SANT’ANNA 2013
TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES
GOVERNANCE: THE MULTI-SCALAR ANALYSIS
OF THE AMAZON BASIN1
Fernanda Mello Sant’Anna, MSc.
University of São Paulo
This is a preliminary version. Please contact the author for a current version of this paper.
Paper prepared for presentation at the International Studies Association 54th Annual Convention, “The Politics of International Diffusion Dimensions”, San Francisco, California, USA, April 3-6, 2013.
1 Paper presented with the support of the University of São Paulo and ISA. This research was conducted with the support of FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo). 1
SANT’ANNA 2013
TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES GOVERNANCE: THE MULTI- SCALAR ANALYSIS OF THE AMAZON BASIN Fernanda Mello Sant’Anna, MSc. University of São Paulo
Abstract
In most of the literature about the politics of transboundary water resources, authors concentrate their analysis on inter-state relations and do not contribute much to the multi-scalar character of water politics and the multiple actors involved. This paper presents a multi-scalar analysis of transboundary water resources governance in the Amazon Basin, having in mind that the Amazon basin is the largest and the most biologically diverse watershed in the world. However, the management of this basin, that covers parts of seven countries, faces a situation of abundance of water which had led to inaction by the governments, but did not prevent conflicts and problems related to water uses and contamination. Differences in institutional capacity, legislation and the lack of political cooperation among the Amazon countries and the fragilities of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization as a regional organization are some of the difficulties that a joint management of the Amazon Basin is facing. This political scenario gets more complex when linked to the national and local scale of this transboundary basin. Therefore, the multi-scalar approach is a methodology that highlights how different subsets of actors relate very differently and have different forms to manage water.
2
SANT’ANNA 2013
Introduction
This paper presents a multi-scalar analysis of transboundary water resources governance in the Amazon River Basin. Examines how different actors, institutions and governance mechanisms on different scales articulate and coordinate their actions to manage transboundary water resources in the Amazon River basin. The main research questions are: is there a multi-scalar process to regulate the use of transboundary water resources in the Amazon River Basin that can be regarded as governance? How international cooperation among Amazon countries, communities and institutions in different scales contribute to the governance of the Amazon River Basin? The multi- scalar approach is a geographical methodology that highlights how different subsets of actors relate very differently and have different forms to manage water (Becker, 2007), and allows to understand the basin as a totality. This research was based on field work and interviews in four Amazon countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru). As the largest and the most biologically diverse watershed in the world, the Amazon River Basin covers parts of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru and Venezuela. Although there is a situation of abundance of water this had led to inaction by government institutions and communities, but did not prevent conflicts and problems related to the various uses of water. In the past six decades human activities have led to a process of rapid deforestation, resulting in changes in precipitation, evaporation and discharge patterns in parts of the Amazon River Basin. The consequences are been faced by the population of approximately 28 million inhabitants, mostly concentrated in urban areas, and by the biological diversity of this complex ecological system (Aragón and Clüsener-Godt, 2003). Differences in institutional capacity, legislation and the lack of political cooperation among the Amazon countries and the fragilities of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) as a regional organization are some of the difficulties that a joint management of the Amazon Basin is facing. This political scenario gets more complex when linked to the national and local scale of a transboundary river basin. In the national scale there are other policies and projects that impact the basin and in the local scale there are border areas, neighbor towns and traditional and indigenous communities that have to manage their daily water problems. Ribeiro (2008) draws attention to the lack of international regulation to water use of transboundary river basins since there is no international treaty signed by a relevant number of countries about the subject. This
3
SANT’ANNA 2013 lack of international commitments can reinforce the scenario of water tensions and conflicts since water demand is increasing and pollution and other forms of water degradation also rises (Ribeiro, 2008). This paper discusses recent approaches to water governance and integrated management of transboundary water resources. Then analyzes how different actors and institutions that participate in the water governance process in the international, national and local scale (border area), regulate and manage the use of transboundary water resources in the Amazon River Basin.
Multi-scalar analysis of water resources governance in transboundary river basins
In general, the literature about international river basins focuses only in one scale, generally in the international scale, in the high politics negotiations. Few studies investigate the multi-scalar relations embedded in water governance of an international river basin (Delli Priscoli and Wolf, 2009; Trottier, 2003). As pointed by Meadowcroft “spatial scales relate most obviously to the territorial delimitation of political power, to the physical area over which one political structure, rather than another, holds sway” (2002, p. 170). Scales are social constructions that reflect power relations in society, therefore, actors struggle to command a particular scale according to their interests in a given sociospatial conjuncture: “spatial scales are never fixed, but are perpetually redefined, contested and restructured in terms of their extent, content, relative importance and interrelations. The continuous reshuffling and reorganization of spatial scales are integral to social strategies and an arena for struggles for control and empowerment” (Swyngedouw, 2006, p. 133). The concept of river basin management establishes the river basin as the spatial unit for water management and planning. It is based on powerful ecosystem logic of managing water according to biophysical, rather than political-administrative, boundaries” (MOSS, 2003, p. 85). This causes a problem of interplay because the physical boundaries of river basins do not fit in the political boundaries of political scales like municipalities, states, countries. For Moss, “the boundaries at stake here relate not to physical territories, but to political responsibilities and social spheres of influence. It is along these boundaries, where the jurisdictions and interests of organized
4
SANT’ANNA 2013 actors overlap, that conflict between formal institutions most commonly arise” (Moss, 2003, p. 93). As water governance, and integrated river basin management specifically, transcend political boundaries and various sectorial borders, a multi-scalar and inter- sectorial governance process to comprise all the complexity of social and environmental relations in a river basin is required. Interactions among different institutions on different scales are a factor that influences the institutional effectiveness of water resources management (Moss, 2003). In this sense, there are problems of horizontal interactions among institutions from different sectors, as for example the relation between a River Basin Committee and the Planning Secretary of a Municipality responsible for zoning and land use. And on the other hand, there are problems of vertical interaction among institutions on different scales, such as the relation between water management institutions on the local/municipal scale that are very aware of the specificities of water management in a locality but have a limited view of the whole basin, and the regional and national water management institutions with a more general view of the issue. These interactions among institutions on different scales also raise questions about legitimacy and equity (Moss, 20003). Integrated river basin management is part of good water governance goals. In this sense, water governance is understood as the decision making process and institutions that make decisions about how to manage and use water. The good governance principles are: openness and transparency in the decision making process; broad participation; rule of the law (predictability); and ethics and integrity (with control of corruption) (Lautze et al., 2011). For Castro, “one of the most crucial problems is that the mainstream water policy literature tends to present a depoliticized understanding of governance, although it is essentially a political process” (Castro, 2007, p. 105). As stated that governance is the political process of decision making, Castro points out that “the core of governance has to do with determining what ends and values should be chosen and by the means by which those ends and values should be pursued” (Castro, 2007, p. 106). Decisions are based on social construction of shared beliefs about reality, identities and institutions. The allocation and regulation of water rights and obligations and the distribution of economic means and welfare services are some of the decisions that have to be made as part of water governance. And actors make decisions and frame policies within a context of power relations and arrangements of
5
SANT’ANNA 2013 authority that implicate individual and collective actors within territorial bounds (Castro, 2007). Actors present differences in knowledge, access to information, economic means, and political power creating asymmetries among them and: “power asymmetries determine to a significant (not total) extent the fundamentally political distributional issue of ‘who gets what, when, where and why’” (Cascão and Zeitoun, 2010, p. 28). The exercise of political power by actors involved in water governance are decisive to define the means and ends of water management, as well the arrangements of authority that will make the decisions in the process. Actors will use their power and knowledge in asymmetric relations to pursue their interests if there is absence of democratic governance arrangements (Castro, 2007). The political context in which water governance arrangements are made is characterized by a presence of international institutions that have political power, especially those that finance water management projects like the World Bank through the Global Environment Facility (GEF). As explained by Lautze et al. (2011, p. 1), “the definition of water governance has real implications for financial resources policy and actual resources outcomes. […] Likewise, major educational efforts have been launched to train water professionals in water governance, such as the efforts of the Global Water Partnership”. Although the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigation Uses of International Watercourses, which contains important norms and principles to regulate actions in shared river basins, was signed by a number of countries it has not entered into force yet. Nevertheless many international institutions related to water management were created since the 1970’s, such as the Mar del Plata conference in 1977, the Dublin conference on water in 1992, the Agenda 21 chapter about water, the Global Water Partnership, the World Water Forums, the Millennium Goals Declaration, and some UN organizations that are related to water issues, UNESCO, FAO, UNEP, UNDP and the UN-Water program (Pahl-Wostl, Gupta and Petry, 2008). But there are still doubts about if this set of institutions can be seen as a global water governance process, or a global water regime. For Conca (2006), there is no global water regime (in the sense where only states participate), but there is a panoply of embedded roles and rules, contested set of norms, framing of policies, setting of standards and mobilization and allocation of resources that can be seen that water is been subject to governance in different scales not only
6
SANT’ANNA 2013 global. The author sees water politics as full of struggles all around the world because water involves contested notions of authority, territory and knowledge. Social actors have “different constructions of knowledge – of the facts, causal mechanisms, and larger truths about the world’s water problems, their sources, and their solutions” (Conca, 2006, p. 3). Analyzing the reports of the Second World Water Forum, Conca affirms that “the World Water Vision and the Framework for Action offered a model for a global water regime. They put forward a set of norms – prescriptive rules and standards of appropriate behavior meant to govern water-related actions on a global scale” (Conca, 2006, p. 2). These set of norms and prescriptive rules are part of the conditions that international institutions have to finance water management projects. Countries where these projects are taking place must follow a “water governance model” for water management propagated by those institutions. In most of the UN organizations literature water governance consists in applying the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) to achieve predetermined goals and outcomes (Castro, 2007, Lautze et al., 2011). Disregarding the different contexts and specificities of the different locations where the water management projects are taking place. However, water governance is the decision-making process that will define the goals and outcomes, “an effective governance process is first needed to determine which tenets of IWRM, if any, are desirable for a specific location. Moreover, disregarding local conditions, preferences and values to uniformly apply IWRM principles everywhere actually reflects poor water governance” (Lautze et al., 2011, p. 5). The water governance model disseminated by some international institutions tends to privilege the regional (basin-wide) level as the primary scale. The creation of another scale to manage water can alter the power relations and authority arrangements because “such processes of re-scaling create a need for adaptation among the involved regions, while altering power positions and the scope of action for state and non-state actors” (Moss and Newig, 2010, p.1). In the Amazon River Basin this water governance model is been applied as an international project financed by the GEF and executed by the ACTO and national institutions. It is also been implemented nationally, while the Amazon River Basin continues to be seen as a place for national development projects, especially for hydropower and transportation.
7
SANT’ANNA 2013
International scale: the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization and the IIRSA
Intergovernmental multilateral cooperation among Amazon countries takes place through the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO)2. However, this intergovernmental cooperation process is extremely slow and sometimes suffers setbacks related to changes of interests or the political context in one of the Member States. Due to the Amazon countries’ conflicts of interests at the time of the signing of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (ACT) in 1978, the water resources issue was never fully resolved. The original ambitious proposal of a statute for the management of the common water resources was abandoned with only a pragmatic commitment being expressed in the fifth article of the Treaty: “taking account of the importance and multiplicity of the functions which the Amazonian rivers have in the process of economic and social development of the region, the Contracting Parties shall make efforts aimed at achieving rational utilization of the hydro resources” (TCA, 1978, p. 2, article V). Articles III and IV of the ACT settled only the navigation issue of the Amazon River. However, in 2002 the recently established ACTO3 proposed, as its first project, a program to manage the transboundary water resources of the Amazon River Basin. The Project Integrated and Sustainable Management of Transboundary Water Resources in the Amazon River Basin considering Climate Variability and Climate Change has the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) as the donor agency, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as the implementing agency and the ACTO as the project executing agency. The project’s purpose is to develop a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Amazon River Basin and create the necessary conditions for the future implementation of the Plan. The first phase of this project ended in 2007 and resulted in national reports about the country’s vision of the Amazon River Basin and social- environmental studies. The second phase is still been discussed due to the changing of interests among Amazon countries that prolonged the negotiations. Intergovernmental relations in the Amazon region have been excessively slow and present a lack of connection with the Amazonian border regions. In the second phase of the ACTO project two pilot projects for the joint management of the Amazon
2 The ACTO member states are: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Surinam and Venezuela. France, because of French Guyana, is an observer in the ACTO meetings but not a member. 3 The ACTO was established by a Protocol signed in 1998 that entered into force in 2002. 8
SANT’ANNA 2013 transboundary water resources are proposed, one is in the Napo River Basin and the other is in the MAP region (triple border of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru). Many scholars who have studied the ACT and the ACTO have emphasized that the major problem of the organization is the lack of institutional capacity. Alfredo Costa-Filho (2003) points out that the main difficulty of the ACTO is its institutional weaknesses. These include its reduced budget that depends on the member States’ contributions and financing by international organizations and agencies, and the situation whereby the Amazonia is unequally prioritized in the eight member countries; the fact that the Permanent Secretary is established without a home office under conditions of budget shortage; the difficulties to create a technical staff under the necessity of attracting foreign financial resources to tackle the problems on a regional scale; and finally, that the organization is still directed by high level governmental representatives, although they are not receptive to dialogue with Amazonian experts or the area’s most genuine representatives (Costa-Filho, 2003, p. 392). Caubet affirms that there is weakness in the implementation structures of the ACTO, because, in spite of its 28 articles, there is no mechanism that allows significant actions (Caubet, 2006). The sovereignty of the member states is still the major topic in the ACTO meetings. It is evident that the countries are reluctant to engage in new commitments that will lead to obligations. Caubet points out that it was political motives that led the countries to sign the ACT, such as guaranteeing the Amazon countries sovereignty over the Amazon region (Caubet, 2006). Román (1998) believes that the sovereignty objective was substitute by the sustainable development goal in the 1990’s. The emergence of an environmental agenda was perceived as an opportunity for the Amazon countries to obtain financial support for sustainable development projects in the region and to be seen as environmentally concerned countries (Román,1998). Other aspects of the ACT and the ACTO are pointed out by Costa-Filho (2003), who highlights the obstructing of the cooperation process by the conflict of interests among the Amazon countries and the real heterogeneity among countries’ priorities for programs and policies in the Amazon region. Problems involving exploitation and conservation of natural resources affect different areas and people in a different way. The relative importance of the national “Amazonia” in relation to the national total, both in terms of territorial area and population density is significantly different in each country, which affects its decisions and priorities (Costa-Filho, 2003, pp. 385-386).
9
SANT’ANNA 2013
Another international initiative of regional integration that the Amazon countries are part is the “Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America”, known as IIRSA, that was created in 2000 by the 12 countries of South America. This is an initiative for the physical integration of the countries involved; it consists in 10 development and integration hubs: Andean Hub, Southern Andean Hub, Capricorn Hub, Paraguay-Parana Waterway Hub, Amazon Hub, Guianese Shield Hub, Southern Hub, Central Interoceanic Hub, MERCOSUR-Chile Hub, Peru-Brazil-Bolivia Hub. Especially three hubs have projects that affect the Amazon River Basin: the Amazon Hub, the Peru-Brazil-Bolivia Hub and the Central Interoceanic Hub. The Guianese Hub affects the Amazon Rainforest but the Orinoco River Basin, mostly. Some of these projects are also national development projects. In the Amazon River Basin the projects are mainly hydropower plants, waterways, and highways, including interoceanic waterways and highways. In the international scale there are two initiatives of regional cooperation among the Amazon countries. The ACTO is an organization for the total Amazon region and presents efforts to the joint management of the Amazon River Basin, as the GEF’s project. However, it has much institutional debility and along with the difficulties to cooperate among the Amazon countries, shows that little has been done to actually engage in a water governance process. The project is a first step to know the basin and its problems, that will required much more engagement by the Amazon countries to become governance. And the IIRSA’s projects will have many impacts in the Amazon River Basin, especially those infrastructures as hydropower plants, but they are been implemented regardless of the lack of a joint water management in the basin.
National scale: Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru
The analysis of national institutions and legislation about water resources management in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru shows that there are many differences in the degree of institutionalization, decentralization and social participation among the countries. These differences may hamper cooperation initiatives because of the difficulty of coordinating and implementing river basin management without the harmonization of legislation and institutions. Moreover, there are other sectorial policies and institutions that make decisions and actions which impacts the Amazon River Basin water resources. One example is the energy sector, responsible for the planning and
10
SANT’ANNA 2013 construction of hydropower plants in the Amazon River Basin. Another is the efforts of national territorial integration and infrastructure plans, as the construction of highways that generate deforestation and negative environmental impacts to water resources. Analyzing the formation of national states and their international political limits in the Amazon region allows understanding some of the current ideologies and strategies that the states have regarding the Amazon region in their national territories. Usually, the Amazon region is viewed as a provider of national resources, an “empty space” (low population density), and not provided of developed and civilized institutions. Since the 1950’s Amazon countries have been implementing especial policies to the Amazon region in an attempt to occupy, integrate and develop this part of their territories. As stated by Becker (2007), the geopolitical view of the Amazon region contributed to the expansion of the resource frontier. Today, some areas in the borders of the Amazon River Basin, especially in Brazil (where it is called the “deforestation arc”), are areas of consolidated settlement with economic activities and dynamic cities with a growing urban population. All changes in the social, economic and political context of the Amazon region, in all Amazon countries, represents challenges to the new planning and policies designed to the region, especially those regarding its natural resources. In general, these changes are not followed by efficient governance mechanisms to regulate the use of natural resources, which has led to social-environmental conflicts. Regarding water resources governance, this research analyzed the scenario in four Amazon countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. In these four Amazon countries, the Amazon River basin represents a significant part of their national territory. For Brazil the Amazon River Basin covers 45% of its territory, which represents 63% of the total area of the Amazon River Basin. Peru has 75% of its national territory covered by the Amazon River Basin which represents 16% of the total area of the Amazon River Basin. Bolivia has 66% of its territory covered by the Amazon River Basin that represents 12% of the total area of the Amazon River Basin. Ecuador has 56% of its territory covered by the Amazon River Basin, which represents 2% of the total area of the Amazon River Basin. Bolivia has an obsolete Water Law, but in 2006 it established the Environment and Water Ministry, which seeks to institutionalize water resources management in the country. Bolivia lacks financial resources for environmental and water institutions, which compromises natural resources management. On the other hand, in the
11
SANT’ANNA 2013 institutional documents about water resources management the traditional community’s rights to manage their own resources are recognized. According to the Bolivian government’s report to the ACTO, the Environment and Water Ministry was established in 2006 (Supreme decree 28631) and is constituted by the Vice-ministry of Basins and Water Resources, the Vice-ministry of Basic Services and the Vice-ministry of Irrigation. Its function is to satisfy the water needs of the population in sufficient quantity and quality for consumption, and also for economic productive activities (ESCOBAR 2007). Technical and financial support for the integrated management of river basins was provided by the National Basin Program. This program had 4,298,486 dollars investment in the period 2005-2006, from this amount 1,991,070 dollars were directed towards projects in the Amazon Basin. Traditionally in Bolivia, and especially in Andes region, communities have been managing their water resources with a certain degree of autonomy that was reinforced by the weaknesses of the Bolivian state institutions and the lack of efficient public services. Generally, it can be affirmed that as far as water resources in Bolivia are concerned, there are serious institutional weaknesses. In accordance with the Bolivian Final Report to the ACTO project: “the institutional framework, in general, in Bolivia has been weak and more formal than real. The governmental institutional framework has been unstable and often sparse. Hopefully the result of the constitutional restructuring process in the country today will establish more clearly the rules and above all the conceptual definitions about water resources that are required by the water legislation. Nowadays, the institutional aspects related to the environment have some degree of fragmentation because there are different governmental institutions with responsibilities towards the environment and natural resources” (translated by the author from ESCOBAR 2007, p. 81). Brazil is a federation and the authority over water resources is divided by the Federation, the states and the municipalities. Although Brazil has advanced in terms of water resources legislation with mechanisms of decentralization, social participation and integrated river basin management, there are many implementation difficulties in the Brazilian part of the Amazon Basin, where only one state river basin committee was created (in Manaus, Amazonas state). The water legislation is not based in the Amazon
12
SANT’ANNA 2013 context and only some states in the Brazilian Amazonia have their own water legislation. Water management in Brazil has a recent institutional framework that was initiated with the National Water Resources Policy (NWRP – Law n. 9,443) in 1997. The NWRP set the National Water Resources Management System (NWRMS), whose effective implementation began with the creation of the National Water Agency (NWA) in 2000. The NWA is part of the Ministry of the Environment as an autocracy, and is in charge of NWRMS implementation together with the state and municipal governments, users and civil society organizations (BRAGA et al. 2006). The Water Resources National Council (WRNC), the Water Resources Secretary (WRS), the NWA, the Water Resources State Councils, and the River Basin Committees (RBC) and their Basin Agencies are also part of the NWRMS. This system is responsible for decentralizing the water resources planning and management and establishing mechanisms for the participation of users and civil society. The RBC is a deliberative entity in which government, users and organized civil society representatives participate. The RBC may use different instruments to manage water resources, such as river basin plans, framing of the water courses, granting of water rights and use, charging for water use, and a water resources information system. There are sub-basins committees and also state and interstate river basin committees. In the Brazilian Amazonia only the Amazonas State had established a state RBC (BRAGA et al. 2006). Ecuador has changed recently its water institutions with the creation of the National Water Secretary (NWS) in 2008 that substituted the National Water Resources Council. The NWS is responsible for the water resources management in the national territory. It is in charge of establishing water policies, norms and rules to promote efficient water use; developing the National Water Management Plan consistent with the National Development Plan; regulating river basin management; coordinating and articulating actions with other public entities that provide water services; developing studies and actions to strength the institutional capacity to manage water. Ecuador has recently finished the hydrological division of its river basins. In the Amazon region of Ecuador there are little information and studies about water resources and river basin management. Peru also has recently changed its water resources management legislation and institutions. The Ministry of the Environment was created in 2008, and in the following
13
SANT’ANNA 2013 year the National Water Authority (NWA) was formed. The Water Resources Law was approved in 2009 and established the National Water Resources System (NWRS), which counts with the participation of the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Habitation, Construction and Sanitation, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Production, the Ministry of Energy and Mining, other public entities related to water resources from the national, regional and local levels, the Basin Councils, the operators of public hydraulic systems and private sectorial institutions and water users. As a technical institution of the Ministry of Agriculture the NWA is the ultimate authority of the National Water Resources System and is responsible for establishing the rules and procedures for integrated water resources management. The country has three hydrographical areas (Pacific, Atlantic and Titicaca) and was divided into 159 river basins or hydrographical units by the NWA. The NWA is a decentralized institution that operates through 14 Water Administrative Authorities, each of which is in charge of a certain group of river basins. The Water Resources Basin Councils are bound to the NWA and can be established by the regional government through supreme decree. Their function is to allow social actors that live in a river basin area to participate in the planning, management and coordination of the water resources use in a shared manner. The national scale of these four Amazon countries is very complex to be fully presented here. All countries present an attempt to decentralize the water management and create mechanisms for social participation. Although not all of them have complete this task in their whole national territory. Bolivia and Ecuador faced water struggles and conflicts in the past years that show how sensitive this issue has been for these countries. Brazil also had water conflicts, especially involved with hydropower in the Amazon Basin. Brazil and Peru have a lot of similarities regarding their water law and institutions. The signature of a technical cooperation treaty among Brazil and Peru about water management institutions was one of the causes of these similarities. In the Brazilian Amazon basin the water law is been implemented by the states, and they are trying to establish river basin committees, in spite their lack of resources and technical knowledge and personnel. In Peru, water institutions are first engaged in completing the studies and diagnosis about the river basins in the Amazon basin. For example, NWA
14
SANT’ANNA 2013 already completed the study and report diagnosis of Madre de Dios hydrologic unit4, but not for the river basins in the Loreto Department. Bolivia and Ecuador are also doing studies and diagnosis about the river basins in the Amazon, but they are facing many difficulties. This is where the ACTO/GEF project could help national institutions with studies and information about the river basins and their problems, what did not happen yet.
Local and border scale: the Acre river basin and the Napo river basin
The implementation of the second phase of the ACTO/GEF Project “Integrated and Sustainable Management of Transboundary Water Resources in the Amazon River Basin Considering Climate Variability and Climate Change”, involves two pilot projects of Integrated Management of Transboundary Basins in the Amazon regions of MAP and the Napo River basin. These two regions are located in border areas that will suffer possible impacts of existing projects of the IIRSA Initiative. The Napo River is a tributary of the Amazon River and it flows through the territories of Peru and Ecuador. This river is very important as a mean of transportation and communication for communities in both Ecuador and Peru, and is regulated by the Commerce and Navigation Treaty. These two countries had a frontier dispute that lasted the whole twentieth century and was settled by the Peace Treaty signed in 1998. One of Ecuador’s motives for the dispute was the access to the Amazon River that would facilitate transportation and access to the Atlantic Ocean, but this area remained part of the Peruvian territory. On the Napo River basin there are several protected areas such as the Yasuni National Park in Ecuador, however these protected lands are in jeopardize because of the numerous oil concessions. Oil exploitation in Ecuadorian Amazonia and also in the Peruvian side, left a trail of pollution in the Amazon River Basin water resources. This contamination is the cause of several conflicts with indigenous populations and other communities living in the region against oil companies. The Napo River Basin is also subject of a waterway project related to the Amazon River Waterway, which is one of the IIRSA’s projects of the Amazon Hub. This project aims to improve transport on the continent and is part of a bi-oceanic
4 This report is called “Diagnóstico y Plan de Gestión de los Recursos Hídricos de la Cuenca de Madre de Dios (2011). 15
SANT’ANNA 2013 corridor connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific through a number of waterways and highways to ports in the coast. The point of dispute in the Napo’s waterway project is the negative environmental impacts of the removal of sediments from the river canal, necessary for improving transportation. Since the border of Ecuador and Peru was closed for so many years and was also the scenario for armed battles between the countries, it was a closed border with little integration and interaction between them. After the peace treaty the countries engaged in a cooperation process that led to the creation of the Bi-national Plan for the Development of the Border Region of Peru-Ecuador. Nonetheless, both countries have recently changed their water institutions and divide their territory into hydrographical units or river basins for water management and planning. In the Amazon River Basin, sub-basins are facing a situation of underprovided basic services as water supply and sanitation. Besides, there is few studies and information about the river basins in the Amazon region. It contributes to accentuate the water contamination problems and also regulate water use. In the Napo river basin the communities in both countries recognize the problems of water contamination but there is no cross-border initiative to joint management of the transboundary water resources. Although the Napo river basin is populated mostly with Kichwa communities in both sides of the border, they share the same culture, and also have frequently interactions; this situation did not lead to the creation of transnational organizations. One cause for this could be the war between the countries that closed the border for so many years. The other pilot project planned is in the MAP region, that is located in the triple border of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru, in the occidental part of the Amazon, and it consists of the Department of Madre de Dios (Peru), the State of Acre (Brazil) and the Department of Pando (Bolivia). These three departments/states together have an area of 300,000 km² and 822,000 inhabitants; they are also characterized by great biological diversity and have some important tributaries of the Amazon River. However, paving of the Interoceanic highway (an IIRSA project), the spread of cattle ranching, logging and mineral exploitation has caused deforestation of up to 10% the total area of the region (MENDONZA el al. 2005). In the MAP region there are many transboundary sub-basins as the Acre River Basin. The Acre River originates in Peru, at a height of between 300m and 400m near
16
SANT’ANNA 2013 the Brazilian border, and it is a tributary of the left bank of the Purus River, a tributary of the Amazon River. The main problems related to transboundary water resources are basically four: floods in the rainy season and their consequences (specially to the border towns); droughts in the dry season and the consequent crisis for water supply and fishing (aggravated by the deforestation); water pollution due to the lack of sanitation in the towns and cities; and the fact that the river is the border between the countries, this causes some problems for the border towns because of the constantly changing channels and meanders of the river and also fishing regulations (that present different legislation in each country). The proposal for an integrated management program for the tri-national Upper Acre River Basin originated from the demands presented by the regional communities of the three countries of the MAP region, in 2002, at the MAP Forum in Cobija, Bolivia. This forum aimed to strengthen collaborative action and regional integration, and the final document presents as Recommendation 8: “prioritize the tri-national plan for integrated management of the Acre River Basin as a starting point to the protection of other river basins in the MAP region” (translated by the author from MiniMAP Bacias 2007). After this meeting, a consultation letter was sent to the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) by the Border Committee Assis Brasil-Iñapari demanding information about establishment of a tri-national committee for the Upper Acre River Basin. However, in spite the fact that the ACTO had sent a representative to follow the activities in the Acre River Basin, nothing more significant (such as technical or financial support) was offered by the organization to help the border initiative. In 2004, during the fifth MAP Forum in Puerto Maldonado, Peru, institutions from each country signed an agreement to develop and implement sustainable development activities and research projects, and to promote exchange of information about the region. The institutions involved in the agreement developed a working plan for the management of the tri-national Upper Acre River Basin. In 2006 the World Wild Fund for Nature Brazil (WWF- Brazil) organized a workshop with the objective of discussing the legal aspects of transboundary water resources management. Institutions from the three countries were present. After this meeting Brazilian government established the Acre River Working Group in which representatives from ANA, the Foreign Ministry, state government and municipal governments participate, as well as representatives of the civil society. This working
17
SANT’ANNA 2013 group resulted in a first draft of the general guidelines to be followed in Acre River Basin management.
Conclusion: multi-scalar interactions and difficulties of coordination and cooperation in the Amazon Basin
Although the Amazon Basin has an abundance of water this does not mean absence of conflict or water problems. Different uses, seasonal water quantity variation, contamination and political boundaries contribute to tensions and conflicts around water resources in the Amazon River Basin. Inequalities in the water use and access and in the degree of institutionalization of water management aggravate the situation. The fact that river basins cross political borders is an indication of how difficult it can be to manage resources on the scale of a river basin. Water governance is a decision-making process to regulate the use of water. Therefore, to comprehend water governance it is necessary to ask: how is the decision- making process? Is it democratic? Are all the actors involved participating? Are the decisions taken been executed? Is there a regulation of water uses? How is this regulation? And these questions have to be considered in all scales involved with the transboundary water resources of shared river basins. To have water governance in international river basins it is necessary to analyze all scales involved. River basin management requires coordination among institutions on different scales. However, the two cases presented (MAP region and the Napo River Basin) shows that the lack of coordination among international and national institutions with local institutions hampers water governance and consequently the river basin management. Borders towns cannot sign international agreements, only the Ministries of Foreign Affairs with the support of the national water institutions can do so. And local transnational initiatives, in spite of their will to cooperate and manage water resources, need to coordinate actions with national and international institutions. The MAP Initiative proposal to manage the Acre River Basin is a local water governance initiative that demanded the participation of national institutions and even the ACTO in this governance process, indicating a case of bottom-up governance. The ACTO project to manage the transboundary water resources of the Amazon River Basin still has many difficulties to solve before beginning its second phase. The linkage between this project and the MAP Initiative in the Acre River Basin as a pilot project
18
SANT’ANNA 2013 could indicate an attempt to coordinate actions from local to international scales of water governance, if it will ever be implemented. On the other hand, the Napo River Basin case is very distinct because of the border dispute between the two countries that closed the border for many years and the integration between the countries and their communities are very recent. Nowadays, both countries engaged in various initiatives to increase integration, but restricted to the intergovernmental level. It seems that a bottom-up governance initiative would be very difficult to happen in this situation. In both cases, the international scale (that covers the ACTO) is the most fragile in terms of governance and institutional capacity. The ACTO has difficulty in create mechanisms for social participation and coordination with other scales of the Amazon River Basin. The ACTO has also no international convention, although it could take as basis for its actions some principles already present in international law and experiences in other regions of the world. Moreover, in both local cases countries could also sign an agreement to form a tri or bi-national committee dedicated to dealing with transboundary problems and conflicts and specially to manage the shared water resources with the participations of actors from national, regional and local scales. Differences in institutional capacity, legislation and the lack of political cooperation between the Amazon countries and the fragilities of the ACTO as a regional organization are some of the difficulties that the joint management of any sub-basin of the Amazon River Basin is facing. Therefore, it can be argued that water governance of the Amazon River Basin is still in its beginnings; first of all it is necessary to complete all the studies about the sub-basins, which will require financial and technical support. National institutions involved in the ACTO/GEF project could benefit from this project if it is directed towards their interests. But it is important that this project includes social participation mechanisms and be adapted to the Amazon River Basin environmental and social context.
References
Avilés Irahola, D.L. (2005). Popular participation, decentralization and local power relation in Bolivia. Göttingen. Becker, B. K. (2007). Amazônia: geopolítica na virada do III milênio. Rio de Janeiro, Garamond. Bezerra, M.J. (2006). Invenções do Acre: de território a estado – um olhar social. Tese de doutorado apresentado ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em História Social.
19
SANT’ANNA 2013
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (Brazil). Booth, D.; S. Clisby and C. Widmark, (1997). Popular participation: democratizing the State in Rural Bolivia. Report to SIDA commissioned through the Development Studies Unit, Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Braga, B.; R. Flecha; D.S. Pena and J. Kelman (2006). “A reforma institucional do setor de recursos hídricos”. In: Águas Doces do Brasil: capital ecológico, uso e conservação, Braga, B.; A.C. Rebouças and J.G. Tundisi (orgs.). São Paulo, 639-675. Brito, L.C. (2007). O Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica (TCA) e a sustentabilidade da região MAP (1992-2002). Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) do Programa Interinstitucional UFSC/UFAC, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis (Brazil). Brown, I.F. (2006). “Queimadas na Região MAP: uma ameaça emergente. Redução deste risco como meio de desenvolvimento”. Presented at the Fórum MAP VI. July 2006. In: MAP. Base eletrônica de dados. URL: http://www.mapamazonia.net/ Inequality and Water in the Amazon Basin 259 index.php?lang=pt&page=arquivos. Acessed 1 Oct 2006. Cascão, A. E. and Zeitoun, M. (2010). “Power, Hegemony and Critical Hydropolitics”. In: Earle, A. Jägerskog, A. and Öjendal, J. (eds.) Transboundary water management: principles and practice. Earthscan, London, Washington, pp. 27- 42. Caubet, C.G. (2006). A água doce nas relações internacionais. Barueri. Conca, K. (2006). Governing water: contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge (Massachusetts). Costa-Filho, A. (2003). “Uma nova “OTCA” sob a velha ótica?” In: Problemática do uso local e global da água da Amazônia, Aragón, L.E. and M. Clusener-Godt (org.). Belém (Brazil), 383-393. Delli Priscoli, J. and Wolf, A. T. (2009). Managing and transforming water conflicts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dourojeanni, A.R. (2001). Impactos socioambientales probables de la carretera transoceánica (Rio Branco – Puerto Maldonado – Ilo) y la capacidad de respues ta del Perú. Arequipa (Peru). Escobar, C.D. (coord.) (2007). Informe Final: Visión Boliviana de la Cuenca Amazónica. La Paz. Ferro, G. (2007). Three sides, three stories: the efforts to manage the tri-national basin of the Acre river. Master Thesis in International Development Studies. Utrecht University, Utrecht. IIRSA (Iniciativa para a Integração da Infraestrutura Regional Sul-Americana)(2008). Eje Peru-Brasil-Bolivia. URL: http://www.iirsa.org. Accessed 1 July 2008. Lautze, J.; S. de Silva; M. Giordano and L. Sanford (2011). “Putting the cart before the horse: water governance and IWRM”. Natural Resources Forum 35 (1): 1-8. Machado, L.O. (2002). Sistemas, fronteiras e território. UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro. Meadowcroft, J. (2002). “Politics and scale: some implications for environmental Governance”. Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 169-179. Mendoza, E.R.; G. Rioja; F. Brown; F. Rios; M. de los Rios and E. Raez (2005). O MAP uma sigla de esforço e colaboração na região da amazônia sul-ocidental. In: Amazônia Sustentável: desenvolvimento sustentável entre políticas públicas, estratégias inovadoras e experiências locais, Coy, M. and G. Kohlhepp (coord.). Rio de Janeiro, 97-110.
20
SANT’ANNA 2013
MiniMAP Bacias (2007). MiniMAP Bacias. URL: http://www.mapamazonia.net/mini260map_bacias/. Accessed 10 Jan 2007. Moss, T. (2003). Solving Problems of ‘Fit’ at the Expense of Problems of ‘Interplay’? The Spatial Reorganization of Water Management following the EU Water Framework Directive. In: How institutions change: perspectives on social learning in global and local environmental contexts, Breit, H.; A. Engels; T. Moss and M. Troja (eds.). Opladen, 85-121. Moss, T. and J. Newig (2010). Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management 46: 1-6. Nijenhuis, G. (2006). Political decentralization, local governance, and participatory development. In: Development matters: geographical studies on development processes and policies, Van Lindert P.; A. Jong; G. Nijenhuis and G. Van Westen (eds.). Utrecht University, Utrecht, 111-126. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York and Cambridge. Pereira (2007). Iniciativa MAP: um emergente movimento social transfronteiriço e sua gestão no desenvolvimento sustentável na região da Amazônia Sul Ocidental. Master Thesis in Law, UFSC/UFAC, Florianópolis (Brazil). Raffestin, J.C. (1993). Por uma geografia do poder. São Paulo. Ribeiro, W.C. (2008). Geografia Política da Água. São Paulo. Román, M. (1998). The implementation of international regimes: the case of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty. Uppsala. Sampaio, C.H.S. (coord.)(2010). Relatório do Grupo de Trabalho do Rio Acre. Rio Branco. Smith, N. (2004). “Scale bending and the fate of the national”. Scale & Geography Inquiry: nature, society and method Sheppard, e. E Mcmaster, r. B. (eds.). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 192-212. Sneddon, C e Fox, C. (2006). “Rethinking transboundary waters: a critical hydropolitics of the Mekong basin”. Political Geography 25: 181-202. Souza, N.R. and V.R. Cañete (2005). “Reflexões sobre a integração Pan-Amazônica: o papel da Organização do Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica (OTCA) na regulação da água”. Paper presented at the International Seminar Águas da Pan- Amazônia: institucionalização de marcos regulatórios, visões de atores políticos, estratégias? March 2005. Belém (Brazil). Stefano, L.; Edwards, P.; Silva, L. and Wolf, A. T. (2010). “Tracking cooperation and conflict in international basins: historic and recente trends”. Water Policy 12: 871-884. Swyngedouw, Eric. (2004) “Scaled geographies: nature, place and the politics of scale”. Scale & Geography Inquiry: nature, society and method Sheppard, e. E Mcmaster, r. B. (eds.). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 129-153. TCA (1978). Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica. Brasília (Brazil). Trottier, J. (2003). “The need for multiscalar analysis in the management of shared water resources”. In: Hassan, F. A. et al. History and future of shared water resources. UNESCO, International Hydrological Programme. Van Oosten, C. (2004). Fading Frontiers? Local development and Cross-border Partnerships in Southwest Amazonia. Utrecht. Wolf, A.T.; K. Stahl and M.F. Macomber (2003). “Conflict and cooperation within international river basins: the importance of institutional capacity”. Water Resources Update 125: 31-40. Young, O. (1999). Institutional dimensions of global environmental change. Science
21
SANT’ANNA 2013
Plan. IHDP Report no. 9. Bonn.
22