public participation in the governance of transboundary water resources

2 downloads 0 Views 190KB Size Report
transboundary water governance institutions, arguing that the inclusion of the ... Border and Water Commission (IBWC)) will be analysed with regard to the.
Sabine Schulze Centre international de formation européenne | « L'Europe en Formation » 2012/3 n° 365 | pages 49 à 68 ISSN 0014-2808 Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.cairn.info/revue-l-europe-en-formation-2012-3-page-49.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!Pour citer cet article : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sabine Schulze, « Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources – Mechanisms provided by River Basin Organizations », L'Europe en Formation 2012/3 (n° 365), p. 49-68. DOI 10.3917/eufor.365.0049 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Centre international de formation européenne. © Centre international de formation européenne. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNANCE OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES – MECHANISMS PROVIDED BY RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS

Sabine Schulze Sabine Schulze is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Leipzig, Germany with a scholarship from the Foundation of the German Economy. In her thesis she looks at transboundary water governance in southern Africa and assesses adaptation capacities of River Basin Organizations towards biophysical changes from an institutional perspective. Sabine studied African Studies, Political Science and Education at the University of Leipzig and the University of Stellenbosch. Her main academic interests are water governance, international watercourses, water institutions, environmental changes and adaptation.

1. Introduction Lakes and rivers provide livelihoods for many basin communities and local industries as they supply water resources for personal consumption, food and energy production and constitute an important means of transportation. More than 260 of these rivers and lakes worldwide transcend international borders of two or more sovereign states, covering 45% of the world’s surface and being home to approximately 40% of the world’s population.1 This transboundary nature of water basins increases the complexity of their management as actions taken by one riparian state can negatively influence the quality and availability of resources in neighbouring states with important implications for the populations living within their boundaries. For example, unilateral dam developments along the Mekong River by upstream riparian China or along the Nile River by Ethiopia reduce water and other river resources available for economic development for the lower riparians. Therefore, many riparians created transboundary institutions, 1. Wolf, Aaron T., Jeffrey A. Natharius, Jeffrey J. Danielson, Brian S. Ward, and Jan K. Pender. “International River Basins of the World.” International Journal of Water Resources Development 15, no. 4 (1999): 387-427.; Giordano, Meredith A., and Aaron T. Wolf. “The World’s International Freshwater Agreements: Historical Developments and Future Opportunities.” In Atlas of International Freshwater Agreements. Edited by Aaron T. Wolf, 1-8. Nairobi, Kenya 2002.

EEF 365.indb 49

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources – Mechanisms provided by River Basin Organizations

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

such as River and Lake Basin Organizations (RBOs/LBOs), in order to address core collective action problems, including issues of navigation, environmental protection or infrastructure developments across state borders and to provide institutionalized long-term platforms of cooperation.2 When RBOs were first established during the nineteenth century, agreements over transboundary rivers and lakes were mainly limited to navigation issues guaranteeing free trade routes for sovereign nation states.3 For example the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (CCNR), one of the oldest RBOs worldwide, was created in 1815 to help facilitate free navigation on the Rhine River. During the twentieth century the range of water cooperation and subsequently functions exercised by RBOs became more integrated and expanded to other issues like water allocation, economic development and, furthermore, as economic activities increased contamination levels of international rivers, also included pollution and environmental protection issues. For a number of years now policy makers as well as scientists have argued that the basin’s stakeholders need to be included in decision-making within such transboundary water governance institutions, arguing that the inclusion of the basin’s stakeholders in decision-making and management processes increases their effectiveness and legitimacy. Despite this emphasis of public participation in river basin governance by the literature as well as policy-makers, no assessments on how public participation has been realized within RBOs beyond single case studies has thus far been conducted, nor have different types of public participation in RBOs been looked upon. This paper therefore attempts to map different forms and tools that are provided by RBOs to include the broader public in river basin governance by analysing a number of case studies from different regions of the world. The first part of the paper will therefore look at some theoretical assumptions of why public participation can be beneficial for the governance of transboundary resources and RBOs in particular as well as how this has been reflected in water law and policy-making. Within the second part of the paper five RBO case studies from Europe (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)), Africa (Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal (OMVS), the Permanent Okavango Basin Water Commission (OKACOM)), Asia (Mekong River Commission (MRC)) and North America (International Border and Water Commission (IBWC)) will be analysed with regard to the types and instruments they provide for the integration of the basin’s stakeholders in decision-making and the management of basins resources. Finally, the paper 2. For reasons of simplicity this paper broadly refers to both, Lake and River Basin Organizations, as RBOs. 3. Caponera, Dante A. The law of international water resources. Food and Agriculture Organization. Legislative study 23. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, 1980.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

50

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 50

24/01/13 12:04

51

concludes with identifying four broad types of stakeholder engagement found in the case studies and provides a short overview of their distribution across other cases around the world. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

2. Theoretical Background Most researchers of hydropolitics and water management emphasize the advantages that can be gained by involving local communities, civil society and other relevant stakeholders in transboundary water governance.4 Public participation can thereby be broadly understood as an institutionalized form of involvement of the basin stakeholders, including basin communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as private businesses in the management and decisionmaking process of an RBO. Benefits derived from public participation can be summarized to entail three broader sets of anticipated outcomes5 - namely ensuring greater ‘efficiency and effectiveness’ of policies and project outcomes, improving ‘empowerment’ of individuals, especially of marginalized groups6 as well as greater ‘legitimacy’ of governance measures.7 Public participation is argued to increase policy effectiveness as more information is provided (by many different sources) and therefore the knowledge base for environmental policy formulation can be improved also

4. See for example: Mostert, Erik. “Conflict and co-operation in international freshwater management: a global review.” International Journal of River Basin Management 1, no. 3 (2003): 1-12.; Delli Priscoli, Jerome. “What is Public Participation in Water Resource Management and Why is it Important?” Water International 29, no. 2, 2004: 221-227.; Curtin, Fiona. “Emerging Trends in Water Resource Conflict Prevention: Public Participation and the Role of Civil Society.” In Water, Development and Cooperation - Comparative Perspective: Euphrates-Tigris and Southern Africa. Edited by Lars Wirkus, 33-54, Paper 46. Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion, 2005.; Bruch, Carl, Libor Jansky, Mikiyasu Nakayama, and Kazimierz A. Salewicz, eds. Public Participation in the Governance of International Freshwater Resources. Water resources management and policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2005.; Timmerman, Jos G., and Sindre Langaas. “Water information: what is it good for? The use of information in transboundary water management.” Regional Environmental Change 5, 2005: 177-187.; Kranz, Nicole, and Antje Vorwerk. “Public Participation in Transboundary Water Management: Paper presented at the Amsterdam Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 30 March 2007.”; Antunes, Paula, Giorgos Kallis, Nuno Videira, and Rui Santos. “Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance.” Ecological Economics 68, no. 4, 2009: 931-939.; Merry, Douglas J. “African Models for Transnational River Basin Organisations in Africa: An Unexplored Dimension.” Water Alternatives 2, no. 2, 2009: 183-204. 5. Cleaver, Frances. “Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development.” Journal of international development 11, 1999: 597-612.; Timmerman, Jos G., and Sindre Langaas. “Water information: what is it good for? The use of information in transboundary water management.” Regional Environmental Change 5, 2005: 177-187 6. Cleaver, Frances. “Paradoxes of Participation”.; Merry, Douglas J. “African Models for Transnational River Basin Organisations in Africa”. 7. Delli Priscoli, Jerome. “What is Public Participation in Water Resource Management and Why is it Important?”.; Davidsen, Pal A. “Between Rhetoric and Reality - A Critical Account of Stakeholder Participation in Decision Making in the Mekong River Basin.” In Stakeholder Participation in Transboundary Water Management - Selected Case Studies, 131-55.; Merry, Douglas J. “African Models for Transnational River Basin Organisations in Africa”.

EEF 365.indb 51

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

under conditions of limited resource availability.8 In line with the argument of greater effectiveness the issue of scale has come under focus with some researchers arguing that there are benefits to be gained by scaling up resource management experience from the local to the macro/RBO level. Including experiences and management practices from local stakeholders, they argue, can increase the link between the RBO and the users of water resources at the local level assuring greater acceptance of development outcomes and ultimately reaching greater efficiency.9 Furthermore, authors emphasizing this type of efficiency argument have shown that a lack of public support can hinder the implementation of policies or water related programs and even lead to open opposition and protest.10 Participation is equally considered as empowering, particularly of marginalized groups, and is often considered a value in itself without broader reflection. Participation is accordingly associated with ownership and increasing feelings of responsibility, which again, are argued to increase efficiency of certain development measures.11 Curtain (2005) therefore points out that “[…] unless stakeholders are involved and feel a sense of ownership in a political process it is difficult to implement the recommendations or achieve any tangible results at the community level where changes ultimately need to be made”.12 Despite these generally positive assumptions about public and stakeholder participation in transboundary resources management, a smaller number of researchers critically assesses these assumptions and illustrates potential dangers and shortcomings. One of the dangers associated with public participation is the possibility that the inclusion of an increasing number of actors in decision-making processes can make negotiations more complex and thereby hinder the conclusion of agreements.13 Even more importantly, public participation can also be used to exclude or oppress specific groups of people.14 These primarily positive scientific assumptions associated with the inclusion of relevant stakeholders in the governance of international water basins have likewise been reflected in international declarations. The Dublin Principles launched 8. Holmes, Tim, and Ian Scoones. Participatory Environmental Policy Processes: Experiences from North and South. IDS Working paper 113. Brighton: Inst. of Development Studies, 2000. 9. Miller, Fiona, and Philip Hirsch. Civil Society and Internationalized River Basin Management. Working Paper Series 7. University of Sidney: Australian Mekong Resource Centre, 2003.; Merry, Douglas J. “African Models for Transnational River Basin Organisations in Africa”. 10. Chomchai, Prachoom. “Public participation in watershed management in theory and practice: A Mekong River Basin Perspective.” In Public Participation in the Governance of International Freshwater Resources. Edited by Carl Bruch et al., 139-55. Water resources management and policy. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2005. 11. Cleaver, Frances. “Paradoxes of Participation”. 12. Curtin, Fiona. “Emerging Trends in Water Resource Conflict Prevention”, 34. 13. Mostert, Erik. “Conflict and co-operation in international freshwater management”, 7. 14. Cleaver, Frances. “Paradoxes of Participation”.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

52

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 52

24/01/13 12:04

53

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

at the 1992 Dublin International Conference on Water and Environment for the first time included a normative request for a participatory approach in the development of water resources, involving users, planners and policy makers.15 One of the most important international environmental declaration, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Agenda 21 action plan (adopted at the same meeting), explicitly calls for the integration of public participation in national and international water course governance mechanisms.16 In broad contrast to other nonbinding (as well as binding) international agreements, Agenda 21 provides a more specific definition of the public and public participation: It suggests that water programs and projects should be planned and implemented “[…] based on an approach of full public participation, including that of women, youth, indigenous people and local communities in water management policy-making and decision-making” and furthermore “in full partnership with indigenous people and their communities, Governments and, where appropriate, intergovernmental organizations should aim at […] [establishing] arrangements to strengthen the active participation of indigenous people and their communities in the national formulation of policies, laws and programmes relating to resource management and other development processes that may affect them, and their initiation of proposals for such policies and programmes”.17 Although public participation has not yet been codified in international binding water law (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, which has yet to enter into force, for example, does not contain any explicit obligation for public participation), international customary law as well as an increasing number of regional water conventions include provisions for public involvement.18 The 1992 Helsinki Convention, for example, with regard to public participation in transboundary watercourses requires that “[…] information on the conditions of transboundary waters, measures taken or planned to be taken to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact, and the effectiveness of those measures, is made available to the public”.19 The 1998 Aarhus Convention launched by the United Nations Eco15. International Conference on Water and Environment (ICWE). The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development. Dublin, 1992. 31 January 1992. 16. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). “The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.”, adopted on 14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro.; United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). “Agenda 21.”, adopted on 14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro. 17. UNCED. Agenda 21., chapter 18 and 26. 18. For an in-depth analysis of provisions for public participation in international water law refer to Woodhouse, Melvin. “Is Public Participation a Rule of the Law of International Watercourses?” Natural Resources Journal 43, no. 1, 2003: 137-183. 19. United Nations Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). adopted on 17 March 1997, Helsinki, Finland, Article 16.

EEF 365.indb 53

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

nomic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in 1998 requires public access to information, decision-making and justice on matters of national, regional and transboundary issues including water – however, relating only to a specific list of activities.20 The European Union as a signatory member of the Aarhus Convention subsequently passed the Water Framework Directive in order to implement the requirement to inform the public about planned measures along international watercourses and ensure public participation within the development of basin development plans.21 Having looked at some theoretical assumptions and policy requirements, the following part of the paper now turns to practical implementations of public participation mechanisms within international RBOs. Although, the specific objectives, functions and the institutional design of RBOs vary from case to case, they are all based on a legally binding intergovernmental treaty agreed upon between at least two sovereign states which grants legal personality to the organizations and outlines the specific governance objectives with regard to shared river and/or lake basin water resources. 3. Case Study Analysis 3.1 The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River With 19 riparian states the Danube River is the world’s most international river basin which is home to more than 80 Mio. basin inhabitants. The Danube Basin originates in the southern parts of Germany from where it flows 2,900km through southern Europe up to Romania where it empties into the black sea. 14 riparians together with the European Union are members of the main basin commission, the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR).22 The ICPDR was established in 1998 as the implementing agency of the Danube River Protection Convention whose main objectives are to use the water resources in a sustainable manner and conserve the river’s ecology, which includes, for example, the control of water-related hazardous substances originating from accidents to improvement of water quality.23

20. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). adopted on 25 June 1998, Aarhus, Denmark. 21. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in in the field of water policy. EU Water Framework Directive. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. 30 October 2000. 22. Members of the ICPR include Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Ukraine and the European Union. 23. Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of the Danube River. Danube River Protection Convention. signed on 29 June 1994, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

54

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 54

24/01/13 12:04

55

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

The organisational structure of the ICPDR comprises the International Commission as the highest decision-making body which is chaired by the Conference of the Parties that meets at least once a year; the Standing Working Group which coordinates the work of the International Commission between its meetings and prepares the issues discussed at the meetings of the International Commission; the Permanent Secretariat hosted in Vienna that is responsible for the general administration including the management of the ICPDR budget and the dissemination of documents and information; and currently seven Expert Groups comprised of experts dealing with a variety of water-related and management issues.24 ICPDR has formally institutionalized public participation in form of an observer status provided to representatives of different stakeholder groups such as NGOs, private industries and intergovernmental organizations at the level of Commission’s meetings. Currently 21 organizations have an observer status in ICPDR including, for example, the European Water Association (EWA), the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) (a water commission of one of the Danube sub-basins) and the International Association of Water Supply Companies in the Danube River Catchment Area.25 Parties that want to gain an observer status need to file a proposal that is then evaluated by independent auditors. In order to be able to apply for an observer status, the applicant must fulfil some criteria including the provision of some technical or scientific competence that relates to the goals of the Danube River Protection Convention and the inclusion of a regional or basin-wide perspective. Once accredited, observers have access to all the documents of the Commission, the right to participate at the Commission’s and Expert Group meetings where they can express their own positions and have the possibility to submit proposals. However, they have no right to vote in the decision-making process itself. Furthermore, they have the possibility to participate in the Commission’s programs and projects.26 Observers as well as a number of other basin stakeholders have also been involved in the development of the Danube River Basin Management (DRBM) Plan in 2009 which gives a detailed overview of the basin and documents possible joint measures to protect the river’s ecosystems and contribute to economic development in the basin (including for example the increase of fish stocks and the

24. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Rules of Procedure of the ICPDR. 1st ed. Vienna, adopted at the 9th Ordinary Meeting of the ICPDR, 2006, IC/002. 25. For a full list of all organizations with an observer status see ICPDR website: http://www.icpdr.org/icpdrpages/observers.htm, accessed 9 August 2012. 26. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Guidelines for Participants with Consultative Status and for Observers to the ICPDR. 2005, IC/021.

EEF 365.indb 55

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

facilitation of transportation).27 Any interested stakeholder had the opportunity to fill out a questionnaire and comment the original draft of the plan. Additionally, some stakeholders were invited to participate at round table discussions and a Stakeholder Forum. Some of the issues addressed via these channels where then incorporated into the DRBM Plan. At the end of the consultation process, a detailed response paper published by the ICPDR outlines how the individually submitted comments were treated.28 An earlier approach to include the public in planning and management in the Danube Basin was the stakeholder involvement process in the development of the Danube Strategic Action Plan (SAP) – a policy plan that is meant to support the implementation of the Danube River Protection Convention. During the development process a total of 300 professionals and experts from all Danube countries, from central and local Governments, NGOs, researchers and the private sector were consulted to contribute information and comment on the action plan.29 Furthermore, ICPDR has recently established an Ad Hoc Public Participation Expert Group (PP EG) whose objective is “to support and provide input to ICPDR activities regarding communication and public participation issues including awareness raising”.30 The members of the PP EG are nominated by the ICPDR member countries, however, also special experts as well as accredited observers can participate in this expert group. The PP EG reports to the Commission, the Standing Working Group and other groups on the implementation of on-going and planned activities. Another institutionalized form of public participation is the Danube Day which takes place on 29 June every year. Since 2004 this day serves as a general platform for diverse river-related activities such as educational and public awareness campaigns, round table discussions or workshops dedicated to a wide-range of issues that aim to inform and engage the general public. In 2009, for example, a total of 420 national and international organizations in 14 countries participated in the Danube Day.31

27. The DRBM Plan was developed in line with the European Water Framework Directive which demands all member states to produce Basin Management Plans and to ensure the participation of the general public in the development of these plans (EU 2000). 28. Written comments by stakeholders on the draft DRBM Plan as well as the ICPDR response paper are published online: http://www.icpdr.org/participate/comments_received,accessed August, 9, 2012. 29. Danube Pollution Reduction Programme. “Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995-2005: Revision 1999,” Preface, 1999. 30. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). Terms of Reference of the ad hoc Public Participation Expert Group (ad hoc PP EG) of the ICPDR. Vienna, 2006, IC/107. 31. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). “Danube Day 2009. Shared Waters - Joint Responsibilities.” In Danube Watch. Vol. 2, 6-8.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

56

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 56

24/01/13 12:04

57

3.2 The Mekong River Commission

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

The 4,900km long Mekong River in Southeast Asia is among the longest rivers of the world. The river rises in the Tibetan Plateau and from there runs through China’s Yunnan province, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. The Mekong River Commission (MRC) with its four member countries, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, was initially founded in 1957 as the Mekong Committee to exploit the hydropower potential of the lower Mekong area. The 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin broadened the organization’s mandate and created the MRC which is now responsible for dealing with matters of sustainable development, water resources management, -utilization, and -conservation.32 The two non-member riparian states China and Myanmar are dialog partners of the MRC and cooperate with the MRC in a number of fields. Similarly to other RBOs, MRC’s organisational structure is composed of a Council at the ministerial and cabinet level that determines MRC’s general policies, a Joint Committee responsible of implementing the decisions made by the Council and a permanent Secretariat which is, unlike most RBOs, co-hosted in two locations, Vientiane and Phnom Penh.33 Additionally, four National Mekong Committees (NMCs) link the work of the Secretariat with the National Ministries in the four riparian states ensuring the implementation of regional MRC programs. Whereas the inclusion of the public did not play a major role in MRC’s first years of operation, in recent years the organization has developed a number of mechanisms to address the interest of the many stakeholders in the Lower Mekong Basin.34 Looking at a higher governance level of participation one finds that a smaller number of international organizations and donor partners (including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank or the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)), as well as the two dialogue partners China and Myanmar, have been granted observer status at MRC Joint Committee and Council meetings in 2001.35 However, the number of observers is relatively low and does not include representatives of the broader public living within the basin or other interested parties such as private companies or local NGOs.

32. Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin. Mekong Agreement. signed on 5 April 1995, Chiang Rai, Thailand, Chapter III. 33. Mekong Agreement, Chapter IV. 34. Schmeier, Susanne. Governing International Watercourses: The Contribution of River Basin Organizations to the Effective Governance of Internationally Shared Rivers and Lakes. Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management. Routledge, 2012, forthcoming. 35. A full list of organizations with an observer status can be found on MRCs website: http://www.mrcmekong. org/di_partners_observers.htm, accessed 7 August 2012.

EEF 365.indb 57

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

In 1999, the MRC Joint Committee adopted a set of principles for civil society participation which apply to all MRC activities which defines the basins’ stakeholders and outlines MRC’s general approach to stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders were thus defined as “any person, group of institutions that has an interest in an activity, project or program […] [including] beneficiaries and intermediaries, those positively affected, and those involved and/or those who are generally excluded from the decision-making process”.36 Following these principles, key stakeholders should be included in “decision making, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of MRC programs and projects”.37 Since its adoption, stakeholder participation has been implemented in MRC’s programs and strategy-development processes, mainly in the form of stakeholder consultation.38 For example in the context of the planning process of the Basin Development Plan (BDP) communities were systematically consulted through public forums at the sub-area, national and basin levels. They were asked to verify data, identify key resources to be protected and express major concerns and development priorities.39 Furthermore, over the years MRC has become an important knowledge generation and dissemination platform on a wide-range of ecological and developmental issues around the basin. While sharing of this information with basin stakeholders was rather limited in the past, the approval of MRC’s Communication Strategy and Disclosure Policy in 2009 significantly improved the accessibility of information for interested stakeholders.40 A large part of these policy and technical papers is made accessible for the public on the RBO’s website. Additionally, MRC host an information-sharing platform seeking to exchange information between different development practitioners, research organizations and NGOs working on Mekong-related issues.41 3.3 The Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal The approximately 1,800km long Senegal River in western Africa is shared by the four riparian states Mali, Guinea, Mauritania and Senegal. The river originates in Guinea from where it flows through Mali and then turning westwards forms the border between Senegal and Mauritania before entering the Atlantic Ocean. As early as 1972 three of the riparians (Senegal, Mali and Mauritania) established the Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Sénégal (OMVS) 36. Mekong River Commission (MRC). Public Participation in the Context of the MRC. Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 1999; adopted on 30/31 March 1999, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2. 37. MRC. Public Participation in the Context of the MRC, 12. 38. Schmeier, Susanne. Governing International Watercourses. 39. Mekong River Commission (MRC). Public Participation in the Lower Mekong Basin. Vientiane, Lao PDR, 2005. 40. Schmeier, Susanne. Governing International Water Resources. 41. See http://www.mrcmekong.org and http://www.mekonginfo.org/, accessed 4 August 2012.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

58

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 58

24/01/13 12:04

59

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

with the main intention of promoting economic cooperation and development through joint river management. Guinea joined OMVS in 1992 as an observer and recently gained full membership. OMVS has three main organisational bodies: The highest decision-making body, the Conference of Heads of State and Government, which determines the overall policies, followed by the Council of Ministers which further defines strategies and programs and finally the High Commission which functions as an executive body.42 Additionally, OMVS has established a Standing Committee of Water, which functions as an advisory body to the Council of Ministers in matters of water allocation and, similarly to the MRC, four National Coordination Committees (NCC’s) that form a link between the headquarters of the RBO and its member states. Mainly concerned with infrastructure development during the 1980s, OMVS supervised the construction of the Manatali dam in Senegal which was built to reduce the negative effects of floods, produce hydropower and store water for agriculture irrigation. A second dam, Diama, was built close to the river delta to reduce salt-water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean and increase water levels upstream to facilitate navigation and ensure irrigation. Both dams were planned and constructed without consultation of affected? local communities and brought about negative environmental impacts such as pollution from irrigated agricultural areas, the spread of aquatic plants and the loss of fertile lands. Public participation did not play an important role during these first decades of work and even today remains rather limited. Public Participation only began with the establishment of Local Coordination Committees (LCCs) created within the mitigation and follow-up program concerning the Manatali Energy Project (Plan d’attention et de suivi des impacts sur l’environnement, PASIE)43 in 1999. As locally established associations the 28 LCCs were created to form a dialogue platform for stakeholders including user associations, grass-roots NGOs and local administrations that would meet with their respective NCC prior to higher OMVS meetings.44 However, in practice their primary function seems to be limited to the circulation of information and promotion of awareness raising

42. Charte des Eaux du Fleuve Sénégal. Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Sénégal (OMVS). adopted on 18 May 2002, Part III-VI. 43. The program was funded by a group of international donors including the World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility to address some of the environmental problems in the basin. 44. Newborne, Peter. “Decision-making and dialogue relating to large dams and hydraulic infrastructures: Diversity of approaches; evolution of policies and practices applying to project preparation and implementation; case studies from Cameroon and Senegal.” International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2010.

EEF 365.indb 59

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

among the local communities45 exemplified during the consultation process of the development of the Strategic Action Plan when possibilities for stakeholders to influence the plan remained largely limited and the focus of consultation meetings where mostly characterized by the consultation of stakeholders about decisions that had already been taken.46 Similarly, the OMVS Water Charter provides the opportunity for NGOs and other civil society representatives to become observers at the Commissions’ Meetings and express their views – an opportunity that has, however, not yet been realized. 47 Very recently, in 2009, member states have expanded OMVS’ institutional structure to include a so-called River Basin Committee composed of representatives of local authorities, user groups, civil society organizations and representatives of the scientific community that is supposed to meet at least once a year to discuss water related issues important to the public and consult the Council of Ministers respectively.48 Despite the fact that the Committee has not shown much activity yet nor its role been clearly defined within the overall governance structure of OMVS, it still offers a possible future opportunity for greater stakeholder input and influence in the future if the Council of Ministers proves to be responsive to the issues addressed. 3.4 The Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission The 1,100km long Okavango River is shared by the three southern African states Angola, Botswana and Namibia. The river rises in the highlands of southern Angola from where it continues to flow along the Namibian-Angolan border, through Namibia and finally ends eastward in Botswana in a vast swamp in the Kalahari Desert known as the Okavango Delta. The delta is characterized by a unique habitat with a high biodiversity of fauna and flora providing the livelihood bases of many of the basins’ inhabitants and generating a big part of the Botswana’s GDP in form of revenues from the tourism industry. Based on bilateral RBOs the three riparian states in 1994 signed a joint agreement to establish the basin-wide Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). Formally OKACOM acts as a technical advisor to its member states, consulting the parties about matters of environmental conservation and the development and utilization of the water’s resources of com-

45. Compare Sylla, Mamadou M. “The Role of Basic Community Organisations in the Management of the Natural Resources of a Transboundary Water Basin - The example of the Local Coordination Committees of the Senegal River Development Organisation.” In Stakeholder Participation in Transboundary Water Management - Selected Case Studies, 35-49. 46. Schmeier, Susanne. Governing International Water Resources. 47. Charte des Eaux du Fleuve Sénégal. 2002, Article 23. 48. Newborne, Peter. “Decision-making and dialogue relating to large dams and hydraulic infrastructures”.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

60

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 60

24/01/13 12:04

61

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

mon interest to all member states.49 The three main organs of OKACOM are the Commission, which is comprised of three ministerial representatives from each member state and defines the overall policy objectives and supervises all activities of OKACOM, the Okavango Basin Steering Committee (OBSC) which acts as the technical advisory body to the Commission, and the permanent Secretariat (OKASEC) which is based in Maun, Botswana and provides day to day administrative, financial and information-sharing services to the Commission and the member states.50 Public participation in the river basin is primarily secured by the Basin-Wide Forum (BWF) which has come to existence through the ‘Every River Has Its People’ (ERP) project, a community-based partnership project between OKACOM and a number of NGOs which ran from 1999 to 2007.51 ERP had the objective to increase the capability of local stakeholders to participate effectively in decision-making and management of the rivers resources. During this time of increasing droughts, suspicion and disagreements between local stakeholders in the different parts of the basin grew. ERP thus focused on fosterin the creation of trust and mutual understanding by facilitating reciprocal visits of basin communities from the different riparian countries and visits with OKACOM commissioners. These community-based partnerships lead to the establishment of National Forums and subsequently to the creation of the BWF. The BWF comprises 10 local representatives from each of the member states and serves as a forum of communication and knowledge exchange on the country as well as the basin-wide level. The 10 members of each state represent community-based organizations (such as Village Development Communities and Village Technical Committees), small and medium sized enterprises, traditional authorities as well as individual resource users. Although the BWF currently faces funding problems and is only able to meet on an ad hoc basis, the representatives still come together and participate at the yearly OKACOM commission meetings when funding is made available.52 Based on the Rules and Procedures of OKACOM53 the BWF 49. Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of Namibia on the Establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). signed on 15 September 1994, Windhoek, Namibia. 50. Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Angola, the Republic of Botswana, and the Republic of Namibia on the Organisational Structure for the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). signed on 17 April 2007, Maun, Botswana. 51. The project was funded by the Swedish Development Agency (Sida) and jointly run by the Kalahari Conservations Society (KCS) in Botswana, the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) and the Association for Environment Conservation and Integrated Rural Development (ACADIR) in Angola. 52. The Southern African Regional Environmental Program (SAREP) financed by USAID is currently engaging with the BWF and provides funding for a number of initiatives. 53. Rules and Procedures of the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). 5 October 2010, Point 4.7.

EEF 365.indb 61

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

has just recently been granted an observer status in the Okavango Commission meetings, which includes the right to report to the commission any issues of concern as well as the possibility to lodge formal request to discuss particular subjects. Community representatives and other local stakeholders via the BWF are therefore now for the first time institutionally linked with the highest decision-making platform of OKACOM. Within the Commissions’ meetings they can be asked to make a spoken contribution to the meetings in order to inform the Commission or to clarify a specific issue or can participate in the meeting’s discussions if requested by the co-chairperson.54 Moreover to the BWF, public participation is supported by providing access to major OKACOM agreements, protocols, program and project documents and environmental studies on OKACOM’s and its program websites.55 Furthermore, at the Commission’s Meeting in May 2011 the commissioners developed a draft ‘Access to Information Policy’ in order to continue to improve the flow and dissemination of information to the basin’s community and other relevant stakeholders. 3.5 The International Boundary and Water Commission Already in the nineteenth century Mexico and the United States cooperated over water issues along their two major international water bodies, the Rio Grande and the Colorado River Basin. The smaller of the two, the 2,300km long Colorado River, rises in the Rocky Mountains from where it flows through the US-states of Utah and Arizona, then forming the border between Arizona and California before entering Mexico and flowing into the Gulf of California. The second river, the Rio Grande River, also rises in the Rocky Mountains in the state of Colorado and from there continues its 3,000km long journey southwards through New Mexico before entering Texas where it forms the border between the United States and Mexico before emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. Both rivers’ resources are extensively used for agricultural irrigation, power generation and drinking water and sanitation for basin communities which has resulted in huge alterations of the rivers’ flow regime and ecologies over the years. In 1944 Mexico and the United States signed the treaty on the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande which foresaw the establishment of a joint permanent Institution, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) as a successor organization of the already existing International Boundary Commission created in 1889. IBWC’s objective is to 54. Before gaining the observer status, representatives of the BWF already collaborated with OKACOM on an irregular basis, for example, by meeting representatives of the OBSC in order to talk about community awareness and educational programs. 55. See for example the official website of OKACOM at http://www.okacom.org/index.htm or the EPSMO project website at http://epsmo.iwlearn.org/, accessed 13 August 2012.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

62

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 62

24/01/13 12:04

63

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

oversee the implementation of the treaty, which includes issues on water allocation, joint water development structures and flood control, and to settle disputes that may arise between the two countries. Unlike most other RBOs, the IBWC comprises a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each pursuing its own interests as distinct parts of the international institution. Each section of the commission is composed of a Commissioner who, as defined by the founding treaty, has to be an engineer, two principal engineers, one legal adviser and one secretary. 56 For a long time the IBWC was seen as a technical and engineering-oriented organization that did not pay much attention to environmental and public participation concerns. However, between the years 1999 and 2005 the US section of the IBWC has created five regional Citizen’s Forums (San Diego, Colorado River, Southeast Arizona, Upper Rio Grande, Lower Rio Grande) to “facilitate the exchange of information between the USIBWC and members of the public about Commission activities”57. The Citizen’s Forums are attended by board members, representatives of the IBWC US section (sometimes complemented by staff from the Mexican section) and interested citizens. During the meetings that take place several times a year, citizens are informed about project activities and water deliveries/abstractions by the parties. The participants can also ask questions or raise issues of concern. In addition, the IBWC’s Clean Rivers Program, a program for water quality monitoring, assessment, and public outreach aiming to improve the quality of water within Texas, has established so-called Basin Advisory Committees consisting of representatives of different state agencies, environmental organizations and individual citizens. These committees hold regular meetings along the Rio Grande to discuss water quality and related issues to further develop the program and improve water quality of the Rio Grande. Furthermore, a special Public Affairs Office at the US section of IBWC has been set up to distribute information about programs and projects by publishing press releases, newsletters and other public relations materials and by answering stakeholder inquiries. 4. Identifying General Types of Public Participation Looking at the five case studies analysed in the previous section, we find that one can broadly distinguish between four types of public participation in transboundary river basin management provided by RBOs: Mechanisms which ensure that citizens and other stakeholders have ‘access to information’, participation in

56. Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico on the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed on 14 November 1944, Washington, DC, Article 2. 57. See website: http://www.ibwc.gov/Citizens_Forums/CF_SBIWTP.html, accessed 4 August 2012.

EEF 365.indb 63

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

form of stakeholder ‘consultation processes’, active involvement in ‘program and/ or project planning’ as well as public participation in ‘decision-making processes’ (Table 1). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Table 1: RBO mechanisms of public participation Informing

Consultation

ICPDR

X

X

MRC

X

X

OMVS

X

OKACOM

X

IBWC

X

Program/project planning

Decisionmaking X

X

(X)

X X

X

Regarding access to information, we find that all five RBOs analysed within this paper host a website which provides information on the RBO’s mandate and activities undertaken which is also representative for a great number of other international RBOs worldwide. Some of the RBOs also employ a special communications officer (OKACOM, OMVS, Zambezi River Authority (ZRA)), host information or public relations units (ICPDR, MRC, IBWC) or have established scientific information centres (Interstate Coordination Water Commission of Central Asia (ICWC), Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC)). A number RBOs with the support of international cooperation partners have furthermore developed so-called ‘River Awareness Kits’ (RAKs) (MRC, Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM), Kunene Permanent Joint Technical Commission (PJTC), Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM), Nile Basin Initiative (NBI)) – an information and education tool covering a wide-range of ecological, social and governance issues around the water basins and their management.58 Despite this great variety of information platforms, degrees of openness (for example indicated by the difference in accessibility of policy and strategy papers) and the quality of information provided differ greatly between the different organizations. The second type of stakeholder participation has been realized in form of consultation processes employed by the ICPDR and MRC to bring stakeholders into the discussion on policy strategies and, in the case of the MRC, also in the context of program developments. In the case of the IBWC, Citizen’s Forums serve as a general consultation platform for all activities undertaken by IBWC. Within 58. These RAKs can usually be accessed online but are also distributed via electronic copies (for example to education institutions).

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

64

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 64

24/01/13 12:04

65

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

such consultation processes stakeholders are thus generally informed about strategies and activities employed by RBOs, but are also encouraged to express their opinion on development activities or overall strategies. Thirdly, involvement in program and project planning could be observed in the case of MRC which developed principles for public participation that apply to all its activities including planning, implementing and monitoring of MRC programs and projects. Furthermore in the case of the IBWC, some public involvement in project development takes place via the Basin Advisory Committees in the Rio Grande. Most RBOs though do not have a standardized stakeholder participation policy which defines roles and responsibilities during planning and evaluation process of specific programs and projects implemented by them. However, saying this, one needs to keep in mind that a great number of RBOs have a mandate to consult their member countries on water-related issues but not a mandate to develop and implement their own development programs (like the ICPDR and OKACOM). Consequently the possibilities to employ stakeholder participation in project planning and implementation for these organizations is small to non-existent and lies within the responsibility of their member countries that implement decisions taken at the regional level. Involvement in decision-making processes, although existent in three of the five case studies looked at in this paper, is generally the rarest type of public involvement provided for in RBOs. ICPDR, OKACOM and to a lesser extent MRC grant basin stakeholders an observer status in their highest decision-making organs. Although observers are not given any voting rights in any of these cases, nor in other RBOs which provide observer status to external participants such as the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), they are still considered to be able to influence decision-making processes through their involvement in discussions and by bringing in their own expertise. In some cases, stakeholders that have been granted an observer status can also participate in Expert Groups meetings (ICPDR, ICPR), giving them further possibilities to influence the generation of technical and scientific information that directly feeds into decision-making processes (as Expert Groups usually provide the baseline knowledge for the consultation of Council or Commission Members) and thus expand their influence of decisions taken by RBOs. The four different types of stakeholder integration in RBO governance can generally be said to have different degrees of power involved. Whereas accessing information and participating in consultation processes most of the time provides only one-way communication channels from the level of decision-makers to the broader public, the influence that stakeholders can exercise with regard to RBO politics and programs significantly increases once involved in program planning and decision-making processes. Only at this level does the public have some rel-

EEF 365.indb 65

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

evant influence and can make RBOs responsive to their views and desires. These four categories of stakeholder participation in RBO governance mechanisms can, therefore, be viewed along a level of participation, whereby accessing information can be viewed as the lowest and inclusion in decision-making the highest level of participation (Figure 1). Figure 1: Level of stakeholder participation in RBOs Accessing Information

Consultation

Program/Project Planning

Decision Making

Low Power

High Power Websites Information Centers Awarness Kids

Citizen Forums Ad-hoc consulation

Involvement in project design

Observer Status at decision-making levels

5. Conclusions This overview of public participation in RBO water governance has identified different forms of stakeholder participation provided in five case studies from different parts of the world. By doing so, four general forms of public participation employed by these RBOs could be identified, which include access to information, consultation, involvement of program/project planning and implementation, and the involvement in decision-making processes. In all of the five case studies RBOs provide access to information (including agreements, policy papers or technical/scientific data) to their basin stakeholders via a number of channels such as websites, newsletter or education materials. Looking beyond the five case studies, this type of one-directional public participation is the most common type of inclusion found in other international RBOs as well. Consultation processes are in contrast only employed by a smaller number of RBOs, primarily to be found in the context of program and policymaking processes. Although consultation practices are primarily used to inform stakeholders about policy decisions and program developments which have already been decided upon at higher decision-making levels within RBOs (see for example the LCCs in the Senegal River), in some cases they provide the opportunity for basin stakeholders to articulate problems and formulate their own development priorities that are channelled back into the decision-making processes. Very rarely are basin stakeholders involved in RBO’s program and project planning. As many RBOs are mere advisory bodies to their member countries that do not have a mandate to develop and realize their own programs and projects, this type of participation can only be found in few RBOs that have a broader mandate which includes some form of implementation powers (see for example

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

66

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 66

24/01/13 12:04

67

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

MRC and OMVS). Finally, some RBOs, including ICPDR, ICPR, OKACOM and MRC provide mechanisms to include stakeholders into the decision-making processes of their organization, primarily through granting an observer status to either some exclusively chosen international stakeholders (MRC), local populations (OKACOM) or a broader spectrum of representatives including NGOs, international organizations, user associations, and private companies (ICPDR). Overall, the five case studies have shown that RBOs do pay respect to demands of public involvement voiced by scientists as well as policy makers as they provide a number of mechanisms for their participation in river basin governance. Beyond the case studies however, many RBOs do not arrange for means for participation beyond the level of accessing information. Having identified four major RBO mechanisms of public participation within this paper, a number of questions still remain unsolved. It is thus still unknown which circumstances actually influence riparian states to provide stakeholder participation platforms within RBOs. In other words, under what conditions are basins stakeholders involved and which of the identified mechanisms are employed to engage with the broader public? Furthermore, whether these different forms of participation really influence the efficiency and effectiveness of RBOs as well as the empowerment of marginalized river stakeholders still needs to be assessed. Consequently, the often hypothesized link between public involvement and the performance of RBOs remains subject for further research. Despite these fundamentally important questions that remain unsolved for now, the paper showed that transboundary RBOs can open up possibilities for the broader public to engage in water governance issues even across national boundaries. Further research on RBOs and public involvement in RBO governance can therefore produce valuable knowledge on how such participation influences water governance in international watercourses.

Abstract The use of water resources related to rivers or lakes that are shared by different riparian states tend to have decisive consequences on riparian populations and their development opportunities. This also holds true for governance efforts of riparian states – institutionalized in a number of river basins in the form of River Basin Organizations (RBOs) – and the respective joint programs and projects developed by these institutions. In recent years, scholars and policy makers have increasingly argued that basin stakeholders – including the basin communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as private businesses – should have the possibility to be included in the management processes of RBOs. The different forms and the extent to which riparian communities participate in river basin governance, especially in RBOs, have not yet been systematically analysed. This paper therefore investigates different forms of public participation in five international RBOs in Africa, North America, Europe and South-East Asia and identifies four major forms of participation.

EEF 365.indb 67

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

Public Participation in the Governance of Transboundary Water Resources

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

24/01/13 12:04

Sabine Schulze

Résumé

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

L’utilisation de la ressource d’eau des rivières et des lacs entre les États riverains tentent avoir des conséquences fondamentales sur les populations riveraines et sur leurs possibilités de développement. Ceci est vrai également en ce qui concerne les efforts de gouvernance commune d’États riverains – qui s’institutionnalisent dans un certain nombre de bassins fluviaux sous la forme d’Organismes de bassin – et pour les programmes et projets conjoints développés par ces institutions. Ces dernières années, des chercheurs et des responsables décisionnels ont de plus en plus insisté sur le fait que les parties prenantes de ces bassins – les communautés des bassins, les organisations non gouvernementales et les entreprises – devraient avoir la possibilité d’être pris en compte dans les processus de gestion de ces organismes. Les différentes formes et l’étendue de la participation des communautés riveraines, en particulier dans les organismes de bassin, n’ont pas encore été étudiées de façon systématique. Aussi, cet article s’intéresse aux différentes formes de participation publique dans cinq organismes internationaux de bassin, en Afrique, Amérique du Nord, Europe et Asie du Sud-Est. L’article identifie ensuite quatre formes majeures de participation.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Université de Dunkerque - - 194.57.181.135 - 19/01/2016 17h22. © Centre international de formation européenne

68

L’Europe en formation nº 365 Automne 2012 – Autumn 2012

EEF 365.indb 68

24/01/13 12:04