The Geographical Journal 168, No. 4, December 2002, pp ...dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/estemmerman_transbound.pdf · literature suggesting that conﬂicts around water resources

The Geographical Journal, Vol. 168, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 365–378

Management of transboundary water resources:lessons from international cooperation for

conflict prevention

JUHA I UITTO* AND ALFRED M DUDA†*United Nations Development Programme/Global Environment Facility, 304 East 45th Street, New York,

NY, USAE-mail: [email protected]

†Global Environment Facility, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, USAE-mail: [email protected]

This paper was accepted for publication in September 2002

Tensions over freshwater resources may become more frequent as pressures on waterresources grow due to increased demand and variability of rainfall. Conflicts may takeplace between or within countries or between competing sectoral users. This paperfocuses on institutional approaches for enhancing cooperation between countries forsustainable development of transboundary freshwater bodies and contributing basins. Itis assumed that instead of being zones of conflict, shared water resources can providea basis for cooperation and benefit-sharing provided that threats to the internationalwaters are recognized and collaborative structures are created. The paper draws uponexperiences gained within the international waters focal area of the Global EnvironmentFacility, the main funding mechanism for countries to support the environmentalmanagement of transboundary water resources. Lessons for promoting peacefulcooperation for environmental management, benefit-sharing and sustainable use oftransboundary freshwater resources are highlighted through examples from Africa,Central Asia and Latin America. Experience shows the importance of processes thatbring together all sectors and actors whose actions affect the transboundary waterbodyat regional, national and local levels. The development of a science-based diagnosticanalysis is essential to identify the threats to the transboundary ecosystem and to breakdown the issues into manageable parts with the aim of developing a strategic actionprogramme. Ensuring political commitment that can result in institutional, policy andlegal reforms in the countries concerned is the key to sustainable development of thetransboundary resource.

KEY WORDS: transboundary water resources, Aral Sea, Bermejo River, Lake Tanganyika,Global Environment Facility, conflict prevention

Introduction

With increasing frequency, conflicts overwater resources may create unrest aswater resources become scarcer due to

growing water demand concomitant with increasedprecipitation variability associated with globalclimate change. The conflicts may take placebetween countries, between sub-national govern-ments within countries or between competingsectoral users or groups within countries. The

situation is further complicated by the fact that alarge portion of major freshwater basins in theworld fall within the jurisdiction of more than onenation. Although the number of river basins that canbe classified as international depends partly on thedefinition, and their number has increased recentlyas newly independent countries emerge, there aresome 261 international river basins covering 46% ofthe planet’s land area. Nineteen of these basins areshared by five or more states (Wolf et al. 1999).

0016-7398/02/0004-0365/$00.20/0 � 2002 The Royal Geographical Society

This paper focuses on institutional approachesfor enhancing cooperation between countriesfor the management of transboundary freshwaterbodies and contributing basins to support the tran-sition to sustainable development. The assumptionis that shared water resources can actually providethe basis for cooperation and sharing of benefits,rather than conflict, provided that the threats to theinternational waters are objectively recognized andinstitutional structures for collaboration are created.The essence of the argument is that cooperationamong countries and between the various actorswithin each needs to be based on solid science anda factual analysis of the problems and opportuni-ties, their potential solutions and shared benefitsarising from the alternative solutions. This analysiscan be used as a basis for setting priorities, fosteringcivil society participation, and making politicaldecisions within and between the countries con-cerning the needed actions to resolve conflicts orpursue opportunities for benefit sharing.

This paper draws mainly upon experiencesgained within the international waters focal area ofthe Global Environment Facility (GEF). Much in-formation is derived from recent evaluation studiescarried out under the Facility’s auspices, in whichthe authors have been involved (Ollila et al. 2000;Bewers and Uitto 2001). Challenges facing trans-boundary freshwater resources, including thepotential for conflict, are outlined in the article. Theroots of collaborative arrangements around inter-national waters are examined, mainly in Europe,North America and Africa, and lessons are ident-ified that can be applied to the management ofsimilar resources in developing countries andcountries with economies in transition. Theselessons have formed the basis of the GEFOperational Strategy for international waters thatwas adopted in 1995. The paper describes this GEFstrategy of utilizing joint fact-finding processesthat link scientific understanding to policymaking.Finally the paper provides an overall assessment ofGEF experiences based on its first ten years ofoperations. Key lessons are highlighted for promot-ing peaceful cooperation for environmentalmanagement, benefit sharing and sustainable useof transboundary freshwater resources throughconcrete GEF examples from Central Asia, Africaand Latin America.

Transboundary waters and their growing conflictsFreshwater scarcity related to both water quantityand quality is increasing on a global scale. The maindeterminant of this scarcity is the increasing wateruse by a steadily increasing world population.Although on a global scale population growth is

showing signs of slowing down, the world popu-lation is still expected to grow, from the present6 billion, by more than 50% to more than 9.3 billionin the coming half century according to the UnitedNations medium-variant projections (UN 1997a).Such growth alone is currently placing a tremen-dous strain on freshwater resources. At the sametime, while economies grow and people are gettingwealthier, per capita water use grows significantly.

The main consumer of freshwater is irrigatedagriculture. As the need to grow more foodincreases and the possibilities for expanding thefarmed area are limited, the only solution is toincrease the yields per area unit. This can only bedone through the use of high-yielding crop varietiesthat are dependent on agricultural chemicals andirrigation water. About 70% of all water withdrawalglobally is due to irrigated agriculture, which onlyrepresents 17% of the total area under agriculturebut produces 40% of the world’s food. It is likelythat water availability will in the near future limitfood production potential, at least regionally (Uitto2000).

In fact, estimates from the World WaterCommission (2000) suggest that water withdrawalsfor all sectors may increase by 50% over existingdiversions for various sectoral uses. This will createa disaster at freshwater/marine interfaces whereflow reductions will impair ecological functions andsaltwater intrusion into groundwater will be exces-sive. Already, recognition of ecological damagefrom flow reductions has been raised as a concernin transboundary systems such as the Amu Daryaand Syr Darya leading to the Aral Sea, the ColoradoRiver and the Gulf of California, the Tigris–Euphrates system and the coastal wetlands ofMesopotamia, the Dead Sea and Jordan River, theGanges and its delta at the Sunderbands wetland,the Rio Bravo/Grande and the Gulf of Mexico, andmore locally in the Yellow River delta, Tarim Lake inChina, and Lake Chapala, the largest lake in Mexico.

Increased pollution loading from cities, indus-tries, agriculture and mining also create conflicts inuse. Pollution from agriculture, industry and thegrowing cities negatively influences the availabilityof clean water for human consumption. Today,about half of the world’s population lives in urbanareas, many of them in the fast growing andunplanned mega-cities of the developing world.The consequences of this urban growth on waterresources are tremendous (Biswas 2000). Water isunusable in many countries and massive invest-ments will be necessary.

Freshwater resources are unevenly distributedover the surface of the Earth. Drylands cover morethan one-third of the world’s land area, notably inAfrica, the Middle East and Central Asia. With

366 Management of transboundary water resources

overuse of marginal areas, land degradation andconcomitant water scarcity are spreading. Globalclimate change will also affect rainfall patterns.The models show that changes in climate couldexacerbate periodic and chronic water shortages,especially in arid and semi-arid regions (IPCC2001). These are the same areas where populationgrowth is amongst the highest in the world, includ-ing the politically volatile Middle East. The UnitedNations estimates that some 460 million people arealready living in countries affected by high waterstress due to excessive water withdrawals (UN1997b). By the year 2025, it is estimated thattwo-thirds of the world’s people will live in areasthat are subjected to moderate to high water stressif the current trends in water consumption growthcontinue unabated.

Understandably, therefore, there is a growingliterature suggesting that conflicts around waterresources will increase dramatically in the years tocome and may even lead to war (Renner 1996).However, while undoubtedly resource scarcity hasmotivated wars, historical or contemporary evi-dence does not support the notion that major warshave been fought over water resources (Homer-Dixon 1999). On the contrary, there is evidencethat water may also become the unifying resourcearound which countries cooperate. In addition, thedownstream water environment and poor citizensdepending on it for livelihoods and survival are thefirst to feel the effects, as noted below. Thisenvironmental damage has the potential to alert theworld community to the degradation occurring andto mobilize opinion within the relevant nations toreverse the situation through collaborative actions,so that worse conflicts may be avoided.

Transboundary lessons from the north and southAs water resources management touches uponsovereignty of countries over their naturalresources, the issues can become politically sensi-tive. Most people understand that water is essentialfor practically every sector of society and thedemands of each can be very different and oftenconflicting. For instance, energy production fromdams can conflict with environmental and navi-gational needs in rivers. With lack of attention toprotection of the water environment and lack ofreforms in water resources management, localized,national problems have now grown to transbound-ary proportions with downstream environmentaldegradation being the early warning signal forfuture conflict.

Experiences in the North in addressing thesetransboundary water and environmental problemshave demonstrated that their solution can take a

great deal of time. The North American Great Lakesand the Rhine Basin countries each used multi-country commissions in the 1950s to study sharedenvironmental problems. These studies, and thesubsequent implementation of significant actions,took some 20–30 years, with a series of threerevisions in treaties for the North American GreatLakes (Duda 1994) and an additional three succes-sive treaties for the Rhine Basin. On the maritimeside, over 25 years have elapsed since regionalconventions were signed to promote improvedenvironmental management of the North Sea, theBaltic and the Mediterranean. Significant imple-mentation action is still needed on the key issuesand the Mediterranean has been noted for its focuson research and study rather than action.

In the South, particularly Africa, the success ofmulti-country basin institutions has been dis-appointing, as noted in the analysis for the WorldBank by Rangeley et al. (1994). Governance hasoften been weak, capacity inadequate and a senseof commitment lacking. Over 80% of the land areaof sub-Saharan Africa is located in transboundarywatersheds, with over 50 international river basins.Even when conflicts have been avoided by agree-ments, environmental and social considerationshave been neglected, as noted by the WorldCommission on Dams (2000). However, indi-cations are good that a number of African nationsare now committed to cooperate in the future sincethe adoption of a Revised Protocol on Transbound-ary Watercourses by the Southern Africa Develop-ment Community nations in 2000. It remains to beseen whether application of the lessons from theearly multi-country arrangements in the North candeliver similar results in developing countries, andthose with economies in transition, within similartimeframes.

While a discussion of global agreements pertain-ing to water resources management and the exami-nation of their origins are outside the scope of thispaper, and have been reviewed by the authorselsewhere (e.g. Duda and La Roche 1997; Uitto2001), initial lessons that have been learned arepertinent. As noted by Duda (1994) and Duda andLa Roche (1997), the lessons learned through theearly 1990s include the following. Gaining effectivecommitments on incorporating environmentalconsiderations into transboundary water resourcemanagement takes many years and much patience.Strategic joint fact-finding among participatingnations can serve as an important catalytic tool fordeveloping political buy-in and participation of dif-ferent nations and interests in each nation. This maybe enhanced if official inter-ministerial committeesof national and sub-national governments in eachcountry are involved in the joint institutions to

Management of transboundary water resources 367

undertake the work instead of developing a supra-national international organization to do the workfor the countries. In addition, the process of jointlyproducing such a ‘study’ or analysis fosters partici-pation of the science community and creates aninitial product that may be used to begin partici-pation of civil society in the processes. Activeparticipation in joint fact-finding is then a key firststep among nations and among sectoral interestsin each nation. In addition, a planning process fordetermining what strategic actions the nations willcollectively undertake is essential for initiatingon-the-ground joint action. Formulation of thisproduct also provides an instrument for civil societyparticipation. Finally, inclusion of a political commit-ment to action in writing and to establishment ofinstitutions to periodically review progress of col-laborating countries in undertaking their jointactions is fundamental to progress.

The Global Environmental Facility andinternational watersThe GEF was established in 1991 as a pilot pro-gramme with the objective to forge internationalcooperation and finance actions to address threatsto the global environment (http://www.gefweb.org). The role of GEF was to test innovativeapproaches and to pilot projects in these areas.In 1994, GEF was restructured as a permanentfinancial mechanism (Sjöberg 1999). The facility isopen to participation by countries from both theNorth and the South (currently 173 countries aremembers). GEF was established through the part-nership of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and the World Bank, acting asthe three GEF implementing agencies. The Facilityalso encourages cooperation between the varioussectors, including governments, civil society andthe private sector. Following the restructuring, theGEF Council adopted the GEF Operational Strategyin 1995 that defines the strategic framework foraction for the Facility in its four focal areas: bio-diversity conservation, climate change, internationalwaters and ozone depletion (GEF 1996). Projectsaddressing land degradation are also eligible forGEF funding, provided that they relate to one ormore of the focal areas. According to the oper-ational strategy, GEF will fund projects and pro-grammes that are country-driven and based onnational priorities designed to support sustainabledevelopment (Duda and El-Ashry 2000).

In the area of international waters, countriesoften face complex water-related environmentalproblems that are transboundary in nature. GEFcontributes primarily as a catalyst to the implemen-

tation of a comprehensive, ecosystem-basedapproach to managing the transboundary watersand their drainage basins as a means of generatingglobal environmental benefits. The GEF implement-ing agencies assist countries to find means ofcollaborating with neighbouring nations in order tochange the way human activities are undertaken inthe different economic sectors that place stress onthe water environment, so that transboundary con-flicts and environmental problems can be resolved.The goal is to help each of the countries use the fullrange of technical, economic, financial, regulatoryand institutional measures needed to operationalizesustainable use strategies for transboundary water-bodies and contributing basins.

To be successful in addressing these transbound-ary problems, the GEF Operational Strategy recog-nized that a series of international waters projectsmay be needed over time to:

+ build capacity and political commitment ofcountries to work together;

+ jointly understand and set priorities based onassessments of environmental conditions inwaterbodies;

+ identify actions to address the highest prioritytransboundary problems; and

+ implement agreed regional and national policy,legislative and institutional reforms, and attractthe priority investments needed to address them.

By the end of 2000, GEF had provided support to41 full projects and four medium-sized projects inthe international waters focal area. To date, 11 ofthese projects have been completed. In addition,project development funds have been approved for22 projects which may enter the GEF portfolioupon further development. Not including co-financing, overall GEF funding to internationalwaters efforts from 1991 to the end of 2000 totalsUS$444 million. Figure 1 shows the regional distri-bution of the projects. The number of projects,rather than the amounts of GEF funding, gives agood indication of the governments’ commitmentto work together on transboundary basins in eachregion.

Typically, GEF assistance to countries to deal withinternational waters issues starts with an initialstrategic project involving the collaborating nationsin the basin. The countries often establish country-level inter-ministerial committees to participate inthe projects and frequently start out by examiningscientific information on the ecological status andsectoral uses of the waterbody or transboundarybasin. This analysis is ideally collated into a trans-boundary diagnostic analysis, or TDA, that reflectsparticipation of both the science and management


communities in the countries. The aim is to producea science-based assessment of the key transbound-ary problems and their root causes. This way afactual process can assist the countries and differ-ent stakeholders to become cognizant of the toppriority transboundary concerns and to focuspolitically on just several key issues.

Through political processes, the countries canthen establish priorities and agree to work on themindividually and jointly. The complex situations canbe divided into smaller, manageable ones with aseries of country-specific actions needed for theirresolution. This helps to provide focus to multi-country collaboration. These country-specific re-forms and investments for addressing the priorityproblems are then compiled into a strategic actionprogramme, or SAP. If the countries are willing toenact the reforms and make the needed invest-ments, GEF may then support the implementationwork alongside other funding sources. While othertypes of projects addressing limited demonstrationactivities or building capacity of countries are alsoeligible under the Operational Strategy, the majorityof the international waters projects have followedthe initial strategic approach described above.

Early GEF experiences in internationalcooperationA recent review focused on a systematic examin-ation of multi-country implementation arrange-ments in GEF projects involving waterbodies shared

between two or more countries (Ollila et al. 2000).The objective was to identify emerging lessonsabout what kinds of multi-country approaches haveworked, what have not, why and under whatcircumstances. For activities that require jointefforts and commitments by more than onecountry, what characteristics of project designand inter-institutional collaboration processes andstructures facilitate effective decisionmaking andimplementation of transboundary actions?

A total of 36 projects were included in thereview, including 28 projects from the internationalwaters portfolio. The remaining projects focusedon biodiversity protection in the context of trans-boundary waterbodies. The projects were studiedthrough a thorough review of existing documen-tation and reports, as well as a questionnaire sur-vey. In addition, ten of the projects were includedin an in-depth study, the majority of which werealso subjected to site visits by the study team. Theprojects reviewed included both marine and fresh-water projects. This paper focuses on the experi-ences and early lessons from the GEF projectsdealing with freshwater basins shared by two ormore countries (Table 1). Key features of severalcase studies are included below as examples tohighlight the early lessons.

Lake TanganyikaThe multi-country Lake Tanganyika project wasdesigned in the early 1990s as one of the first GEF

Figure 1 Number of approved GEF projects and projects under development within regionsSource: Bewers and Uitto (2001)


projects. The East African lake is the second deep-est lake in the world, with globally significantbiological diversity (Uitto 2002a). UNDP tookadvantage of early experiences in facilitating theDanube and Black Sea basin projects to apply someof the principles in assisting Burundi, DR Congo,Tanzania and Zambia in addressing their sharedlake basin and building institutional commitmentsfor joint multi-country collaboration (Figure 2). Aproject coordinating unit was established to facili-tate each country participating in activities singly aswell as jointly. High level officials from each nationparticipated in a Steering Committee responsiblefor the project. Various programmes were estab-lished with the objective of helping the ripariancountries produce an effective and sustainable sys-tem for managing and conserving the transbound-ary lake. By involving local communities in itsdesign, the programmes embrace the dual needs ofdevelopment and conservation so that livelihoodsof the people (sustainable use of the biodiversity)could be maintained into the future. The pro-grammes varied from biodiversity to fisheries,impacts of sedimentation and catchment degra-dation, pollution, socio-economic issues, educationand development of a joint geographic informationsystem (GIS).

At an early stage, a project coordinating unit wasestablished in Bujumbura, Burundi. The politicalunrest in the DR Congo and Burundi, however,necessitated the move of the coordinating unit toTanzania. This move demonstrated the flexiblenature of project management reacting to changingcircumstances that was one of the keys to the

project’s success. A mid-term evaluation com-missioned by UNDP was equally important inredirecting the project.

The project planning called for production of astrategic plan for the lake. Following adoption ofthe GEF Operational Strategy by the GEF Councilin 1995, UNDP worked with the project tomodify its programme of work to become moreconsistent with the international waters portion ofthe Operational Strategy. The project adopted theapproach of joint fact-finding in compiling infor-mation so all countries could review it and updateit through GIS technology. The assessmentresulted in a TDA that sets priorities for two orthree top priority shared water issues. Pollutiondischarges in Bujumbura, Burundi, and Kigoma,Tanzania, were cited as hotspots for abatementactivities. Excessive sediment loading from certainriver basins, mostly in Burundi and DR Congo,and scattered elsewhere, was determined to be apriority for accelerated attention. Similarly, theover-fishing issue was identified as import-ant because of the large commercial fishery, itseconomic importance to certain nations, and thetransboundary nature of the stock and pattern oflandings and markets.

The programme also adopted the formulation ofa SAP, which is not a plan but a series of activities tobe implemented not only jointly but also by indi-vidual countries to address the priority issues.Various assessments conducted under the pro-grammes built the capacity of country officialsto sample and assess environmental status in theareas of biodiversity, pollution and sedimentation.

Table 1 Freshwater basin projects included in the multi-country institutional arrangements review

Countries involved Project title

Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania Lake Victoria Environmental Management ProjectMalawi, Mozambique, Tanzania Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation ProjectBurundi, DR Congo, Tanzania, Zambia Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect

Biodiversity in Lake TanganyikaBosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,Ukraine, Yugoslavia

Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution ReductionProgramme (three successive projects)

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan

Water and Environmental Management in the Aral SeaBasin

Argentina, Uruguay Environmental Protection of Rio de la Plata and its MaritimeFront: Pollution Prevention and Control and HabitatRestoration

Argentina, Bolivia Strategic Action Programme for the Binational Basin of theBermejo River


Figure 2 Lake Tanganyika and its international setting


One of the important lessons to be drawn fromthe Lake Tanganyika project is the importance oftransparency. Many of the publications are avail-able on the project web site (http://www.ltbp.org).The website is essential, since the project hasinter-country linkages, linkages with UNDP, GEFand coaches from international organizations. Afirewall for internal use helped in the exchange ofinformation in this remote area in preliminary formand to allow the countries to discuss shared issuesamong themselves. For those without Internetaccess, CD-ROMs were produced every threemonths, and with the public portion of the websitethe project promoted transparency towards NGOs,government officials and funding organizations.

Of additional significance is that since the end of1999, the Lake Tanganyika region governmentswere discussing the fourth draft of an internationaltreaty (entitled, ‘The Convention on the SustainableManagement of Lake Tanganyika’) to affirm theirpolitical support for the restoration and protec-tion of the Lake Tanganyika ecosystem. The draftconvention would establish a Lake TanganyikaAuthority consisting of a joint ManagementCommittee and a Secretariat to assist the nations inoperationalizing sustainable management of thelake, in conserving its biological resources and inreversing degradation of the catchment area drain-ing to the lake. Various protocols and annexeswould specify progressively more stringent countrycommitments as implementation proceeds. Despiteunrest in DR Congo and Burundi, importantprogress has been made in understanding thetechnical issues of a transboundary nature, identify-ing hotspots for concerted action, building a jointunderstanding and shared vision for their lakebasin, harnessing the scientific organizations andlocal communities, and in setting the stage forbuilding political commitment at the top level forjoint management of the resource.

Aral Sea basinThe project deals with the world’s most dramaticcase of environmental collapse and land degra-dation: the progressive drying up of the Aral Sea,the extinction of most forms of its aquatic life, andthe contamination of huge land areas with salts andtoxic substances (Glantz 1998; Glazovsky 1995).This environmental tragedy was brought about in arelatively short period (ca 30 years) by excessiveirrigation water abstractions (up to 90%) from thetwo rivers which feed the Aral, with an estimatedUS$300 million in lost crop production each yearresulting from wasteful irrigation, waterlogging ofsoils and subsequent salinization. Furthermore, the

environmental disaster contributes to the con-ditions that breed discontent and could eventuallylead to terrorism in the region (Uitto 2002b).

The objective of the GEF project is to address theroot causes of the overuse and degradation ofthe international waters of the basin by assisting theCentral Asian countries in implementing a mutuallyagreed SAP (Figure 3). This effort is intended tostimulate and achieve substantive and concreteprogress towards the four objectives of the Aral SeaBasin Programme (ASBP):

(a) stabilizing the environment;(b) rehabilitating the disaster zone around the Sea;(c) improving the management of international

waters; and(d) building the capacity of the regional insti-

tutions.

In particular, the GEF project is focused on objec-tives (a) and (c), with the target of ‘effectivelyreducing water consumption in the productivesectors, mainly irrigation, of at least 15%’ by the endof the project. The project has six components:

+ Water and Salt Management (lead com-ponent), will prepare for ASBP the commonpolicy, strategy and action programmes (30% oftotal cost);

+ Public Awareness, dealing with education inwater conservation (15% of total cost);

+ Dam and Reservoir Management, to improvedam safety, and prepare investment plans (12%of total cost);

+ Transboundary Water Monitoring, to create thebasic capacity to monitor water flows and qualityat national borders (16% of total cost);

+ Wetlands Restoration, to rehabilitate a biodiversity-rich wetland area near the Amu Darya delta,while increasing local income (18% of total cost);

+ Project Management Support, to enable EC-IFASto implement the project (9% of total cost).

With the progressive decay of the irrigation infra-structure, which was accelerated by the break-up ofthe Soviet Union, the system, which was conceivedwithout consideration of the boundaries and differ-ent water needs of the five now separate countries,requires costly maintenance and joint multi-countrymanagement. The lack of funds for maintenance,and the growing consciousness of national sover-eignty among the basin’s riparian states, have so farhindered all comprehensive attempts to rehabilitatethe irrigation system even partially. Recent pro-longed drought has exacerbated relations on waterissues among countries, and created conflicts be-tween upstream hydro-power exporting countries(Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) and downstreamirrigation-dependent nations.


Against this scenario of political, social and econ-omic complexity, all of the efforts of the donorcommunity have achieved little in their support toimprove basin management, including inter-stateinstitutional arrangements. The short-term focus isnow on preventing the further collapse of theirrigation system, while efforts to support agree-ment on a joint vision and commitment for watersharing among riparians and the establishment ofmulti-sectoral and multi-country managementstructures are longer-term goals. The rehabilitationof the Aral Sea deltas and wetland ecosystems,which only a few decades ago supported thelivelihood of large healthy populations and uniquebiodiversity, does not seem to be a political priority.Furthermore, land degradation is spreading to theirrigated lands inhabited by the majority of thebasin’s population.

Priorities have changed and countries have lostsome of their interest in the actual situation in theAral Sea and surrounding areas, while there hasbeen mounting concern on the management of thesalt mobilized by drainage waters, and on the main-tenance and sustainability of the irrigation systemitself. The focus had moved from the ‘disaster area’to the irrigated lands, where a new, even morethreatening disaster was looming. This changedfocus of the countries is reflected in the ProjectDocument which was finally presented to the GEFCouncil. The document, while giving assurancesthat the project’s basic thrust remained as originallyplanned, pointed to a series of changes which, seena posteriori, resulted instead in a major re-directionof the project’s objectives and expected outcomes.

The SAP remained in draft form and became ageneral conceptual document, not stating any

Figure 3 Aral Sea basin


specific commitment and/or action, so the sharedvision and political commitment to action nevermaterialized. As a result, the project emphasis hasshifted from environment to sustainable irrigation.However, the Project Document does maintain asthe major objective the 15% reduction in waterabstractions from the two rivers within the life ofthe project, to be achieved through multi-countrymanagement and increased public awareness, par-ticularly among farmers. In this complex situation,the GEF project represents the only remainingmajor international effort aimed at facilitating agree-ments on multi-country action on water sharing andirrigation management in the Aral Sea basin as awhole. While the GEF Implementing Agency, theWorld Bank, is closely monitoring project imple-mentation, achievement of project environmentalobjectives remains in question.

As later developments have shown, the project’simplementation suffered from the weaknesses ofcomplex multi-country institutional frameworks,and was unable to confront growing conflicts andtechnical/economic problems. During the course of

its review mission in December 2000, the WorldBank correctly identified the lack of effectiveness ofthe ‘processes’ that should have brought aboutcountry ownership, commitment to joint action andinformed consensus on priorities for action, as themajor cause for the so far overall unsatisfactoryimplementation of the project.

Rı́o BermejoThe Bermejo River basin of Bolivia and Argentinaoriginates in the Andes and flows through theChaco region to the Paraguay River (Figure 4). It isa major basin, covering an area the combined sizeof Hungary and Bulgaria. Excessive levels of sedi-ment, important transboundary biodiversity and theexistence of a bi-national commission for develop-ment of the basin made the area attractive for theGEF international waters project. An initial two-yearproject with strategic multi-country work (TDA/SAP) coupled with demonstration activities in basinmanagement and land degradation control wasimplemented by UNEP (OAS 2000). One of the

Figure 4 Bermejo River basin


objectives was the involvement of stakeholdergroups in the basin for determining their sustainabledevelopment future. A follow-on project is under-way to implement the priority measures identifiedby the SAP along with expected baseline activitiesfunded by others. Of particular note is that theproject was able to evoke considerable involve-ment and excitement from NGOs and sub-nationallevels of government, as well as the bi-nationalcommission. This participation of local stakeholdersin the identification and planning of both demon-stration activities as well as necessary multi-countrystrategic work (TDA and SAP) is important forcommitment to implementation at later stages withor without GEF assistance.

Another observation has been the use of dem-onstration activities to catch the attention of stake-holders up-front and to try pilot interventions todetermine whether they may be scaled up in theimplementation phase. This made the basin’s landand water management problems clear to thewider public, including small farmers, whose utiliz-ing of poor land management practices initiallycreated many of the transboundary sedimentationproblems. These demonstrations have shown thatfuture implementation could be less risky and thatcorrective actions for transboundary purposesthat depend on the cumulative impact of manylocal actions may well be successful.

The bi-national commission and its subsidiarycountry agencies in Argentina and Bolivia undertak-ing the work ensured that the project was countrydriven. Good collaboration occurred between thetwo nations in both harnessing public interest withon-site demonstrations as well as participationactivities of a transboundary strategic nature.Originally, a series of 16 dams were proposed forhydropower production in the basin. This was quitecontroversial, especially among NGOs. Throughpublic participation in the project, the bi-nationalcommission that was originally created to develophydropower transformed itself into a force forconsidering sustainable development options.While three dams will still be pursued, a focus onthe transboundary environment, on strategicprocesses for participation and practical measuresconsistent with sustainable development helpedovercome initial transboundary concerns and NGOopposition.

Early lessons from GEF projectsThe multi-country project arrangements review(Ollila et al. 2000) and a subsequent evaluation ofthe GEF international waters programme carriedout in 2001 (Bewers and Uitto 2001) found evi-dence that the use of the initial strategic projects to

build multi-country confidence in working together,to remove barriers to joint fact-finding and to buildcapacity among different ministries within eachnation to address these transboundary issues in thedifferent economic sectors helped to facilitatepolitical support. They were useful to focus thecountries on one or two key issues rather than adiffuse campaign on environmental improvementthat usually achieves nothing. The initial scientificand technical assessment in the processes used toproduce the TDA is needed to identify and quantifythe environmental issues and problems and toidentify their immediate, intermediate and funda-mental causes. The process can also provide aninstrument for the civil society to comment and tostart the participation.

The case studies examined adequately demon-strate the utility of the TDA process as an initialinstrument for allowing regional groupings ofnations to approach the resolution of problems ininternational waters areas in a pragmatic andcoherent manner without the loss of sovereignty.Through this process, scientific, technical, socialand political considerations are all brought to bearon the identification of priorities for the adoption ofharmonized and coherent multilateral action usingthe transboundary water environment as a first,easy issue to address confidence building. Atten-tion is thereby focused on issues of substanceconceived from comprehensive, factual perspec-tives rather than matters of perception. Grapplingwith the priority issues at early stages of the devel-opment of a strategic programme offers greaterlong-term benefits in ensuring that multilateralaction is focused on issues of greatest importancethat are likely to offer the largest net benefits(Bewers and Uitto 2001). In addition, both thereview and the evaluation found that use of localdemonstration projects during the initial strategicphases helps to overcome public concerns and toengage communities in participative activities. It isimportant that not only foreign ministries areinvolved, but other ministries, different sub-nationallevels of government, and citizen groups are alsoinvolved so that they can work together.

Perhaps the best illustration that such processesare useful steps in building multinational confi-dence comes from the preparation of the GEF NileBasin project, which is part of the larger effortundertaken by the ten Nile countries known as theNile Basin Initiative (http://www.worldbank.org/afr/nilebasin/). The Nile has been a problem historicallyand today the Nile basin and its people are at acrossroads (Mageed 1994). With assistance of theUNDP and the World Bank during July 2001, theten Nile basin countries cooperated in launchingthe International Consortium for Cooperation on


the Nile in Geneva and received pledges from thedonor community for an initial US$140 million forthe Shared Vision Programme of their Nile BasinInitiative, with an anticipated US$3 billion inadditional investments for sustainable development.

GEF has had a presence with the Nile countriessince 1995 in their multi-country deliberations. GEFplayed a significant role at the start of the presentpolitical initiative in 1999 by providing preparationfunds through UNDP and the World Bank to theten nations for the formulation of a GEF inter-national waters project that would underpin theinitiative from a transboundary environment per-spective. As part of the project preparation, thecountries produced a transboundary environmentalanalysis for confidence building and priority setting(Nile Basin Initiative 2001). This analysis was pro-duced through a participatory process and includedin-country consultations, national reports andin-country inter-ministerial coordination. The trans-boundary environmental analysis was approved bythe Nile Council of Ministers in March 2001, mark-ing the first time in history such a substantivedocument has received approval of all Nile ripariancountries. This catalytic process proved to be aturning point in the Nile Basin Initiative in expand-ing the dialogue on water in the basin from thewater ministries to other ministries in each countryand interest groups, such as NGOs, that have a roleto play in sustainable development. It was so suc-cessful that other parts of the programme followedsimilar processes as piloted through the GEF. Thetransboundary priorities serve as the basis for thedevelopment of the GEF project that underpins andcomplements each of the elements of their SharedVision Programmes.

ConclusionsMany lessons have been learned in the initialdecade of GEF projects addressing transboundarywater issues. International waters projects involvingnumerous countries that share a waterbody orbasin are necessarily complex in nature, with a widevariety of social, political, economic, cultural andphysiographic conditions that must be taken intoconsideration, depending on the nature of thepriority transboundary water issue to be addressed.Achieving a shared vision and commitment amongriparian countries can be facilitated by initialstrategic projects that can break down the barriersamong countries and enable them to focus jointlyon priority issues. This allows complex situations tobe broken down into manageable priorities. Theprocesses of joint fact finding and sharing of infor-mation in producing a transboundary diagnosticanalysis set the stage for the countries to producea strategic action programme of country-specific

and regional actions needed to address thetransboundary priorities.

The TDA/SAP process may be usefully carried outas part of project preparation to build institutionalcapacity and to set priorities. For more complexsituations, the processes may be necessary as initialactivities of full projects that may accompany on-the-ground demonstration activities related to the trans-boundary priority. While there has been concernabout the length of the process (from 1.5 to 3–4years in complex cases), experiences from Europeand North America have shown that equivalent pro-cesses have taken from 15 to 30 years in the past forsome shared waterbodies to agree on priorities andgain firm commitments to action. Consequently,through GEF assistance in the international watersfocal area, countries may be greatly accelerating theprocesses and shortening the time necessary forestablishing political commitments to restore andprotect transboundary water ecosystems. Whilethese time-consuming analyses and priority-settingprocesses are ongoing, it is useful to complement thestrategic work with on-the-ground demonstrationsthat help create commitment to the processes atnational and local levels. These demonstrations alsohelp underpin the application of the ecosystemapproach to practical situations.

Political commitment at the highest level is neces-sary to ensure smooth operation of multi-countryinstitutions and on-the-ground implementation of theactions identified in strategic projects. Where nopolitical commitment other than an agreement toproceed on a project was present, as in the case ofthe Aral Sea, commitments for policy, institutionaland/or legal reforms and investments have beenslow to emerge. The presence of a regional agree-ment or convention with progressively more specificcommitments is highly beneficial. The involvementof relevant existing organizations has also clearlyimproved the commitment of stakeholders.

Involving multiple levels of institutions is essentialfor projects addressing the environmental problemsfacing transboundary waterbodies and basins. Athree-level strategy from regional to national andfrom national to local has broad applicability inmulti-country projects. A regional agreement orconvention may facilitate countries harmonizingtheir legislation. At the national level, country-specific inter-ministerial committees are key toensuring coordination and desired implementation.At the subnational level, local commitment can bestrengthened through changed incentive structures,national empowerment and enforcement. Infor-mation dissemination and public awareness-building are essential in this process.

Multi-country development of policy reformsrequires mutual trust, which often can only be


created over a long timespan. A relatively powerfulregional coordination unit, perhaps backed by aconvention, has been helpful in supporting theprocess of political and legislative harmonization.Monitoring and evaluation plays a central role inmanaging complex multi-country projects and canensure transparency regarding project progress, ac-tions by all participating countries and results. Thefact that a multi-country institution can be built or anexisting one strengthened to facilitate continuedcountry-based action for certain priority transbound-ary water issues after GEF-supported interventionsare completed is a very important initial outcome oftypical international waters projects.

All relevant stakeholders in the countries –including the public and private sectors, thescientific community and civil society – need to beinvolved in a project addressing priority issues. Theinclusion of NGOs has been useful for involvinglocal stakeholders and they can also play an import-ant role in ensuring transparency and political sup-port. The scientific community should ensure thatsound science is used to improve management anddecisionmaking. Harnessing the scientific com-munity as part of identifying the linkages in adiagnostic analysis of the components of trans-boundary ecosystems is a necessary step towardincorporating an ecosystem approach into astrategic action programme.

The ecosystem-based approaches strongly sug-gest that entire basins be considered if importanttransboundary linkages exist and that all the linkedproblems, such as habitat loss, pollution, over-fishing and water diversion, be addressed if theyconstitute priority problems. It does no good to justtreat the symptoms when the root causes remainunaddressed or other considerations still drive eco-system degradation. Freshwater and coastal/marinebiodiversity is among the most threatened on earth,and multi-country joint action is needed to restoreand protect these transboundary ecosystems. Theseprocesses promoting multi-country collaborationstanding on a solid scientific footing have proven tobe effective in reducing the tensions between com-peting uses of international waters. They can helpmove the issues concerning transboundary waterresources from conflict to cooperation.

ReferencesBewers J M and Uitto J I 2001 International waters program

study Evaluation Report #1-01 Global Environment Facility,Washington DC

Biswas A K 2000 Water for urban areas of the developingworld in the twenty-first century in Uitto J I and BiswasA K eds Water for urban areas: challenges and perspectivesUnited Nations University Press, Tokyo 1–23

Duda A M 1994 Achieving pollution prevention goals fortransboundary waters through international joint commis-sion processes Water Science and Technology 30 223–31

Duda A M and El-Ashry M T 2000 Addressing the globalwater and environment crises through integratedapproaches to the management of land, water andecological resources Water International 25 115–26

Duda A M and La Roche D 1997 Joint institutional arrange-ments for addressing transboundary water resources issues– lessons for the GEF Natural Resources Forum 21 127–37

GEF 1996 Operational strategy Global Environment Facility,Washington DC

Glantz M H 1998 Creeping environmental problems in theAral Sea basin in Kobori I and Glantz M H eds CentralEurasian water crisis: Caspian, Aral, and Dead Seas UnitedNations University Press, Tokyo 25–52

Glazovsky N F 1995 The Aral Sea basin in Kasperson J X,Kasperson R E and Turner B L, II eds Regions at risk:comparisons of threatened environments United NationsUniversity Press, Tokyo 92–139

Homer-Dixon T 1999 The myth of global water wars ForumInternational Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva 10–13

IPCC 2001 The regional impacts of climate change: anassessment of vulnerability Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Geneva

Mageed Y A 1994 The Nile basin: lessons from the past inBiswas A K ed International waters of the Middle East: fromEuphrates-Tigris to Nile Oxford University Press, Bombay156–84

Nile Basin Initiative 2001 Transboundary environmentalanalysis Shared Vision Program, Nile Basin InitiativeSecretariat (http://www.nilebasin.org) Entebbe, Uganda

OAS 2000 Transboundary diagnostic analysis of the binationalbasin of the Bermejo river Programa estrategico de accionpara la cuenca del Rı́o Bermejo, Organisation of AmericanStates, Buenos Aires

Ollila P, Uitto J I, Crepin C and Duda A M 2000 Multi-country project arrangements: report of a thematic reviewMonitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 3 GlobalEnvironment Facility, Washington DC

Rangeley R, Thiam B M, Andersen R A and Lyle C A 1994International river basin organizations in sub-Saharan AfricaTechnical paper no. 250 World Bank, Washington DC

Renner M 1996 Fighting for survival: environmental decline,social conflict, and the new age of insecurity W W Norton,New York

Sjöberg H 1999 Restructuring the Global EnvironmentFacility Working Paper 13, Global Environment Facility,Washington DC

Uitto J I 2000 Population, food and water in the 21st centuryin Rose J ed Population problems: topical issues Gordonand Breach, Amsterdam 93–110

Uitto J I 2001 Global freshwater resources in Palo M,Uusivuori J and Mery G eds World forests, markets andpolicies Kluwer, Amsterdam 65–76

Uitto J I 2002a Multi-country co-operation for sustainabledevelopment of international lake basins: lessons from the


Global Environment Facility in Jansky L, Nakayama M andUitto J I eds Lakes and reservoirs as international watersystems Towards a World Lake Vision United NationsUniversity, Tokyo 79–93

Uitto J I 2002b Environmental disaster feeds terrorism TheJapan Times 30 March

UN 1997a World demographic trends Report of theSecretary-General E/CN.9/1997/9 Commission on Popu-lation and Development, thirtieth session 24–28 February1997 United Nations Economic and Social Council, NewYork

UN 1997b Comprehensive assessment of the freshwaterresources of the world United Nations, New York

Wolf A T, Natharius J A, Danielson J J, Ward B S and PenderJ K 1999 International river basins of the worldInternational Journal of Water Resources Development 15387–427

World Commission on Dams 2000 Dams and development –a new framework for decision-making Earthscan Publi-cations, London

World Water Commission 2000 A water secure world – visionfor water, life, and the environment Thanet Press, London


The Geographical Journal 168, No. 4, December 2002, pp ...dusk.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/estemmerman_transbound.pdf · literature suggesting that conﬂicts around water resources

Documents