Transboundary Water
Institutes/Organizations
Dr. Zaigham Habib
Institutional Approaches
Various institutional approaches to manage transboundary
basins and treaties
• type of agreement/issues
• history
• adopted institutional and governance pattern
• external, regional factors
Administrative organizations: International/regional
Commissions, with or without a permanent secretariat.
Representatives of the concerned ministries coordinate on
projects, to exchange information/ data, address emergency
situations, to define common rules and whenever necessary to
allocate the available resources (or benefits derived there from)
between the countries, regions or sectors. Regulate during
emergencies.
Institutional Approaches
Basin Organizations or Authorities with specific tasks
Supporting combined developments, contracting large structures
like, navigation, flood control, water diversions, the building of
reservoirs especially for irrigation, hydropower production, etc.
Arbitration Authorities
Interested “parties” refer to these authorities for decisionmaking on the conflicts which arise; this is the case of the
International Joint Commission (IJC) between the USA and
Canada, or the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC) between the USA and .
Supporting systems/organizations
Basin level organizations require a supporting system - directly or
indirectly connected;
1. Agencies/departments responsible for collecting data,
managing investments, taxes and sub-regional/ national
water plans,
2. Specific Committees or working groups to perform specific
tasks – environment, industry, emergency support
3. Stakeholders and civil society
4. Temporary “projects or programs” organizations
In all cases, the institutional arrangements established should
eventually lead to the creation of a joint basin management body.
Mandates of transboundary basin organizations
A transboundary River Basin Organization can be defined as a permanent
institutional arrangement dedicated to all or part of the management of shared
waters between at least two countries. The legal framework and the statute of
these institutions are often determined by the basin’s context and history as well
as by the mandate given to the body established by the Member States.
Three levels of general mandates for transboundary basin organizations:
1. Informational/coordination mandate, focusing on the exchange of data and
tasks mainly technical and execution;
2. consultative mandate, where the body is an institution complementary to
the States, but has no decisional power;
3. decisional mandate, implying indeed a partial loss of the States’ sovereignty
to the benefit of the organization in the field of shared waters.
Usually, the creation of a permanent body follows an agreement between the
riparian countries of the basin, an agreement that, in most cases, is limited to
part of the territory of the countries concerned, since the basin limits do not
correspond to the borders of each country
How three International Systems define
the scope and the farm of transboundary
organizations
According to UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Rivers and International Lakes, there are three
major types of institutional arrangements for inter-State
agreements on transboundary waters:
1. without designation of an institution to implement the
agreement;
2. appointment of governmental representatives
(plenipotentiaries );
3. establishment of a joint commission responsible for the
implementation of the agreement.
Joint commissions prevail in international practice, however, bilateral arrangements continue
GWP (IWRM) Context
No structure can be regarded as a universal model because they are
each established for specific waters and geopolitical context, and
special socio-economic features. Nevertheless, some principles that
improve the efficiency of the body and cooperation may be retained.
This includes:
1. A wide responsibility of the joint body to allow for IWRM
implementation;
2. A clearly defined mandate and institutional organization to allow
for the adoption of decisions and their implementation;
3. A gradually consolidated legal framework;
4. Efficient mechanisms for cooperation between the national
authorities and the transboundary basin body;
5. Mechanisms for reporting;
6. The availability of funds to support joint programmes and
structures;
7. Mechanisms to promote public and stakeholders participation in
the activities of the joint body.
1997 UN Water Convention:
Functions of Transboundary Basin Organizations
1. Collecting, compiling and evaluating data to identify pollution sources that
generate a cross border impact;
2. Developing joint monitoring programs on quality and quantity of the resource;
3. Developing inventories and exchange of information on pollution sources that
generate a cross-border impact ;
4. Establishing emission limits for waste water and evaluating the effectiveness
of control programs;
5. Jointly defining quality criteria and objectives and the proposed measures to
maintain and, if necessary, improve water quality;
6. Developing joint action plans to reduce polluting loads from accidental
pollution and diffuse pollution;
7. Establishing alert procedures;
8. Providing a forum for information exchange on existing and planned uses of
the resource and related facilities, which generate a cross-border impact;
9. Promoting cooperation and information exchange on best available
technologies and fostering cooperation in scientific research programmes;
10.Participating in the environmental impact assessment of transboundary
waters, in accordance with the relevant international rules.
Summarizing the Scope and Functions
The basin body size can vary: the secretariat of the Mosel - Saar Rivers
Basin Commission is made up of two people while the Secretariat of
the Mekong River Commission comprises 120 officers.
A River Basin Commission is adequate when ‘significant
development options are still to be considered in the river
basin’, ‘conflicting uses [are] significant’, ‘information and
policies still need further development’, and ‘water resource
planning and management practices are not well detailed’. A
commission is formally constituted and comprised of a
management board or group of commissioners who ‘set
objectives, goals, policy and strategic direction’, are
supported by technical staff, and possibly complemented by a
presiding Ministerial Council. A Commission does not
interfere with general water management functions but sets
‘the bulk of water shares that each state/province it entitled
to divert and … monitor(s) water use’. It is characterized by
equal partnerships among member governments and may
include other stakeholders as well (Millington et al., 2006a, p.
8).
A River Basin Coordinating Committee or Council is based
on the assumption that ‘existing agencies are operating
effectively’, ‘most of the important data networks are in
place’, ‘most of the high priority water projects have been
constructed’ and ‘competition for resource use … has been
resolved’. This comprises ministers or senior representatives
of main water-related agencies, meeting regularly; it has no
executive power and is legally based on letters of agreement
from the participating agencies.13 This category, however, is
more common in the national context and serves to
complement joint bodies on a higher level.
A River Basin Authority can either be a ‘large multidisciplinary organization with specific development
tasks’ (e.g. hydropower development) or ‘an
organization that absorbs virtually all the water
resources functions of other agencies in the basin’.
While in some countries authorities are being
transformed into commissions or coordinating
committees/councils (see below), this model is
adequate, for example, in some African basins because
of their relatively low degree of water resources
development, such as the Niger. However, it is not
suitable for ‘historically, geographically, and politically
very complex’ basins such as the Nile (ibid., p. 9).
Permanent Indus Commission
A central institutional mechanism to implement Indus Water Treaty
1. Commission serves as a regular channel of communication on all
matters relating to implementation of the Treaty”. The
Commission is required to “study and report” to both
Governments “on any problems relating to the development of
the waters of the Rivers which may be jointly referred to the
Commission by the two Governments”.
2. Regarding disputes, the Commission is obliged to “make every
effort to settle promptly, in accordance with the provisions of
Article IX (1), any question arising there under.”
3. The Commission, headed by a Commissioner in each country,
Despite resolution mechanism at the 2nd level - Neutral Expert,
Permanent Court Arbitration,
Mekong River Basin Organization
Four lower riparian States (Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos)
agreed on an institutional mechanisms “to cooperate in all fields of
sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of
the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin.” Mekong
River Commission (MRC) comprised of three permanent bodies:
1. the Council (one Ministerial representative from each riparian State)
is empowered to make policy decisions on behalf of the respective
governments. The Council has the task “to entertain, address and
resolve issues, differences and disputes”;
2. the Joint Committee (one senior official from each riparian State) is
asked to “address and make every effort to resolve issues and
differences that may arise between regular sessions of the Council”
and “when necessary to refer the matter to the Council”;
3. the Secretariat is charged with the day-to-day operations, including
support for the Council and Joint Committee, and providing technical
services.
Mekong River Commission (1995)
A coordination mechanism between four countries. Original aim was to develop
large scale water resource, never realized. Now objectives include hydropower,
irrigation, flood control, collection and distribution of hydrological data.
The MRC serves as focal point for donor organizations and countries. It helps
dialogue with two upper states , China and Myanmar. The MRC member
countries agree to co-operate in all fields of sustainable development, utilisation,
management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong
River Basin, such as navigation, flood control, fisheries, agriculture, hydropower
and environmental protection.
ASEAN-Mekong Basin Development Cooperation (AMBDC)
The objectives of this cooperation are:(i) to enhance economically sound and
sustainable development of the Mekong Basin; (ii) to encourage a process of
dialogue and common project identification which can result in firm economic
partnerships for mutual benefit; and (iii) to strengthen the interconnections and
economic linkages between the ASEAN member countries and the Mekong
riparian countries.
Treaty basin: Mekong Date: June 17, 1996
Signatories: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Myanmar, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam
Institutional Settings between India, Bangladesh and
Nepal
Farakha Joint Committee to record daily flow below Farakka barrage, in the
Feeder canal, at the Navigation Lock, at the Hardinge Bridge
Treaty basin: Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Date: December 12, 1996
Signatories: India, Bangladesh
Mahakali River Commission
(i) seek information and if necessary, inspect all structures included in the
Treaty; (ii) make recommendations for the conservation and utilization (iii)
provide expert evaluation of projects and make recommendations; (iv)
coordinate and monitor (v) examine any differences arising between the two
countries concerning the Treaty’s interpretation and application.
Treaty basin: Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (Mahakali subbasin)
Date: February 12, 1996
Signatories: India, Nepal
Nile Basin Initiative
Objectives: Economic development, joint management, poverty eradication
The NBI is a transitional mechanism that includes nine Nile riparian
countries as equal members in a regional partnership to promote economic
development and fight poverty throughout the Basin. The vision of the NBI
is to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the
equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water
resources. Within the framework of Technical Cooperation Committee for
the Promotion of the Development and Environmental Protection of the Nile
Basin (TECCONILE), a Nile River Basin action plan was prepared in 1995
with support from CIDA. In 1997, the World Bank agreed to a request by
the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs of the Nile Basin States (Nile-COM)
to lead and coordinate donor support for their activities. In 1998,
recognizing that cooperative development holds the greatest prospects of
bringing mutual benefits to the region, all riparians, except Eritrea, joined in
a dialogue to create a regional partnership to facilitate the common pursuit
of sustainable development and management of Nile waters.
The Permanent Joint Technical Committee (PJTC)




Sudan and Egypt
Formed to preside on the application of the 'Nile Waters Treaty
Agreement' of 1959
Post Aswan Dam, Joint management, water quantities.
Many technical studies: for example, UNDP supported a Hydromet
Project on the Equatorial lakes was started in 1967 and continued to 1992
The Okavango River Basin Commission
Conflict: Botswana claims water to sustain lucrative ecotourism industry and delta, Namibia
wants to pipe water through pipe to supply its capital city with industrial and drinking water.
Angola, Botswana and Namibia signed an Agreement in 1994, establishing the Okavango River
Basin Commission (OKACOM) to coordinate sustainable water resources development.
1. 2004, the Commission agreed to establish a Secretariat to implement its decisions.
2. 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed for the establishment of the
Commission Secretariat (OKASEK) and development of procedural guidelines.
3. 2006, Organizational Structure was defined for a Permanent Commission.
4. 2007, an agreement was signed by three governments on the structure of Commission
and on the location of the secretariat.
5. April 2007, the agreement on the OKACOM permanent organizational structure was
reviewed to bring it in line with the Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses.
6. The protocol on the sharing of hydrological data was signed in 2010.
The Commission is made up of three representatives from each country. The Secretariat is an
internal organ, mandated to assist OKACOM in implementing its decisions. It assumes a role in
information sharing and communication. The Basin Forum, a transboundary committee
comprised of 10 local representatives from each State, was established to share experiences
and generate an overall view of the socio-economic and hydro-environmental
Evolving International Support System on
Data
Climate Change
Technical studies
Thank You