i

MEKONG WATER DIALOGUES PHASE 1 (2008-2010) FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 2010

ii

MEKONG WATER DIALOGUES PHASE 1 (2008-2010) FINAL REPORT OCTOBER 2010 Project Key Information:

Name: Mekong Water Dialogues (MWD)

Duration: 2008-2010

Grant: One Million Euros

Funded by: The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland

Implemented by: IUCN, Asia Regional Office (ARO)

Partners: Government Ministries and Line Agencies, Communities, Civil Society Organisations, Research Institutions, and Private Sector Organisations in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam

Report produced by: Robert Mather and Ganesh Pangare

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. iv

SUMMARY ................................................................................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... vi

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 4

3. PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AND IMPACTS ....................................... 20

4. CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS ................................................... 23

5. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHASE II ...................................................... 25

iv

ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank ARO Asia Regional Office CDRI Cambodia Development Resource Institute CG1 Country Group 1 CIRAD Agricultural Research for Developing Countries (Centre de coopération internationale en recherché agronomique pour le développement) CNMC Cambodian National Mekong Committee CSER Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility DWR Department of Water Resources DWRM Department of Water Resource Management ELG-1 Ecosystems and Livelihoods, Group 1 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWMI International Water Management Institute IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry National Fishery Administration MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MRC Mekong River Commission MWD Mekong Water Dialogues NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NTP National Target Programme NWG National Working Group PIM Participatory Irrigation Management PPWSA Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority RBO River Basin Organisation RNWG Regional National Working Group RWWP Regional Water and Wetlands Program TEI Thailand Environment Institute UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USGS U.S. Geological Survey VCCI Viet Nam Chambers of Commerce and Industry WARECOD Center for Water Resources Conservation and Development WREA Water Resources and Environment Administration

v

SUMMARY Mekong Water Dialogues: Building water governance partnerships across business, government and civil society in the Mekong Region The Mekong Water Dialogues (MWD) has started to provide a valuable opportunity for stakeholders both within countries and across the region to share and discuss diverse visions, strategies and development plans on a number of aspects of water resource management at the local, national and regional levels Areas of focus so far have included, IWRM approaches, River Basin organizations, Tai Baan research approaches, participatory irrigation management, water pollution, fisheries, Tonle Sap development and donor coordination, Mekong Delta wetlands governance, and ground water. National Working Groups (NWGs) were established in each country, including representation from government, civil society, private sector and academic institutions. Under the auspices of the NWGs, national consultants conducted situation analyses, identifying key issues and recommendations for MWD to take forward. After subsequent discussion in larger national stakeholder workshops, prioritized issues were taken forward in a series of case study research and dialogue processes. A number of hard copy and digital publications have been published and distributed, and are available for download from the project website. The project has been invited to make many presentations at high level events both in the regional, and globally (Stockholm Water Week, World Water Week, etc.) Important collaborations have been initiated with major players at the regional level including MRC, ADB, FAO, and IWMI that will be built upon in Phase II, at the same time as collaboration is also developed with other regional organizations including Wetlands Alliance, Wetland University Network, Sumernet, Mekong Institute, etc. The approach, experience and learning from MWD Phase I has informed the design of Phase II, and also has been replicated in a successfully- proposal for trans-boundary water dialogues between India and Bangladesh, now funded by the Dutch Government, and currently in its inception period.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IUCN would like to thank all the members of the NWGs in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam, as well as all the stakeholders who have participated in project activities at the local, national, and regional levels. We would also like to thank Mr. Binayak Das and Carolin Kugel for their work on the project website; and Mr. Binayak Das and Ms. Harvandana Singh for their assistance with drafts of some project reports. IUCN also thanks the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland for their financial support to the project, and especially to Ms. Helena Ahola and Ms. Marjaana Kokkonen for their continued support and encouragement.

1

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Overview of the Mekong region “The Mekong has different meanings and perspectives for everyone. To a fisherman, fisheries are important, while to a farmer, the river is important for irrigation”

Mr. Sansonthi Boonyothayan, Thailand The Mekong Region, encompassing the territories of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Thailand, Myanmar and parts of Southwest China, is geographically located amongst some of the fastest-growing economies of Asia (and the world). The socially equitable, economically profitable and environmentally sustainable use of water (including optimizing and sharing of benefits of trans-boundary waters) is crucial to the economic prosperity of the 300 million people living in the Mekong Region. Industries such as mining, agriculture, tourism, renewable energy and fisheries are directly dependent upon well managed water systems. A large proportion of Mekong people are also directly dependent on fish and other aquatic products for their food and livelihood security. The Lower Mekong Basin alone, produces 3 million tons of fish, valued at $3 billion (at first point of sale) each year, enabling 60 million people to consume an average of 50kg of fish per person per year, and providing up to 80% of their animal protein intake. There are serious water governance challenges facing the region in dealing with rapid economic development that is placing increasing pressure on water resources. Regional stakeholders in the various sectors have different visions for the development of the Mekong Region, and how these visions are translated into action will have an impact on the way in which the water resources in the region are managed and used. These include gaps in policy and law; competing sectoral interests; overlapping and unclear mandates of different agencies and institutions; and poorly designed or ineffective implementation of processes; together posing significant risks to equitable and sustainable development. 1.2 About the Mekong Water Dialogues: “A water dialogue is a forum to share ideas and experiences to raise voice as a group and not as an individual”

- Ms Helena Ahola, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland The Mekong Water Dialogues were conceived to respond to an increasing demand from members and partners for IUCN to engage and assist in water and river basin management issues. IUCN is very well placed to assist with multi-stakeholder platforms and water dialogues as it is perceived to have the

2

authority to convene, the skills to facilitate, and the respect to enable different actors to articulate their views and be heard. This combination of traits provides an opportunity for IUCN to implement a project like the Mekong Water Dialogues in an effective manner. The Mekong Water Dialogues (MWD) is a unique and timely initiative that provides a valuable opportunity for stakeholders both within countries and across the region to share and discuss diverse visions, strategies and development plans, in order to foster a common understanding of the opportunities and constraints for equitable and sustainable development, as well as the issues and impacts of sectoral developments on water resources. Such a common understanding should help to guide decision-making and investment related to the utilisation and sustainable development of water resources in the region. Even more importantly, MWD provides opportunities for affected people to provide input to water related policy and decision-making processes. Dialogues, or Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs), are a participatory governance technology that can assist society to reflect on the wisdom of past actions, more comprehensively explore and assess future options, and more openly negotiate workable strategies and agreements. Dialogues are rooted in a belief in the added value provided by deliberation which is inclusive, information-rich and flexibly facilitated, actively promoting analysis of different views. A multi-stakeholder dialogue (MSD) is an interactive approach in which more or less inter-dependent stakeholders are identified and invited to meet and interact in a forum for the purpose of conflict resolution, negotiation, social learning and collective decision-making. A ‘stakeholder’ is anybody who has interests in the concerned issues, anyone who is affected by the issues and who has the money as well as power to influence the issues. Dialogues progress through a series of facilitated discussions allowing participants to share their perspectives and experiences in order to promote and build a deeper understanding of contentious issues. Rather than seeking quick solutions, participants engage in a more thorough decision-making process and build stronger relationships at the same time. There are different types of MSD processes in the context of water resource management including social network for increasing understanding between stakeholders, focus group for planning and visioning, service organization for generating external support towards a collective need, crisis management organisations or “track II” for supporting formal negotiations, action alliances as a response to an unpopular intervention or policy, and river basin organizations. MSDs can help to address complex and interdependent problems in a more integrated and comprehensive manner by accommodating broader perspectives and offering more flexible solutions. A multi-stakeholder process can act as a catalyst for policy innovation, through increased consultations between those involved in or affected by an issue and government officials

3

and policymakers. A multi-stakeholder forum encourages greater responsiveness to and inclusion of a wider range of stakeholder perspectives in the formation of policies and practices. MSDs can obtain the “buy-in” of beneficiaries and local “ownership” of proposed solutions, thereby ensuring greater sustainability of outcomes. MSD processes can also link bilateral and multilateral donors to national and local actors, thereby helping to fill the “local content” gap that can be missing in their policy development, and produce information and an assessment from an independent source that is perceived to be unbiased for issues that are the source of disagreement or conflict. Although MSDs have many advantages, multi-stakeholder processes are not a universal solution to all problems. MSDs can be expensive and take a lot of time and effort. 1.3 MWD Objectives: Goal, Purpose and Results Through the Mekong Water Dialogues, people from all strata of society will have the chance to take part in making important decisions related to water resources for the enhancement of their quality of life and protection of the environment”

- Mr. Pham Quoc Hung, Department of Water Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam

The Mekong Water Dialogues (MWD), facilitated by IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and supported by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, were initiated to work with countries of the Lower Mekong Region: Lao PDR, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Thailand, to improve water governance by facilitating transparent and inclusive decision- making in order to improve livelihood security, human and ecosystem health. Established in 2008, the project completed its first phase at the end of August 2010. Phase 2, to be implemented from September 2010, will take forward and build on the issues, concerns and learning identified during the research and dialogue processes undertaken in Phase 1. Goal: Livelihood security and human and ecosystem health in the Mekong Region are improved through participatory water governance Purpose: Stakeholder participation in decision-making related to water resources is mainstreamed Outcomes and Outputs: Phase 1 of the project had three intended outcomes with six associated outputs: 1. Improve decision-making processes around water-related investments in

the Mekong Region. 1.1 Meaningful participation by civil society, State and business actors in

decision-making processes that affect livelihoods and environment.

4

1.2 Enhanced understanding of decision-making pathways and use of Dialogue tools and approaches.

2. Provide opportunity for State, civil society and business actors in the Mekong Region to participate in water dialogues – to inform, and be informed. 2.1 Broad public understanding of the desirable characteristics of

Dialogues or Multi-stakeholder platforms in terms of context, process and outcomes.

2.2 Concrete recommendations and commitment to use multi-stakeholder Dialogue mechanisms at local, national and regional levels for decision-making on specific projects or strategies.

3. Enable the articulation of different perspectives about Mekong Region

water-related development to be considered in decision-making. 3.1 Mechanisms for effective civil society engagement in Dialogues. 3.2 Increased regional awareness and understanding of CSER

responsibilities, tools and practical applications.

2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION “MWD is an arena where civil society organisations such as ourselves, can share our ideas and experiences related to the use and protection of water resources with policy-makers and state management agencies”

- Ngui Thi Khanh, Deputy Director, Centre for Water Resources

Conservation and Development, Viet Nam 2.1 MWD Overall Approach The approach of the MWD Phase I has been to develop country-led and regional dialogue processes enabling better flows of information and knowledge, greater stakeholder participation, and an increased appreciation of the inter-dependence of issues that in turn highlights the need for multi-stakeholder processes to develop appropriate integrated solutions. In general, the project approach and methodology have been guided by the following principles: Multistakeholder engagement, involving a wide range of stakeholders

including those who do not normally participate in policymaking, such as poor communities, ethnic minorities and women

Participatory deliberations, providing an opportunity for genuine participation through which stakeholders develop a common understanding of issues and perspectives

Evidence-based assessment, of national realities and concerns based on a holistic analytical framework

5

Sustainability, by working with and involving existing water sector reform processes in countries, and building in-country capacity and structures

The approach has tried to ensure that three key types of stakeholders – government, civil society and business are represented in all aspects of the project - on the NWG of each country, as well as in all stakeholder workshops and dialogue activities. Business – companies, investors, financial institutions, developers The private sector is an increasingly powerful force in water management and the Mekong Water Dialogues provides a unique opportunity to engage business leaders in the Region. In phase 1 the Dialogues started to collaborate with national and international businesses from sectors including tourism, mining, energy and banking. Government – national government, sectoral line agencies, and local authorities. Government officials were engaged in phase I of the dialogue processes to contribute their knowledge and expertise, to learn from environmental initiatives carried out by other governments in the region and to build on their water networks with increased business and community engagement. Civil Society – NGOs, community based organizations, social networks Civil society has been represented in phase I by key local and international non-government organizations and community groups, participate in discussions with government and business leaders In addition relationships have been initiated with other agencies working in the region including ADB, MRC, UNESCAP, IWMI, and FAO. A number of exploratory/brainstorming workshops have been held at the regional level with these partners on trans-boundary water governance, river basin management and groundwater. To support communication, learning, and policy advocacy, MWD has developed and distributed a series of publications in both hard copy and digital formats. 2.2 Project Inception and Staffing The focus in 2008 was on recruiting project coordinators, initiating the project, identifying key stakeholders, reaching an agreement about the scope and working process of the project with the stakeholders in the region and grasping the important water issues that needed to be dealt with in each country. Project activities in 2008 began with an Inception Workshop, held on March 6-7 at the IUCN office in Lao PDR, to develop a detailed work plan for 2008 and an indicative work plan for the period 2009-2011. The workshop reviewed the objectives of the project and discussed consequent changes envisioned in the next three years. The implementing partners were also involved in the discussions, bringing forth varied perspectives on the vision of the project. The suggestions of partners were reviewed and discussed. The status of the budget was reviewed and a revised budget was proposed that harmonized the finances with the work plan. With both the IUCN Regional Water and Wetlands

6

Programme Coordinator position, and the IUCN Country Group (CG) 1 (Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam) Head position, both vacant until August and September 2008 respectively, the IUCN Lao Programme Coordinator played the role of regional coordination of the project during the first 5-6 months of implementation. During this time, national project coordinators were recruited for Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam, and their roles and responsibilities were identified and agreed. With a new RWWP Coordinator and new CG1 Head in place a project team meeting was held on September 22-23, 2008 in Bangkok to discuss the background, vision, aims, objectives and approach of the project together with the coordinators in the three countries. The coordinators expressed their understanding of the project and pointed out the key issues in their respective countries. Importantly, the process of forming National Working Groups (NWG) and identifying key stakeholders as well as partners was discussed. The country coordinators discussed their work plans for the year 2008 and also shared the tasks and outputs completed so far. The coordinators were briefed in the process of conducting the first NWG meeting, communication and networking strategy and reporting systems. The training requirements of the coordinators were assessed and a subsequent plan of action was suggested. The second project team meeting was held in Loei, Thailand from 16-18 December and was attended by Dr. Robert Mather, Mr. Ganesh Pangare and Mr. Nga, Mr. Sengpaseuth and Ms. Phuong, the country coordinators of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. The primary issues on the agenda were to review Individual Work Plans (IWP), discuss the communication strategy and spell out the work plan and budget for 2009. Six primary areas of responsibility were identified for the coordinators. These areas are i) planning, monitoring and reporting ii) coordination iii) communications iv) relationship building/ management v) assessment, compilation, research vi) programme development and fund raising. Subsequently there were changes to national project personnel. Mr Prom Nga left IUCN Cambodia in early 2009, and was replaced by Ms. Sarah Turner, an Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development (AYAD) volunteer. After the end of Sarah’s one year assignment, Kong Kim Sreng, IUCN Cambodia Senior Programme Officer took on the responsibility of coordinating the remaining activities until the end of Phase I of the project. In Lao PDR, Mr. Sengpaseuth also left the organization and was subsequently replaced by Mr. Fongsamuth Phengphaengsy who remained in place until the end of Phase 1. In Viet Nam, Ms. Phoung also left IUCN later in 2009. Her tasks were taken over by Mr. Jake Brunner, IUCN Viet Nam Programme Coordinator, until a replacement Mr. Nguyen Duc Tu was brought on board later in 2010. The team in Viet Nam was also subsequently boosted by the addition of a new AYAD, Jason Bayly-Stark. Regular team meetings were held throughout the project, to update and review progress, identify problems and constraints and agree how to address

7

them; identify new opportunities and how to take advantage of them, and to develop workplans and budget plans for each subsequent period. 2.3 Public Launch of the MWD The MWD project and the National Working Groups were publicly launched in November and December in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. The purpose of the launch meetings was to introduce the project and the NWG to a wider group of stakeholders, explain the significance of the project, the processes and expected outputs from the project. The Launch in Phnom Penh and was attended by 40 participants from various sectors including relevant line ministries, NGOs, donors, academia and community stakeholders, senior officers from the Cambodia National Mekong Committee (CNMC) and Tonle Sap Basin Authority (TSBA).The launch in Hanoi and was attended by nearly 70 participants from different sectors. Among those who participated were the Director General of the Department of Water Resources Management, MONRE; Deputy Director General of the Department of Water Resources, MARD; Deputy Director of the Department of Science, Technology and Environment; Representative from the Department of Sector Economy, National Government Office; Deputy Director General of Viet Nam Administration of Sea and Islands; Representative from Viet Nam Environment Administration; Deputy Secretary General of Viet Nam National Mekong Committee; Director of Business for Sustainable Development VCCI; representatives of national and international organizations, representatives of donors, academic institutes, scientist community and mass media agency. IUCN Regional Staff and the Regional Director were present for the meeting. The launch in Lao PDR involved the signing of an MoU between IUCN and Water Resources and Environment Administration (WREA). The representatives from WREA and members of NWG Lao PDR were present at the meeting. The launch meetings were widely reported in national dailies in each country. 2.4 Establishment and Functioning of National Working Groups (NWGs) The project implementation activities in 2008 included setting up Multi-stakeholder National Working Groups (NWG) in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam, defining the roles and responsibilities of the NWGs, and their members, and developing the basic working relationships National Working Groups (NWG) were established in each country with a diversity of members representing the government, private sector, civil society, donors, universities and research institutions. Membership was reviewed and refined in both 2009 and 2010, in an ongoing effort to achieve the most appropriate balance of sectors and a proactive membership that would lead to effective results. The NWGs have helped in guiding MWD implementation through shaping the research/case-study agenda, and in the design of the national dialogues, as well as establishing connections with decision and policy-makers, to promote improved water governance in their countries and the wider Mekong Region. Given the central importance of the NWGs, a certain amount of training was provided to NWG members. Training workshops were implemented at the regional level during regional meetings for NWG members from all countries.

8

Topics including water governance, multi-stakeholder dialogue processes, and policy advocacy. Regular NWG meetings were held throughout the project to provide opportunities for members to discuss and exchange views on key issues, update on implementation progress, and identify future priorities. The NWGs reviewed recommendations of consultants’ reports and case studies on key topics. They will play a major role in organizing National Dialogues in each country. Individual NWG members, were all expected take something of the consultants’ recommendations; case studies and dialogue outputs; and something of the multi-stakeholder dialogue processes, and internalise them within their own organizations, thereby helping to mainstream these approaches. More emphasis will be given to this aspect in 2010 and in phase II, and suitable simple indicators need to be identified to monitor progress in this regard. Although stakeholders from Thailand were involved in project meetings and activities in 2008 and 2009, in the initial project design it was not thought necessary to establish a NWG in Thailand. Based on stakeholder discussion in 2009, it was felt that Thailand should also join the Dialogues on an equal basis like the other three Mekong countries. An NWG was therefore established in Thailand in early 2010. The main function of the NWG in Thailand is to provide guidance on water issues in Thailand in relation to regional dialogue, and to capture learning from the water sector in Thailand that may be useful for neighbouring countries – particularly in relation to mainstreaming IWRM approaches, establishment and functioning of river basin organizations (RBOs) and participatory approaches including Tai Baan Research, and the role of communities in water resources management.

2.5 Regional NWG Meetings and Regional Training The first regional meeting held on 13-14 November 2008 in Pattaya, Thailand was attended by 24 members of the NWGs of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam and three stakeholders from Thailand. The main objective was to

Roles and responsibilities of the NWGs as identified by NWG members Provide technical support to the process Provide information to key national policy makers by sharing the

lessons learnt from the dialogue process Collaborate with diverse constituents such as government, NGOs,

donors, private sector etc Act as an advisory body to the project at the country level Steer and direct the implementation of the project activities at the

country level Commit time to the project and participate in the meetings Assist in policy development Assist in the implementation of research studies

9

critically examine a few key issues related to the Project and to initiate the process of dialogue among the members. The meeting was facilitated by the RWWP coordinator and CG1 Head along with the country coordinators Mr. Prom Nga (Cambodia), Mr. Sengpaseuth (Lao PDR) and Ms Tran Minh Phuong (Viet Nam). Ms Helena Ahola, First Secretary (Development Cooperation), Embassy of Finland, also addressed the meeting, explaining the background to supporting this project, and the expectations of what it would deliver. Group discussions were conducted to get an idea about members’ understanding and perspectives of the project. The members of each country formed a group to discuss the scope of the project, roles and responsibilities of NWG and important water issues in their countries. Importantly, the geographic scope of the project was agreed as the countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Viet Nam and Thailand within the Mekong Region, and not just the Mekong River Basin itself – although this is the major trans-boundary river system in the region and clearly remains a major focus. A first training on MSD Processes was provided. The 2nd Regional National Working Group (RNWG) meeting of MWD was organized in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam from 30th November to 1st December 2009. The overall agenda of the meeting was to review the progress and achievements of the NWG for the year 2009. The meeting also focused on identifying key issues related to the strengthening of NWG and planning the activities to be undertaken in 2010. MWD country progress reports for Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam were presented by the respective Country Coordinators. In addition, MWD regional progress was shared by the RWWP Coordinator. Following the presentations, breakout sessions were held for each NWG from the countries to discuss the composition of NWG, how to strengthen NWGs, and the involvement of NWGs for policy advocacy in 2010. Discussions also focused on including more stakeholders from various other groups and it was decided to include more participants from the private sector and community organizations within the NWGs. In addition to the one day discussion, a field trip was held to the Tram Chim National Park in Dong Thap Province. The Tram Chim National Park provides a good example of wetland management issues and how they are being addressed. The third regional meeting was held in Kunming in May 2010. NWG members from all 4 countries came together (this was the first time that the newly established Thai NWG had as a full group joined the NWGs from the other countries in a regional event) and update each other on recent progress in MWD implementation in each of their countries. They also discussed initial ideas for work on wetlands and IWRM/RBOs in the proposed phase II of MWD, and discussed how each of their NWGs could become more effective in the future. Training was provided on a framework for understanding and assessing governance issues, as well as on approaches to effective policy advocacy. A field trip was organized to Kunming’s main lake, focusing on pollution issues and how they were being managed. 2.6 Country and Regional Situational Analyses Under the supervision of the NWGs, local consultants were employed to conduct desk reviews of the water sector situational analysis and governance

10

issues in each country. The situational analysis studies were carried out between October and December 2008 in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam to assess the current water governance scenario encompassing policy, legal, regulatory, institutional and decision-making aspects. The studies were aimed at assisting the NWGs to identify key water governance related challenges in each of the member countries. The studies prioritised water-related issues, highlighting the scope for improving water governance and recommended areas that could be addressed through the dialogue processes during the rest of the project. Reports of these studies were finalized in the first quarter of 2009. Subsequently the three country studies were synthesized into one overall regional report1

1 S. Turner, G.Pangare and RJ Mather, eds (2009) Water Governance: A situational Analysis of Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. MWD Publication #2, Gland, Switzerland, IUCN 32pp. ISBN 978-8317-1196-6

that highlighted some of the common finding as follows: 1. Water resources management is typically sector- driven and not

integrated. 2. While improved policies and legal frameworks have been initiated in

many areas, there are still gaps that need to be addressed, and in all cases the process of translating laws into action has just begun and further work is required.

3. In many water-related sub-sectors roles and responsibilities of various

ministries and agencies are not clearly defined, resulting in indefinite and vague accountability assigned to any of the agencies. Coordination between various ministries and agencies is also lacking, hence the implementation of policies, schemes and programs is ineffective.

4. Participation of communities and affected stakeholders is limited and

there is generally poor awareness regarding water management and governance issues amongst both communities and government officials.

5. The water-related challenges facing Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Viet Nam

are diverse, though inextricably linked. Addressing these challenges requires not only improving decision making processes between the different state and non-state actors within countries, but also improving information flows across the Mekong Region and ensuring the decisions of individual countries take into consideration developments in neighbouring countries.

The consultants in each country made recommendations for issues that MWD should focus on, and these were further discussed by the NWG members in each country. Initial recommendations from the consultants were as follows:

11

Cambodia IWRM as an approach for equitable

and sustainable water development Sustainable fisheries management Flood and drought management Water quality Improving access to irrigation for poor

farmers Hydropower and ecosystem

management

Lao PDR Community based irrigation

management. Environmental considerations for

hydropower development projects. Support the current reforms ongoing in

the water sector, including development of national water policy, strategy and law

Mainstreaming the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM)

Thailand The assessment for Thailand was developed in a different way. It was developed by the Thailand Environment Institute as an outcome from a stakeholder consultation workshop. The study highlighted that prior to developing any more water supply infrastructure; irrigation efficiency should be seriously reviewed. It is also identified the importance of enhancing the local understanding of issues and organizing local peoples’ interactions in watersheds and river basins to discuss with each other issues facing them. Legal The Water Act in Thailand is yet to be promulgated despite several years of drafting and consultation processes. Likewise, the success of River Basin Committees is yet to be fully observed. Dam building and hydropower plants remain a big concern.

Viet Nam River pollution – particularly from the

Craft Village sector Equitable use of water based on

negotiated allocations: Water supply and sanitation sub-sector –

prioritization of investment Promoting IWRM

2.7 National Multi-stakeholder Consultations National Consultation Meetings were held in each of the member countries to present to the varied stakeholders the results of the situational analysis studies for further discussion and deliberation, and subsequently to prioritise crucial issues to be taken up in the project. The intention was to grasp the understanding, views and perspectives of a wider range of stakeholders before identifying the most appropriate water-related issues in the country that could be pursued for in-depth research and subsequent dialogue by the project. Viet Nam The National Multi-stakeholder Consultation Meeting was held in Hue from 12-14 December 2008.The participants included representatives of Department of Water Resources Management, MONRE; Deputy General, Viet Nam Environment Administration; Deputy Director General, Department of Water Resources, MARD; Representative, Viet Nam Administration of Sea and Islands; Deputy Secretary General, Viet Nam National Mekong Committee; Representative, Business for Sustainable Development VCCI; Representative,

12

LNV, representatives of academic institutes, scientist community and mass media agencies. The participants were presented with the findings of the situational analysis study, focusing on five important issues that require immediate action and further research. Following an intensive discussion on these issues, the participants concluded that the following issues would be focused on for detailed research: Water pollution management Equitable use of water A one-day field trip was organized to Tam Giang Lagoon, Thao Long Dam, aquaculture-fields and mangroves. Lao PDR The National Multi-stakeholder Consultation Meeting was held in Champasak Province in January 2009 and was attended by over 56 participants from various sectors. The meeting was co-chaired by Mr. Niphone Viengpaseuth, the Governor of Champasak province and Mr. Phonechaleun Nonthaxay, the Director of WREA. Both the chairpersons expressed the importance of water governance and put forward the views, perspectives and plans of their respective organizations about water management and related programmes. The participants were presented with the results of situational analysis study, following which they were divided into five groups to discuss some of the crucial aspects of the study. The group discussions were followed by a brainstorming session involving all participants. Consequently, two significant issues were prioritised for further research: Community based irrigation management Environmental considerations for hydropower development projects. A one day field trip was also organized to the Siphandone wetlands. Cambodia The National Multi-stakeholder Consultation Meeting was held on 3 February 2009 in Siem Reap. It was attended by over 50 participants including representatives from Tonle Sap Basin Authority; Ministry of Rural Development; Ministry of Industry, Mine and Energy; Ministry of Tourism; Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Water Resource and Meteorology; National Fishery Administration (MAFF); Royal University of Phnom Penh; Cambodian National Mekong Committee (CNMC) and representatives of civil society. Following intensive discussions on the findings of situational analysis study of significant water issues in Cambodia, the participants prioritised three key issues for national dialogues: Initiating Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) as an approach

for equitable and sustainable water development

13

Fisheries Resource Management: This would cover issues of species, forest, hydrological and ecosystem function services, impacts of upstream hydropower development etc.

Hydropower and impacts management Thailand The National Multi-stakeholder Consultation Meeting was held in Bangkok on 3 December 2008. The meeting was attended by 19 participants including representatives from the private sector, NGOs, government, community based organisations, and academic institutions. The following key issues came out of this meeting: Collaboration across sectors and across national boundaries (IWRM in

river basins and transboundary governance structures) Water diversion (proposed inter-basin transfer between Lao PDR and

Thailand) Dams and hydropower 2.8 Other Issues Considered Important by the Project Team Wetlands While on the one hand wanting to hand as much control as possible to the NWG members, IUCN project staff felt that there was one major omission in the desk study reviews, analysis of issues and identification of priorities that was clear in all four countries. That was wetlands. Wetlands are a critical sub-sector of the water sector, and at the same time form a key part of the natural infrastructure that regulates water quality and availability - performing vital functions in relation to flood and drought control, groundwater recharge, natural purification of water, and fisheries production. For precisely the reason that wetlands often “fall through the cracks” between the water sector and the environment sector, their governance systems are often ill-defined and not well recognized at the national level. A project specifically focusing on governance issues in the water sector should not compound this problem by also falling into the trap of overlooking wetlands. Particularly in the Mekong Region, wetlands are hugely important for supporting the food security and livelihoods of tens of millions of the poorest people.2

Phnom Penh Water Utility

For this reason, the project team decided to include wetland-related activities in the project implementation, and encouraged NWG members and other stakeholders to consider wetlands issues through e.g. organizing field visits to Tam Giang Lagoon and Tram Chim National Park in Viet Nam, as well as Siphandone Wetlands in Lao PDR, as part of the programme of national meetings in these areas.

Another activity, in this case specific to Cambodia, that the project team thought important to add to the work-plan, was a case study of the Phnom Penh Water Utility (PPWU). It had been brought to our attention that for a

2 Mather, RJ (2009) “Wetlands in the Mekong ” A special Report of Asian Water Magazine, November 2009

14

utility in a poor developing country, the PPWU had performed exceptionally well, providing an excellent service at reasonable cost. As there was potential to spread learning from this interesting model to water supply utilities in other developing countries, it was considered important to document and communicate the learning from this example. Groundwater The project team also had an important role to play at the regional level – catalyzing thinking amongst regional players on emerging issues. One example of this was on the issue of groundwater. MWD organized a one day brainstorming on this subject with MRC, IWMI, and FAO. 2.8 Detailed Case studies on recommended issues In line with the initial recommendations of the national consultants, reviewed by the NWGs, and subsequently prioritized through larger national stakeholder workshops (and with addition of wetlands issues, the PPWU and groundwater added by the project team), the project conducted case study research and dialogue processes around the following topics: Water pollution in Craft Villages in Viet Nam Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Delta in Viet Nam Community-based Irrigation in Lao PDR Siphandone Wetlands and Ramsar in Lao PDR National Water Policy and Strategy in Lao PDR IWRM for equitable/sustainable development in the Tonle Sap in

Cambodia Fisheries Management in the Tonle Sap in Cambodia A case study of Phnom Penh Water Utility in Cambodia IWRM experience and RBO exchange in Thailand Tai Baan Research and peoples’ networking for water resource

management in river basins in Thailand Groundwater in all countries Water Pollution in Craft Villages in Viet Nam After selection as a priority topic, in 2009 a detailed case study was implemented by a consultant, under the supervision of the NWG. A detailed report was produced in both Viet Namese and English. An NWG meeting was held to discuss and deliberate upon the findings of the study, and how best to carry them forward into a dialogue. As a result, in 2010, a contract was negotiated with the Viet Namese NGO WARECOD to implement a series of commune level and a district level dialogue involving craft village communities, affected communities downstream, local government and businesses, to identify approaches and solutions to the issue at the local level, which could have broader applicability to similar craft village areas throughout the country. In addition, a small grant was also made to WARECOD to hold a workshop with a variety of stakeholders to discuss issues of river management in Southern Viet Nam. A workshop report was produced in Viet Namese, and a web article was written in both English and Viet Namese.

15

Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Delta On September 22-23, 2009, 30 scientists and wetlands managers met at Can Tho University in the heart of Viet Nam’s Mekong Delta. They discussed the state of the wetlands in the delta and proposed policies that would help sustain the vital ecological services provided by wetlands and mitigate the effects of climate change on the region. The participants came from the delta’s leading universities and research centers, government agencies, NGOs, and management boards of wetland protected areas. MWD, together with the DRAGON Institute-Mekong at Can Tho University, hosted the workshop to assess the distribution and condition (state) of the Mekong Delta’s remaining wetlands, the threats to these wetlands (pressure), and what action is being taken to address these threats (response). With an average elevation of 1.5 meters above mean sea level, the Mekong Delta is basically one huge seasonally inundated wetland divided into three different zones: a deep flood area, an alluvial area, and a coastal area. However, over the last 30 years, the delta has been transformed from a largely natural state into a massive rice-bowl. To support this transformation, a dense network of 11,000 km of drainage canals and 20,000 km of dykes has been built. The canals and dykes in the upper delta prevent floods and drain the floodwaters from the deep flood zone as fast as possible, while dykes along the coast prevent saline intrusion into rice paddies. This allows farmers in most parts of the delta to grow two and often three rice crops/year. The purpose of this transformation was to feed a country recovering from decades of war and increasingly to produce rice for export. Until recently, rice exports were monopolized by state-owned enterprises that benefited from the single-minded focus on rice production. Nationally, production increased from an average of 11 million tons 1975-79 to an average of 39 million tons 2000-2008, with most of the increase coming from the delta. Viet Nam is now the world’s second largest rice exporter. The delta’s remaining natural and semi-natural wetlands also serve as natural sponges, absorbing the Mekong’s floodwaters and recharging the aquifers on which HCMC, Viet Nam’s urban and industrial heartland, depends. It is this ability to buffer extreme weather events and provide a safe supply of water to millions of users downstream that make the delta’s wetlands so economically important. The Mekong Delta’s remaining natural wetlands are still under pressure as a result of poor management and a governance system that regards wetlands as forests, and provides no mechanisms for meaningful participation of local people in management planning, decision-making, and action. Significantly, the third annual rice crop brings little additional benefit to the farmers when the high level of chemical inputs used and the associated health risks are taken into account. In fact, calculations by Can Tho University’s Professor Duong Van Ni, who has spent his life studying the delta’s farming systems, show that farmers always receive less than 20% (for the second crop) and usually less than 10% (for the third crop) of the export price.

16

Wetlands in the Mekong Basin On 25-26 January 2010 over 40 wetlands specialists met in HCMC in a workshop organised by MRC and IUCN. The main objective was to provide an opportunity to share recent experience, knowledge gained and lessons learned from ongoing work on wetlands in the Mekong Basin, and to identify priority areas for future work. Presentations on IUCN, WWF and GTZ projects in Nong Khai in north-east Thailand, Stung Treng in Cambodia, Beung Kiet Ngong in Lao PDR, and Soc Trang in Viet Nam, focused on site-based interventions. Each of these projects illustrated successful examples of wetlands management based on co-management approaches whereby local communities and government negotiate an agreement that specifies the rights, roles, and responsibilities of both parties. A key feature in each case has been the establishment of new organisational and institutional arrangements at the local level that have enabled better management of the sites. While these site-specific projects demonstrate real progress in terms of moving communities and local government toward more sustainable use of wetlands, the presentations highlighted issues that still need to be addressed. At national levels, enabling environments are lacking due to gaps in (or complete absence of) national wetlands policy, and wetlands laws, and there is limited appreciation of the economic value of the ecosystem goods and services that wetlands provide. As an example, all wetland protected areas in Viet Nam are designated as Special Use Forest (SUF) and managed as forests rather than wetlands. In the case of Tram Chim National Park, this led to a focus on fire suppression rather than maintenance of the park's wetlands as habitat for globally threatened birds. A decree was issued in 2003 defining wetlands and their management objectives but it has not been implemented because SUF management is the responsibility of MARD while wetlands management belongs to MONRE. As a result, no wetlands conservation areas have been designated. The presentation on the Beung That Luang wetland near Vientiane showed how valuation of wetlands in terms of water filtration, flood control, and local livelihoods can be used to make an economic case for their conservation. But the project also highlights a key weakness: even if conservation is more economic than conversion, the issue is who benefits and who loses. Gains from conversion typically accrue to a small group of land developers and their political allies while the costs are borne by large numbers of the less wealthy who lack political influence. In reality, therefore, decisions over wetlands use are made on the basis of political considerations as well as cost-benefit calculations. Community-based Irrigation in Lao PDR In 2009, a regional overview study of irrigation in the region was produced by a regional consultant. In 2010, a report on community-based irrigation in Lao PDR was produced by the MWD National Coordinator in Lao PDR. It was initially intended to have a national dialogue around this subject but it was later

17

decided not to do this, as the focus of MWD in Lao PDR shifter towards, wetlands and RBOs, as well as water policy and strategy. Siphandone Wetlands and Ramsar in Lao PDR A case study on Siphandone wetlands was published as a small book with excellent photographs by the Thai photographer Suthep Kritsanavarin3

. The book highlights the immense importance of this area, and its incredible fisheries that have shaped the way of life of local people. It also shows how the area and the local livelihoods it supports are threatened by modern developments, including the proposed Don Sahong dam. The book was published in English in 2009, in Thai in early 2010, and in late 2010 Lao and Khmer versions are being printed. The book has been very popular and has been distributed widely. A DVD slide show of the photographs with minimal text and an original soundtrack composed by Todd Thongdee was also produced with English, Thai, Lao and Cambodian versions all on the same DVD. During the last 10 years, Siphandone has often been mentioned as the most obvious choice for the first Ramsar site in Lao PDR. However with the current regional and global concern, and Lao government sensitivity about the proposed Don Sahong dam, it became clear to the MWD team in Lao PDR, that at this point in time, the Lao government would not approve Siphandone as a Ramsar site. To ensure that Lao PDR would indeed finally become a Party to the Ramsar Convention, alternative options had to be found. Two potential sites were identified – Beung Kiat Ngong (BKN) in Champasak Province, and Xe Champone (XC) in Savanakhet Province. MWD supported the preparation of information sheets for these areas and arranged study visits for national level decision-makers and meetings with provincial authorities. Eventually, in 2010, the Lao government agreed to become the 160th Party to the Ramsar Convention, and identified both BKN and XC as the two first Ramsar sites in Lao PDR, with entry into force on 28 September 2010. MWD facilitated the visit of Lew Young from the Ramsar Secretariat in Switzerland to Lao PDR, including a series of high level meetings with government ministers, a seminar on Ramsar, and a Press Briefing/media launch of Ramsar in Lao PDR, that was given prominent space by national print media and TV. Since then, follow-up with the Lao government has clarified some of the national level institutional arrangements, including the identification of national focal points, etc. MWD together with the Ramsar Secretariat and MRC are planning a regional Ramsar workshop and training course in Lao PDR for early 2010. This will provide Lao PDR with an opportunity to learn from the much longer experience of its neighbouring countries with Ramsar implementation. A major focus for successful implementation of Ramsar in Lao PDR will be a convincing demonstration of how effective management of Ramsar sites can support food security (and particularly nutrition of the under 5s) and contribute to livelihoods, rather than being just about conservation.

3 Robert Mather, Suthep Kritsanavarin, Ganesh Pangare and Dararat Weerapong (2009). “Siphandone: The Mekong Under Threat”. Gland, Swizerland, IUCN. MWD Publication #1. 80pp. ISBN 978-2-8317-1152-2

18

National Water Policy and Strategy in Lao PDR During 2010 the Department of Water Resources of WREA, led a process to develop a new National Water Policy (2010-2020) and a new National Water Strategy (2010-2015).MWD NWG members were invited to review drafts and provide comments and inputs. Subsequently a wider stakeholder workshop was held to present and discuss the drafts. As of August 2010, both documents are still in a draft stage. MWD can continue to provide input in Phase II until these documents are finalized. One of the main elements of the strategy is the establishment of 4 or 5 pilot River Basin Committees (RBCs) by 2015, something that will be a clear focus for MWD Phase 2. IWRM for equitable/sustainable development, and fisheries in the Tonle Sap in Cambodia After selection of IWRM and fisheries as key topics for MWD in Cambodia, in 2009 a case study was developed on the Tonle Sap Lake. This looked at the problem of uncoordinated donor investments (over $2 billion in the last decade) and the limited involvement of the local communities, supposedly the beneficiaries of these investments. A report was produced in both English and Khmer. In parallel, a local level dialogue was organised with representatives of fishing communities from around the Lake. The issues highlighted by the fishing communities, as well as the issues and recommendations produced in the case study report, were then used as the basis for a national dialogue in 2010. The Dialogue attracted significant media attention, and the report found its way to the Prime Minister. Outputs from the MWD facilitated Dialogue were taken as inputs into the government’s own subsequent Tonle Sap strategic planning workshop, where it was agreed to develop a Master Plan for Tonle Sap. In Phase 2, MWD will organize a Tonle Sap Forum to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to provide inputs into the development of the Tonle Sap Master Plan. A case Study of Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority in Cambodia The Phnom Penh Autonomous Water Supply Authority is a state-owned enterprise operating under commercial law, producing and distributing clean water for the city of Phnom Penh. The case study reveals how remarkably successful this utility has been, and identifies a number of lessons learned that could be very valuable for other utilities in other developing countries. The case study was published as a book4

IWRM experience and RBO exchange in Thailand

and was launched globally at the Stockholm Water Week in August 2010.

Thailand has established RBOs in all major river systems throughout the country. As such, it has more experience with this approach than any of the other Mekong countries. In 2009 MWD brought together representatives from a selection of very different RBOs from different parts of the country – the Yom River in the Northern Region, the Bang Pakong River in the Central Region, and the Kuraburi and Ka Poe Basins from the South, to share and exchange ideas and information about approaches and lessons learned. A report was 4 Das, B., Son Chan, E., Visoth, C., Pangare, G., and Simpson, R. (eds) (2010). Sharing the Reform Process: learning from the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority, Gland Switzerland, IUCN. 58 pp. ISBN 978-2-8317-1289-5

19

produced in Thai and English. In parallel to this a report was also commissioned on IWRM experiences in Thailand. This report is also available in Thai and English. Tai Baan Research and peoples’ networking for water resource management in river basins in Thailand The Thai NGO Living Rivers Siam (formerly SEARIN) has extensively documented the Tai Baan research outputs at Chiang Khong District of Chiang Rai Province. MWD worked closely with Living Rivers Siam in 2010 to organize a Tai Baan sharing and exchange networking event for over 180 community, CBO and local NGO participants from 9 rivers in North and North-eastern Thailand. A report has been produced in Thai and is being translated into English. The term “Tai Baan” is from the Northeastern Dialect of the Thai language, and means “villager”. “Tai Baan Research” is a villager lead process of action research. It started in the early 1990s as part of local expression of concerns about the impacts of the Pak Mun Dam in Ubon Ratchathani Province. Since then Tai Baan approaches have been used in a number of rivers and wetlands in North and North-east Thailand, especially in cases of local concern about large-scale water infrastructure projects and their impacts on local ways of life and livelihoods. Through documentation of local understanding of interactions between local resource use and natural ecology, villagers have revealed impacts of development projects that have not been adequately addressed in project EIAs and mitigation plans. In the best case scenario Tai Baan Research findings could help lead to reconsideration of proposed development projects, in worse case scenarios the findings can at least be used to substantiate and reinforce villagers requests for assistance or compensation to deal with the losses they have incurred as a result of such projects. But Tai Baan is not always about external large-scale development threats. For example, in the Songkhram River basin between 2004 and 2006, Tai Baan researchers supported by the Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Programme (MWBP) focused on the values and importance of seasonally flooded habitat in the Lower Songkhram floodplain, and local issues of degradation and conversion to agricultural land. Interestingly after the end of the project, Tai Baan Researchers from 16 communities throughout the basin, grouped together and established their own local NGO to continue the work. Tai Baan research findings have also been published in local language books and provided inputs for development of local curricula in schools around Tai Baan research sites. Ground water in countries of the Lower Mekong In 2009, MWD organized a regional brainstorming workshop on groundwater issues in the Mekong Region, with key regional partners including MRC, FAO and IWMI. Subsequent to that, FAO provided additional support to MWD to organize similar brainstorming workshops at the national level in each of the Mekong countries. Reports of the meetings were produced from each country, and are being synthesized into a regional report. In Viet Nam, for example, It

20

was clear from the presentations and discussions that serious groundwater management issues exist in Viet Nam with the potential to threaten basic environmental services, drinking water supply, food security and significantly slow economic development. Issues raised ranged from significant water level decline and widespread aquifer contamination to potential major changes in hydrology and exacerbated negative climate change impacts. It was also noted many areas of rural Viet Nam have significant clean groundwater resources not yet explored or exploited with potential for sustainable development given the correct information. Discussion again focused on the underlying challenges posed by information fragmentation in the sector, a lack of recognition of groundwater issues during land use planning, and the need for on ground management capacity.

3. PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AND IMPACTS 3.1 Achievements against Outcome 1: Improved decision-making processes around water-related investments in the Mekong Region Meaningful participation by civil society, State and business actors in decision-making processes that affect livelihoods and environment. Multi-stakeholder NWGs have been established in each country, and are functioning reasonably effectively, with some level of recognition at higher levels. Large workshops with a diversity of stakeholders discussed key issues for MWD to focus on in each country – case studies were implemented and recommendations from the case studies subsequently discussed in Dialogues. NWG members in Viet Nam provided collective written input into the development of the National Target Programme (NTP) for Water, while NWG members in Lao PDR provided collective input and recommendations for the development of the National Water Policy and National Water Strategy. On many occasions, many members of MWD NWGs from all countries have provided significant input into MRC-led planning processes and consultations at the regional level including a number of the BDP Sub-Area Stakeholder Consultations two BDP Regional Stakeholder Consultations that were primarily concerned with different scenarios of infrastructure development in the basin; the review meeting of the Strategic Environment Assessment report on mainstream hydropower development; as well as the development partner statement delivered to the four Prime Ministers at the First Mekong Summit in Hua Hin in April 2010. Enhanced understanding of decision-making pathways and use of Dialogue tools and approaches. The national reports on the water sector and governance issues produced in each country that were discussed by the NWG members and by larger stakeholder groups in each country, led to a better and more shared understanding of decision-making in the water sector in each country. The regional synthesis report in turn made this learning more widely available at

21

the regional level. The findings clearly highlighted how multi-stakeholder processes could help to address some of the issues. 3.2 Achievements against Outcome 2: Provide opportunity for State, civil society and business actors in the Mekong Region to participate in water dialogues – to inform, and be informed Broad public understanding of the desirable characteristics of Dialogues or Multi-stakeholder platforms in terms of context, process and outcomes. A level of understanding was developed and built with the NWGs, through a combination of regular ongoing discussion, specific regional workshops with training elements, and implementation of project activities. The NWG members themselves are one channel for spreading awareness and understanding to a broader group of stakeholders within their own organisation and networks of contacts. Stakeholder workshops and dialogue workshops themselves also provided opportunities to increase participants’ awareness and understanding about the desirable characteristics of dialogues, through learning by doing. MWD staff and NWG members presentations delivered at a large number of external meetings throughout the implementation of the project, provide many opportunities to talk about dialogues to significant audiences in the region. In all four countries MWD has supported partners in activities with high public profile on both World Water Day, and World Wetlands Day, each year. MWD communicates to broad audiences include posting materials on a dedicated web site, press releases, distribution of reports, etc. However we are not able to quantitatively measure the ultimate impact on increased understanding about dialogues. Concrete recommendations and commitment to use multi-stakeholder Dialogue mechanisms at local, national and regional levels for decision-making on specific projects or strategies. In Lao PDR during the period of project implementation, a clear change occurred in the attitude/perception of key decision-makers in the Water Resource Department, with respect to the idea of using multi-stakeholder processes. At the start there was a definite amount of skepticism of the value of such approaches, and a certain reluctance to open up government processes to stakeholder input. However in 2010, the same decision-makers were actively requesting broad stakeholder input to the draft National Water Policy, and draft National Water Strategy, and have clearly indicated that in Phase 2 they will be expecting MWD to facilitate similar input into the development of an updated Water Law for Lao PDR. In Viet Nam, the Vice-Minister of MONRE with lead responsibility for water issues has welcomed MWD involvement in developing the National Target Programme (NTP) for water. Similarly there is an expectation that in future

22

MWD will facilitate further work that will be necessary to define how the part of the NTP relating to civil society involvement will actually be implemented in practice. 3.3 Achievements against Outcome 3: Enable the articulation of different perspectives about Mekong Region water-related development to be considered in decision-making Mechanisms for effective civil society engagement in Dialogues In Thailand, a RBO exchange workshops was held for representatives of four different RBOs from different parts of the country. In addition, MWD working with the local NGO Living River Siam provided an opportunity for almost 200 community representatives and grass-roots NGOs from nine river basins to come together, to share and exchange lessons learned from Tai Baan Research approaches, and to discuss and provide clear recommendations for the future direction for water resources and river basin management in the country. A small core working group was first established to brainstorm the design of the larger event, and to follow-up afterwards to synthesise the outcomes from the event, which can be channeled through the NWG members to responsible government agencies. In Viet Nam, similarly working with the local NGO WARECOD, MWD engaged local communities in a series of commune-level and district-level dialogues about water pollution in craft villages. This series of local dialogues took as its starting point the desk study report produced by the national consultant. At the end of this WARECOD synthesized the outcomes, which similarly can be further discussed, disseminated and promoted through the NWG. In Cambodia, MWD directly organized a two-step approach to bringing the concerns of fishing communities to the policy level. The first step involved a meeting of representatives of fishing communities from around the Tonle Sap Lake to share and discuss their issues, without the presence of government agencies. From this, key issues were identified. Subsequently MWD organized a meeting of a broader group of stakeholders including key government agencies, where the concerns about Tonle Sap development were shared. The Tonle Sap report produced by MWD was passed on to the Prime Minister, and its recommendations were carried by the national media. Three days later, PM Hun Sen ordered Governors of all provinces around the Tonle Sap to address these issues more effectively – or otherwise lose their jobs! In Lao PDR, there is so far very little in the way of organized civil society for the project to work with. However, MWD organized a study tour for local community and local government representatives living in the Beung Kiat Ngong wetland in Champasak Province, to visit the Koot Ting wetland in Nong Khai Province of Thailand where after 4 years of support from WWF and DANIDA there is an exceptionally well-developed local governance system in place leading to effective management of the wetlands that support local food security and income generation. Meetings were organized with the study visit

23

participants pre- and post- the visit. Based on what they had seen and discussed directly with their peers – farmers and fishers in Thailand they started to implement a similar approach in their own wetland. This also started a shift in understanding about the notion of Ramsar sites at the grass-roots level in Champasak, generating more local support for the idea of Ramsar site designation. This coupled with the encouragement that MWD and IUCN Lao PDR were providing at the national policy level (including accompanying national decision-makers on a field visit to the proposed Ramsar sites) contributed to the decision for Lao PDR final to become a Party to Ramsar and designate its first two Ramsar sites. The above examples illustrate 4 different approaches that were used as mechanisms to engage civil society in different types of dialogues, at different scales. Each successfully achieved what it was intended to do, in its own way. Increased regional awareness and understanding of CSER responsibilities, tools and practical applications. An overall regional strategy was developed to start engagement with the private sector on CSER issues through business round-tables. However it was subsequently decided that it was not appropriate to work with just any business that showed interest, but rather that MWD should specifically target businesses involved in the key issues that were selected for MWD focus in each country. Ultimately this did not become very productive – after delaying engagement while national status reports were developed and discussed by stakeholder groups, the final selection of MWD issues such as community-based irrigation in Lao PDR for example, did not make it any easier for the project to identify which companies to try to work with. (There are not many companies one can think of in Lao PDR who would be eager to participate in a dialogue about community-based irrigation management!) In Lao PDR the first subsequent concerted effort was then made to invite companies with any kind of footprint in the water sector to join the NWG, and participate in dialogue activities, and this has started to show some success in the second half of project implementation. The approach is now being replicated in Cambodia and Viet Nam, with first a desk based review to identify potential companies of interest, then the scheduling of appointments for initial meetings, and follow-up as appropriate. In Thailand there is already a huge and very active CSER movement. It is probably not necessary for MWD to try to reinvent the wheel in Thailand, but rather the project should look at what opportunities exist to feed messages from MWD into existing CSER networks. Overall this output has had rather limited achievement to date.

4. CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS 4.1 The overall context There is some new political space in the Mekong Region created by globalisation, and corresponding ‘new regionalisms’ which is providing oxygen

24

to Dialogue approaches.5

4.2 Political Situation Between the Countries

However, many State actors still believe, that domestic-led criticism is unpatriotic, and – despite an emerging body of international water law – cross-border enquiry/criticism of water resources development plans is an unacceptable encroachment on State sovereignty. This political resistance to Dialogue approaches, grounded in self-interest and trans-boundary geopolitics, should not be underestimated. Other forms of advocacy will remain important to encourage more and less powerful actors to give Dialogues a chance to fulfill their regional potential by being sites for authentic deliberation, learning by all actors, and (possibly) negotiation. Dialogues in the Mekong Region led by civil society have been seen as being undemocratic, and too empowering of interest groups with policy positions which may differ from dominant policy positions within State governments or parts of their associated bureaucracy. Advocates claim the opposite, that in fact these types of processes are complementary to formal State decision making processes, serving as a counter weight to many undemocratic water-related governance forums and, thus actually ‘deepen democracy’.

During 2009 and early 2010, there was a rapid deterioration in the relationship between the governments of Thailand and Cambodia. This led to an inability/reluctance of Cambodians to attend meetings in Cambodia, and vice-versa. This has some impacts on the project as regional meetings planned to be held in Thailand had to be moved at short notice to Viet Nam or elsewhere. However, overall these impacts were not severe, and the relationship started to improve after discussions held on the sidelines of the MRC Summit in April 2010. Relations between the other countries remained friendly throughout. 4.3 IUCN Staff Turnover The initial IUCN MWD country coordinators recruited in 2008 all left IUCN employment during 2009 – either for jobs within a Ministry in their own country, or as consultants. All continued to work in the water sector in one way or another. In quarter 2 and 3 of 2008, until the new RWWP and CG1 Heads were recruited, the country coordinators had not yet implemented many project activities and the project was falling behind schedule. After the arrival of the RWWP and CG1 heads, the pace of implementation picked-up considerably in quarter 4 of 2008 and quarter 1 of 2009, as project management ensured that all the activities originally planned for 2008 were indeed implemented by the first quarter of 2009. Nevertheless, even with the gaps caused by recruiting new country coordinators, the project got back on track in 2009 and 2010, and implemented all intended activities by the agreed end date of August 2010. 4.4 Membership and Functioning of the NWGs The NWGs are critical to the overall strategy of MWD implementation. It was intended that NWG membership in each country should include an appropriate balance of government, civil society and private sector members, while also considering issues like gender and indigenous people in the mix of

5 Dore, J., 2007. “Multi-stakeholder Platforms (MSPs): Unfulfilled Potential”, Democratizing Water Governance in the Mekong Region, pp. 197-226.

25

representatives. In practice it has not been possible to have the perfectly desired membership in all countries, all of the time. In general it has been relatively easy to attract and retain government and NGO members, but less easy with private sector members. The NWG in Lao PDR has developed the best private sector membership to date, including representatives from a mining company, a beverage company, an ecotourism company and a consulting company. Other issues with membership have included that for instance the membership of the NWG in Viet Nam does not have enough representation from South Viet Nam. Membership of NWGs in all countries will need to be refined in the inception period of Phase 2. Part of the initial thinking behind the NWGs was that members would participate as active, experienced and knowledgeable individuals, rather than as designated representatives of their particular agency. It was intended that this would enable members to be free from any constraints limiting would they could say to the official policy lines of their respective agencies, and would thereby enable them to engage in more free discussion of wide-ranging issues. This approach worked in Thailand and also in Viet Nam, however there was some initial hesitation in Lao PDR, where NWG members were concerned that if they were not officially appointed to these positions by a clear authority, there was no “safety-net” for them if they made any “mistakes”. In Cambodia, there was a similar concern but with a different logic. Here NWG members felt that if they were to be able to have any chance of taking anything they learned from their involvement in the dialogues back into their own organizational culture, they would be in a better position to do it, if they were officially representing their line agencies in the NWG. At the very least there would be a formal requirement for them to report back to their bosses, and this act itself would provide a starting point for spreading MWD learning into their organization. The most appropriate and effective arrangement for the set-up of the NWG in each country will be clarified in the inception period of Phase 2. The arrangements do not have to be identical in each country.

5. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHASE II 5.1 Regional Advisory Group and Project Steering Committee In order to strengthen the relationship between the project and key actors in the region, MWD Phase II will be guided and advised by a Regional Advisory Group (RAG) or “think tank”, comprising of prominent members from government, civil society, research and international organizations in the region. The Advisory Group will meet once a year in person and will be consulted over email, Skype and phone during the rest of the year. This will ensure that critical thinking of leading people in the region is brought to bear on the selection of issues and implementation of activities on which MWD will work. This RAG will also provide a high level vehicle for disseminating learning and key messages from MWD in the region and an additional mechanism to bring issues and options to the attention of policy and high-level decision-makers. The RAG will be established in the inception period of Phase 2. It will also provide a conduit to strengthen the relationship with key organizations at the regional level.

26

In order to standardize the approach to reviewing progress, approving annual workplans and budgets, and discussing, agreeing and formally recording adaptive management changes during implementation, a project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established and will meet two or three times a year to review progress, recommend changes, and approve proposed revisions to work plans and budgets. The PSC will include one nominated representative (and one alternative representative) from each of the National Working Groups, and a representative from the Embassy of Finland in Bangkok. The Regional Project Management Unit (PMU) will act as the secretary to the PSC. One of the meetings of the PSC will be held back-to-back with the annual meeting of the RAG, and one will be held back to back with a regional training course. 5.2 Revised Membership and Working Arrangements for NWGs The NWGs set up in Phase 1 have a certain degree of recognition and can help with policy advocacy and guide the process towards influencing important decisions which have a direct impact on the livelihoods of the local communities. However the NWGs need guidance and capacity building in areas of knowledge about water governance, and skills in negotiation and policy advocacy. (This capacity building has already been started in Phase 1 and will be further strengthened in Phase 2). In the inception period of Phase 2, further changes may be made to the composition of the NWGs to increase their effectiveness (e.g. improving balance of membership between different sectors, gender balance and in the case of Viet Nam balance between the north and the south). A detailed training needs assessment process will be implemented for NWG members, and appropriate training will be identified on the basis of this. In Phase 1, all members of the NWG from each country received the same training (on water governance, MSD processes and policy advocacy). In Phase 2, training will be more targeted, and different members will receive training on different things. In Phase 2, the NWG members will be expected and required to play an increasingly more active role in the project. NWG members will need to do more preparation before meetings, and “homework” tasks will be agreed and assigned for follow-up action after each NWG meeting, with reporting back expected at the next meeting. Although meetings may be more frequent, not all members may need to attend all meetings, according to the specific thematic content. As participation in the NWG is an unpaid assignment, the right balance must be struck between requiring a lot from NWG members, and expecting too much. In Phase 1, the project worked on the assumption that members of the NWG in each country were participating essentially as individuals knowledgeable and experienced in the water sector, rather than as representatives of their agency or organisation. The thinking was that this would allow more unrestricted and freer dialogue and the building of an atmosphere of trust amongst the NWG members drawn from different sectors. While this has proved to be more or less the case, the Cambodian NWG members in particular have noted that the project also has an expectation that NWG

27

members will take new thinking, new perceptions and new learning from their involvement in MWD processes back to their own organisation. They suggest that at least in the Cambodian context, they could be more effective in achieving this if they were participating in the NWG in an officially recognised capacity representing their organisation. At the very least, there would be an expectation that they will report back to their boss after each activity. In consideration of this, there may be greater flexibility in the set-up arrangements of each NWG in Phase 2, depending on the country context. The NWG does not have to operate in exactly the same way in all four countries. However, at the same time there are certain fundamental principles that will not change. One is that NWG members will not be paid for their involvement (however real costs will be reimbursed so they will not be out of pocket). Another is that NWG members will not receive consultancy contracts from the project, and that implementation activities will not be sub-contracted to agencies from which the NWG members are drawn. The NWGs can also work with other national level networks and committees, especially those related to RBOs and Wetlands, and will play a key role in the organisation and implementation of Multi-stakeholder dialogues. One member from each of the country National Working Group will be nominated to be represented on the Project Steering Committee. The member on the Steering Committee would then bring in all the concerns and suggestions to Project Management and also give feedback to the NWG on the deliberations of the project. The fact that Phase 2 implementation will include activities in specific field sites (see 5.4 below), means that issues, options and recommendations generated from the site level can be taken up to the NWG for discussion (and suggestions from the NWG can be communicated back to the field). This will be an improvement on the situation in Phase 1, where some NWG members felt that it was difficult discussing governance issues in isolation from any real activities on the ground. In Cambodia, the NWG will use lessons from Stung Treng, to support the development of a National Wetlands Strategy. A national-level Tonle Sap Forum will be hosted annually to enable all stakeholders to share perspectives on the latest developments and future plans for the Tonle Sap. In Viet Nam, the NWG will be involved in using experience in the Delta to develop a “Mekong Delta Vision 2100” together with a number of other stakeholders. This will also be linked to development of national guidelines for implementation of Decree 120 on the role of civil society in RBOs (the Viet Namese portion of the Mekong River is one of the existing RBOs in Viet Nam) and the development of legal and policy instruments necessary for implementation of the parts of the new National Target Programme on Water that relate to stakeholder participation. In Thailand MWD will continue supporting Bang Pakong river basin organisation and the Department of Water Resources and will be linked to ongoing national processes of RBO development and reform. This experience will be shared with neighbouring countries (particularly Lao PDR) which is just embarking on the development of RBOs. In Lao PDR, the NWG will use experience from the Ramsar sites ton help develop supportive national policy and, and will take the experience from work on the upper Mekong in Northern Lao PDR and build it into the development of rules, policies and procedures of soon to be established RBOs. The most appropriate working arrangements for the NWG

28

in each country will be reviewed, discussed and agreed in the inception period of Phase 2. 5.3 Project Staff IUCN’s Regional Water and Wetlands Programme will have overall responsibility for supervising the project, providing technical back-stopping and leading some of the regional activities. The Head of CG 1 (the Mekong Country Group) will also function as the project manager responsible for managing the implementation of the project. In both Thailand and Viet Nam there will be national country coordinators, while in Cambodia there will be a provincial field coordinator based in Northeast Cambodia, and in Lao PDR there will be two provincial field coordinators – one in Southern Lao PDR focusing on Ramsar sites, and one in Northern Lao PDR focusing on rivers.

5.4. Engaging at the Grass-roots, Indigenous Groups and Gender Issues As described in previous sections of this report, despite Phase 1 not having a clear geographic focus on specific field sites, making it rather difficult to identify which grass-roots communities or CBOs (out of 300 million people in the Mekong Region) should be included in project activities, nevertheless the project was able to reach out and include certain groups. In Phase 2 there will be clearly identified field sites in different countries for work on specific governance-related issues. Some of these will also relate to issues of a trans-boundary nature or regional concern. This will make it much easier for the project to engage directly with grass-roots organisations and local communities in the specific areas of interest. Gender mainstreaming and social inclusion can then also be integrated into implementation. Efforts will be made to include men and women from different social and ethnic groups as relevant stakeholders from the community in the MSD processes in wetlands management and RBO interventions. Monitoring mechanisms will ensure that these aspects are addressed in project implementation.

29

Multi-stakeholder dialogues in IWRM and RBOs, and Wetlands Governance will be set up in the project countries. Ongoing policy and institutional reforms in these countries have initiated the process of participation in these sectors through wetlands committees and RBOs. However these mechanisms are not yet as effective as they could be. In some cases they are not formally recognized. Also there is inadequate representation of primary stakeholders and they lack leadership and motivation to participate in decision making. MSDs set up within this situation will broaden stakeholder participation, enable effective representation, participation and dialogue with policymakers. The MSD groups will formulate recommendations for specific decisions at provincial level that will contribute to livelihood security of the local communities and engage with provincial authorities to advocate for these decisions. They will engage with NWGs for policy advocacy at the national level. The final selection of field sites will be agreed during the inception period of Phase 2. Assessments of gender and indigenous group – related issues can then be carried out in these sites. 5.5 Improving Knowledge Management and Communication Communication will be an essential component of the project, contributing to information dissemination, participation, transparency and accountability. A communication strategy has already been developed in Phase 1. The strategy will support project outputs, while promoting wider acceptance of the lessons learned, strategies and evidence produced through research and analysis. Targeting specific audiences and providing information in relevant formats and the different national languages is central to the success of the communications component. To ensure the effectiveness of MWD communications, the strategy will be monitored, evaluated and adapted on a yearly basis. Communications will serve three functions. It will promote MWD activities to ensure participation and transparency. It will collect and package existing information, data and research relevant to the focus of the project and disseminate it for use in project interventions. It will generate new information through the livelihoods based wetlands assessment framework and a regional trans-boundary water governance framework. Communication products will be disseminated to target audiences through print and digital media, an active website and engagement with local, regional and when appropriate, global press. MWD communications will be integral to the policy advocacy work described in the next section. The project will also make use of techniques such as moderated discussions on different themes through platforms such as Google groups, and the use of simple “Flip” video. 5.6 Building on Regional Collaboration and Partnerships The first phase has shown that there is a role for this project in the Region. In Phase 1 the project has already partnered on various initiatives with Regional Organisations like MRC, ADB, FAO, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Asia-Pacific Water Forum etc. Collaborating with other organizations with complementary skills for both working on the ground as well as policy advocacy will be a key strategy of Phase 2.

30

In Phase 1, the MWD facilitated a round table discussion on the issue of groundwater in the Lower Mekong countries. For the first time MWD convened with more than 8 regional institutions to think and brainstorm on this topic. While MWD itself will not work in-depth on groundwater as a focal theme per se, groundwater considerations will be important in relation to IWRM planning of RBOs, wetlands management, and irrigation. The various organizations are now preparing a joint program to assess groundwater use and management in the region. This is an example of the catalytic role that MWD plays at the regional level – bringing different players together around an emerging theme, reaching agreement as a group on how to take things forward (who will do what, when) and then MWD can move on to the next issue. This role will continue in Phase 2. In addition to all of the organizations represented through their membership of the NWGs in each country, MWD also works with a number of other partners, in a variety of different ways, including the following: Mekong River Commission (MRC) Although MWD is not focused exclusively on the Mekong River Basin, as the largest trans-boundary river in the countries the project is working in, and the only one with a trans-boundary RBO, the water governance issues around the Mekong River are an important aspect of the MWD work. Because of this, MRC will remain a key partner for MWD engagement in Phase Two, just as it has been for Phase 1. MWD engages with MRC at a number of different levels, and in a number of different ways. At the governance level of MRC itself, IUCN is an observer to the MRC Council and Joint Committee (JC). IUCN frequently participates in Council and JC meetings. IUCN is also involved in the important Development Partners meetings where consensus is developed on key issues that development partners wish to bring to the attention of MRC through the development of statements that are presented at high level meetings. The most recent example was the Development Partners Statement that was presented to the Prime Ministers of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam at the First Mekong Summit in Hua Hin on 5th April 2010. IUCN/MWD provided significant inputs to the drafting of this document. MWD also collaborates closely with specific programmes of the MRC, including the Basin Development Programme (BDP) and the Environment Programme. The BDP provides one of the key platforms through which some local input (from sub-area/sub-basin levels) can be channeled into basin-wide planning processes. MWD has assisted BDP in a number of aspects including contributing to scenario development, identification of stakeholders, and facilitation of sessions in the 2009 BDP Regional Stakeholder Consultation Forum in Chiang Rai and the 2010 BDP Forum in Vientiane. Collaboration with the MRC Environment Programme (MRC-EP) is focused around two issues: Wetlands Governance, and Climate Change Adaptation. In early 2010, IUCN-MWD/MRC-EP organized a joint Wetlands Workshop in Ho

31

Chi Minh City (HCMC), the proceedings of which will be jointly published later in the year. Follow up meetings were subsequently held with key stakeholders in each country to identify key wetlands for further work that will be supported by MRC. At the Climate Change and Environment Conference in HCMC in April 2010, MRC invited IUCN-MWD to make 3 important presentations. With wetlands and climate change adaptation both being key topics for MWD Phase II, this close collaboration with MRC EP will certainly continue. In each country NMC members are also members of the NWG and/or involved in national level MWD activities. Senior IUCN MWD staff also have regular access to the CEO of MRC. Asian Development Bank (ADB) The ADB is also promoting River Basin Organizations in the region. MWD will demonstrate robust RBOs on the ground and learning from this will influence the way ADB takes their work forward in the Region. IUCN-ARO and ADB have already initiated a project to document River Basin Organizations in Asia. The learning from this project will also feed into Phase 2 activities of MWD. FAO In Phase 1, the MWD facilitated a round table discussion on the issue of Ground Water in the Lower Mekong Countries along with FAO and others. For the first time MWD convened more than 8 regional institutions to think and brainstorm on this topic. While MWD itself will not work in-depth on groundwater as a focal theme per se, groundwater considerations will be important in relation to IWRM planning of RBOs wetlands management, and irrigation. MWD and FAO are now preparing a joint paper on groundwater use and management in the region. The project will also work closely with FAO on the concept of “water allocations” FAO is working on water allocations in a few river basins in the region. MWD Phase 2 will include consideration of water allocations as part of the functioning of RBOs. There will be cross learning between MWD Phase 2 and the FAO project. Ramsar Secretariat In Phase 1, MWD was successful in supporting Lao PDR’s accession to Ramsar. With IUCN/MWD support and assistance, the Laotian government has now identified the first two Ramsar sites for the country. In this context, MWD helped plan a visit from the Ramsar Secretariat to Lao PDR in July 2010, including a seminar on wetlands management, a press briefing and celebration event for Ramsar accession, and a series of high level meetings with Laotian government Ministers. Discussions with MRC have also been held with respect to climate change initiatives. In early days of climate change adaptation in the Mekong Region, it is important to share approaches, methodologies and experiences, between the pilot sites of different projects and organisations. The MRC climate change adaptation pilot site for Lao PDR for example, is located in the district adjacent to one of the newly announced Ramsar sites. All of this has set the scene for what promises to be very exciting future collaboration between MWD, Ramsar, MRC and WREA on improving wetlands governance while addressing climate change in Phase 2 of MWD.

32

USGS In phase 1, MWD has collaborated with USGS in developing the “Forecast Mekong” DVD highlighting likely future scenarios for the Mekong Delta, especially in the context of upstream hydropower dams and their impact on hydrology and sediment flows. The DVD has been produced in all four lower Mekong country languages (with all translations provided by MWD) and is explicitly targeting awareness-raising of policy-makers, including at the recent US-ASEAN Ministerial meeting in Hanoi in July 2010. Other regional organisations and networks that there has been some contact with in Phase 1, and which could be expanded in Phase 2 include The Sustainable Mekong Research Network (Sumernet); the Mekong Institute (MI); the Wetlands Alliance; and the Mekong Wetlands University Network.

1

Asia Regional Office 63 Sukhumvit Soi 39 Bangkok,10110 Thailand Tel: +662 662 4029 Fax: +662 662 4389 Email:asia@iucn.org Web: www.iucn.org/asia/mekong_dialogues