems

(2) utilize principles of IWRM

(3) understand inter-disciplinary nature

of transboundary water management

• Little literature published about GMS. It is

apparent that GMS focuses almost completely on

infrastructural development projects economic

development

• The role of the GMS's environmental

organization, the CEP, is mitigated due to being

understaffed, underfunded, and too small

Socio-economic

social trends • Rapid urbanization

• Increase in democratic decision-making,

government accountability, transparency, and

encouragement of public participation in

planning

• Greater awareness and sensitivity to

environmental problems

• Very high - high HDI

• Large portion of population live in rural areas

• Low levels of democracy

• Rapid population growth

• Widespread poverty

• Low - very low HDI

economic trends • Greater liberalization and

internationalization of water markets; the

private sector plays a significant role in water

resource management

• Increased number of actors in water

management including private enterprises,

NGOs and international organizations

• Regional pressures for development encourages

rapid economic growth

• Society primarily supported by agrarian economy

• Majority of Lower Mekong Basin local economy

highly dependent on the water from the Mekong

River to make a living

• Rapidly changing occupational structure


public norms and

values

• Environmental issues are not a high priority

for Europeans compared to other issues such

as unemployment, the economic saturation,

government debt, etc

• The majority of the public feels, however,

that environmental problems directly affect

them and that action should be taken to

address these problems

• Water pollution is the most important issue

to public

• The majority of the public values services

provided by the natural hydrological flows of the

Mekong river

• Now clear that it is a false claim that

infrastructural development positively effects local

communities

stakeholder

representation in

policy

• Strong policy and legal structure that puts

great importance on including public and

private stakeholders in the water management

decision-making

• Strong regional institutions that include

stakeholders at the regional level

• WFD legislates EU countries to

"…encourage active involvement of all

interested parties…"

• Absence of policy and legal structure that

includes stakeholders in decision-making.

• Weak regional institutions that largely exclude

most stakeholders at regional-level decision-

making

(1) MRC engages with few targeted

local stakeholders

(2) GMS excludes most public

stakeholders from decision-making

stakeholder

representation in

practice

• ICDPR engages with three different kind of

stakeholders at regional level:

(1) observer organization and

scientific experts.

(2) private sector

(3) general public stakeholders

• ICDPR engage with stakeholders through

email, surveys, forums, and round-table

discussions

• Literature finds that WFD or ICDPR does

not guarantee equitable representation of

stakeholder feedback. Roles of different actors

are not institutionally defined

• MRC engages with select community

stakeholders through the Mekong Integrated Water

Resource Management Project

• the GMS only includes select NGOs and

international organizations in decision-making, and

is largely exclusive of other stakeholders

• Literature generally agrees that centralized

management hinders stakeholder involvement

• GMS and the MRC do not provide an open forum

for public stakeholder involvement in decision-

making at regional level

Natural

pollution from

industrial,

agricultural, and

urban waste

• Significant pollution in the Danube river

from organic, nutrient, and hazardous

substance contamination

• Different reports on water quality and impacts of

pollution

• MRC reports that even though the Mekong River

had been "impacted" or "severely impacted" by

human activities, the quality of the river for

agricultural use and the health of aquatic species is

largely not affected

• Literature reports "high" salinity levels, varying

pH levels and sometimes severe acidification, and

"significant" increases in total phosphorus

concentrations


disruption of the

rivers' natural

hydrological flows

• Significant alterations or obstructions to the

natural hydrological flows of the Danube

River

• Effects of alterations and obstructions are felt

primarily in the upper basin

• Significant alterations or obstructions to the

natural hydrological flows of the Mekong River

• Effects of alterations and obstructions are felt by

people in the Lower Mekong Basin who depend on

the natural flow of waters for their livelihood

destruction of

wetlands, natural

habitats, and/or fish

populations

• Wetlands are in critical decline

• Sturgeon, "a species of basin-wide

importance" are severely threatened due to

hydrological alterations, obstructions and

pollution

• Significant declines in fish populations due to

hydrological alterations, obstructions and

overfishing

Management

Variables

active and equitable

participation

• EU countries in the DRB either actively

participate or have a desire to actively

participate in IWRM

• Non-EU countries in the DRB participate to

some degree in applying principles of IWRM

• Mekong countries generally don't actively

participate in IWRM

• Countries participate when they have similar

interests

stakeholder inclusion • The WFD and ICDPR provide a framework

for public stakeholders to provide feedback to

water management decision makers

• Scholars criticize the WFD and ICDPR for

not guaranteeing equitable representation of

different kinds of stakeholders (i.e. private

enterprise and public community members)

• Both the MRC and the GMS include selected

stakeholder, often international organizations and

NGOs, but do not have a forum that allows for

valuable public stakeholder feedback

• Stakeholder representation in water management

decision-making in the Mekong Region is largely

non-existent

environmental

protection and

regulation

• There is a legal structure from the European

Commission and the WFD for the protection

and regulation of water quality and

ecosystems in DRB

• ICDPR coordinates environmental protection

projects

• There is no legal structure for environmental

protection and regulation

• The MRC plays a weak role in conducting

environmental assessments and coordinating

environmental protection projects

Table 4: Table 4 shows a comparison between the two case studies in the DRB and the MRB across the two

independent variables used in this study: (1) the degree to which the best-practice management principles of IWRM

are implemented and (2) the political, socio-economic and natural context elements that support and constrain

sustainable management. The goal of the comparison is to provide insights into what factors support and inhibit

sustainable management for the protection of river ecosystems and the provision of human well-being.


ANALYSIS

A comparison and contrast of the context and management variables in the two case

studies provide important insights for the sustainable management of transboundary waters to

effectively provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems, and the contexts

and practices that inhibit IWRM. The comparison and contrast of these factors also highlights the

relative contribution of structure and agency in transboundary water management for each case.

This section will draw from the comparison chart above in order to analyze the key points of

similarity and difference in political, socio-economic, and natural contexts and management

practices across the two cases.

The following analysis will apply these similarities and differences as evidence for my

key arguments. It will include (1) a brief overview of the state of the river environment,

ecosystems and natural processes in each geographical region that shape the way international

watercourses are managed for the protection of aquatic ecosystems and the provision of well-

being for people, (2) address key points of similarity and difference between the two case studies

across political and socio-economic context variables and management variables in order to

highlight the relative contribution of structure and agency in supporting sustainable water

management, (3) a final set of remarks that address my research question and thesis.

State of the River Environment, Ecosystems, and Natural Processes

The first argument in this study is that the Danube and the Mekong Regions face a series

of human-caused environmental challenges that are currently degrading and destroying aquatic

ecosystems and, consequently, threaten the well-being of people who depend on these ecosystem

services. As evidence for this argument, the following section will highlight two key human


activities that are degrading and destroying aquatic ecosystems and threatening human well-

being: hydromorphological alterations and obstructions and pollution.

First, hydromorphological alterations and obstructions caused by the construction of

dams, reservoirs, and channels have caused changes to the rivers' natural hydrological processes

in both regions. Both regions have developed within the river basin by constructing artificial

channels, reservoirs and dams. For example in 2009 there were 1688 barriers located within the

DRB with catchment areas >4,000 km2 259

and 261 hydropower projects either under

construction or identified as "probable" development sites in the MRB.260

While these man-made

constructions increase the potential for irrigation, water supply, and cheap electricity, their

impact on the rivers' ecosystems is substantial.

Hydromorphological alterations and obstructions have also had negative implications for

the state of the two regions' fish and wildlife habitat. The Danube Region has seen a significant

decline in both wetland areas and key fish populations such as Sturgeon. Similarly, Mekong has

seen a substantial decline in fish populations most likely due to a combination of hydromor-

phological alterations and obstructions and overfishing. These changes to hydrological cycles

have affected both rivers’ ability to provide services to people. In the Tonle Sap Lake region,

studies show that the livelihoods of rural population are very closely connected to the annual

hydrological cycles of the Mekong River and lake ecosystem 261

and that one in six rural house-

holds have had to change occupation because of declining productivity and services of the

Mekong River's ecosystems. 262

These examples show that addressing problems with

hydromorphological alterations and obstructions should be high on the list for policy makers.

259


Johnston and Kummu, " 4. 261

Keskinen, "The Lake with Floating Villages: Socio-economic Analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake," 474. 262

Mekong River Commission, State of the Basin Report, 47.


Second, water pollution had affected the state of aquatic ecosystems and their ability to

provide beneficial ecosystem services to people. However, there are differences pertaining to

pollution and water quality in each region. Assessments of the DRB report major problems with

pollution and water quality. 74% of the DRB is at risk due to hazardous substance pollution, 65%

due to nutrient pollution, and 58% due to organic pollution.263

Similar to the hydromorphological

alterations and obstructions, water pollution causes substantial damage to fish populations,

wetlands, and other aquatic ecosystems. As a result, addressing issues of pollution is of great

importance to the European community and the EU has put great emphasis on environmental

regulation.264

In contrast, the Mekong Region is not as affected by pollution. The MRC reports that

even though the Mekong River has been "impacted" or "severely impacted" by human activities,

the quality of the river for agricultural use and the health of aquatic species is largely

unaffected.265

Even though some literature offers counter evidence to MRC reports and explain

that water quality issues are more dire than the MRC claims, primarily due to high salinity levels,

acidification and nutrient pollution, overall pollution in the Mekong Region seems to be much

less of an issue than in the Danube Region. Therefore, addressing issues of pollution is not as

much of a priority to water managers and decision-makers in the Mekong Region.

Political and Socio-economic Context Variables and Management Variables

The second argument in this study is that transboundary water management that provides

for the well-being of people and the protection of ecosystems is supported and constrained by the

political and socio-economic contexts in which it is placed. This study finds that legal and

263


Kaika, 306. 265

Ibid.


institutional structures at the regional level are critically important in order to empower agents

(i.e. water management institutions at national and local levels, politicians, private enterprise and

community members) to management water sustainably and implement the three best-practice

principles of IWRM used in this study: active and equitable participation in transboundary

management, inclusion of public and private stakeholders in decision-making, and environmental

protection and regulation. Similarly, however, there needs to be a level of effective engagement

by these agents in order for the policies in legal and institutional structures to be practiced. The

discussion that follows will identify the key similarities and differences between the two case

studies across the political and socio-economic variables in order to highlight the relative

contribution of structure and agency in supporting the application of the three best-practice

principles of IWRM used in this study and the outcome of sustainable management.

Political Considerations

The establishment of legal, policy and institutional structures through political processes

at the regional level is of great importance in order for managers to effectively manage for the

protection of ecosystems and the provision of well-being to people in an international river basin.

These structures coordinate the decentralization of management at regional, national and local

levels, and offer both a framework and legal incentive for countries to actively participate in

IWRM. Three topics are important here to understand similarities and differences between the

regions across three topics: (1) the presence of a strong legal and policy structure for

transboundary water management at the regional level, (2) the presence of a strong regional

institution that coordinates transboundary water management at the regional level, facilitates

cooperative and democratic decision-making, and decentralizes management, and (3) the ability


of national and local agents to implement the policies and programs of the regional legal and

institutional structures into practice.

First, there are differences pertaining to the presence of a strong legal and policy structure

for transbounary water management at the regional level in the two case study areas. The Danube

Region serves as a positive example of a geographic region that has a legal and policy

framework that supports IWRM. The WFD is the central legislative framework for

transboundary water management and requires member states to comply with a series of

objectives including thinking about water management at the river-basin level, consideration and

protection of water quality, aquatic ecosystems and the river's natural hydrological flows,

inclusion of stakeholders, and decentralization of management. As a result, EU member

countries are obligated to work toward meeting these objectives. In contrast, the Mekong Region

does not have a legal or policy structure for transboundary water management at the regional

level. The implications of not having a legal or policy structure are that the actions of countries

within the MRB are not regulated and do not have to comply with measures that seek to protect

natural ecosystems, include stakeholders, and decentralize management.

Second, contrary to the difference in the previous example, both geographical regions

have regional management institutions that operationalize transboundary water management at

the regional level. However there are differences pertaining to the strength of the regional

institutions in each region in facilitating cooperative and democratic decision-making and the

decentralization of management. In the Danube Region, the ICDPR is the primary organization

responsible implementing the policies of the WFD into practice and coordinating management

for the DRB. It has developed a water management plan that is wide-reaching in scope both in

terms of the issues that it address and the ways in which it integrates management across


regional, national and local levels. While the DRB coordinates a number of different

management projects at the regional level, such as developing a climate change adaption

strategy, it delegates responsibilities to "competent authorities" at the national level, which

further delegate to local authorities.266

The decentralization of responsibility is important for

sustainable water management that protects ecosystems and provides for the well-being of local

people because it gives nations and local communities the ability to more easily give feedback to

decision makers and better manage for local conditions.

In contrast to the Danube case, regional management institutions in the Mekong Region

do not always effectively facilitate cooperative and democratic decision-making and the

decentralization of management. The MRC and the GMS are the two primary transboundary

water management institutions at the regional level. The two institutions, however, serve very

different functions. The MRC is the only regional institution that attempts to work with the

lower-basin countries in the Mekong Region to facilitate projects that attempt to meet their

common interests and, like the ICDPR, apply principles of IWRM. However the MRC's ability

to apply principles of IWRM is hindered by lack of political interest for environmental

protection. Instead, most countries are interested in promoting economic growth through large-

scale infrastructural development. Similarly the GMS generally facilitates cooperative and

democratic decision-making in water management because it primarily focuses on promoting

trade, infrastructural development, and economic growth. Decision-making, however, is still

centralized because these actions often conflict with the interests of the majority of the

population living in rural areas in the MRB. The implications of the MRC's and GMS's inability

to facilitate IWRM are that environmental regulation and ecosystem protection and are largely

unconsidered.

266



Third, the relative presence and strength of legal and operational institutions at the

regional level influences the ability of national and local agents to implement the policies and

programs of the regional legal and institutional structures into practice. In the Danube Region

scholars find that there is general interest and engagement from national and local water

authorities in both EU member countries and non-EU member countries in the DRB to work

with the ICDPR and apply principles of IWRM. Similarly, there has been considerable

decentralization of management so that national and local water authorities have greater

autonomy over decisions that pertain to environmental protection, flood control, etc. The

implications of this are that there is a greater effort within the DRB across geographical units to

protect the quality of water and the health of natural ecosystems and natural hydrological

processes. However some literature also notes challenges in national and local abilities to

decentralize management and apply principles of IWRM. Challenges included rapidly shifting

responsibilities so that national and local water authorities often don't have the skills or

experience to manage for IWRM, lack of sufficient funding for IWRM projects, and insufficient

cooperation between water management authorities across communities, nations and regions.

In contrast to the Danube case there is little evidence in the Mekong Region of national

and local agents applying principles of IWRM and decentralizing management. Even though the

MRC plays a role in coordinating IWRM at national and local levels through the Mekong

Integrated Water Resource Management Project by improving social welfare of vulnerable

populations, its efforts have a relatively small impact. One of potential reasons for the lack of

IWRM and decentralization of management in the MRB is that regional pressures for

development and economic growth cause countries to focus on large-scale development projects

such as dams. Often these projects conflict with environmental considerations.



Similar to the political section, the establishment of legal and institutional structures

through political processes at the regional level are crucial in order to represent and include a

variety of public and private stakeholders (i.e. private enterprise, NGOs and IGOs, donors, and

public community members). However the ways in which certain stakeholders are able to

participate in water management decision-making are either supported or constrained by a

variety of social-economic factors such as levels of freedom and democracy, poverty,

urbanization, and the liberalization of private water markets. The discussion that follows will

address similarities and difference between the regions across three topics: (1) social and

economic trends and how they contribute to a stakeholders' abilities to participate in trans-

boundary water management, (2) the presence of strong legal, policy, and operational structures

that engage with public and private stakeholders, and (3) the practical ways in which

stakeholders are able to contribute to water-management decision-making.

First, there are differences pertaining to the social and economic circumstances in the two

case regions that affect how stakeholders are able to contribute to transboundary water

management decision-making. In the Danube Region, high and very high HDI, which indicates

standard of living and knowledge, and increases in democratic decision-making, government

accountability, transparency and encouragement of public participation in planning have

positively impacted both public and private stakeholders' ability to participate. These factors

have allowed for information to be widely distributed, increased awareness and sensitivity to

environmental problems, and empowered people give feedback to water management decision-

makers about issues that matter to them. Similarly, greater liberalization and internationalization

of water markets have cause the private sector to play a more significant role in water


management. The implications of these social and economic trends are that the Danube Region

has seen an increasing number of actors in water management that influence the ways in which

decisions are made that positively impact the majority of stakeholders.

On the other hand, the social and economic trends in the Mekong Region inhibit the

ability of public stakeholders to take part in water management decision-making. Low and very

low HDI levels and the lack of democratic decision-making, transparency and government

accountability excludes the majority of the public from being engaged with water management

issues and decision-making. Similarly widespread poverty and population growth makes the

public more vulnerable to changes to the river ecosystem but limits their ability to effectively

communicate with decision-makers at national and regional levels. Similarly, the strong focus on

large-scale infrastructural development in the MRB has cause the private sector to play a

significant role in water management projects. The projects, however, often negatively local

economies that highly depend on the Mekong's natural ecosystems and natural hydrological

cycles for wealth and prosperity. The implications of these social and economic trends are that

the Mekong Region lacks participation from stakeholders in water management decision-making

which negatively impacts the lives of the majority of stakeholders.

Second, there are also differences pertaining to the presence of strong legal, policy, and

operational structures that engage with public and private stakeholders in the two regions. In the

Danube Region, the WFD provides a legal and policy structure that puts great importance on

including stakeholders in water management decision-making, including a provision that water

management institutions must "...encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the




Similarly, the ICDPR provides an operational structure for stake-

holder engagement that puts emphasis on promoting public participation in water management

decision-making. It engages with stakeholders from the private sector through a 'Business

Friends of the Danube' program and with public stakeholders and organizations through forums,

round-table discussions, questionnaires, and e-mail correspondence. Therefore the legal, policy

and operational structures in the DRB actively seek the participation of a variety of public and

private stakeholders to improve transboundary water management decision-making.

In contrast, the Mekong Region does not have a legal or policy structure that seeks to

engage stakeholders and its regional operational structures, the MRC and GMS, do a relatively

poor job in including a variety of public and private stakeholders. Without a legal or policy

structure, the MRC, GMS, and countries in the Mekong Region are not obligated to engage with

stakeholders. Through the Mekong Integrated Water Resource Management Project the MRC

engages with a select number of stakeholders, and particularly women and children in vulnerable

areas of the region. Similarly the GMS only interacts with select NGOs and international

organizations. However, unlike the ICDPR, both regional institutions lack a mechanism that

provides opportunities for engagement from a variety of public and private stakeholders. The

implications of this are that decision-making at the regional level does not reflect the interests

and priorities of the majority of stakeholders in the region.

Third, the relative presence and strength of regional legal and operational institutions and

the supporting and constraining socio-economic factors influences the ability of stakeholders to

contribute in practical ways to water-management decision-making on the ground. There are

differences in the way that stakeholders participate in both regions. In the Danube Region the

267




public participates in opinion surveys such as the EU Standard Eurobarometer which allows the

public to give feedback on issues that are important to them. For example in EU countries, water

pollution is the most important environmental issue in the minds of most of the public. Similarly

private water industries like the Coca-Cola Corporation participate in the 'Business Friends of the

Danube' program, which coordinate environmental education and outreach programs.

However, scholars criticize the ICDPR for focusing too much effort engaging state-level

water authorities and not enough at regional and local levels. Similarly scholars also argue that

the ICDPR's efforts to include stakeholders do not exclude the implications that relations of

social power could enable certain stakeholders to participate in water management more than

others. The implications of these findings are that some stakeholders, most likely the

economically disadvantaged, are not engaged sufficiently by regional institutions or are not

equally represented in decision-making processes.

The Mekong Region offers a different example of how stakeholders contribute in

practical ways to water-management decision-making on the ground. The Mekong Integrated

Water Resource Management Project is one of the few examples of a regional program that

engages with community members, civil society groups, and environmental NGOs at the local

level. The project gives economically vulnerable individuals and communities, and particularly

women and children, the opportunity to share with water management-decision makers about

how they value water resources. This has implications for water management in the Mekong

Region because most water management projects do not reflect the values and interests of local

populations. As mentioned in the Mekong section, scholars find that there is a lack of

understanding of local values and interests pertaining to water management. It is of utmost

importance that stakeholders in the Mekong region be included in the decision-making process in


order to provide for the well-being of all people in the Mekong Region. As long as most

stakeholders are inhibited from participating due to the centralization of management strong

political interests tending toward infrastructural development, the well-being of many people in

the MRB will be forgotten.

Final Remarks Pertaining to the Research Question and Thesis

Overall, answering the central question of this paper, the findings in this study illustrate

that the ability for riparian states sharing an international watercourse to manage for

sustainability across diverse geographic regions and political and socio-economic contexts in

order to provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems is ultimately

supported and constrained by the political, socio-economic and political contexts in which they

are placed and the degree to which they implement the three pillars of IWRM for successful

transboundary water sharing: participate actively and equitable, protect and preserve ecosystems,

and include stakeholders in decision-making. Transboundary water management in the Danube

Region serves as a positive example of IWRM that provides for the welfare of people and the

protection of ecosystems because of strong political integration at the regional level with legal

mechanisms and institutions that coordinate the decentralization of management and tackle

current environmental issues, and an increasingly engaged community of stakeholders.

Transboundary water management in the Mekong Region serves as a negative example of

IWRM that is unable to provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems

because strong political integration at the regional level lacks legal mechanisms and has weak

institutions that largely fail to coordinate the decentralization of management and tackle current

environmental issues, and a disengaged community of stakeholders.


CONCLUSION

The management of the world's freshwater resources is one of the defining challenges in

the 21st century because the world's freshwater ecosystems and reservoirs are quickly degrading

and declining.268

It will be important to find a way to manage water that is holistic in approach

and addresses the political, socio-economic and environmental elements of water management.

IWRM is widely regarded by the international community as the most suitable approach to water

management that encompasses the three primary inter-disciplinary factors. While IWRM may be

the most suitable management framework, its use is supported and constrained by the diverse

political, socio-economic and environmental circumstance at regional, national and local levels.

These circumstances shape the way that IWRM may be utilized in addressing the three-part

challenge introduced at the beginning of the paper: to preserve freshwater productivity and

ecosystems, continue to provide for human well-being, and mitigate conflicts over water.

The results of this study provide valuable insights that help in answering the central

research question: how can riparian states sharing an international watercourse manage for

sustainability across diverse geographical regions and political and socio-economic contexts in

order to effectively provide for the welfare of people and the protection of ecosystems? By

taking a macroscopic look at international water management in two geographical regions, the

DRB and the MRB, this study has identified clues that will help international water managers

manage for the protection of aquatic ecosystems and the provision of social well-being. The

following section will identify three primary factors that facilitate sustainable management.

First, the relative importance of management structure and agency in facilitating effective

and sustainable water management is very important. Both a top-down approach at the regional

268

Solomon, 4.


level and a bottom-up approach at the national and local levels are required to meet current water

management challenges. However, while both structure and agency are important and necessary,

this study finds that strong legal, policy and institutional structures at the regional level are

needed first in order to support basin-wide implementation of IWRM. The Danube case is a

positive example of how regional water management structure has facilitated the implementation

of IWRM at national and local levels.

The establishment of legal and institutional structures through political processes at the

regional level in the Danube Region has been instrumental for managers to effectively manage

for the protection of ecosystems and the provision of social well-being. First, the WFD serves as

a strong legal and policy structure for transboundary water management at the regional level. It

provides a framework for managing institutions, such as the ICDPR, to put principles of IWRM

into practice. The ICDPR is a strong regional institution that coordinates transboundary water

management at the regional level, facilitates cooperative and democratic decision-making

between countries, and decentralizes management. The activities of the ICDPR to develop a

water management plan that is wide-reaching in scope, both in terms of the issues that it

addresses and the ways in which it integrates management across international, national and local

levels, have given agents in Danube countries greater ability to utilize principles of IWRM.

In contrast to the Danube case, the Mekong Region lacks a legal and policy structure that

outlines the use of IWRM, and has international institutional structures that do not consistently

facilitate cooperative and democratic decision-making between countries and decentralizes

management. The MRC is the only regional institution in the MRB that attempts to coordinate

IWRM projects, but its efforts are mitigated by lack of political interest for environmental

protection and the inclusion of stakeholders in decision–making. As a result, local agents have


been largely disempowered to tackle environmental problems that directly pertain to their well-

being.

Second, the decentralization of management, facilitated by regional policy and

institutions structures, is critically important to empower national and local water managers to

implement projects of IWRM. In the Danube Region the ICDPR delegates decision-making to

national and local water authorities, which gives these authorities the ability to tackle pertinent

environmental challenges and provide better services to the public. For example, Austria has

made huge improvements to protect the natural environment and has achieved “high standards”

of water pollution control as a result of the decentralization of decision-making. 269

However

regional water management in the Mekong Region remains largely centralized. Strong national

interests toward economic growth through large-scale infrastructural development and trade

cause decision-makers to focus on development projects that exclude measures for

environmental protection and stakeholder engagement.

Third, high levels of individual freedom and democracy and low levels of poverty

facilitate sustainable water management that promotes stakeholder inclusion and sustainable

water management. Individual freedom and democracy within a river-basin region is important

because it provides stakeholders with the opportunity to provide feedback on issues that matter to

them. Studies and surveys in both the Danube and Mekong Regions illustrate that stakeholders

are largely concerned about environmental issues related to rivers. Poverty inhibits the ability of

people to take part in decision-making because people lack the resources to engage with

decision-makers. As a result, they are largely disconnected from the decision-making process.

The Danube case is an example of a region where people enjoy high and very high HDI,

and there have been increases in democratic decision-making, government accountability,

269

O'Regan et al., 11.


transparency and encouragement of public participation in planning. As a result, information

about water management has been widely distributed, the public has become increasingly aware

and sensitive to environment problems, and stakeholders have been empowered to give feedback

to water management decision-makers. In contrast, low and very low HDI levels and the lack of

democratic decision-making, transparency and government accountability excludes the majority

of the public from being engaged with water management issues and decision-making. Similarly

widespread poverty and population growth makes the public more vulnerable to changes in river

ecosystems and limits their ability to effectively communicate with decision-makers at national

and international levels.

Overall this study has shown that the Danube Region offers a more positive example of

sustainable international water management that facilitates the protection of aquatic ecosystems

and the provision of social well-being. Danube Region, however, continues to face challenges in

using principles of IWRM to promote progressive change. Some of these challenges include lack

of financial resources, rapidly shifting responsibilities so that national and local water authorities

do not have the skill or training to practice IWRM, insufficient inter-regional cooperation,

inadequate institutional and human resources and regaining/maintaining public and consumer

trust. Therefore, even in regions that are making progress toward sustainable international water

management, there is substantial ground to be covered.

The degradation and decline of the world's freshwater ecosystems is a transnational

issues. Therefore, groups of countries sharing common resources will need to work together to

develop holistic and sustainable water management frameworks that tackle these shared

challenges. Hopefully the DRB can be a model for positive change for other regions that lack

the structure and agency for sustainable management of international watercourses. The ability


of regions sharing an international watercourse to effectively provide for the welfare of people

and the protection of ecosystems depends upon both the natural, political and socio-economic

contexts in which they are placed and the degree to which they implement the three pillars of

IWRM discussed in this paper: participate actively and equitably, protect and preserve

ecosystems, and include stakeholders in decision-making. If the world is to attempt to handle the

three part challenge discussed in this paper, it will depend on changes being made in the natural,

political and socio-economic spheres in regions like the Mekong Region.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asian Development Bank. "Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Project (2011 onwards)." Greater

Mekong Subregion Core Environmental Program. Last modified 2014. Accessed March 4, 2014.

http://www.gms-eoc.org/resources/biodiversity-conservation-corridors-project-2012-onwards

Asian Development Bank. "Biodiversity Landscapes and Livelihoods." Greater Mekong Subregion Core

Environmental Program. Last modified 2014. Accessed March 4, 2014.http://www.gms-

eoc.org/biodiversity-conservation-corridors-initiative

Asian Development Bank. "The Core Environment Program." Greater Mekong Subregion Core

Environment Program. Last modified 2014. Accessed March 3, 2014.

http://www.gms-eoc.org/the-programs

Beach, Heather L., J. Joseph Hewitt, and Edy Kaufman. Transboundary Freshwater Dispute

Resolution Theory, Practice, and Annotated References. Tokyo; New York: United Nations

University Press, 2000. PDF e-book

Belay, Alebel Abebe, Shah Md. Atiqul Haq, and Vuong Quoc Chien. "The Challenges of Integrated

Management of Mekong River Basin in Terms of People's Livelihood." Journal of Water

Resource & Protection 2, no. 1 (January 2010): 61-68.

Biggs, R., E. Bohensky, P. V. Desanker, T. Lynam, A. A. Misselhorn, C. Musvoto, M. Mutale, B. Reyers,

R. J. Scholes, S. Shikongo, and A. S. van Jaarsveld. Nature Supporting People: The Southern

African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and

Industrial Research, 2004.

Bloesch, Jürg, Tim Jones, Ralf Reinartz, and Beate Striebel, eds. Action Plan for the conservation of

sturgeons (Acipenseridae) in the Danube River Basin. Publication no. 144. Strasbourg: Council of

Europe Publishing, 2006.

B., M. "The Germans on the Lower Danube." Bulletin of International News 17, no. 21 (October 19,

1940): 1343-48.


Brautović, Helena, and Dragana Brkan. "Public Relations Ethics and Ethical Codes."

MEDIaNALI 3, no. 6 (November 2009): 183-94.

Butchart, Stuart et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water. Washington D.C.: World

Resource Institute, 2005.

Central Intelligence Agency. "China." The World Factbook. Accessed March 7, 2014.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

Central Intelligence Agency. "Burma." The World Factbook. Accessed March 7, 2014.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

Coates, Peter. A Story of Six Rivers: History, Culture and Ecology. London, UK: Reaktion Books, 2013.

Coca-Cola Hellenic. Sustainable values. Sustainable living: Social Responsibility Report 2011.

Accessed March 30, 2014. http://www.coca-holahellenic.com /~/media/Files/C/CCHBC /

documents/ar2011cocacolahellenic-csrreport.pdf

Conrad, Sebastian, and Presenjit Duara. Viewing Regionalisms from East Asia. Washington D.C.:

American Historical Association, 2013.

Crotty, Michael. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research

Process. Australia: Sage Publications, 1998.

Cunningham, Mary Ann. "Eastern European Pollution." In Environmental Encyclopedia, 485-88. 4th ed.

Vol. 1. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Detroit: Gale, 2011.

"Danube River." In Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. N.p.:

Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2013.

Das, Dilip. "Regionalism In A Globalizing World: An Asian-Pacific Perspective." Center for the Study of

Globalization and Regionalisation. CSGR Working Paper No. 80/01 September 2001, 1-44.

Accessed April 2, 2014. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2001/

wp8001.pdf

Deets, Stephen. "Constituting Interests and Identities in a Two-Level Game: Understanding the


Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam Conflict." Foreign Policy Analysis 5 (2009): 37-56.

Dinan, Desmond. Even Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO:

Lynne Rienner, 2005.

"Environmental Damage in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe." In Environmental Issues: Essential Primary

Sources, edited by Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner, 432-34. Gale, Cengage

Learning, 2006.

Erskine, Brian. "Disaster on the Danube." Harvard International Review 16, no. 2 (1994): 56-60.

European Commission. "Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment." Special Eurobarometer

365, 2011.

European Commission. "Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive." Environment. Last

modified September 9, 2012. Accessed October 31, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm.

European Commission. "Public Opinion in the European Union." Standard Eurobarometer 79, 2013.

Forslund, Anna et. al. Securing Water for Ecosystems and Human Well-being: The Importance of

Environmental Flows. Global Water Partnership. N.p.: n.p., 2009.

Freedom House. "Asia-Pacific." Freedom House. Last modified 2014. Accessed March 3, 2014.


Green, Anna and Kathleen Troup. The Houses of History: A Critical Reader in twentieth-century history

and theory. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999.

Hensengerth, Oliver. "Transboundary River Cooperation and the Regional Public Good: The Case of the

Mekong River." Contemporary Southeast Asia 31, no. 2 (August 2009): 326-49.

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). "About Us" ICDPR. Last

modified 2014. Accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.icpdr.org/main/icpdr/about-us.

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). "Business Cooperation:

Business Friends of the Danube." ICDPR. Last modified 2014. Accessed February 17, 2014.

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/business-cooperation-business-friends-danube.


International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). "Danube River Protection

Convention." ICDPR. Last modified 2014. Accessed February 17, 2014. http://www.icpdr.org/

main/icpdr/danube-river-protection-convention.

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). "Public Participation Process

2009." 2009.

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). "Danube River Basin Strategy

for Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning 2003-2009." (October 2003).

Islam, Shafiqul, and Lawrence E. Susskind. Water Diplomacy: A Negotiated Approach to Managing

Complex Water Networks. New York, NY: RFF Press, 2013.

Johnston, Robyn, and Matti Kummu. "Water Resource Models in the Mekong Basin: A Review."

Springer (October 8, 2011): 1-27. http://www.mpowernetwork.org/Knowledge_Bank/Key_

Reports/ PDF/Journal_Papers/Johnston_Kummu_WaterResourcesModels_Sept11.pdf.

Kaika, Maria. "The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing Social, Political and

Economic European Framework." European Planning Studies 11, no. 3 (2003): 299-316.

Keskinen, Marko. "The Lake with Floating Villages: Socio-economic Analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake."

International Journal of Water Resources Development 22, no. 3 (September 2006): 463-80.

Keskinen, Marko. "Water Resources Development and Impact Assessment in the Mekong Basin: Which

Way to Go?" Ambio 37, no. 3 (May 2008): 193-98.

Kislenko, Arne. "A Not So Silent Partner: Thailand's Role in Covert Operations, Counter-Insurgency, and

the Wars in Indochina." The Journal of Conflict Studies 24, no. 1 (2004). Accessed February 26,

2014. http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/292/465.

Kreamer, David K. "The Past, Present, and Future of Water Conflict and International Security." Journal

of Contemporary Water Research and Education 149, no. 1 (December 2012): 87-95.

Lamberts, Dirk. "Little Impact, Much Damage: The Consequences of Mekong River Flow Alterations for

the Tonle Sap Ecosystem." In Modern Myths of the Mekong, 3-18. N.p.: Water & Development

Publications, 2008.


Loures, Flavia, Dr. Alistair Rieu-Clarke, and Marie-Laure Vercambre. Everything you need to know

about the UN Watercourses Convention. World Wildlife Fund. 2010.

Luke, Timothy W. "An Unwanted World: Global Warming as an Alternative Globalization." In

Alternative Globalizations: Conference Documents, edited by Jerry Harris, 304-15. Global

Studies Association: 2006 Annual Conference. Chicago, IL: ChangeMaker Publications, 2006.

Masviriyakul, Siriluk. "Sino-Thai Strategic Economic Development in the Greater Mekong Subregion

(1992-2003)." Contemporary Southeast Asia 26, no. 2 (August 2004): 302-19.

Mekong River Commission. "Development Partners and Partner Organizations." Accessed March 6,

2014. http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/agreements/agreement-Apr95.pdf.

Mekong River Commission Environment Programme. 2011 Annual Water Quality Data Assessment

Report. By LY Kongmeng and Henrik Larsen. Technical report no. 40. Vientiane, Lao: Mekong

River Commission, 2013.

Mekong River Commission. "Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management Project." MRC.

Accessed March 5, 2014. http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/programmes/mekong-

integrated-water-resources-management-project/.

Mekong River Commission. "The Lower Mekong Basin Report Card on Water Quality." 2013.

http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/report-management-develop/Water

QualityReport-Card-2013.pdf

Mekong River Commission. The Mekong River Commission: Annual Report 2010. By Robin Taylor.

2011.

Mekong River Commission. State of the Basin Report 2010. N.p.: n.p., 2010.

Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.

Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004.

Okowa, Phoebe N., and Malcolm D. Evans. "Case concerning the Gabcïkovo-Nagymaros Project

(Hungary/Slovakia)." The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47, no. 4 (July 1998):

688-97.


O'Connor, James. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York, NY: Guilford

Press, 1998.

O'Regan, Dermot, Caroline Sullivan, and John Bromley. Local governance in Integrated Water

Resources Management in the Danube Basin: a working paper. N.p.: LoGo Water, 2007.

Peace Pledge Union. "Cambodia 1975." Talking About Genocide Information. Accessed February 26,

2014. http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html

Peterson, Brooke, and Carl Middleton. Feeding Southeast Asia: Mekong River Fisheries and

Regional Food Security. Can Tho, Vietnam: International Waters, 2010. Accessed April

16, 2014. http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attachedfiles/intrivers_mekongfood

security_jan10.pdf.

Reid, Walter V. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.

Rieu-Clarke, Alistair S. "An Overview of Stakeholder Participation - What Current Practice and Future

Challenges? Case Study of the Danube Basin." Colorado Journal of International Environmental

Law and Policy 611, no. 18 (2007).

Rieu-Clarke, Dr. Alistair S. "The Role and Relevance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-

Navigational Uses of International Watercourses to the EU and Its Member States." The British

Yearbook of International Law, 2008, 389-428.

Sachs, Jeffry D. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York, NY: The Penguin Press,

2008

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knoe, Inc., 1999.

Sherman, Gordon E. "The International Organization of the Danube Under the Peace Treaties." The

American Journal of International Law 17, no. 3 (July 1923): 438-59.

Sinpeng, Aim, and Andrew Walker. "Democracy in Southeast Asia: A new generation's take." New

Mandala, March 26, 2012. Accessed March 3, 2014.


http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2012/03/26/democracy-in-southeast-asia-a-new-

generations-take/.

Solomon, Steven. Water: The Epic Struggle For Wealth, Power, and Civilization. New York, NY:

HarperCollins Publishers, 2010.

The Greater Mekong Subregion Economic Cooperation Program Strategic Framework 2012–2022. N.p.:

Asian Development Bank, 2011.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Edited by

R. Biggs and R. J. Scholes. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,

2004.

United Nations Economic and Social Affairs. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision. New

York: 2012.

UN Water. Status Report on the Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resource Management.

2012.

UN Water. Transboundary Waters: Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities. 2008.

The Economist."Unquenchable thirst: A growing rivalry between India, Pakistan and China over the

region's great rivers may be threatening South Asia's peace," November 19, 2011. Accessed

December 29, 2013. http://www.economist.com/node/21538687.

Varduca, Aurel, Ph.D. "The 1985 Bucharest Declaration: An important step toward Danube water quality

protection." NATO ASI Series 24 (1997): 31-41.

Varis, Olli, Cecilia Tortajada, and Asit K. Biswas, eds. Management of Transboundary Rivers and Lakes.

Berlin: Springer, 2008. PDF e-book.

Varis, Olli, Matti Kummu, and Marko Keskinen. "Integrated Water Resource Management on the Tonle

Sap Lake, Cambodia." Water Resources Development 22, no. 3 (September 2006): 481-95.

Wolf, Aaron and Annika Kramer and Alexander Carius and Geoffrey Dabelko. Navigating Peace: Water

Can Be A Pathway To Peace, Not War. Environmental Change and Security Program. Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars. Report no. 1. 2006.


World Water Assessment Program. Water for People, Water for Life: The United Nations World Water

Development Report. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Paris,

France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2003.

Zalasiewicz, Jan. "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" GSA Today 18, no. 2 (2008): 4-8.