MRC IN THE FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT

The Mekong River Commission is an intergovernmental body serving the interests of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The commission seeks to promote and coordinate sustainable management and development of water and related resources for the mutual benefit 6.1.1 Commission in the eyes of the member

countries As we have learned in the previous chapters, the

livelihoods of the people in the Tonle Sap Region are in many ways directly or indirectly dependent on water and natural resources. As a consequence, alterations in the ecosystem may destroy the traditional livelihoods of the inhabitants and intensify migration. The Mekong Region is during these rapid developments experiencing a growth in demand of energy, navigation routes, irrigation as well as fish and aquatic resources. This development, however, causes conflicts between the modern sectors and the local traditional sectors of society (Keskinen et al., 2008). The villagers living near the Tonle Sap Lake are relying on the traditional cultivation and fishing methods, and for the most part, will be under a great pressure if the water resources development plans for the river become reality (Fox, 2004; Heinonen, 2004; 2006). For example, the scheduled massive hydropower development projects can change the flood-pulse system of the lake and as a result affect the communities relying on the river’s resources (Blake, 2001; Heinonen, 2004; 2006)

In recent years, the Cambodian economy has grown rapidly. The participatory poverty assessments (PPAs) of CDRI (2007), however, show that many of the poor dwellers in the Tonle Sap Region are not benefiting from this development. The study also shows that the poor in the region have become increasingly dependent on land and water based natural resources to sustain their fragile livelihoods. Numerous years of draught and flooding, along with poor soil and a lack of water management capacity, have eroded farming productivity. Traditional access to forests and fisheries is diminished due to the growing population and conflicts between the local elites and powerful actors from outside the village. Increasing numbers of the poor are therefore selling their land or labour locally or are migrating elsewhere in search of employment. These poor commonly also suffer from the lack of other assets such as clean drinking water, education, vocational training and health care hampering their abilities to rise from the poverty trap (Ballard, 2007).

The Mekong River Commission (MRC) is one of the major intergovernmental institutions in the region addressing holistic development of water resources. MRC aims to highlight social justice by bringing the interconnections of economic growth, environmental sustainability and people’s wellbeing under broader consideration and interacting with other stakeholders of the region. Lately, the commission has set poverty reduction and IWRM as its main goals (Keskinen et al., 2008). While environmental and social aspects are high on the commission’s agenda, the implementation at the practical level has been far from the principles stated on the agreement (Mehtonen et al., 2008). There are several reasons for this mismatch;

first, the poor level of democracy in the member countries obstructs the implementation of the participatory processes.

Second, the lack of commitment and co-operation between the key ministries and regional institutions within the country and region decrease the possibilities to analyze the impacts of the development plans regionally as well as cumulatively. Third, the low authority of the commission in the regional discussion hinders the ability to achieve its goals, particularly the ones related to holistic and socially sustainable development. Nevertheless, MRC has strong expertise in water governance of the basin, the resources that have a great impact on the region’s economy and social development, and thus needs to be part of the regional planning if equal poverty reduction is desired (Hirsch et al., 2006).

makes decisions regarding policies and provides other necessary guidance in order to implement the agreement of 1995 (MRC, 2005b). Today, the council has representatives from water and natural resources agencies, agriculture and rural development ministries, excluding the powerful policy agencies (MRC, 2005a; Hirsch et al., 2006). This representation might limit the scope of the organization restricting it only to environmental and rural issues, and ignoring the overall economic and social development of the basin. Hence, the important and more powerful development aspects of the region, such as urban development, may override the activities of the commission.

The Joint Committee is responsible for the implementation of the policies recognized by the Council as well as for supervising the activities of the Secretariat. The ministry representation is similar to that of the Council, in part highly environmentally focused, which in the long-run creates obstacles for successful policy implementation in the member countries (MRC, 2005a).

The work of these above-mentioned three parties is supported by the National Mekong Committees (NMCs). The role of these Committees is essential by bringing national grass root information into the decision-making level. Unfortunately, the NMCs are rather marginalized from the relevant national

•

•

Figure 15 The organizational structure of MRC

of the member countries and people’s well-being (MRC, 2003c). MRC has a history of fifty years, during which there have been ups and downs in the development of the organization. There have been changes in the member base, agreement, agenda as well as in the level of authority the commission has in the member countries and in the regional co-operation (Keskinen et al., 2008).

The founding agreement of the Mekong River Commission, or actually the Mekong Committee (MC) in 1957, was strict and tied the member countries to follow the agreement according to which - “the existing low water discharge of the river would not be reduced in any way or at any site” Ratner (2003). Thus the countries agreed to notify of and negotiate development plans that have transboundary impacts. In the course of its history, the role of the commission has, however, weakened and this strong statement has crumpled gradually. The present agreement uses softer words such as promoting, coordinating and supervising, allowing the member countries to choose how and when to collaborate.

An identical weakening can be seen in the organizational structure and country representation of the commission today. The MRC has three organizational levels under the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam: Council, Joint Committee and Secretariat (Figure 15):

The council is formed of ministerial level members from each of the member countries.

This highest level in the organization structure

•

Council

(Members at Ministrial and Cabinet Level) Government of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam

Donors & Other Institutions

National Mekong Committees

Civil Society MRC Secretariat

Joint Committee

(Members at Departmental Head Level or Higher)

decision-making processes. In addition to the low level of participatory governance in the countries, the interests of national or civil society are not broadly presented (Badenoch, 2002). The NMCs are also accused of promoting only the interests of their own ministries instead of focusing on the national issues (Hirsch et al., 2006).

The Mekong River Commission is not the only development organization working in the region, neither in the field of water resources management nor poverty reduction. Since water resources have a multidimensional role in the overall development having connections with e.g. energy, trade, agriculture, fishing, employment and health, there are also other major organizations working in the field of water resources development in the Mekong Region. As we have learned, the MRC is surrounded by regional arrangements and institutions that engage the member countries more than the commission does. The battle of varying interests has put the MRC into a situation where it has lost its position and means of fulfilling its development goals, particularly the goal of addressing socially just development of the basin and the use of its resources (Hirsch et al., 2006).

The interaction between the MRC and other development programs, such as the GMS program has remained rather limited, even though they both address the development of the Mekong Region and its water resources. The same can be said about the cooperation with ASEAN or with other institutions having water-related issues on their agendas (Keskinen et al., 2008). The lack of co-operation, and particularly its impacts on the commission’s authority, has lately been noticed in the MRC. Hence, regional cooperation is strongly emphasized in the new agenda. The MRC aims to enforce collaboration with other regional cooperation initiatives e.g. ASEAN, GMS and MWRAP, believing that these strategic partnerships clarify the roles of the organizations and bring synergies to the development processes (MRC, 2006). The new strategic plan addresses stronger 6.1.2 Collaboration with other development

organizations

collaboration with a number of organizations. It aims to:

Improve the profile of MRC in the ASEAN working group for water resources and other environment and development initiatives.

Work with the Flood Control and Water Resources Management Program and the Strategic Environment Framework of GMS to improve the effectiveness of the organizations and to increase cooperation with China and Myanmar.

Strengthen collaboration with the Mekong Water Resources Assistance Program (MWRAP) of the World Bank by incorporating knowledge from WUP and BDP programs as well as different policy scenario analyses.

Co-operate with Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS) to improve regional collaboration and give the MRC a higher role to drive sustainable development.

Enhance collaboration with the Forum for the Comprehensive Development of Indochina to have a perspective on regional development and increase cooperation with China.

Collaborate with the Neighbouring Countries Economic Development Cooperation Fund (NECF) to strengthen the role of MRC and to enhance social development.

Even though the above-mentioned collaboration plans are desired signs of regional development in both the commission and regional governance, there is a threat that the MRC has already missed the wave of collaboration (Hirsch et al., 2006).

There are many organizations addressing the development of the region, particularly through hydropower. The member country governments also seem to fear that the cooperation with the commission slows down or even prevents their plans to utilize the river as desired. Hence, there is a great possibility that the MRC is already, or

will be, sidelined from the planning and decision-making processes of these crucial development plans (Keskinen et al., 2008).

6.2 WORKING FOR SOCIALLY JUST