Transboundary Water Institutes/Organizations

Dr. Zaigham Habib

Institutional ApproachesVarious institutional approaches to manage transboundary basins and treaties

• type of agreement/issues• history • adopted institutional and governance pattern• external, regional factors

Administrative organizations: International/regional Commissions, with or without a permanent secretariat. Representatives of the concerned ministries coordinate on projects, to exchange information/ data, address emergency situations, to define common rules and whenever necessary to allocate the available resources (or benefits derived there from) between the countries, regions or sectors. Regulate during emergencies.

Institutional Approaches

Basin Organizations or Authorities with specific tasks Supporting combined developments, contracting large structures

like, navigation, flood control, water diversions, the building of reservoirs especially for irrigation, hydropower production, etc.

Arbitration Authorities Interested “parties” refer to these authorities for decision-

making on the conflicts which arise; this is the case of the International Joint Commission (IJC) between the USA and Canada, or the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) between the USA and .

Supporting systems/organizations

Basin level organizations require a supporting system - directly or indirectly connected;1. Agencies/departments responsible for collecting data,

managing investments, taxes and sub-regional/ national water plans,

2. Specific Committees or working groups to perform specific tasks – environment, industry, emergency support

3. Stakeholders and civil society4. Temporary “projects or programs” organizations

In all cases, the institutional arrangements established should eventually lead to the creation of a joint basin management body.

Mandates of transboundary basin organizations

A transboundary River Basin Organization can be defined as a permanent institutional arrangement dedicated to all or part of the management of shared waters between at least two countries. The legal framework and the statute of these institutions are often determined by the basin’s context and history as well as by the mandate given to the body established by the Member States.

Three levels of general mandates for transboundary basin organizations:1. Informational/coordination mandate, focusing on the exchange of data and

tasks mainly technical and execution;2. consultative mandate, where the body is an institution complementary to

the States, but has no decisional power;3. decisional mandate, implying indeed a partial loss of the States’ sovereignty

to the benefit of the organization in the field of shared waters.Usually, the creation of a permanent body follows an agreement between the riparian countries of the basin, an agreement that, in most cases, is limited to part of the territory of the countries concerned, since the basin limits do not correspond to the borders of each country

How three International Systems define the scope and the farm of transboundary organizations

According to UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Rivers and International Lakes, there are three major types of institutional arrangements for inter-State agreements on transboundary waters:

1. without designation of an institution to implement the agreement;

2. appointment of governmental representatives (plenipotentiaries );

3. establishment of a joint commission responsible for the implementation of the agreement.

Joint commissions prevail in international practice, however, bi-lateral arrangements continue

GWP (IWRM) ContextNo structure can be regarded as a universal model because they are each established for specific waters and geopolitical context, and special socio-economic features. Nevertheless, some principles that improve the efficiency of the body and cooperation may be retained. This includes:

1. A wide responsibility of the joint body to allow for IWRM implementation;

2. A clearly defined mandate and institutional organization to allow for the adoption of decisions and their implementation;

3. A gradually consolidated legal framework;4. Efficient mechanisms for cooperation between the national

authorities and the transboundary basin body;5. Mechanisms for reporting;6. The availability of funds to support joint programmes and

structures;7. Mechanisms to promote public and stakeholders participation in

the activities of the joint body.

1997 UN Water Convention: Functions of Transboundary Basin Organizations

1. Collecting, compiling and evaluating data to identify pollution sources that generate a cross border impact;

2. Developing joint monitoring programs on quality and quantity of the resource;3. Developing inventories and exchange of information on pollution sources that

generate a cross-border impact ;4. Establishing emission limits for waste water and evaluating the effectiveness

of control programs;5. Jointly defining quality criteria and objectives and the proposed measures to

maintain and, if necessary, improve water quality;6. Developing joint action plans to reduce polluting loads from accidental

pollution and diffuse pollution;7. Establishing alert procedures;8. Providing a forum for information exchange on existing and planned uses of

the resource and related facilities, which generate a cross-border impact;9. Promoting cooperation and information exchange on best available

technologies and fostering cooperation in scientific research programmes;10.Participating in the environmental impact assessment of transboundary

waters, in accordance with the relevant international rules.

The basin body size can vary: the secretariat of the Mosel - Saar Rivers Basin Commission is made up of two people while the Secretariat of the Mekong River Commission comprises 120 officers.

Summarizing the Scope and Functions

A River Basin Commission is adequate when ‘significant development options are still to be considered in the river basin’, ‘conflicting uses [are] significant’, ‘information and policies still need further development’, and ‘water resource planning and management practices are not well detailed’. A commission is formally constituted and comprised of a management board or group of commissioners who ‘set objectives, goals, policy and strategic direction’, are supported by technical staff, and possibly complemented by a presiding Ministerial Council. A Commission does not interfere with general water management functions but sets ‘the bulk of water shares that each state/province it entitled to divert and … monitor(s) water use’. It is characterized by equal partnerships among member governments and may include other stakeholders as well (Millington et al., 2006a, p. 8).

A River Basin Coordinating Committee or Council is based on the assumption that ‘existing agencies are operating effectively’, ‘most of the important data networks are in place’, ‘most of the high priority water projects have been constructed’ and ‘competition for resource use … has been resolved’. This comprises ministers or senior representatives of main water-related agencies, meeting regularly; it has no executive power and is legally based on letters of agreement from the participating agencies.13 This category, however, is more common in the national context and serves to complement joint bodies on a higher level.

A River Basin Authority can either be a ‘large multi-disciplinary organization with specific development tasks’ (e.g. hydropower development) or ‘an organization that absorbs virtually all the water resources functions of other agencies in the basin’. While in some countries authorities are being transformed into commissions or coordinating committees/councils (see below), this model is adequate, for example, in some African basins because of their relatively low degree of water resources development, such as the Niger. However, it is not suitable for ‘historically, geographically, and politically very complex’ basins such as the Nile (ibid., p. 9).

Permanent Indus CommissionA central institutional mechanism to implement Indus Water Treaty

1. Commission serves as a regular channel of communication on all matters relating to implementation of the Treaty”. The Commission is required to “study and report” to both Governments “on any problems relating to the development of the waters of the Rivers which may be jointly referred to the Commission by the two Governments”.

2. Regarding disputes, the Commission is obliged to “make every effort to settle promptly, in accordance with the provisions of Article IX (1), any question arising there under.”

3. The Commission, headed by a Commissioner in each country, Despite resolution mechanism at the 2nd level - Neutral Expert, Permanent Court Arbitration,

Mekong River Basin Organization

Four lower riparian States (Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos) agreed on an institutional mechanisms “to cooperate in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin.” Mekong River Commission (MRC) comprised of three permanent bodies:1. the Council (one Ministerial representative from each riparian State)

is empowered to make policy decisions on behalf of the respective governments. The Council has the task “to entertain, address and resolve issues, differences and disputes”;

2. the Joint Committee (one senior official from each riparian State) is asked to “address and make every effort to resolve issues and differences that may arise between regular sessions of the Council” and “when necessary to refer the matter to the Council”;

3. the Secretariat is charged with the day-to-day operations, including support for the Council and Joint Committee, and providing technical services.

Mekong River Commission (1995)A coordination mechanism between four countries. Original aim was to develop large scale water resource, never realized. Now objectives include hydropower, irrigation, flood control, collection and distribution of hydrological data. The MRC serves as focal point for donor organizations and countries. It helps dialogue with two upper states , China and Myanmar. The MRC member countries agree to co-operate in all fields of sustainable development, utilisation, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin, such as navigation, flood control, fisheries, agriculture, hydropower and environmental protection.ASEAN-Mekong Basin Development Cooperation (AMBDC)The objectives of this cooperation are:(i) to enhance economically sound and sustainable development of the Mekong Basin; (ii) to encourage a process of dialogue and common project identification which can result in firm economic partnerships for mutual benefit; and (iii) to strengthen the interconnections and economic linkages between the ASEAN member countries and the Mekong riparian countries.Treaty basin: Mekong Date: June 17, 1996Signatories: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam

Institutional Settings between India, Bangladesh and Nepal

Farakha Joint Committee to record daily flow below Farakka barrage, in the Feeder canal, at the Navigation Lock, at the Hardinge BridgeTreaty basin: Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Date: December 12, 1996Signatories: India, Bangladesh

Mahakali River Commission(i) seek information and if necessary, inspect all structures included in the Treaty; (ii) make recommendations for the conservation and utilization (iii) provide expert evaluation of projects and make recommendations; (iv) coordinate and monitor (v) examine any differences arising between the two countries concerning the Treaty’s interpretation and application.Treaty basin: Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (Mahakali subbasin)Date: February 12, 1996Signatories: India, Nepal

Nile Basin Initiative

Objectives: Economic development, joint management, poverty eradication

The NBI is a transitional mechanism that includes nine Nile riparian countries as equal members in a regional partnership to promote economic development and fight poverty throughout the Basin. The vision of the NBI is to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources. Within the framework of Technical Cooperation Committee for the Promotion of the Development and Environmental Protection of the Nile Basin (TECCONILE), a Nile River Basin action plan was prepared in 1995 with support from CIDA. In 1997, the World Bank agreed to a request by the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs of the Nile Basin States (Nile-COM) to lead and coordinate donor support for their activities. In 1998, recognizing that cooperative development holds the greatest prospects of bringing mutual benefits to the region, all riparians, except Eritrea, joined in a dialogue to create a regional partnership to facilitate the common pursuit of sustainable development and management of Nile waters.

The Permanent Joint Technical Committee (PJTC)

Sudan and Egypt Formed to preside on the application of the 'Nile Waters Treaty

Agreement' of 1959 Post Aswan Dam, Joint management, water quantities. Many technical studies: for example, UNDP supported a Hydromet

Project on the Equatorial lakes was started in 1967 and continued to 1992

The Okavango River Basin CommissionConflict: Botswana claims water to sustain lucrative ecotourism industry and delta, Namibia wants to pipe water through pipe to supply its capital city with industrial and drinking water.

Angola, Botswana and Namibia signed an Agreement in 1994, establishing the Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM) to coordinate sustainable water resources development. 1. 2004, the Commission agreed to establish a Secretariat to implement its decisions.2. 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed for the establishment of the

Commission Secretariat (OKASEK) and development of procedural guidelines.3. 2006, Organizational Structure was defined for a Permanent Commission. 4. 2007, an agreement was signed by three governments on the structure of Commission

and on the location of the secretariat.5. April 2007, the agreement on the OKACOM permanent organizational structure was

reviewed to bring it in line with the Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses. 6. The protocol on the sharing of hydrological data was signed in 2010.The Commission is made up of three representatives from each country. The Secretariat is an internal organ, mandated to assist OKACOM in implementing its decisions. It assumes a role in information sharing and communication. The Basin Forum, a transboundary committee comprised of 10 local representatives from each State, was established to share experiences and generate an overall view of the socio-economic and hydro-environmental

Evolving International Support System on

DataClimate ChangeTechnical studies

Thank You