Programme OS5c Major international
rivers abstract 87
Transboundary Water Cooperation and the Regional Public Good: The
Case of the Mekong River
Author(s): Oliver Hensengerth
Address:
University of Duisburg-Essen
Institute
for Development and Peace (INEF)
Geibelstrasse 41
47057 Duisburg
Germany
Email:
ohensengerth@inef.uni-due.de
Tel.: +49-203-379-4424
Fax: +49-203-379-4425
Keyword(s): transboundary river cooperation and conflict, regional governance, regional
public good
Article:
Poster:
Session: OS5c Major international
rivers
Abstract An increasing
number of water-based cooperation projects have emerged in mainland Southeast Asia since the conclusion of the
Cambodia conflict in 1991, which ended the Cold War in East Asia. Three of these projects have been well
publicised and have attracted a lot of international attention as to the quick development of the economies in the
Mekong region: the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) of 1992, the Mekong River Commission (MRC) of 1995
and the Quadripartite Economic Cooperation (QEC) or Golden Quadrangle of 2001.
These three
programmes share a number of characteristics, but they also divert in crucial points. The most obvious common
feature is that all three projects involve several countries and are based on the Mekong River. They are therefore
transboundary projects based on a transboundary river. The most striking difference is that the MRC is based on an
extra-regional initiative, which brought the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) to
mainland Southeast Asia and with it ideas of economic development that takes into consideration environmental
impacts. However, the IWRM agenda of the MRC is far from being implemented. It could thus be argued that the
MRC is a failed attempt of Mekong cooperation due to the fact that its founding initiative did not come from the
region and incorporates development concepts that stem from European governance ideals. However, looking at the
QEC and GMS, both initiatives came from the region and do not include ideas of environmental protection, but are
designed to achieve unrestrained economic development. Interestingly, however, while the GMS thrives, the QEC
failed owing to escalating conflicts between member countries on the central government and civil society levels and
Thailand’s withdrawal from the project in 2003.
This presentation looks at the commonalities and differences
of all three of the projects and analyses the reasons for failure or success. The following parameters will be analysed:
• the institutional structure from a multi-level governance perspective;
• the rationale and agenda on which the
project is based;
• the internal or external origin of the initiative for establishment.
Looking at these
parameters shall bring answers to the following questions: why are some projects successful, others not? What are
the factors that impede or facilitate cooperation? What lessons can be learned for effective sustainable river
cooperation in mainland Southeast Asia, in which compromises can be negotiated to fulfil the interests of actors on
multiple levels: non-state (farmers, river-side communities); local (provincial governments); central (central
government).
The presentation follows the argument that three factors need to be in place for water
cooperation to be effective in mainland Southeast Asia, that is, to produce a regional public good:
• home-grown
initiatives, which produce agendas that stem directly from regional concerns and governance experience and are
therefore grounded in the political culture of the area;
• a civil society that represents the interests of communities
affected by water construction projects and is able to negotiate compromises with government agencies within multi-
level governance structures for the project to move on instead of failing (QEC) or lingering (MRC);
• trust
between national governments to negotiate compromises on the national level for the project to move on instead of
failing (QEC) or lingering (MRC).