TRANSITION FROM MEKONG COMMITTEE TO MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION

TRANSITION FROM MEKONG COMMITTEE TO MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION MIKIYASU NAKAYAMA United Graduate School of Agricultural Science Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology 3-5-8 Saiwai-cho, Fuchuu-city, Tokyo 183-8509, Japan In 1995, the Mekong River Commission replaced the former Mekong Committee established in 1957. Due to the differences in the political and societal situations the former has quite a different set of mandates from the latter. The reasons behind these changes were identified through examining the evolution of collaborative schemes among the riparian states. The findings illustrate how an international water system may be managed through collaboration among basin countries in Asia and the Pacific region. INTRODUCTION The "Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin" was signed by plenipotentiaries from Cambodia, the Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam at Chiang Rai, Thailand, in April 1995. Agreement immediately established the Mekong River Commission, which replaced the former (Interim) Mekong Committee established in 1957 by the same set of four riparian countries [1]. The political and societal situations in the Mekong River Basin in these days differ much from the same back in 1950's. Such a change has provided the Mekong River Commission with quite a different set of mandates from the former Mekong Committee. Strong and persistent minds of the basin countries to collaborate known as the "Mekong spirit" has long been highly applauded [2]. It implies that the collaboration of the basin countries in the Lower Mekong Basin should be regarded as a model by basin countries of other international water systems. Still, content of the Mekong Spirit has changed through its history. Such changes seems to reflect the fact that the manner how the international society has regarded water resources development and management has shown changes in last a few decades. This paper aims at identifying the changes observed and the reasons behind them. The findings would illustrate how an international water system may be managed, in practice, through collaboration among basin countries. MEKONG RIVER BASIN The Mekong River is an international river with six riparian countries, namely Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. It has total length 4,200 km, which is 12th. longest river of the world, with 795,000 km 2 of the catchment area and 4,750 1

million m 3 of averaged annual runoff. It is the largest international river within the South- East Asia [3]. Four riparian countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam), out of six basin countries, constitute the lower Mekong river basin. The lower Mekong basin covers 609,000 sq. km (about 77% of the Mekong's total catchment) and includes almost all of the Lao PRD and Cambodia, one third of Thailand, and two third of Vietnam [4]. The Mekong's potential for hydropower, irrigation, flood control, navigation and fishery development was immense when the Mekong Committee was established in 1950 s. It was the only large river in the world besides the Amazon, which remained virtually unexploited [5]. MEKONG COMMITTEE The Economic Council for Asia and Far East of the United Nations (ECAFE) issued a report in 1957 about the integrated development plan of the lower Mekong river basin. The representatives of the four riparian countries (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam) had a meeting in May 1957 to follow up the report by ECAFE. The "Mekong Committee" was then established [6]. The major roles of the Mekong Committee, which had its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand, were (a) to coordinate studies and develop water resources development scheme of the lower Mekong river basin, (b) to solicit technical and financial assistance on behalf of basin countries, and (c) to individually accept and manage assistances provided [7]. It was then envisaged that development and management of water resources in the Mekong river basin, for hydropower generation, irrigation and flood control, would spur socio-economic development of the basin countries and would lift the region out of poverty [8]. BASIN-WIDE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME The "Indicative Basin Plan" was suggested by the Mekong Committee in 1970. The Plan called for two-fold increase of per capita income within the area by the year 2000. For this sake, it called for (a) developing water and other related resources in the area fort the sake of hydropower generation, irrigated agriculture, fishery, industry and domestic consumption, (b) flood control and prevention of salinization, and (c) improvement of navigation [4]. The Indicative Basin Plan called for (a) 87 short-term development projects for tributaries to be implemented in 1970's, and (b) 17 long-term projects in the mainstream to be materialized through 1980's and 1990's [7]. The latter included construction of seven large-scale dams in the mainstream. Such a plan is based on an assumption that the development needs of riparian states could be met in 1970's by implementation of projects in the tributaries, while development of the mainstream is indispensable in 1980's and later for irrigation, flood control and hydropower generation. 2

The Plan estimated that 1.2 million dollar of investment was required for short and long term water resources development and associated projects. For secondary development projects, such as various industrial and agricultural schemes, 3 to 4 million dollars was supposed to be required [4]. No long-term development scheme in the mainstream has been implemented due to the political settings in mid 1970's and later [8]. INTERIM MEKONG COMMITTEE Three member states of the Mekong Committee (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam) observed the change in political regime in 1975. No session of the Committee was therefore held in the following these years. Laos, Thailand and Vietnam agreed in April 1977 to establish an interim body. The "Interim Mekong Committee" was thus established in January 1978. Cambodia's absence put limits on the activities of the Interim Mekong Committee. Some activities, such as construction of mainstream dams, were obliged to be put aside [2]. The activities of the Interim Mekong Committee was therefore confined to either studies on the possible large-scale dam construction projects in the mainstream or implementation of rather small-scale national projects mostly within Thailand.. CONFLICTS BETWEEN THAILAND AND VIETNAM Following the peace agreement elaborated by United Nations Security Council in August 1990, the peace agreement was adopted by the relevant parties in June 1991. The newly established Supreme National Council (SNC) of Cambodia asked the Interim Mekong Committee for re-activation of its membership in June 1991. A special session of the Interim Mekong Committee was held in August 1991 to readmit Cambodia and reactivate the Mekong Committee after 23 years of interval [9]. The Interim Mekong Committee organized a special session in November 1991 to discuss the draft Declaration to revive the Mekong Committee. However, basin countries failed to reach a compromise on the text of the Declaration [10]. The difference in opinions of Thailand and Vietnam, about the "basic document" for the (Interim) Mekong Committee to readmit Cambodia, was apparent even before Cambodia's asking for re-admission. There existed a "basic document" for the riparian countries. The Mekong Committee adopted in January 1975 the Joint Declaration of Principles for Utilization of the Waters of the Mekong Basin [11]. "1975 Joint Declaration", which included 35 articles, defined the water resources of the mainstream as "a resources of common interest not subject to major unilateral appropriation by any riparian state without prior approval by the other basin states" in its Article 10 [12]. The Article 20 mentioned, "Extra-basin diversion of mainstream waters by a riparian state shall require the agreement of all basin states." Each basin country was thus in practice given the "veto power" over the conduct of another country regarding diversion of waters in the mainstream. 3

In a workshop held by the Interim Mekong Committee in March 1991, a representative from Thailand mentioned "the principles enshrined in the 1975 Joint Declaration have been taken as the guidelines in the mutual co-operation between interested riparian states for already 16 years. It is high time now to review this Declaration in order to identify problems that it entails in practice." [13]. Thailand clearly wanted to have a new framework rather than "1975 Joint Declaration" to readmit Cambodia and re-start the collaborative scheme of the four riparian states. Vietnam, on the other hand, implicitly expressed its concern about the diversion of waters from the mainstream by an upstream country. A representative at the above mentioned workshop stated, "every water diversion project on the upper mainstream and major tributaries should ensure that the flow downstream in terms of quantity and quality is maintained." [14]. Vietnam wanted the "1975 Joint Declaration" to be the governing document to readmit Cambodia into the (Interim) Mekong Committee. The reason why Thailand disliked the "1975 Joint Declaration" was because it then had a plan, named Kong-Chi-Moon project, to direct water from the mainstream of the Mekong River into its Northeastern region. Thailand thus wanted to avoid the "veto power" given to other basin countries. Vietnam objected to the Kong-Chi-Moon project, for it may reduce the flow in dry season and may cause intrusion of saline water into the Mekong Delta. The position of Thailand was uncompromising. Thailand claimed to reserve the right to exploit the mainstream waters equal to the amount contributed by the tributaries in Thailand, which Thailand believed to be 12 to 16 per cent of the total flow [15] NEW MECHANISM The UNDP historically had assigned one of its carrier staff members to the post of the Executive Agent, head of the Mekong Committee. The post of "Executive Agent", head of the secretariat for the Committee, was then vacant since April 1992. The Government of Thailand, the host country of the Committee, in fact ousted the former Executive Agent, a carrier UNDP staff member. It was mainly because the former Executive Agent wished to review the Kong Chi Moon project within the framework of the Committee, on the ground that the project might reduce the flow in the lower Mekong River basin. Thailand did not want the Kong Chi Moon project "reviewed" by other member states, and accused the Executive Agent of inciting the other countries to side against Thailand. The UNDP called him back to its headquarters. The approach taken by UNDP to get through the impasse was as follows. The UNDP organized an informal meeting among the four riparian countries at Hong Kong in October 1992 [16]. The UNDP organized another informal consultation in Kuala Lumpur in December 1992. It was attended by representatives from the four basin countries and from the donor community. It was agreed that a Working Group should be established with representatives of the four riparian countries under UNDP's chairmanship to look into the future framework for cooperation. 4

Through five times of the Working Group meetings held in 1993 and 1994, the draft "Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin" was developed and was subsequently signed by plenipotentiaries in April 1995. While the new agreement puts emphasis on sustainable development of the Mekong Rive basin [17], the idea of large-scale basin-wide development scheme (as in the Indicative Basin Plan) is rather in low profile. BEHIND MOVEMENTS The changes in socio-economic and political settings observed in the riparian countries between 1960s and 1990s may explain why the Mekong Spirit was once in danger by conflict among basin countries. Thailand enjoyed the economic growth in 1980's, while other riparian countries suffered from the slack of economy owing to the changes in political regime in 1970 s. As a result, a disparity was created in socio-economic settings among riparian countries by the end of 1980's. The per-capita GDP of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam used to be 127, 70, 134 and 111 US$ in 1966, while the same in 1991 was 96, 240, 1775 and 138 US$ respectively [18]. The value of the Mekong Committee, as a mechanism to solicit funds from donors, had decreased for Thailand by then. Various mechanisms for collaboration of basin countries and funding projects emerged in the Mekong river basin in early 1990s. For example, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) launched in 1992 the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) framework, with a view to promote socio-economic development of the GMS region in various sectors such as transport, energy, tourism, telecommunication, trade and environment. Thailand and China in 1993 initiated the Quadripartie Economic Cooperation (QEC), which aimed at economic cooperation and peaceful relationship of China, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. In 1994, the ASEAN's economic ministers and Japan's MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) inaugurated the Working Group on Economic Cooperation in Indochina and Myanmar, known as AEM-MITI. Such changes were reflected in rather "stiff" attitude of Thailand during the negotiation process, in that Thailand even hinted the possibility of withdrawal from the framework of the Mekong Committee. On the other hand, the economy of Vietnam was then rather in low profile. Vietnam therefore strongly wished to become a member of the ASEAN. Another major aspect to be noted was the emergence of environmental movement in 1970s and 1980s. Thailand's decision to implement the Kong-Chi-Moon project largely stemmed from the fact that the planned large dams in the mainstream of the Mekong River Bain might not be constructed in the mainstream of the Mekong river, due to its environmental consequences. Thailand thus decided to take an "alternative" scheme to develop its Northeastern region. 5

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research carried out for this paper was partly funded by the New Research Initiatives in Humanities and Social Sciences of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). This paper is based on an earlier paper about the historical aspects of the Mekong Committee, published as [19]. REFERENCES [1] MRC, New Era of Mekong Cooperation, Annual Report 1995, Mekong River Commission (1996). [2] Mekong Secretariat, The Mekong Committee - A Historical Account, Mekong Secretariat, Bangkok, (1989). [3] Kuniyasu, N., Mekong river developmemnt after peace accord of Camboia, ATIC information, Vol. 28,(1992), pp. 70-78. [4] OECF. Indicative Basin Plan of lower Mekong river basin (I). OECF. ( 1974). [5] Kirmani, S. and Le Moigne, G, Fostering Riparian Cooperation in International River Basins, World Bank Technical Paper No. 335, (1997).. [6] Hori, H., Development of the Mekong River Basin, Its Problems and Future Prospects, Water International, Vol 18, No. 2, pp. 110-115 [7] JICA, Mekong river development - What Mekong Committee supports,jica, (1990). [8] Jacobs, J. W., Mekong Committee History and Lessons for River Basin Development, The geographical Journal, Vol. 161, (1995), pp. 135-148. [9] Interim Mekong Committee, Report of the Special Session of the Interim Mekong Committee held on 30 August 1991, Interim Mekong Committee, (1991). [10] Interim Mekong Committee, Report of the Special Session of the Interim Mekong Committee - MKG/R.91076, Interim Mekong Committee, (1991). [11] Mekong Committee, Report of the Second Meeting of the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Declaration of Principles for Utilization of the Waters of the Lower Mekong Basin - MKG/R.126, Mekong Committee, (1975). [12] Mekong Committee, Joint Declaration of Principles for Utilization of the Waters of the Mekong Basin, Mekong Committee, (1975). [13] Danvivathana, P., Statement at Workshop on Lower Mekong Basin International Legal Framework, Bangkok, 20-25 March 1991, LEG/W1/91009, Interim Mekong Committee, (1991). [14] Thinh, N. D., Country Paper at Workshop on Lower Mekong Basin International Legal Framework, Bangkok, 20-25 March 1991, LEG/W1/91001, Interim Mekong Committee, (1991). [15] Weatherbee, D. E., Cooperation and Conflict in the Mekong River Basin, Studies in Conflicts & Terrorism, Vol. 20, (1997), pp. 167-184.

[16] Mekong Secretariat, Mekong Consultations, Mekong News, (1993), Vol. 12 (1), pp. 3-5. [17] Nakayama, M., Aspects behind Differences in Two Agreements Adopted by Riparian Countries of Lower Mekong River Basin, J. Comparative Policy Analysis, (1999), Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 293-308. [18] United Nations, Statistical Yearbook 1992, United Nations, (1994). [19] Nakayama, M.. International Collaboration in on Water Systems in Asia and the Pacific: A Case of Transition, International Review for Environmental Strategies, (2002). Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 274-282. 7