222893e

TRANSBOUNDARY WATER MANAGEMENTas the member countries did not reach an agreement, it allowed Laoto hear the concerns from its neighbours and respond by modifyingthe design to reduce the negative impacts. The MRC Secretariat isfacilitating continued information sharing on the project.A further example of effective cooperation is the case for developmentof a bilateral agreement for the promotion of navigation betweenViet Nam and Cambodia. Although Cambodia is not a landlockedcountry, the capital Phnom Penh is situated along the Mekong River,some distance from the coast. Thus, a lot of the capital’s suppliesof imports have to either be trucked in from the coastal port ofSihanoukville (320 km from Phnom Penh) or shipped through theVietnamese delta of the Mekong upriver to Phnom Penh. The MekongAgreement provides for freedom of navigation. However, it is not easyto turn this general provision into a practical protocol for allowingmaritime vessels from overseas and inland barges between Cambodiaand Viet Nam, through the heavily populated delta in a structuredway which allows for free passage without opening up for ‘free-forall’smuggling, ensures enforceable regulations against accidents andpollution, and complies with customs and immigration requirements.In 1998 the governments of Cambodia and Viet Nam worked onan Agreement on Waterway Transportation for the navigational useof the Mekong River. However, the draft agreement, prepared byViet Nam, was not ratified by Cambodia. There is a clear mandateto promote navigation in the Mekong Agreement, and the MRCNavigation Strategy (2003) included a legal component whichwas considered important in promoting freedom of navigation andincreasing international trade opportunities for the MRC membercountries’ mutual benefit.In 2006 the governments of Cambodia and Viet Nam agreedthat MRC would enter the scene as main facilitator to draft a newnavigation agreement and assist in negotiating its contents. Thiswas successfully done through the establishment of national legaltaskforces in the two countries, which met regularly to work on abase draft agreement prepared by the MRC Navigation Programme.Several national and regional consultations and workshops wereheld to include the opinion of relevant stakeholders such as customs,immigration, river police, waterway departments, and the ministriesof environment and commerce.The Agreement Between the Royal Government of Cambodia andthe Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on WaterwayTransportation was signed on 17 December 2009, and ratified byboth governments in January 2010. MRC is now supporting itsimplementation.A number of lessons were learned in this process. All agenciesthat will be affected by the agreement need to be involved, whichis necessary but costly and time-consuming. For proper implementationof the agreement, it is not only a requisite to include animplementation road map, but also to bind its milestones legally inthe agreement. Finally, it is clear that it is better to be patient andprovide the highest quality agreement than to rush into the formulationprocess, as the negotiations may fail if not prepared well.ChallengesHowever, there are also areas where cooperation has provedmore difficult – for example, the development of a tbEIA protocol.Beginning in 2001 the member countries began reviewingthe experiences of tbEIA globally, and the secretariat engaged anumber of experts to draft outlines for a tbEIA protocol for theMekong. The experience of the Espoo convention was used asthe most advanced system, but other examples werealso drawn upon. In order to provide a picture of therequirements from proponent and affected countries,a number of hypothetical case studies around actualprojects were undertaken.However, while the technical agencies could agreeon practical steps in identifying projects which mayrequire tbEIA, the required process, mechanisms toaddress additional costs and so on, the major hurdlewas on a legal and political level. From a legal point ofview the problems were twofold. First, for Thailand andViet Nam where the Mekong River Basin covers onlypart of their national territory, reconciling the requirementsof tbEIA in the basin with requirements outsideit and with non-MRC member countries (Malaysiaand Myanmar for Thailand and China for Viet Nam)would add complexity to the implementation. Second,national EIA legislation does cover all types of projects,whereas the MRC-supported tbEIA would focus onwater resources issues. Thus a tbEIA protocol wouldcover some types of impacts and not others, such asair pollution. The terminology used in the protocolremains a difficult issue and a balance is needed tospecify actions without contradicting national legislationrelated to EIA.What the future holdsAs the region develops, the water resources in the basinwill play an important role in the development of theLMB countries. This will inevitably result in potentiallyconflicting demands and requires additional efforts bythe member countries in finding the balance betweennational priorities, basin-wide considerations and therights of all riparian countries.MRC provides a practical framework for its membercountries to cooperate in the sustainable developmentof the basin’s resources. In some areas cooperation iseasier. Over the past 17 years the framework has developedinto a set of processes and strategies that allowsthe countries to discuss technical aspects of the developmentand management of the basin’s resources,which in turn underpins the political decisions madein the countries’ socioeconomic development plans.It is clear that the 1995 Mekong Agreement isworking, although there are high and differingexpectations from different stakeholders. MRC’s pastexperiences provide important lessons in how to moveforward and show the difficulties involved in balancingthe national priorities of sovereign countries withaims to cooperate in the basin’s development. Thecoming decade will without doubt further test MRC’sability to provide a framework for cooperation in theincreased use of shared resources.This article is the opinion of the author and does notnecessarily relflect the MRC Member Countries’ view onthe issues discussed. The author would like to acknowledgethe input from Ton Lennaerts, BDP and LievenGeerinck, NAP.[ 73 ]