WORKING PAPER SERIES
Working Paper No. 5
Twinning Squares and Circles: the MDBC-MRC
Strategic Liaison Program and the applicability of the
Murray-Darling Basin management model to the
Mekong River Basin
Alanna Linn & Doug Bailey
Australian Mekong Resource Centre
University of Sydney
April 2002
© Copyright: Alanna Linn & Doug Bailey 2002
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the author.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing Information
Linn, Alanna
Twinning squares and circles: the MDBC-MRC strategic liaison program and the applicability of the Murray Darling
Basin management model to the Mekon River Basin.
ISBN 1 86487 186 5
1. Water resources development - Mekong River Watershed. 2. Water resources development - Murray River (N.S.W.S. Aust.). I. Bailey, Douglas J. (Douglas John). II. Australian Mekong Resource Centre. III. Title. (Series : Working
paper series (Australian Mekong Resource Centre) ; no. 5).
Call No. 333.91009597
Other titles in AMRC Working Paper Series:
Cornford, Jonathan (1999) Australian Aid, Development Advocacy and Governance in the Lao PDR
McCormack, Gavan (2000) Water Margins: Development and Sustainability in China
Gunning-Stevenson, Helen (2001) Accounting for Development: Australia and the Asian Development Bank in the
Mekong Region
Hashimoto, Takehiko ‘Riko’ (2001) Environmental Issues and Recent Infrastructure Development in the Mekong Delta:
Review, Analysis and Recommendations with Particular Reference to Large-scale Water Control Projects and the
Development of Coastal Areas
Cover & layout
Printed by
Distributed by
AMRC
University of Sydney Printing Service
Australian Mekong Resource Centre
University of Sydney (F09), NSW 2006 Australia
Tel 61-2-9351 7796 Fax 61-2-9351 8627
email: [email protected]
www.mekong.es.usyd.edu.au
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT MODELS ......................................................................... 5
2. BASIN COMPARISONS ................................................................................................................................. 6
3. THE MDBC-MRC STRATEGIC LIAISON PROGRAM (JOINT COOPERATION PROGRAMME) .................. 8
4. QUESTIONING THE MURRAY-DARLING AGREEMENT AS A MANAGEMENT MODEL ........................... 9
5. CONCERNS OVER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, IN PARTICULAR THE TRANSFERENCE OF
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ....................................................................................................................10
5.1 Political and cultural issues of technology transfer to the Mekong ...................................................................................... 11
5.2 The politics of water .................................................................................................................................................................... 12
6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................14
7. FISH DIVERSITY AND USES .......................................................................................................................15
8. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ..................................................................................................................17
NOTES .............................................................................................................................................................. 18
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 18
3
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
Images of natural beauty which belie the
damage being inflicted upon these river
systems.
photo source Ian Baird
photo source MDBC
Left: The Murray River where it runs through
the Barmah Forest wetlands on the NSWVictorian border.
Below: Flooded forest along the Se San River
(a tributary of the Mekong) downstream of the
contentious Yali Falls Dam.
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
4
“The Murray-Darling Basin Commission is considered to be a world’s best practice model in basin
management, particularly across jurisdictional borders…using the Murray-Darling Basin Commission as a model, Australia has supported the Mekong River Commission to provide for the sustainable management of the Mekong...” (Senator Robert Hill, 2000).
1. INTRODUCTION: CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT MODELS
According to Professor Stephen Born (2000), profound changes in catchment and watershed management
have taken place over the past decade. The new approach is distinctive in several ways: a concern with
sustainability and ecosystem health; improved coordination between agencies and governments; a collaborative and more decentralized orientation; action-oriented, planning and management grounded in scientific
knowledge. However, Born stresses that the new approach does not mean a single model is applicable to
all situations. Rather, catchment and watershed management models should be sensitive to their biophysical
and socio-historical contexts.
Two models of river basin management are juxtaposed by Newson (1997:282): the now outdated “engineering-dominated distribution” philosophy and the new “hydrology- (and environmental science-) dominated collection” philosophy. The last decade has witnessed a transition from the mechanistic model to the
much more sophisticated systems model. Institutional frameworks are now regarded as a crucial element of
water management: “…the institutional framework is most important since it determines and channels the
effectiveness of legal structures and financial processes. Institutions are also important because of the
increasing realisation of the necessity to consult widely with the population before environmental policies
are implemented” (Newson, 1997:283).
The new philosophy embraces both an ecosystem approach (the application of ecological principles) and a
concern with community involvement stemming from the acknowledgement of diverse interest groups.
Paying attention to social factors certainly increases the complexity of basin management and may bring
about a feeling of loss of control among technical experts, but it also produces more effective outcomes.
The purely technical model has proved incompetent even in its own terms because of this failure to incorporate social factors. In addition, the model is ineffective because of communication failure and lack of
capacity-building to sustain basin development (Newson, 1997).
Newson (1997 ), however, reminds us that the new era of river basin management dependent on “knowledge-based systems” is not problem free. In the first place, there is a need to provide information that can
be understood by the public and is capable of guiding managerial practice. Secondly, while this new knowledge is inter-disciplinary in nature it needs to be integrated in a holistic manner. Another issue is scale.
Catchment management can, in fact, be more effective at a smaller scale: “Paradoxically, as geographical
scale increases to the natural drainage basin outline, including sources and users of water, polluters and
conservers of the aquatic environment, the challenge of sustainable management and planning grows, as
does the seriousness of the outcome, but there are far fewer means of tackling that task” (Newson,
1997:315).
The use of models for catchment management can be seen as a way of sharing expertise, transferring
management strategies and exchanging knowledge gained from past mistakes. In this paper, this idea is
discussed through the use of the Murray-Darling as a model for management of the Mekong River Basin.
An important vehicle for the Murray-Darling model is an Australian overseas aid programme, the MDBCMRC Strategic Liaison Program. Significant political and cultural issues arise in relation to the transference
of management strategies from the Murray-Darling Basin to the Mekong. Another consideration is whether
the Murray-Darling model has a community participation element suited to the Mekong Region.
5
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
2. BASIN COMPARISONS
The Mekong River Basin (Figure 1) covers 795,000 sq km and includes other substantial rivers such as the
Se San and Mun Rivers. The population of the basin is in excess of 65 million people. The Mekong is the
8th largest river in the world in terms of discharge to the sea (475 billion cubic metres). With a length of
approximately 4,800 km it is the longest river in Southeast Asia and 12th longest in the world. It rises on
the Tibet Plateau (>5,000 m elevation) and empties into the sea in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The flood
peak is between July and October depending on location.
map source MDBC
The Mekong River Basin (Figure 1) comprises six biogeographic zones: Lancang River Basin; Northern
Highlands; Korat & Sakon Plateau; Eastern Highlands; Lowlands; Southern Uplands (MRC, 1997).
Vegetation types include flooded forests, mangroves and wetlands. The best known wetlands are the Great
Lake/Tonle Sap system in Cambodia and the Plain of Reeds in Vietnam. The basin is rich in biodiversity
and species estimates are no doubt conservative as much scientific investigation still needs to be done.
There are more than 1200 known species of fish including the Giant Catfish (Pangasinodon gigas) weighing up to 300 kg. Over 212 species of mammals inhabitat the Basin including the recently “discovered” Vu
Quang Ox (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis).
Figure 1. Mekong River Basin
Figure 2. Murray-Darling Basin
The Murray-Darling Basin (Figure 2) is, in many ways, very different. The Murray-Darling Basin covers
1,061,469 sq km and includes Australia’s three longest rivers - the Darling (2,740 km), Murray (2,530
km) and Murrumbidgee (1,690 km). The highest part of the basin is in the Great Dividing Range to the east
and south-east, where Mount Kosciuszko reaches an elevation of over 2,228 metres. The river system
discharges to the sea at Lake Alexandrina in South Australia. While the annual mean discharge of 10 billion
cubic metres is extremely low by world standards and indicative of Australia’s great variability in rainfall,
extensive flooding does occur. The population of the basin is approximately 2 million people.
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
6
The basin is an important centre of biodiversity within Australia. However, the river system is poor in fish
species by world standards. Of the 50 or so species of fish found there only 26 species are indigenous
freshwater species. Prior to European colonization there were some 85 species of mammals in the basin,
but biodiversity has since declined with 20 species of mammals becoming extinct. Wetlands abound but
most are 10 ha or less in area. Amongst the most significant are the Barmah Forest on the Murray River
and the Macquarie Marshes on a tributary of the Darling River (MDBC, 2001b).
There are other differences between the two basins. In terms of land cover, 41.5% of the Mekong watershed is covered by forest in contrast to 8% of the Murray-Darling watershed. The differences in climate
and environment are indicated by the percentage of arid areas present in each of the watersheds: 67.1% in
the case of the Murray-Darling and nearly none in the case of the Mekong River Basin (WRI, 2001). The
various interactions between land use and the fluvial systems are also important, with significant reliance on
the fluvial systems of the Mekong Basin for small-scale and subsistence agriculture, quite different to the
large-scale commercial agricultural demands on the Murray-Darling and its tributaries. There are differences in ethnicity (there appear to be well in excess of 100 ethnic/linguistic groups in the Mekong Region)
and in political conditions, and there is enormous variability in education and development levels both
between countries of the Mekong Basin and between these countries and Australia.
photo source Phil Hirsch
Nevertheless, commonalities do exist between the Murray-Darling and Mekong River Basins. Firstly, both
basins are transboundary, encompassing five states and the commonwealth in the case of the MurrayDarling and six countries in the case of the Mekong River Basin. Secondly, both basins face some common
environmental issues such as salinity, acidity, deforestation, protected area and watershed management.
Thirdly, there are common issues of upstream influence: that exercised by China in the case of the Mekong;
and that by Queensland in the case of the Murray-Darling Basin.
Site of proposed Nam Theun 2 hydropower dam in Laos. Much of the
forest in the vicinity of the dam site has already been logged,
affecting both the ecology of the watershed and the livelihood of
local villagers.
7
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
3. THE MDBC-MRC STRATEGIC LIAISON PROGRAM (JOINT COOPERATION
PROGRAMME)
The basin similarities and differences help determine how applicable the Murray-Darling Basin management
model is to the Mekong. A primary mechanism for transferring management strategies and sharing expertise is the relationship between the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) and the Mekong River
Commission (MRC). The MRC, the main Mekong River Basin management body, was modelled on
Australia’s MDBC (Arnold, 1996) and the connection between these two institutions has been developed
further through an Australian aid programme designed to enable the MRC to learn from the experiences of
the MDBC (Treasury, 1999).
The MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program
The programme is funded by AusAID and is based on an agreement between the MRC, MDBC
and AusAID. It is administered by the MDBC office in Canberra. The programme had its origins
in a review conducted by the MRC of river basin organisations around the world. This review
identified the MDBC as the most appropriate organisation for the needs of the MRC. A request
for AusAID funding ensued from development of this relationship between the MDBC and the
MRC (pers. comm. AusAID staff, 20/9/01).
Phase I (1996-1999) was exploratory and agenda-setting in its focus. The original three-year
budget was $900,000, but with additional funding the total amount was approximately $1.1million. One of the lessons learnt in this phase has been the importance of long-term person to
person networking (MDBC, 2001a). Interestingly, “good rapport” is recognized as necessary for
effective technology transfer across cultures (see box on technology transfer).
Phase II (2001- ) is more outputs focused. Its components are MRC organizational capacity,
MRC technical capacity and community awareness within the Mekong Basin. Community
awareness includes assisting and supporting a proposed Community Participation Coordinator
(a US funded position) for the MRC. The budget is $1.05million over three years (MDBC, 2000).
The first year of Phase II is more based on the needs assessment carried out in Phase I, while
the second and third years will be much more focused on MRC identified needs (pers. comm.
AusAID staff, 20/9/01).
The MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program (also known as the MDBC-MRC Joint Co-operation
Programme) is currently in its second three-year phase and is seen as a ‘twinning’ programme (pers.
comm. Peter Millington, 26/4/01) between the two river commissions. Don Blackmore (2001), chief
executive of the MDBC, regards the role of the MDBC as providing a frame of reference for catchment
management to the MRC and lending support in areas such as environmental modelling and geographical
information systems. From the perspective of the MRC the two principal objectives of the relationship are:
facilitating future exchanges and related co-operation programmes between the two river commissions; and
learning from the MDBC experiences in managing the huge river basin of the Murray and Darling Rivers
(MRC, 1996).
Phase I aimed at increasing awareness of integrated catchment management as well as facilitating knowledge sharing to increase skill levels. Increased skill levels were intended to increase the ability of the MRC
to implement its core programmes. The MDBC was not involved in any specific projects, but conducted
study tours to Australia to allow groups to look at problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, and there was a
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
8
focus on broad technical skills, such as training in hydrology modelling. This form of skill training differentiated the programme from other aid programmes conducted with the MRC, as most donors funding the
MRC tended to focus on specific projects1. The MRC (1998:7) found that the first phase “enhanced the
understanding of the role of strategic planning by observation of the approaches and impacts adopted in
MDBC”, and fully supported the continuation of the programme into its second phase.
Towards the end of Phase I, MDBC commissioners evaluated the needs of the MRC. Phase II of the
Strategic Liaison Program is based on an analysis of these perceived needs and the subsequent development of a structured programme. Phase II is constructed around capacity building within three key areas;
organisational, technical, and community engagement. There are two strands within organisational capacity
building: training at the commissioner level and training in integrated water management. The first strand
aims to raise awareness of catchment strategic management and the importance of strategic plans. In order
to do this the entire MRC Joint Committee came to Australia in mid-2001 to look at the Murray-Darling
system and how strategic planning works there, particularly with regard to community engagement. The
Joint Committee attended a meeting of the Community Advisory Council (CAC)2 and a formal MDBC
meeting. In this way the MRC would be able to see how strategic issues develop and are resolved (pers.
comm. Brian Haisman, 10/5/01).3
In order to build technical capacity, a number of programmes are being undertaken as part of Phase II of
the twinning programme. With Australia being a leader in integrated resource data development, data and
information management is an important component of Phase II. In this respect the MDBC is helping to
develop draft protocols for data sharing. Additionally, training in the development of hydrology models is
being continued from Phase I. These programmes aim to lift the skills of people who will be called upon to
advise during the course of the MRC Water Utilisation Programme (WUP). (The WUP is designed to
implement key elements of the 1995 Mekong River Basin Agreement, with two major concerns being the
equitable sharing of water resources, with the development of rules for water usage, and the sustainable
development of the Mekong River Basin (MRC, 2000)). This process is intended to empower decision
makers for the WUP. In conjunction with these training programmes, courses for senior decision makers in
interpreting hydrology models and understanding the increasing levels of technical information are occurring. AusAID is funding an Australian sourced basin-planner to work for the MRC for three years, as part
of technical capacity building. This will be tied into the twinning programme by a sub-basin study tour of the
Murray-Darling to be run in 2002 and led by the basin-planner (pers. comm. Brian Haisman, 10/5/01).
The third component of capacity building relates to community engagement. According to Haisman (pers.
comm. Brian Haisman, 10/5/01) the MRC is currently looking for an NGO partner to assist in community
engagement. Once an alignment between an NGO and the MRC exists, a small party will be brought to
Australia where a workshop will be run to formulate plans for the next two years.
4. QUESTIONING THE MURRAY-DARLING AGREEMENT AS A MANAGEMENT MODEL
The key document with regards to management of the Murray-Darling Basin is the 1992 Murray-Darling
Agreement. The aim of this agreement is “to promote and co-ordinate effective planning and management
for the equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of water, land and other environmental resources of the
Murray-Darling basin” (MDBC, 1992). The most binding aspects of the 1992 Murray-Darling Agreement
relate to water sharing and the equitable provision of water for irrigation, whereas clauses relating to environmental concerns are mostly loosely worded and voluntary in nature (Blanch and Holden, 2001).
Blanch and Holden’s primary criticism of the 1992 Murray-Darling Agreement is its lack of ecological
basis and the subsequent inadequacy of the agreement for rehabilitating the basin’s aquatic and terrestrial
9
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
ecosystems. Another point of concern is that the 1992 Murray-Darling Agreement pre-dates the emergence of a number of important environment protocols and agreements such as Agenda 21 and the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development. Blanch (2001) explains that there has been no review of the
1992 Agreement so as to incorporate the protocols central to these concepts and agreements. The lack of
specific reference, unlike legislation that has emerged since the mid-1990s, to concepts such as the precautionary principle, and inter and intra generational equality, is an important concern (Blanch & Holden,
2001).
Given the complexity and diversity of the Mekong Basin ecosystems, this then calls into question whether
the Murray-Darling Agreement, if it is unable to deal with the ecological issues in the basin it is designed
for, can work effectively as a model for management of the Mekong Basin. However, while no review of
the 1992 Agreement has occurred, there are significant attempts to include the concept of ecological
sustainability in management plans for the future. For example, the Draft Plan for Integrated Catchment
Management in the Murray-Darling Basin 2001-2010 has the primary aim of committing both the
government and the community “to do all that needs to be done to manage and use the resources of the
Basin in a way that is ecologically sustainable” (MDBC MC, 2000:3).
5. CONCERNS OVER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, IN PARTICULAR THE
TRANSFERENCE OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Concerns have emerged about the MRC-MDBC relationship and the transfer of management strategies
from the Murray-Darling to the Mekong. How applicable is the Murray-Darling model to the Mekong?
What is the ability of the MRC to acquire, assimilate and apply the model effectively? Sharp differences in
ecology and socio-economic conditions have been shown to exist between the two basins and shortcomings in the Murray-Darling Agreement have been pointed out.
Technology Transfer
What is meant by technology transfer?
More & Irwin (1995:150) define technology transfer as “…the process of promoting technical
innovation through the transfer of ideas, knowledge, devices and artefacts…” However, it is
important to consider organizational forms, processes and challenges in addition to technology
transfer in the more restrictive sense. Management strategies are therefore an aspect of technology transfer.
What are the cultural concerns about technology transfer?
Scheraga et al. (2000:2) note the poor state of research on cultural issues of technology transfer: “There has ..... been relatively little investigation into implementation mechanisms that
facilitate technology transfer in an environment in which cultural factors exert a significant
influence.” Clearly there are significant cultural differences between Australia and the Mekong.
The effectiveness of technology transfer across cultures depends on a number of factors:
• Good rapport. It is important to have good rapport between “technology dealmakers”. For
example, negotiation and personal relationships have played a crucially important role in successful technology transfer between the US and China (Scheraga et al., 2000).
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
10
• Informal know-how. The transmission of tacit skills and expertises - the indefinable knowledge aspect of technology, the informal know-how of technology users - can be a problem in
technology transfer. Compared to codified and standardised technologies, tacit knowledge is
especially hard to transfer. The greater the cultural differences between parties to technology
transfer, the greater the problems likely to arise (Scheraga et al., 2000; Bou-Wen & Berg,
2001).
• Nature of technology. Regarding the nature of the technology being transferred, Bou-Wen &
Berg (2001:2-3) state: “Some types of technology are very difficult to transfer. For example, a
complex or system technology may need a longer time, more technical people, and higher
capital investment.”
5.1 Political and cultural issues of technology transfer to the Mekong
For Gillbank (1999) there are a number of cultural and political issues arising from technology transfer to
the Mekong. In the first place, the MDBC is inexperienced in modelling for a river system (the Mekong)
serving a large peasant population. Secondly, the MDBC lacks experience in international relations and
interstate dispute resolution. It is already struggling to resolve water disputes between Australian states, let
alone deal with disputes between the very different nation-states of the Mekong. The Mekong states have
much less stable relationships with each other than do the states of the MDB. There are power imbalances
and potential for political and military conflict among them. And finally Gillbank suggests that Australian
technological experts are poorly educated in Mekong politics.
In his thesis on river basin management, Chenoweth (2000) states that there are significant organisational
differences between the MDBC and MRC (see Figures 3 & 4). While both basin authorities are under the
control of political bodies and acknowledge the political nature of their decision-making processes, decision-making in the Mekong River Basin is hampered by the relative newness of the basin authority and by
inadequate data and information exchange. According to staff within AusAID, the MRC has a very ambitious agenda but its staff still tend to wear their (country) jurisdictional hats, which means that they have
trouble thinking in a basin-wide context. Data and information exchange are poor in two senses. There is
poor supply and presentation of technical data and information to political decision-makers, and there is
insufficient sharing and discussion by the political decision-makers of any information that is supplied
(Chenoweth, 2000). Technical data and information supplied to top-level (political) decision-makers in the
MRC “…lacks the required certainty it needs if it is to be used as the basis for taking difficult
decisions.”(Chenoweth, 2000:292)
Clearly technology transfer cannot occur in a political and cultural void. Australian consultants travelling to,
and working in, the Mekong Region need to be equipped with not only technical knowledge but also an
understanding of the political and cultural conditions of the Mekong. A key concern of Gillbank (1999) is
that Australian technological experts were sent to the Mekong with little training or briefing on the complex
political circumstances of the countries they were to work in. Another concern is that a development
approach based purely on technology ignores the power imbalances between the various stakeholders of
the Mekong Basin (Hinton, 1996). Hinton (1996:54) finds that the “power dimension” of stakeholder
inclusion can be downplayed in the use of water management models, with stakeholders being recognised
but not their varying capacity to be involved. One way in which imbalances exist is in the different development levels of the Mekong countries. The present phase of the MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program is
attempting to address this form of inequality between nations. This is to be done through country-bycountry training, in particular aimed at lifting the skill levels of Laos and Cambodia (pers. comm. Brian
Haisman, 10/5/01).
11
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
Ministerial
Council
Community
Advisory
Committee
Murray-Darling
Basin Commission
Office
Figure 3.
Murray-Darling Basin
Commission
Organisational structure of MDBC
MDBC subcommittees and
working groups
Council
Figure 4.
Organisational structure of MRC
Joint Committee
National
Mekong
Committee
MRC subcommittees
MRC Secretariat
5.2 The politics of water
As politics is inherent in international water management, Australians who are involved in the Mekong need
to understand not only the physical nature of the Mekong Basin, but also the complex political situation
there.4 While Australia’s expertise in managing its rivers may be highly respected internationally (Hill,
2000), those involved also need to be able to negotiate the politics of international water management.
The political geography of the two basins differs dramatically. There is a long history of conflict among the
six countries of the Mekong Basin and, despite recent co-operation and lessening of tension, there is still
some incompatability in natural resource management (Hirsch and Cheong, 1996). Indeed, this history of
tension means that the potential for serious conflict between parties is much greater between the nation
members of the MRC than the state partners of the MDBC (Gillbank, 1999).
In both the Mekong River and the Murray-Darling River Basins there are six parties involved in management. Whilst this allows parallels to be drawn, the nature and interactions of the parties result in very
different political situations. The MDBC comprises five states and the federal government, whereas the
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
12
MRC is comprised of only four (Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) of the six nations of the basin.
China and Burma are not presently signatories to the Mekong Agreement or members of the MRC. As a
result of this, the upper Mekong countries of Burma and China are not required to provide plans for developments on the Mekong River or its tributaries, or provide any data concerning the basin, such as water
quality, rainfall levels, and flooding (Gillbank, 1999). China plays a particularly important role in this respect. China contains half of the length of the Mekong and, as the upstream country, any of its development
projects, such as dams and water diversion, will have significant downstream impacts.
Mekong River Basin Agreement - officially known as “Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin”
This agreement, signed on 5 April, 1995 between the governments of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, and replacing an earlier agreement, is for the purpose of sustainable management of the Mekong River Basin. The MRC is the international body overseeing cooperation
among the four riparian states.
Its objectives are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
cooperation in various fields of water resource management
engagement in projects, programs and planning
environmental protection
respect for sovereign equality and territorial integrity
utilisation of water in a reasonable and equitable manner
maintenance of mainstream flows
prevention of harmful effects and where they occur the recognition of mutual responsibility
between states
• maintenance of freedom of navigation
The Agreement has a number of limitations. The absence of the upstream states of China and
Burma from the Agreement has potentially crucial effects on downstream states, in particular
Cambodia and Vietnam. There was no clear definition of sustainable development at the time of
signing the Agreement and there are few mechanisms in the Agreement to provide for environmental protection (Nguyen, 2001). The Agreement allows countries unilaterally to undertake
projects involving major tributaries and mainstream diversion without approval from other
Mekong states (Weatherbee, 1997). The Agreement only provides a framework for maintenance of mainstream flows and equitable allocation of water; the procedural details, which are
the responsibility of the MRC, still have to be resolved by that organisation (Browder and
Ortolano, 2000).
Finally, Bui Kim Chi (1996) suggests that differences between the two basins in terms of their legal regimes
and political conditions give serious reason for caution in applying the Australian model to the Mekong. If
the management strategies for the Mekong Basin are to be based on a model of another basin, then this
model needs to integrate factors such as political and military conflict. Hinton (1996) explains that the
model of river management developed in Australia is based on “relative political stability and cultural
homogeneity” and is concerned about its implementation in a culturally and politically diverse region such as
the Mekong.
13
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
One strand of the current phase of the MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program is concerned with community awareness capacity building. A study tour component was organised for the MRC Joint Committee to
come to Australia in mid-2001 and observe the operations of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
photo source Fiona Miller
The visit to the CAC by the MRC suggests that the CAC is viewed as an appropriate model of public
participation in river basin management. There is an underlying assumption that some form of community
parallel exists. Not only are there significant differences between the basins, but trying to define a ‘community’ within each basin is also very complex. The idea of basin ‘community’ is difficult enough to conceptualise in Australia where a common language and nationality across the Murray-Darling Basin provides
some form of linkage between different actors. The notion of a ‘community’ of the Mekong Basin is many
times more difficult to define given the enormous differences in languages, cultures and national civil societies there.
Annual Khmer boat festival at Soc Trang, Vietnam. While this is a
spectacular example of a community ritual on the Mekong, it is of a very
different order from the notion of a Mekong Basin community.
Tim Fisher5 (in Gillbank, 1999) believes that as a community representative mechanism, the CAC in the
Murray-Darling Basin has been very successful. One of the key points that Fisher raises is that the CAC
has scope beyond only responding to decisions being made. The CAC has the ability to raise its own
concerns with regard to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and the functioning of the MDBC.
However, Chenoweth and Bird (1999), while acknowledging that the MDBC has put in place a number of
mechanisms aimed at facilitating community involvement, find that significant issues remain over public
participation in the Murray-Darling Basin. A 1999 MDBC evaluation of the effectiveness of community
communication (in Chenoweth and Bird, 1999) found that a number of basin resource users and other
respondents felt that they were not being given the opportunity to input into the MDBC’s agenda, and that
the level of participation was often limited to endorsement of decisions already made. The point this raises
is that effective community engagement and participation are difficult even within a basin with a common
language and quite high educational levels (Chenoweth and Bird, 1999).
Extrapolating from these points, what emerges is a question of whether the community communication
mechanisms employed by the MDBC can work as a model for community engagement in the Mekong
Basin, given the language barriers, the significantly larger population and the disparate education level
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
14
between countries. The CAC appears to be a moderately (if not more so) successful form of community
engagement for the MDBC. However, it serves a population approximately 30 times smaller than that of
the Mekong Basin6; moreover, this is a population which is relatively well educated and which speaks a
common language.
The MDBC has extensive experience with community engagement and participation, and while the model
of community involvement utilised in the Murray-Darling Basin may not be directly applicable to the
Mekong Basin, the concept of community engagement is. That is, the participatory approach of the
MDBC is found to be highly relevant to the Mekong Basin (Hirsch and Cheong, 1996) provided it is
adapted to suit local socio-economic conditions. In this way the sharing of experiences may be useful to the
MRC and the Mekong Basin provided that all community engagement mechanisms adopted are adapted to
the contexts of the Mekong Basin.
7. FISH DIVERSITY AND USES
While much has been discussed with regard to the political and cultural aspects of basin management
model transfer, ecological aspects are of equal importance. Differing levels of biodiversity between the
Murray-Darling and Mekong Basins impact upon management strategies. Over 1200 species of fish are
indigenous to the Mekong River and its tributaries (Osborne, 2000) in contrast to the 26 native species that
complete their lifecycle in the Murray-Darling Basin (Crabb, 1997). The sharp differences in aquatic
biodiversity suggest different management approaches for the two basins. A management strategy that may
(or may not) be effective in Australia is designed to accommodate the Australian levels of fish biodiversity
and not the vastly larger fish diversity that exists in the Mekong Basin.
Decline in fish numbers since European settlement in the Murray-Darling Basin is attributed to a number of
factors including flow reduction, reduction in water quality and barriers to fish migration (Crabb, 1997).
River regulation, especially for the provision of water for irrigation, is a major part of water management.
This entails the development of barriers such as weirs and dams. In 1997 there were 2,900 barriers to fish
movement in the Murray-Darling Basin, only 22 of which had fishways (Crabb, 1997). However, the
provision of fish passages does not necessarily mitigate the impacts of river regulation on fish populations,
as in many cases the fishways put in place are inappropriate for the species present. The fishways introduced are designed for European waterways and Australian fish are often unable to navigate them. Nonetheless, from this experience and other such experiences in the management of the Murray-Darling lessons
in river management can be learnt. One of the goals of the current strategic liaison between the MDBC and
the MRC is to enable the Mekong countries to avoid the environmental problems experienced by Australia
in the Murray-Darling Basin (Downer, 1997).
Of equal importance are the vastly different roles that fish play in the lives of inhabitants of each basin. Fish
and fish products constitute the main source of animal protein in people’s diet within the Mekong Basin
(Mekong Secretariat, 1992). Moreover, fish and fisheries are often an important part of subsistence farming, providing both food and additional income. Basin management strategies need to take on board the
roles that different factors play in the lives of their basin’s inhabitants, in this case incorporating the vital role
of fish and minimising the detrimental impact river development could have on fish habitats and migration.
15
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
photo source MDBC
photo source MDBC
Weir in the Murray-Darling Basin.
photo source Simon Bush
photo source Simon Bush
Murray Cod in fisher’s arms.
A fermented fish sauce common to southern
Laos. The fish migrates up river around full
moons and is extremely important in the
local diet.
Fish trader at Long Xuyen markets,
Vietnam.
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
photo source Phil Hirsch
photo source Simon Bush
Fishing at the Khone falls, southern
Laos. A dominant view of the falls has
been to see them as a barrier to
navigation rather than a means to local
livelihood.
Raising fingerlings in a pond at Kaengpho, Pakse,
Laos.
16
8. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The Draft Plan for Integrated Catchment Management in the Murray-Darling Basin 2001-2010
illustrates that there has been an acknowledgement from the MDBC that change is needed in its management strategies if ecologically sustainable management is to occur. The plan states a “need to radically
change the management and use of Basin resources in order to maintain healthy ecosystems and productive
land use…The way forward requires changes in land use, changes in management practices, and changes
in the way governments and communities work together” (MDB MC, 2000:1). The emergence of a longterm outlook is promising for successful basin management, with the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial
Council (2000) admitting that the problems faced within the Murray-Darling Basin will not be solved over
the next decade. The recognition of past mistakes should be incorporated into the MDBC-MRC Strategic
Liaison Program. In this way Australian experiences of mis-management may help to prevent similar
mistakes being made in the Mekong Basin. However, there remains some doubt as to the ability of the
MRC to acquire, assimilate and apply the Murray-Darling catchment management model effectively.
The MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program is just one example of Australia’s involvement in the Mekong
Region. There are other Mekong-focussed AusAID programmes7 and there is private investment in the
region. Simon (2000) raises the concern that this form of relationship between Australia and the countries
of the Mekong may mean steering them down a specific development path. Problems that have occurred in
places such as the Murray-Darling will be mirrored in the Mekong if Australia is not extremely careful in its
approach. There is an underlying assumption that rivers need to be managed in a specific way. It is important to realise that there is more than one way of managing a river and multiple discourses exist. The way
that the Mekong River and its tributaries are perceived depends upon the position of the viewer, which in
turn influences management strategies. Indigenous peoples have been managing the Mekong River and
tributaries for a very long time indeed and their management methods should receive an equal hearing to
the more dominant management discourses. As Hirsch and Cheong (1996) note, although Australia has
both technical and institutional expertise that can be utilised in assisting basin management, it is important
that the Australian experience is adapted to the specific ecological and cultural conditions of the Mekong
Basin.
This paper has only been able to touch very briefly on some of the issues to do with the transfer of basin
management strategies. There are many issues which have not been discussed. For instance: What are the
political and economic motivations behind Australia’s involvement in the Mekong? How tied to Australian
contractors/consultants is the MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program, and how are contractors/consultants tendered? Are the MRC recipients of the MDBC model being exposed to a range of basin management experiences, reflecting ongoing debates and negotiated approaches, or are they being presented with
a fairly unproblematic “one right way” package? There are also issues to do with technology transfer,
raised in the box on pages 10-11, which could be explored more fully.
In terms of capacity building, the MDBC, through its extensive experience in basin management, is able to
provide some valuable assistance to the MRC. But this experience needs to be adapted to the very different and specific socio-economic, political and ecological conditions of the Mekong River Basin. While the
Murray-Darling may not provide an entirely applicable model for the Mekong River Basin, there are
significant experiences that can be shared by the MDBC. What may be transferable are certain underlying
concepts considered vital for effective catchment management. Principal among these are the concepts of
active community involvement and equal consideration of the ecological, socio-economic and political
issues that relate to the specific catchment.
17
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
NOTES
1Pers. comm. Peter Millington, 26/4/01. Peter Millington was previously head of the Land and Water
Department NSW and commissioner to the MDBC. He was in charge of Phase I of the MDBC-MRC
Joint Co-operation Programme and at the time of the interview was an international water consultant for
the MRC on its Water Utilisation Programme.
2 The CAC was established in 1986 by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. Its role is to obtain
community viewpoints, provide representation for community interests and inform the public of MDBC
decisions and actions.
3 Brian Haisman of the MDBC was jointly in charge of Phase II of the MDBC-MRC Joint Co-operation
Programme at the time of the interview.
4 Gillbank (1999) finds that many of the decisions made by the MRC are ultimately political. The MRC
has been perceived as a promoter of large dams and water diversion schemes (Hirsch and Cheong,
1996), and its management strategies appear to accord with this development agenda. Equally, the
Mekong River and its tributaries are seen as important resources for national income generation and economic growth, especially through hydropower. See Hirsch (1996) for discussion on the politics of
hydropower.
5 Tim Fisher of the Australian Conservation Foundation was a member on the MDBC CAC.
6 The population densities of the Murray Darling and Mekong River Basins are approximately 2 people
per km2 over 1,050,111km2 and 71 people per km2 over 805,604km2 respectively (World Resources
Institute, 2001).
7 AusAID is funding a project focused on water flow in the Mekong River to assist with the hydrological
data network project. AusAID is funding the establishment of 15 stations throughout the Mekong Basin.
One of the aims of the project is to assist the sharing of hydrological data. This project is interlaced with the
MDBC-MRC Strategic Liaison Program (pers. comm. AusAID staff, 20/9/01).
REFERENCES
Arnold, A. 1996 Managing the Mekong, Background Briefing, Radio National, 3 November 1996,
accessed on 17/4/01 at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s10623.htm
Blackmore, D. 2001 interview in Watershed, 6(3), pp 21-23
Blanch, S. 2001 Catchment Management lecture notes, Sydney University, 8/5/01
Blanch, S. & Holden, T. 2001 Backwards looking, downhill going: A critique of the Murray-Darling
Basin Agreement 1992, presented by Stuart Blanch at the 3rd Australasian Natural Resources Law
and Policy Conference (Focus on Water), 22 March 2001, Adelaide, Australia
Born, S. 2000 Emerging trends and innovations in institutional arrangements, Keynote Address
given at Riversymposium 2000, Brisbane
Bou-Wen, L. & Berg, D. 2001 Effects of cultural difference on technology transfer projects: an empirical
study of Taiwanese manufacturing companies, International Journal of Project Management,
19(5), pp 287-293
Browder, G. & Ortolano, L. 2000 The evolution of an international water resources management regime in
the Mekong River Basin, Natural Resources Journal, 40, pp499-531
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
18
Bui Kim Chi 1996 Legal Regimes of the Mekong and the Murray-Darling: A Comparison, in Stensholt, B.
(ed) Development Dilemmas in the Mekong Subregion: Workshop Proceedings, 1-2 October
1996
Chenoweth, J. 2000 Data and Information exchange in multijurisdictional river basins: an evalution
of procedures, abstract of PhD dissertation of same name, accessed on 3/4/01 at http://
jchenoweth.xoasis.com/outline.html
Chenoweth, J 2000 Data and information exchange in multi-jurisdictional river basins: an
evaluation of procedures, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne
Chenoweth, J. & Bird, J. 1999 Public participation in multi-jurisdictional river basins: the MurrayDarling and Mekong River Basins, presented at the Xth World Water Conference, 11-17 March
2000, Melbourne, Australia, accessed on 3/4/01 at http://www.iwra.siu.edu/pdf/Chenoweth.pdf
Crabb, P. 1997 Murray-Darling Basin Resources, MDBC, Canberra
Downer, A. 1997 The Mekong Basin – Poised for takeoff? Address by The Hon Alexander Downer,
MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Australian Institute for International Affairs, Canberra, 19
June 1997, accessed on 28/5/01 at http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/foreign/1997/
mekong.html
Gillbank, M. 1999 The strategic liaison between the MDBC and the MRC, report to AID/WATCH,
Sydney, May 1999
Hill, R. 2000 Australia’s approach to global environmental issues, Address by Senator Robert Hill,
Minister for the Environment, to the Foreign Correspondents Association, Sydney, May 5 2000,
accessed on 3/4/01 at http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/env/2000/sp5may200.html
Hinton, P. 1996 Is it possible to ‘manage’ a river? Reflections from the Mekong, in Stensholt, B. (ed)
Development Dilemmas in the Mekong Subregion: Workshop Proceedings, 1-2 October 1996
Hirsch, P. 1996 Large dams, restructuring and regional integration in Southeast Asia, Asia Pacific
Viewpoint, 37(1), pp1-20
Hirsch, P. & Cheong, G. 1996 Natural Resource Management in the Mekong River Basin:
Perspectives for Australian Development Cooperation, report to AusAID, 2 April 1996
Mekong River Commission (MRC) 1996 Annual Report 1996: Towards Sustainable Development,
MRC, accessed on 3/4/01 at http://www.mekonginfo.org/mrc_en/doclib.nsf/0/
F231C88E24B804C0825663D00560097/$FILE/FULLTEXT.HTML
Mekong River Commission (MRC) 1997 Mekong River Basin Diagnostic Study: Final Report, MRC,
Bangkok
Mekong River Commission (MRC) 1998 Mekong News, MRC, December 1998
Mekong River Commission (MRC) 2000 MRC Work Programme 2001: Towards a Programme
Approach, MRC, October 2000
Mekong Secretariat 1992 Fisheries in the Lower Mekong Basin, Bangkok, Mekong Secretariat, pp 929
More, E. & Irwin, H. 1995 Technology transfer: technocultures, power and communication – the
Australian experience, in Journal of Information Science, 21(3), pp 149-159
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) 2000 Murray-Darling Basin Commission and Mekong
River Commission: Strategic Liaison Program – Project Design for Extension of the Program
and Continuing AusAID Sponsorship, November 2000
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) 2001a Project Completion Report: Murray-Darling Basin
Commission and Mekong River Commission – Strategic Liaison Program Phase I: 1996-1999,
July 2001
19
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) 2001b, accessed on 10/9/01 at www.mdbc.gov.au/index
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) 2002 The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, synopsis
online at http://www.mdbc.gov.au/about/governance/agreement.htm
Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDB MC) 2000 Draft Integrated Catchment Management
in the Murray-Darling Basin 2001-2010: Delivering a sustainable future, MDBC, Canberra
Newson, M. 1997 Land, Water and Development, Routledge, London & New York
Nguyen Van Duyen, 2001 Adequacy of Environmental Protection Mechanisms of the Mekong River
Basin Agreement, paper presented at AMRC Mekong Discussion Group Seminar on 23 March
2001
Osborne, M. 2000 The Mekong River, Ockhams Razor, Radio National, 13 August 2000, accessed on
28/8/00 at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s162033.htm
Scheraga, C. et al. 2000 Lead users and technology transfer to less-developed countries: analysis, with an
application to Haiti, Technology in Society, 22(3), pp 415-425
Simon, M. 2000 Let the Rivers Flow, Horizons, Community Aid Abroad, April 2000, accessed on 17/04/
01 at http://www.caa.org.au/horizons/april_2000/rivers.html
Treasury 1998 Chapter 5: Inland Rivers, 1998-1999 Commonwealth Budget, accessed on 22/05/01 at
http://www.treasury.gov.au/publications/CommonwealthBudget/1998-99/environ/CH5.pdf
Weatherbee, D. 1997 Cooperation and conflict in the Mekong River Basin, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism, 20, pp167-184
World Resources Institute (WRI) 2001 Major Watersheds of the World, World Resources 2000-2001,
accessed on 11/12/01 athttp://earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/
index.cfm?theme=2&CFID=42043&CFTOKEN=20181393
AMRC Working Paper No. 5
20