The Mekong River Basin is one of the world’s
greatest river systems, with a system of biodiversity second only to the
richness of the Amazon. The Mekong River flows through six countries: from the
Tibetan Plateau, through the Yunnan Province of China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam.
Sustainable development and climate change
mitigation initiatives are overriding concerns. The natural potential of the
Mekong ecosystem is enormous, holding important implications for the prolonged progress
of water, food, and energy security. And, evidently, the water, energy, and
food sectors are invariably connected to the health and appropriate management
of the Mekong ecosystem. Climate change is not a mere threat in the Mekong
Basin: changes in temperature, rainfall, river flow, and flooding affect
agriculture and fisheries, and thus food scarcity. 60 million people living in
the Lower Mekong Basin rely on the river’s natural resources for their
livelihoods; the impact of unmitigated climate change would be devastating, and
in most cases irreversible.
The European Union
Initially, European involvement in the region was
mostly based on poverty alleviation, support for uprooted people, and
developmental aid. However, and especially with the rise of Thailand - the only
somewhat functional democracy in the region - in wealth and regional prepotency
in mainland Southeast Asia, the last
decade of EU involvement has been centered on climate change, environmental
action, and sustainable development. Of course, this does not discount the
substantial developmental aid from EuropeAID Development Coordination
Instrument; Laos and Cambodia remain very poor countries, where social turmoil
and scarcity have hindered economic and political development. But it is the natural
wealth of the Mekong River Basin that has particularly driven EU strategic
concerns in the region.
Sustainable development is the cornerstone of
the Europa 2020 Strategy, Europe’s own roadmap for growth. In regards to
external action, the green factor remains equally central. In the wake of an
increasingly multi-polar world where the West does not play King, the European
Union has capitalized on climate change and sought to make herself leader in
the green movement. The greening of the EU has seeped deep into all the
institutions that crown Schuman Place in Brussels, and have fundamentally
changed the perspectives and priorities of Europe in the world. In light of
this, mainland Southeast Asia presents a platform on which to test the
potential of sustainable development for economic and political growth.
European action in the Mekong River Basin follows the appropriation of a ‘new’
culture towards external affairs; the EU Green Diplomacy Network initiative
seeks to foster integration of environmental objectives at a local and regional
level, and as such promote an effective and sustainable approach to emerging
issues.
The Regimes of the
Mekong River Basin
To best present a complete picture of the
different organizational approaches to the regional management of the Mekong
Basin, I will look at three regimes: the Mekong River Commission (MRC), ASEAN,
and the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Environment Operations Center.
Mekong River
Commission was
established in the 1995 Mekong Agreement between Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and
Vietnam. The MRC’s vision for the River Basin is “an
economically prosperous, socially just and environmentally sound Mekong River
Basin.” Their mission is to “promote and coordinate sustainable management and
development of water and related resources for the countries’ mutual benefit
and the people’s well-being.” To
achieve these goals, the MRC has developed several large-scale projects for
sustainable development and management of natural resources.
The priorities
of the MRC are parallel to those discussed in the analysis of the EU’s
objectives in the region. This is clearly demonstrated in the two new
strategies endorsed by the MRC in 2011: the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, and the
Integrated Water and Related Resources Management (IWRM-Basin Development
Strategy). The Strategic Plan outlines three key objectives: efficiency
(defined as an attempt to maximize the economic and social welfare derived from
water resources and investments in water service provision), equity (allocation
of water resources and services across different economic and social groups),
and sustainability (of the water resource based and associated ecosystems). The
IWRM establishes clear procedures for basin management in light of these three
strategic objectives. Opportunities for hydropower development and expansion of
irrigated agricultural production to increase food security (discussed with
careful consideration for Delta saline intrusion and cooperation with other MRC
countries in the operation of existing and planned storage dams) are assessed
for associated environmental risks. Water resources are to be managed at a
national and basin level, with rigorous basin-wide environmental and social
objectives and baseline indicators defined. The strategy outlines a clear
roadmap, setting out priority actions and timeframes for implementation.
Paramount amongst the numbered priorities is the acquiring of essential
knowledge on changes in biodiversity (such as the migration and adaptation of
fish, as well as the trapping and transport of sediment and nutrients), and
social and livelihood impacts. The roadmap is to be implemented at both levels:
with a regional action plan and four complementary national indicative plans.
ASEAN is the most globally cohesive of
the regimes in the Mekong Basin. The ten member nations - Brunei Darussalam, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam – adhere to a legally
binding charter, which establishes a community based on three pillars:
security, the economy and socio-cultural issues. ASEAN is primarily a trade
driven body, but subregional development initiatives focus on climate change,
energy security, and environmental issues.
GMS Program was initiated in 1992 in order to
facilitate planning and promotion of subregional economic development. In
comparison with the MRC, the GMS Program lacks a formal organization or
institution; rather it is guided by a general set of guidelines and principles.
What is of interest in the structural organization of the GMS Program, and why
it represents a divergence from the other regimes active in the Mekong Basin,
is the manner in which the GMS approaches problems. The GMS employs
activity-based initiatives to secure
reforms, contrasting with the rules-based approach of many regional
institutions (think ASEAN and the projects of the WTO). As an example, the GMS
Environment Operation Center provides a platform for engagement on key
environmental issues at all levels: multi-country and multi-sector. The aim of
a greener Greater Mekong Subregion - to reconcile
“rapid development pressures with the need to protect the valuable biodiversity
and ecosystems of the subregion” – is met through planned programs and
activies; strategic environmental and environmental performance assessments
conducted by partner learning institutions and employed scientists, as well as
biodiversity conservation initiatives. The development and testing of spatial
decision and capacity building support tools in program activities serves to
foster a growing awareness for the usefulness and contribution of technological
progress to the area. A particularly successful initiative in this regard has
been the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the area.
Funding and Aid
Concrete funding from the European Union in the
region is delivered in two ways: on a bilateral basis by individual European
member states, and through the European Commission. Note that taken together,
the EU provides 55% of the world’s development assistance. The EU has close
ties with ASEAN, but is not counted amongst the development partners and
partner organizations of the MRC. Of the European member states, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden
provide the MRC with technical and financial collaboration through their bilateral and multilateral development and financial
institutions.
In accordance with EU interests in the Mekong
Basin, the large majority (a tabulated 84% as presented by EuroStat) of
on-going projects in the region fall under the umbrella of environment policy
and know-how cooperation. Collaboration from Japan and the UN similarly centers
on intelligence based development of the Mekong natural resources. In fact, it
is a network of Japanese universities that provides the technical support for
the water quality management of the Mekong River under the MRC.
As was mentioned before, collaboration with
ASEAN is fundamentally centered around economic development and trade concerns.
The 2007 Nuremberg Declaration on an EU-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership, which
establishes a roadmap for collaboration priorities amongst the two powers, utilized
the Trans Regional EU-ASEAN Trade Initiative (TREATI) to foster economic
cooperation in regards to negotiation and implantation of FTA and in particular
the realization of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. The strategic
objectives of the Nuremberg Declaration, however, highlight the need for both
sides to work together to address environmental issues, notable among them
water and energy security, as well as climate change mitigation.
Global Significance
The actions taken in the Mekong River Basin
have global significance. Climate change and water
management are critical issues of the 21st century; the initiatives
undertaken can serve as templates for subsequent planning and promotion of
subregional development. Furthermore, the regional commitment displayed by the
MRC member nations – Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam – indicates the
resolve and willingness of developing nations to set principles and implement a
system of accountability and compliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment