Watersheds in the Context of the Lower Mekong Basin

Watersheds in the WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Context of the Lower PROJECT Mekong Basin

2015

Eric Tilman 0

WATERSHEDS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LOWER MEKONG BASIN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword… ...... 3 SECTION 1 : The timeline of the MRC Watershed Management project ...... 4 The Mekong River Commission and Watersheds ...... 4 The Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program (AIFP) ...... 4 The MRC-GiZ Collaboration – Appraisal Mission...... 5 The Watershed Management Project ...... 6 What has remained? - An ex post Evaluation of Watershed Management in the Mekong Region ...... 10 Other core outputs of the WSMP ...... 11 The wrapping up document of the Chiang Mai Conference (21) : “From Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management”...... 16 The current steps - Watershed Management Project – KfW support ...... 18 SECTION 2 : Revisiting Watershed Management ...... 22 About WATERSHEDs… ...... 22 Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) ...... 24 No need to integrate everything… ...... 26 Ecosystem services based Watershed management ...... 29 “Strategic Watersheds” and “Biodiversity Information System” ...... 32 Grass-roots initiatives ...... 36 Networking Watershed Communities ...... 37 Land use and watershed management ...... 38 Data and information available for all ...... 39 Education and awareness ...... 39 Each watershed is unique and needs unique consideration… ...... 40 Funding Watersheds Initiatives… ...... 41 Maintaining and restoring Sustainability or building RESILIENCE?...... 41

SECTION 3 : MRC and Watersheds Management… ...... 44 The Lower Mekong Basin Development Strategy and the MRC Strategic Plan (2016-2020) ...... 44 The National level and the needs to harmonize throughout LMB ...... 45 The “local” approach ...... 46 What would be the priority in watershed management in the short and middle term ...... 47 Establish a global LMB or Regional framework to protect clean water and ensure its sustainable use. Could it be the long term objective? ...... 51 Section 4 : The Watershed website as support to the new perspective ...... 53 Watershed Management Project Timeline ...... 54 The “Watershed Blogs” – Networking the Stakeholders ...... 55

Annex 1. Bibliography ...... 56

FOREWORD…

In the recent years, MRC has played an important role in Watersheds Management in the Lower Mekong Basin. The strategy focused on supporting adequate institutional frameworks for better addressing and coordinating the management of the water resources in the LMB watersheds. The Watershed Management Project (WSMP) contributed widely in developing consistent packages of training material aiming at increasing the capacities of the staff of the national institutions engaged in watersheds management. The first section of this document is a review, presented in form of Timeline, of the Watershed Management Project supported by GIZ and, later on, by the Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW). It is actually the result of a significant work aiming at recovering the reports and materials developed under this project during the last nearly 15 years. All documents are numbered and listed in the bibliography – Annex 1 to this document.

The second section of this document is a worldwide review highlighting different perspectives for tackling the numerous challenges related to watersheds management. Watershed management guidelines generally refer to the “IWRM” approach that may be somewhat theoretical and often “wishful thinking”. However, in reality, many dynamic step forwards are taken, often driven by grass-roots initiatives and then seen by many governments as an opportunity to move forward. It paves the way to many public/private partnerships and stewardships that fairly balance top down and down top approaches.

The third section of this document presents some recommendations and justification on the way MRC could keep track on watershed management in the future. The basic idea behind is that MRC had already recognised in the past that management of watersheds, from a consolidated perspective, may affect positively or negatively the Mekong Mainstream and consequently MRC has some roles to play in it. Based on the Basin Development Strategy, the economic development of the LMB widely refers to the traditional economic sectors. However, the potential benefits of keeping healthy watersheds and related ecosystems are part of the overall trade-off and should not be underestimated. There is likely a need for improving the knowledge that would allow figuring out the economic benefits generated by the ecosystems. This is actually a giant challenge likely not feasible at national level but more affordable if addressed regionally.

The fourth section is a short presentation of the website “Mekong Watershed Information” that was developed under this Watershed Management Project.

It is likely essential for MRC to consider that watershed management remains one of the key elements of the jigsaw when thinking the sustainable future of the Mekong river basin from a regional perspective. MRC is likely no more to take an active role in the operability of watershed management but its role could usefully be focused on catalysing national governmental and non-governmental initiatives by networking, listening, evaluating, capitalising and disseminating. In all cases, MRC should go on keeping an eye on what is happening in the countries and should also maintain tools for evaluating the impacts of good or bad management of watersheds on the sustainable health of the Mekong main stream.

SECTION 1 : THE TIMELINE OF THE MRC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT

THE MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION AND WATERSHEDS

MRC has engaged in watershed management, starting from the Agriculture and irrigation Project and moving progressively to a more holistic approach in integrating forest management in a first step and, in a second step, in tackling all areas of watershed management with a support from the German International Cooperation (GIZ). The collaboration MRC-GIZ started in 2002. From this period, the overall objective of the MRC engagement was to improve the planning and coordination of sustainable management of resources in upstream watersheds at national and regional levels.

The project was implemented in three phases: preparation, including awareness raising, watershed classification and selection of pilot sites; implementation focusing on pilot sites and including training, information management and institution building; and finally, consolidation including replication, institutional integration and handover by 2011. The Chiang Mai conference on watershed management in the LMB has been the last milestone of this collaboration.

From that period up to now, MRC remains engaged in watershed management through the project SUMALOM-Nam Ton, supported by KfW, which includes a direct support at national level in Lao PDR in the pilot watershed of Nam Ton, and a regional component for capitalization and upscaling of the lessons learnt. It includes web-based tools aiming at sharing focused knowledge among the LMB-watershed’s stakeholders. Eventually, options and recommendations are formulated for positioning MRC in watershed management in LMB in a medium and long-term perspective.

THE AGRICULTURE, IRRIGATION AND FORESTRY PROGRAM (AIFP)

The origin of the regional concept of Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin seems to be the “Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme (AIFP)”. It is likely the first attempt to coordinate various sectors of activities in tributaries of the Mekong, in view of a better management of water and related natural resources. It was also a direct support to the national plans of the member countries.

A project proposal was drafted in October 2000 from request from each National Mekong Committee (1). The proposal included consideration of some project ideas already existing in the Agriculture and Irrigation Programme (AIP)1. The process of selection is described in the "Summary and Recommendations on the Second National Mekong Committee Meetings May-June 2000", part of the working papers for AIFP. The

1 AIP was actually tackling water issues but from only one sector perspective. The global concept of watershed was not taken into consideration.

4 formulated proposal was discussed during the regional workshop early in October 2000 and each country endorsed the activities and agreed to cooperate with other countries as proposed.

The goals of the MRC's AIFP was to ensuring that sound watershed management will preserve the natural resource benefits of watesrheds for the future, to develop improved irrigation and water use methods and engage in research on the best methods for monitoring land-use changes and to complete important baseline studies on wateshed management, forestry and land use planning

The AIFP addressed the efficiency of water use in the main irrigation systems in the Basin, which was the core topic of the Agriculture and Irrigation Programme since inception in 1996. It also addresses the means of assessing water use and implementing rules for water utilisation as developed under the Water Utilisation Programme (WUP). The AIFP completed its first phase in December 2005.

THE MRC-GIZ COLLABORATION – APPRAISAL MISSION

In 2002, the MRC-GIZ collaboration started with an appraisal mission. The appraisal was commissioned by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, now GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ). It comprised preparatory data collection in the four countries, three regional workshops (Inception, Strategy, Planning), visits to the four riparian countries and intensive discussions with representatives of various institutions. The latter included relevant government and nongovernment institutions, bi- and multilateral co-operation projects, the MRC Secretariat as well as the GTZ Office and the German Embassy in Phnom Penh2.

The joint efforts to manage a certain geographical area and co-ordinate resource management between people living in the upper and the lower parts of the watersheds need to be facilitated and institutionalized. Any watershed management approach needs to encompass the variety and interaction between organisations and their respective stakes. Those are village organisations, commune (or tambon) councils and their administration, private sector organizations and their structures, provincial authorities and line departments, and the many non-governmental organisations working in the area.

The rationale for MRC involvement in WSM is its mandate, mission and authorised scope of work based on the 1995 MRC agreement that finds its expression in the formulation of the Basin Development Plan (BDP), the Water Utilisation Programme (WUP), and the Environment Programme (EP). Moreover, in

2 The appraisal report included 2 documents: (i) a main report and (ii) countries report (22). This report presents the results of the appraisal mission on what would be the German Technical Co-operation contribution to the Watershed Management Project of the Mekong River Commission’s Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme (AIFP).

October 2000 the MRC countries have endorsed the AIFP as an important regional sector programme to address WSM issues.

An analysis of MRC’s Strategic Plan 2001-2005 revealed a high degree of accord between the priorities set forth therein and important traits of the relevant concepts and guidelines of the BMZ. Moreover, the Strategic Plan is in line with the objectives and principles provided by international conventions and arrangements pertaining to natural resources. Support to the implementation of AIFP under the framework of the Strategic Plan was in line with German Development Policy.

The water and land resources of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) are the basis for the livelihood of about 60 million inhabitants and provide food for some 300 million people. However, the basin's environment is degrading at a rapid rate from unsustainable practices such as forest exploitation, expansion of agriculture onto steep slopes and water pollution and from negative side-effects of some large-scale infrastructure projects.

The multi-faceted functions of these headwaters call for an integrated and participatory approach to watershed management throughout the basin. Sustainable management (planning, implementation and monitoring) needs integrated action of the numerous local and regional stakeholders and demands for dialogue, mediation and co-ordination both, at national and regional level.

THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The MRC-GIZ collaboration “Sustainable watershed management in the Lower Mekong Basin” started in 2002 and ran over three phases until 2011. The project aimed to improve local watersheds of the Lower Mekong Basin in a way that they fulfil their environmental, economic and social functions and provide a sustainable basis for improved livelihood of the population. It further hoped to indirectly contribute to poverty reduction as well as conflict avoidance in the region. With this idea, the ultimate beneficiaries were the rural people in the four riparian states who depend on the sustainable use of natural resources of the Mekong basin. These include mainly poor and very poor sections of the population with subsistence oriented livelihood strategies.

The Watershed Management Project (WMP) included three levels of support: the regional level, the national level and the decentralized levels (provinces, districts). In a regional perspective, the objective was to propose guidelines and standards for watershed planning and coordination. The project addressed therefore areas such as policy and institutional development, information management and capacity building with an overall objective of sustainable use of natural resources.

At national level, the project intended to initiate and support national working groups that consisted of high-level representatives from National Mekong Committees and line ministries concerned with

6 watershed management. Similarly, on a provincial level, multi-sector watershed committees were expected to be constituted in selected pilot watersheds.

One of the core activities of the project was to provide methods and tools along with sensitization activities that could lead to the establishment of coordination bodies that would be able to promote watershed management at these different levels. In that perspective, tailored trainings aimed at providing capacity for analysis, planning and implementation of sustainable watershed management. The project also provided regional platforms for members of the national working groups and watershed committees to encourage the exchange of experience between the riparian states in order to facilitate regional cooperation and coordination.

Overall goal : Relevant institutions in the riparian countries and the MRC Secretariat make use of regional cooperation, information exchange / sharing and improved approaches for sustainable WSM in the Lower Mekong River Basin

Output 2 : Mechanisms Output 3 : Mechanismls Output 1 : WSM for analysis and further for continuous and Output 4 : Regional and approaches in selected development of national effective regional national information watersheds are further WSM policies and collaboration on WSM management on WSM is developed, documenated guidelines in the LMB are are esatblished and improved and disseminated established and functioning functioning

To support the capacity building approach with sound experimental case-studies, the project focused on 4 pilot watersheds in which watershed committees would develop watershed action plans and pursue their integration into socio-economic district and province plans.

The national working groups were expected to initiate and supervise the replication of the process experimented in the four pilot watersheds in other watersheds in order to institutionalise watershed management process. At the same time, GIZ would pursue cooperation with other donors to ensure implementation of formulated action plans and replication of their approach.

The project logic included the provision of various information products such as the MekongInfo3 website, which is still active and serves as a platform for the sharing of information and experience in integrated water resources management in the Mekong River Basin.

3 www.mekonginfo.org

In addition, the Watershed Management Resource Kit was a tool providing comprehensive background on various topics related to watershed management such as policy and legislation, institutions and organisations, planning and implementation, monitoring information and case studies. The Resource Kit was intended to be used as capacity building packages for different target groups like e.g. high-level ministry staff or provincial planners.

Knowledge and understanding of existing policies, rules and regulations related to watershed management within the four member countries of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) was considered as an essential pre-requisite before supporting watershed management throughout LMB. Policies, rules and regulations represent indeed a set of tools for the proper management of watersheds.

A review and analysis of the current documentation on policies, rules and regulations related to watershed management in the four member countries has been conducted. The report (2) presents an overview and assessment of the available documentation and makes recommendations for further steps that would be useful in the context of watershed management. The status on watershed management in the 4 countries (3) was carried out using a standardized format.

THE REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT

A key activity in the regional implementation of the WMP has been the so-called “Policy Dialogue”. The milestones were set up through a series of three regional meetings. The design of the Policy Dialogue workshops was based on the principle of short presentations and ample time for discussion. The aim of the Dialogue was not to make decisions but to collect and discuss ideas, views and experiences. This allowed to increasing mutual understanding of the actual situation of watersheds and watershed management in the Lower Mekong region as well as identifying potential options for further development.

The 1st Policy The 2nd Policy The 3rd Dialogue on Dialogue on Dialogue was Watershed Watershed actually named Management in Management in „Regional the Lower the Lower Consultation Mekong Basin - Mekong Basin - Meeting - 2004 (4). 2005 (5). 2007“ (6). “The sound and “An increase “Capacity responsible understanding of development implementation of watershed the actual situation of institutions was defined as the process through management is not lacking in terms of involved in watersheds and watershed which people, organisations and technique, but institutional framework management in the Lower Mekong society as a whole create, strengthen, and resources” region” adapt and maintain human potential over time”

TECHNICAL REPORTS

A series of technical reports were published during the project implementation period. The following figure presents a short summary of these reports.

Data Availability for Studies This report (7) gives an overview on the data availability of key variables of water quantity and on Effects of Land-Cover quality (precipitation, water level, water flow, suspended sediment, nutrients) at the Mekong Changes on Water Yield, River Commission Secretary (MRCS) with the objective to investigate effects of land-cover Sediment and Nutrient Load changes on hydrology. MRCS has three databases: hydro-meteorological database, water at Catchments of the Lower quality database and geographical database (Mekong GIS). Datasets were aggregated and Mekong Basin restructured to evaluate data availability and completeness of key variables. The report makes recommendations for data processing and update of land and forest cover monitoring using

remote sensing methods. Comparative Study on This study (8) was the result of a short-term assignment by a NRM and Land Use Planning Practices and Lessons in Consultant in the four riparian countries of the Lower Mekong Basin. The overall objectives of Land Use Planning and Land the study were to collect and analyse LUP methodologies in the 4 countries and to assess the Allocation in Cambodia, Lao experiences and lessons learned during implementation. The comparative assessment PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam included land use planning approaches at various levels, ranging from participatory village level LUP activities to the elaboration of land use master plans at provincial or even regional level.

Finally, recommendations on how the AIFP and WSMP could enhance land use planning practices were formulated for both regional and national levels. Best Practices and The review (9) presented inventories and critically examines lessons learnt from “best practice” Knowledge Sharing in approaches and related information and knowledge management activities in the private, Watershed Management in public, and development sectors elsewhere, and from this draws conclusions and makes the Lower Mekong Basin: recommendations for the WSMP. ”There is a need to put the “best practices” approach in the Lessons, Prospects and a overall context of organizational change and learning”. Way Forward Community Based Forest Varying frame conditions in Cambodia and Laos, related to governance, civil society, policy and Management in Cambodia legal framework, institutional setting, socio-economic and biophysical characteristics had and Laos major influences on the development of CBFM at national scale. The comparison between the two countries (10) revealed specific conditions, similarities as well as differences, and made

impeding as well as accelerating circumstances for the development of CBFM visible. Comparative Analysis of The purpose of this report (11) is to give an overview and comparison of currently existing Policy and Legislation policy documents and legislation related to watershed management in the target countries of related to Watershed Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. The report begins with an overview and comparison of Management in Cambodia, existing policy documents within each country, followed by an overview and comparison of Lao PDR and Vietnam key legislation that has been enacted. The report concludes with an overall comparison and status analysis of the policy and legislative landscape as related to watershed management

within the target countries.

THE PILOT PROJECTS

To take into account the substantial differences in institutional development and experience across the four partner countries, the project introduced a national implementation strategy based on „pilot watersheds“. By doing this, the focus of the project moved from a regional approach towards national and decentralised approach. The MRC-GTZ Watershed Management Project established these pilot watersheds in all four riparian countries.

The pilot watersheds were selected in early 2004 as reference areas according to their critical condition. The criteria for critical watersheds were high elevation range, steep slopes, current or previous high rates of deforestation, high rate of land use changes and land conflicts, high population increase (internal growth or in-migration), as well as poverty-induced pressure on natural resources. The pilot watersheds were (i) Strung Siem Riep in Cambodia; (ii) Nam Ton in Lao PDR; (iii) Huay Sam Mor in Thailand and (iv) Krong Ana in Viet Nam.

In 2004, the WSMP supported National Working Groups on Watershed Management of the four countries to select the pilot areas from among the most “critical” watersheds. Subsequently, base line surveys were conducted in these watersheds. The objectives of the base line surveys were:

 To collect information on the current situation within the pilot areas, in particular on the socio- economic situation, land use, and land and natural resources management.

 To provide base line data for monitoring the impact of watershed management related interventions (social impact, impact on water, etc).

 To provide information pertaining to the identification of potential watershed management related interventions, with specific reference to the forestry sector.

The following documents refer to these baseline surveys: Cambodia (12); Lao PDR (13); Viet Nam (14). The baseline survey related to Huay Sam Mor in Thailand could no more be identified. In addition, a comprehensive Watershed Profile of the Nam Ton Pilot Area (15) was drafted.

Eventually, few documents remain from this period and the references mentioned above likely constitute all what could be recovered from various sources of information: Mekong Info, MRCS, GIZ and the web. Apart from the ex-post evaluation document mentioned in the next paragraph neither systematic progress reports nor final report and evaluation reports could be found. Therefore, it is difficult to actually analyse in details the lessons learn from the pilot projects. Fortunately, the reporting from the Chiang Mai conference widely fills that gap.

WHAT HAS REMAINED? - AN EX POST EVALUATION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE MEKONG REGION

For its independent evaluation cycle of 2013/2014, the Monitoring and Evaluation unit of the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) has conducted portfolio evaluations with a focus on rural development. The ex post evaluation of "the German contribution to the sustainable management of the Lower Mekong Basin through the support of the Mekong River Commission" was assigned to the Humboldt University of Berlin's Centre for Rural Development.

The final document is titled “Sustainable watershed management in the Lower Mekong Basin” (GTZ) and "Potentials of rural areas in Mekong countries” (InWEnt) (16). As far as the GTZ (now GIZ) project is concerned, the authors of the evaluation note that the recommendations are directed at GIZ and project partners for institutional learning effects in terms of conceptualisation and knowledge management for future programmes involving regional cooperation, watershed management and capacity development. The figure below shows key words that sorted out from this evaluation report.

Concept must be simply explained, well understood and accessible in the various regional language

The local level approach must be integrated into the structural institutional design to balancing bottom-up and up-bottom approaches

All range of stakeholders must be part of the planning process including ethnic minorities, gender mainstreaming, private sector and NGO

Develop inovative funding tools to ensure sustainability

Develop and encourage leadership and individual commitment

OTHER CORE OUTPUTS OF THE WSMP

TRAINING STRATEGY FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

The Training Strategy4 covers a total number of seven fields of training, eight modules and two modalities, 23 subjects and approximately 93 topics which are important to be addressed for a successful implementation of the Watershed Management Project (WSMP) of the Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Program (AIFP).

The Training Strategy is flexible and has been designed as a monitoring tool. It includes templates for the development of training module curricula and session guides. The preparation of each training modality is a little project in itself. A working file has been prepared in which detailed actions are listed per modality of the Training Strategy for Watershed Management 2003-2005.

THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RESOURCE KIT

The purpose of this Resource Kit is to introduce the modern concept of watershed management to government staff and civil society members involved in the management of water and other natural resources. At the same time it provides both the institutional and technical background knowledge that is required for the successful implementation of watershed management in the Lower Mekong Basin. It also gives an outlook on innovative developments that are likely to shape the future of watershed management, such as the establishment of markets for environmental services.

4 This document seems to be no more available, but eventually, this strategy was implemented in the form of the watershed kit and training manual (see later in this document)

The immediate target audience for this Resource Kit is government staff and civil society members from the Lower Mekong Basin countries. These can be further divided into the following three distinct groups:

 Government staff, representatives of civil society and researchers who contribute their expertise and advice to the formulation of policies, and to the development of institutions that are concerned with the management of water and related resources.

 Government staff and representatives of civil society who are charged with or actively involved in the practical management of water and other natural resources, for instance through the drafting of socio-economic development plans or through facilitating negotiations on resources management.

 Educators, trainers and students in the fields of water and natural resources management.

The Watershed Management Kit remains a reference document and provide a comprehensive range of watershed guidelines

MEKONG INFO

MekongInfo 5 is a platform for sharing information and experiences in integrated water resources management in the Mekong River Basin. MekongInfo is hosted by the Mekong River Commission, an intergovernmental body created in 1995 by an agreement between the governments of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. MekongInfo is managed by the Information and Knowledge Management

5 www.mekonginfo.org

Programme (IKMP) with the support from the MRC Library, which is part of the International Cooperation and Communication Section (ICCS).

MekongInfo is intended to serve the many stakeholders of in integrated water resources management in the Mekong River Basin. It seeks to support information exchange between practitioners from government, research organisations and non-government organisations from within and outside the basin. It also seeks to promote greater engagement between stakeholders from different natural resources planning sectors, in line with the vision for integrated water resources management.

MekongInfo was originally developed by the Sustainable Management of Resources in the Lower Mekong Basin Project (SMRP) of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (now known as Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)). In total, approx. 2000 documents have been archived up to now6 in the MekongInfo.org database under the tag „Watershed Management“. MekongInfo is still active and some functions and designs was very recently upgraded. It is obviously one of the success stories of the Watershed Management Project.

The Front Page of the Mekong Info website

THE CHIANG MAI CONFERENCE (9-11 MARCH 2011)

The Chiang Mai Conference (9-11 March 2011) is one of the most important milestone of the MRC-GIZ Watershed Management programme. This important regional conference gathered different regional stakeholders but also numerous representatives of other international institutions and experts, in total about 250 participants. The purpose of the Conference was to address challenges and their possible solutions for watersheds and river basins, learn from international, national and local experiences. The

6 As per January 2015

13 outputs were recommendations for the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and river basin organizations/committees and other relevant actors in the Mekong Basin, on three areas: (1) good watershed management practices; (2) functional governance and institutional frameworks for integrated watershed and river basin management, and (3) economic and financing tools in sustainable watershed and river basin management.

The Conference was hosted by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) in collaboration with the following co-conveners: Asian Development Bank (ADB), Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF), German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), International Water management Institute (IWMI), Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience (M-POWER), United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Documents were published „online“ after this conference: (i) A key note on good practice on watershed management (topic 1 of the conference) (17); (ii) A report on the key points discussed under topic 2 : Governance (18); A report on the key points discussed under topic 3 – Economics and finance (19). In addition, video were posted on YouTube (20) : (i) Debate on Water Governance; (ii) Technology; (iii) Watershed management: reflections.

Among key points raised during the conference, it was pointed out that, from the Tibetan Plateau to the Vietnam Delta, the Mekong crosses many kingdoms, tribes and ethnic groups that are socio-culturally and historically different. The Mekong passes through countries with different political systems, performing management at various levels from local to regional involving a diversity of institutions: formal, informal, traditional and imposed. But people living in the basin also have much in common. Most of the basin’s populations live in the rural areas. They are subsistence farmers who supplement what they grow with the fish they catch.

The Conference reconfirmed that the watershed is the fundamental hydrological unit of the basin, where biodiversity and ecosystem functions can be sustained and where livelihood opportunities are provided for people. International experiences have demonstrated the value of using “living river approaches” in watershed management aiming at maintaining ecosystem functions, such as providing flood protection, fisheries resources and water supply.

Mekong's ranging geographically from the Tibetan Plateau to the Viet Nam Delta Socio-culturally and historically crossing many knigdoms, tribes and etnic groups Passing through countries with different political systems, and various levels from local to regional Involving a diversity of institutions : formal, informal, traditional and imposed

But people living in the basin also have much in common...

Some key words of participants of the Chiang Mai conference

Management of watersheds affects downstream areas, the cumulative effects of which in the Mekong River context potentially can lead to effects beyond national boundaries. Hence, regional collaboration in watershed and river basin management is critical. Experiences with watershed and river basin management show that it is important to employ both top-down and bottom-up approaches and to ensure the institutional arrangements and linkages between the local level and the national/regional level. Furthermore, innovative institutional arrangements and approaches in watershed management that have been developed and proven their value at the local scale need to be incorporated in river basin management at the national and regional scale.

When embedding watershed management in river basin management, a key point is an understanding of the differences in scale and the implications for management. Extrapolation and upscaling can be dangerous without having a rigorous understanding of the effects of scale. It is essential to get away from situations where watershed management decisions are based on common myths by using scientific evidence.

Funding is required both to cover the direct costs of watershed management, and to offset the opportunity costs to upstream communities of shifting to more sustainable land and resource uses. Various forms of payments for ecosystem services are emerging as important mechanisms for mobilizing financial resources for watersheds, and for the groups that live in them.

THE WRAPPING UP DOCUMENT OF THE CHIANG MAI CONFERENCE (21) : “FROM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TO INTEGRATED RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT”

The document titled “From Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management” was published after the International Conference on Watershed Management held in Chiang Mai, Thailand 9- 11 March 2011, and consists of a synthesis of the knowledge, lessons learned and good practices that resulted from the discussions held during that conference.

IWRM approach works best when it manages to take the different scales of the river basin into account, embedding watershed management in river basin management. Experiences with watershed and river basin management show that both top-down and bottom-up management approaches are needed and that institutional arrangements must provide for linkages between the local and the national or regional levels. Local communities are often the most affected by management decisions and their participation in watershed management planning is essential. However, planning and management authorities at the basin level need to balance local community needs with those of the wider society and environment.

IWRM approach works best when it manages to embed watershed management in river basin management

The key to effective management of water resources is an understanding of the inextricable link between the hydrological cycle and the way land resources are managed. The impact of land use on the hydrological

16 regime and water quality downstream varies with the type of land use, watershed size, climate, soil characteristics, topography and geology. While there are examples of successful small-scale local management efforts, these need more than local-level scaling-up policies if they are to restore and improve watershed goods and services.

The key to effective management of water resources is an understanding of the inextricable link between the hydrological cycle and the way land resources are managed

Good data is needed to inform watershed and river basin planning and decision makers need to see that this information is both meaningful and credible. There is a clear need to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation and disaster risk reduction into the agenda of water and land management at all levels. Sound water accounting systems to assess impacts of interventions at different scales are an essential first step in the overall management of water resources.

Good data and information is needed to inform watershed and river basin decision makers and stakeholders. Data must be meaningfull and credible.

The degree of up scaling of sustainable watershed management in the Mekong region is extremely low. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to watershed and river basin management due to the diversity of issues that are unique to each situation. However, agreeing on a set of tangible outcomes is a good place to start. A number of case studies from the Mekong region and beyond illustrate IWRM in action but implementing these approaches is not easy.

There is no "one fits all" approach to watershed and river basin management due to the diversity of issues that are unique of each situation

The search for adequate funding to undertake integrated watershed and river basin management is a core concern among government agencies across the Mekong Basin. Decision makers tend to undervalue both the benefits of more sustainable water management and the costs of watershed degradation and loss. In the Mekong Basin, for example, forests and wetlands generate ecosystem services worth billions of dollars a year. These types of benefits are rarely factored into official economic statistics, meaning that decisions about the best way to develop the watersheds of the Mekong Basin have often been made on the basis of only partial information. The concept of total economic value has become one of the most widely used frameworks for identifying and categorising watershed benefits.

The search for adequate funding to undertake integrated watershed and river basin management is a core concern among governement agencies across the Mekong Basin

THE CURRENT STEPS - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT – KFW SUPPORT

BACKGROUND

In this last period and ongoing, MRC remains engaged in watershed management through the SUMALOM- Nam Ton project, supported by KfW. It includes (i) a direct support at national level in Lao PDR in the pilot watershed of Nam Ton (Project Part 1-PP1) and (ii) a regional component (Project Part 2-PP2) for capitalization and upscaling of lessons learn on watershed management as well as for development of tools aiming at sharing focused knowledge among the LMB-watershed’s stakeholders. It also includes options and recommendations for positioning MRC in watershed management in LMB in a medium and a long-term perspective.

SUMALOM - NAM TON (PROJECT PART I)

All relevant information regarding the activities developed in Nam Ton watershed since 2011 are shown in the Nam Ton website (www.riversweb.org/namton)

The Nam Ton Watershed website

In summary, the SUMALOM Nam Ton Project addresses four key topics:

 Emphasising the inextricable link between water and land management and moving from Participatory Land Use Planning to Participatory Land and Water Use Planning

 Develop water quality and quantity monitoring schemes

 Develop a step-wise approach for multi-stakeholders watershed management planning and investments plans

 Develop watershed knowledge (watershed profile baseline and regular update process) and demonstrate information sharing process (through the SUMALOM-Nam Ton website)

Knowledge and Awareness Land and Water Dialogue Watershed Planning

EXCHANGE VISIT (PROJECT PART II)

Supporting the sharing of experience and lessons learned on watershed management is likely an area where MRCS can bring support. Actually, each country has developed methods for tackling river basins and watersheds management according to their own legal and institutional framework, but many initiatives remain by the end to be “tailored made” according to specific stakes, issues, human resources availability, local leadership and partnership opportunities. Facilitating and supporting the network of stakeholders and exchange visits and possibly “twinning” between decision makers and stakeholders of watersheds throughout LMB could contribute to bring wider perspective, new concepts, new methods and new skills for all. It may eventually highly contribute to create a favourable framework for a better transboundary cooperation of the MRC member countries.

In order to explore this approach, an exchange visit aiming at sharing experience and lessons learnt between the Nam Ton Pilot Project (Lao PDR) and the Nam Poong watershed (Thailand) took place in May and June 2015 within the framework of PP2. The “ex-post” evaluation of this activity could possibly lead to extent this experience to other watersheds in the LMB and the development of a “watershed twinning” approach for exchanging experience and lessons learned on a more permanent basis between “rivers advocates”.

A concept note suggesting the proposed objectives and methodology of the exchange visit was drafted. Then, preliminary discussion with SUMALOM Nam Ton (PPI) and TNMCS counterparts started in order to identify a watershed in Thailand that would present similar features with Nam Ton in Lao PDR. Key criteria that enter in consideration were: (i) similar areas and shapes, (ii) one part of the watershed in hilly area (upstream issues) and one part in plain (downstream issues), (iii) “inter-provincial” and “inter-district” management, (iv) existing local leadership or partnership (in the sense that the watershed has still background in terms of knowledge, monitoring, specific studies, water dialogue process, community involvement etc...). According to these criteria, Nam Poong watershed in Sakon Nakhon Province was proposed. Interesting to note that Nam Poong-Nam Kam was a pilot site supported by MRC-GIZ project and most recently by MIWRMP for learning and sharing dialogue activity. Nam Ton was one of the pilot projects, which was supported by GIZ in the past and now by KfW.

Exchange of experiences, lessons learnt and •Development of legal and institutional framework for watershed management (RBC/WSM Committee, Steering Committee, WG) expertise/knowledge •Formulation and implementation of Watershed Action Plan transfer on watershed •Community involvement/public participation process, awareness raising and networking planning and •Implementation of forest conservation law and regulations and land use management (Institution planning and management and regulations)

Sharing practical •Training to support learning centers (Kum Ban Centers) on several aspects of knowledge and building integrated agriculture and livestock development capacity for integrated •Exchange training and knowledge transfer on water user group in management of irrigation and water users fund agriculture and livestock •Technical support to establish gravity-fed clean water supply system development for •Practical training to improve knowledge on soil quality improvement, protection of soil erosion, development of bio-fertilizers, pesticide technique livelihood improvement •Sharing and technical support on survey and construction of check dams and poverty reduction

Sharing experience and •Joint preparation and participation in the regional workshop to be organized to dissemination of results present and share experience and lessons learnt from exchange visit activities from the exchange visit •Participation in future regional events to be organized by the MRCS (BDP) to (Participation and promote networking of RBCs and present successful case of exchange •Organize joint event on community awareness and involvement on watershed involvement in MRC management regional events)

Actually, the exchange visits proved very successful and a very promising way for promoting good practices for watershed management within LMB. It was also a big move from theoretical guidelines to tackling

20 pragmatic situations. Eventually, it may lead to agreement between watersheds to main areas of cooperation (Cooperation framework) and related activities, which would be jointly considered for the implementation in the future. The next figure shows such “Cooperation Framework” that sorted out from the exchange visits between Nam Ton and Nam Poong. Such agreements that resulted from the exchange visits need further detailed concept notes with key information such as objective, expected outputs, detailed implementation modality, time and source of funding. The cooperation framework could be updated and agreed by both sides to suit the needs. It is important for exchange visit, which is different from study tour where there is only one single visit, to create cooperation framework so that cooperation between watersheds is continued after the visit whether it is formal or informal

Clear concept of networking or twining of RBCs/RBOs which is used for the exchange visit has to be developed to allow people to have a common understanding on the purpose, process and steps to implement this concept. The organization of exchange visit requires significant time and efforts in planning, preparation, coordination and communications between the two watersheds. This activity also required substantial amount of funds to make it happens but it is worth organizing it given its relevance, usefulness and overall contribution to the management of the resources of the watersheds in the LMB.

Despite similarities and differences of the two watersheds, strong willingness of the people of the two watersheds to cooperate was observed. The cooperation happened by itself due to similarity of culture, tradition and language and relationship at all levels from government officials to villagers. Success would not be possible if no cooperation from both sides (at all levels). Not all experience and lessons learnt in one watershed can be applied directly to other due to geographical, socio-economic and political context of each country. However, many aspects of watershed managements are still relevant and knowledge can be transferred from one watershed to another.

It is completely legitimate and relevant for MRC as a regional intergovernmental organization, to provide support and facilitate a network of national WRM agencies and RBC/RBOs which is part of Strategic Priorities for Basin Management #3 “Strengthen Basin Management Processes” of the current BDS 2011- 2015. This is particularly relevant to BDP 2011-2015, under outcome 3 and output 3.1 which has activity to facilitate meeting of the RBCs/RBOs to exchange experience. MRC will continue to play this role as specified in the update of BDS and drat MRC SP for 2016-2020

SECTION 2 : REVISITING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

This section aims at showing the most recent trends in watershed management worldwide. It refers to several examples mainly gathered from Rivers Network7, a repository of more than 4,000 stories about water resources management, rivers, and river basins and watersheds.

The objective of this section is not to write new watershed guidelines. This was already remarkably done during the implementation of the Watershed Management Project. It rather aims at opening new perspectives highlighting key words that are worth to be re-visited.

Actually, the Watershed Management Project was a great step forward to recognize that watersheds are not only the sole prerogative of the countries members. Good or bad management actually affects cumulatively the good health of the Lower Mekong Basin. This was widely recognized by the participants of the Chiang Mai conference.

Obviously, it is not the role of MRC to develop watershed activities at national level, but MRC should keep an active role in monitoring and benchmarking progress made by the countries in this respect and to evaluate continuously the trans-boundary impacts of good or bad management of the watersheds on the Mekong mainstream.

This section is therefore also an introduction to pave the way for enlarging the discussion on what could be the role of MRC in the long term to boost better watershed management practices amongst the countries members. This will be developed under section 3.

ABOUT WATERSHEDS…

A HYDROLOGIC UNIT…

The common definition of a watershed is generally based on the concept of hydrologic unit: „The “watershed” is the area of land that drains water to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel (watershed outlet). A watershed is a naturally delineated unit of land, and thus the basic land unit within the “river basin”- hence the hierarchy from watershed through sub-basin and basin/tributary to the regional/trans-boundary level“8.

Watersheds are the smallest hydrological and management units of river basins. Watersheds come in different sizes. The size of a watershed can vary depending on the point of discharge chosen to define it.

7 www.riversnetwork.org

8 Various authors – Wikipedia reference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin

If the chosen point were the mouth of a major river that drains to the ocean, the watershed would likely be very large. However, if you chose a point upriver at the confluence of two streams, the watershed would be much smaller.

The “Hydrologic” definition of a watershed

Both river basisn and watersheds are areas of land that drain to a particular water body, such as a laike, stream, river or estuary. •In a river basin, all the water drains tio a large river •The term watershed is used to describe a smaller area of land that drains to a smaller stream, lake or wetland. there may be many small watersheds in a river basin

A COMMON SETTLEMENT PERSPECTIVE…

Another perspective is to consider watershed in its local socio-economic context: „A watershed is "that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community“9. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes. They ignore districts, provinces, and national boundaries. We all live in a Watershed — the area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, aquifer, or even the ocean — and our individual actions can directly affect it. Working together using a watershed approach will help protect our water resources.

According to this last definition, the area related to this “coherent” human settlement does not necessarily correspond to the hydrologic limit of watershed. Definitively, most of the opportunities and threats on the water resources and their related natural resources and ecosystems are strongly affected and dependent by what is happening in the related hydrologic unit. There is therefore an inextricable link between the two definitions.

The settlement perspective

"that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and wher humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community" •(EPA : United States Environmental Protection Agency )

…EMBEDDED IN A RIVER BASIN…

It may be then useful to refer to other concepts that may offer a more practical perception on the specificities of “River Basin (or Tributary Basin)” and “Watershed” for example in terms of stakeholders,

9 EPA : United States Environmental Protection Agency : http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm

23 functions or services, management, financial sustainability. This list is obviously non-exhaustive but may be a base for developing wider discussions among the stakeholders.

The document “From Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management” published after the Chiang Mai Conference was a great attempt for showing the complex relations between watershed management and river basin management in the Mekong River Basin.

River Basin Watershed Hydrology All the water drains to a large river Small areas of land that drains to a smaller stream, lake or wetland Stakeholders Wide range of various stakeholders Human settlement that simple logic demands that they become part of a community Functions Contribute to the sustainable socio- Providing ecosystem services that sustain economic development at nation and the global and local socio-economic regional level development Management Provincial / national / regional levels Communities driven / local level (districts) / communities / formal or informal leadership Sustainability Government funds / funding agencies Local funds / local taxes / Government / private sector incentives / payment for ecosystem services

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM)

A UNIVERSAL CONCEPT…

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is since several years the basic approach widely recognized and universally applied for the water sector. This concept was initiated at the Dublin Conference on Water and Sustainable Development (1992)10. The IWRM concept evolved during the recent years from the feedback from many experiences and case studies around the world. Hereunder are three definitions of IWRM that all together allow marking up the essential key words.

IWRM is recognised being a challenge to conventional practices, attitudes and professional certainties. It confronts entrenched sectoral interests and requires the water resource to be managed holistically for the benefits of all. No one pretends that meeting the IWRM challenge will be easy but it is vital to make a start to avert the burgeoning crisis11.

10 http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html

11 Global Water Partnership

Three definitions for IWRM

Global Water partnership: Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources: Global Water Partnership simply emphasizes the need to coordinate the efforts and to create mutual understanding and trade-off between the water and related natural resources users. •http://www.gwp.org/The-Challenge/What-is-IWRM/

US Army Corps of Engineers: IWRM aims to develop and manage water, land, and related resources, while considering multiple viewpoints of how water should be managed. •http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-IWRM.html

The American Water Resources Association recommends that water management goals, policies, programs, and plans be organized around the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), the coordinated planning, development, protection, and management of water, land and related resources in a manner that fosters sustainable economic activity, improves or sustains environmental quality, ensures public health and safety, and provides for the sustainability of communities and ecosystems. •http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-IWRM.html

…AND A UNIVERSAL CHALLENGE

IWRM process is worldwide recognised as a highly valuable tool. But the way it is implemented may be very different according to regions and countries. The most recent and exhaustive worldwide survey is likely the “Status Report on The Application of Integrated Approaches to Water Resources Management – UN Water 201212”.

The IWRM approach has been recently criticised mainly considering its complexity when putting into practice. Several sophisticated institutional frameworks like River Basin Organisation, built on a „top- down“ approach and aiming at centralising river basin planning, often collapsed or have shown little efficiency due to different opinions about the role and functions and the legal and institutional set up.

Watershed Management has been widely developed according to methodologies and approaches that seem to be more those generally applied to river basin management than thinking deeply in terms of the specificities of watersheds and how watersheds management affect the economic, social and environment sustainability of our river basin, either positively or negatively.

12 http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_status_report_Rio2012.pdf : 134 countries have contributed to this survey (5 on the 6 countries belonging to the Mekong river basin has contributed). It shows some key fact-findings about evolution of IWRM in terms of implementation.

The “formal” Watershed Committees that were supposed to be implemented as the basic tool for proceeding to watershed management plans were a kind of copy and paste, in small-scale, of the River Basin Agencies. The objectives were basically to solve a list of watersheds issues identified by the stakeholders, issues being often the consequence of mis-management or poor sustainable development at river basin level.

Result of the survey carried out in 134 countries showing IWRM progress benchmarking (UN Water 2012)

Setting up the institutional framework like “Watersheds Committees” was viewed as the first priority instead of patiently building favourable conditions such as supporting the emergence of informal initiatives and platforms where water dialogue could be initiated.

Generally, the problem is not the concept of IWRM itself but the building of sophisticated and holistic methodologies that lacked of flexibility in their implementation and that created frustration among the stakeholders, sectors of activities and decision-makers.

NO NEED TO INTEGRATE EVERYTHING…

IWRM does not necessarily means that all must be integrated other nothing!... Very often, sophisticated approaches assume that all sectors must participate and that all must agree on a shared vision. This may be ideal by the end but hardly feasible. Better sometimes to have less ambitious approaches keeping in mind that small steps are part of the process.

IWRM…VARIOUS APPROACHES

We may observe that various approaches were developed for implementing IWRM around the world. One of the most interesting is the one carried out by the European Union. Water Management in Europe is based on a very strong legal framework named “The EU water Framework directive”13. The directive creates obligation for all Member States to align on strict standards in all areas of water management. This legal basis is accompanied by an enforcement framework that makes that Member States are subject to the payment of penalties in case of non-respect of the Directive requirements.

In such context, the framework for building River Basin Management Plan, Trans-boundary Dialogue, Public Consultation and sectors coordination are significantly facilitated by applying these strict guidelines politically and legally endorsed. To accompany this process, strong monitoring tools have been developed that provide a sound knowledge on all areas of water issues. This knowledge is generally accessible on line to all.

Indirectly, the EU Water Framework Directive was proven to be actually an outstanding tool for boosting central government and municipality’s investments for getting clean waters from source to mouth of the European rivers through huge investment focused on river protection and restoration. Highly valuable “watersheds” play a key role to reach the quantitative and qualitative objectives set up in the Directive.

The management of the very complex and challenging Danube River, the most international river basin in the world, that went back to life thanks to the legal and institutional framework set up by the EU Water Framework Directive, is one of the most outstanding success story even if not yet fully achieved. It is interesting to note that EU acts as a regional institution supporting national water policies and strategies.

13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/water-framework-directive.pdf

The EU Water Framework Directive and Integrated River Management in Europe

In other parts of the world, that often have less legal and institutional tools, number of stakeholders from the civil society, sometimes in partnership with official institutions and/or the private sector have created informal or formal platforms named Watershed Councils, Watershed Initiatives, etc... with a role of conserving and restoring local watersheds. Such organizations generally develop strong knowledge basis and education tools. They may have also an important role for lobbying the development of legal and institutional tools. Eventually, they may be active stakeholders at river basin level or in the framework of the governmental process of implementation of water resources management.

An example of watershed networking based on communities initiatives14

14 http://www.alaskawatershedcoalition.org/

IDENTIFY WATERSHEDS OPPORTUNITIES RATHER THAN ISSUES…

In many countries and regions, the legal framework remains weak and the stakeholder’s engagement remains limited. For helping building a global vision on watersheds management, it is likely strategic to listen to the communities and stakeholders living in these watersheds, not only in terms of issues, but also in terms of opportunities.

These communities and stakeholders may also widely contribute to the global sustainability of the river basins by their commitment and leadership. The relation between “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach must then be seen as a win-win process and not just as an element of IWRM methodology.

What sort of opportunities may emerge from watersheds management?...

How to increase the knowledge to better identify these opportunities and better evaluate them?...

Answering these two questions may help building this win-win approach as part of the IWRM process.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BASED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

A REAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, A TOOL FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

In the recent years, the “Watersheds” concept has been extended to the services that their ecosystems may offer to the river basin in which they are located. More and more, watershed management is focused on the specific opportunities that their related ecosystems may provide. Water and water related ecosystems are part of the heritage that we collectively received from our ancestors and, as such, we have an immeasurable morale responsibility for keeping this heritage healthy for the future generations. In addition, the watersheds and their related ecosystems have actually an economic value that must be taken into account in the global transboundary trade-off and that justify investments and specific management rules to be set up at national level but also supported regionally.

These ecosystem services generate a substantial profit and strongly contribute to mitigate water related disasters, particularly flood and drought. Recent methodologies were developed to better quantify the economic and financial benefits generated by the ecosystem services. It becomes now part of the trade off when considering the development of the traditional sectors of activities. An interesting approach, among many others, for valuating the eco-system services is developed in the document “Economic Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan”15.

15 Dr Mike Christie, Dr Tony Hyde, Rob Cooper, Dr Ioan Fazey, Dr Peter Dennis, Dr John Warren, Dr Sergio Colombo and Prof. Nick Hanley : https://www.cbd.int/financial/values/uk-bapvalue.pdf

The actual challenge is definitively to get a common recognition that water and water related ecosystems have instrinsically an inestimable value for the next generations and that we all bear a heavy responsibility in keeping them healthy. If recognised, this value becomes a key factor in the trade off equation when considering socio-economic, developmment and its long term sustainability

TOWARDS A UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Ecosystem services were given higher prominence in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), a project initiated in 2000 by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and completed in 2005. The MEA examined the worldwide changes in ecosystems, their impacts on human well-being, and options for enhancing the conservation of ecosystems.

The Declarations of the MRC Summits and the IWRM based Basin Development Strategy16 clearly recognise that trade off must be found for boosting socio-economic development while maintaining sustainable water and water-related environmental resources. There is therefore a need to focus on areas which are expected to play particular roles for sustaining healthy ecosystems, maintaining good water quality (both surface and groundwater), smoothing flash flood and drought and contributing to climate change mitigation. These roles are actually now commonly named „Ecosystems Services“.

Some areas, like National Park or Conservation Areas, in which generally no human activities (or limited human activities) are allowed, have their own legal framework and management rules. They have been identified for their exceptional value in terms of bio-diversity, wildlife and value of forest. These areas obviously greatly contribute for maintaining vital ecosystems. But other areas that have not such level of protection and in which usual settlement and human activities are encountered, may also contribute significantly to sustain ecosystems and environment. These areas may be for example:

 Upper-watersheds where water, soil and forest must be carefully protected for mitigating soil erosion, sediment transport, eutrophication of reservoirs located downstream, carbon capture and for maintaining high quality of freshwater

Ecosystems Ecosystems function Specific Ecosystems infrastructures and • Water supply Goods and Services process • Drinking water • Forest capture & filter water

16 The Declaration of the Second Summit Ho Chi Minh April 2014

 Wetlands and river embankments that provide rich and diverse eco-systems and contribute to sustain groundwater and minimum flows

Ecosystems Ecosystems function Specific Ecosystems infrastructures and • Low base flow and low Goods and Services process infiltration • Drought events and food • Inproper land use - bare soils shortage and high runoff

 Flood plains where large flood can be buffered decreasing the risks of damage for human lives and infrastructures.

Ecosystems infrastructures Ecosystems function Specific Ecosystems Goods and process • Smoothing Runoff and Services • Rice fields and wetlands capture • Reduce flood damages water

Protecting such areas cumulatively contributes to the global economic and social development of the large river basins. Indeed, it ensures a better sustainability of the socio-economic facilities keeping water and water related natural resources (quantity and quality), which in the contrary, if not properly maintain, may actually jeopardize the same socio-economic development on a longer run.

Healthy Drinking Watersheds water

Water Degradated Drinking Treatment water watersheds Plants

It may also reduce the cost of heavy infrastructures to mitigate the risks and impacts induced by the socio- economic development (e.g. flood mitigation infrastructures, water treatment plants, adaptation measures for climate change).

THE ECOSYSTEMS ARE INCLUDED IN A COMMUNITY-BASED AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS FRAMEWORK AND ARE PART OF A COHERENT HYDROLOGIC UNIT

A more holistic approach must be promoted when the ecosystems are included in a community-based and multi-stakeholders framework and are part of a coherent hydrologic unit. The concept of „Ecosystem

Services“ may then actually be extended to the whole watershed and the concept may be renamed “Ecosystem services based Watersheds Management”.

Protecting such watersheds that are recognized as being valuable for the ecosystem services they may provide, contributes directly to the economic and social development of a river basin. The watersheds and their related ecosystems have actually an economic value that must be taken into account in the global trade-off. It may justify specific investments and management rules. The “services” provided by the ecosystems may be:

 Provisioning services: the products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fresh water, wood, fiber, genetic resources and medicines.

 Regulating services: benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes such as climate regulation, natural hazard regulation, water purification and waste management, pollination or pest control.

 Habitat services: habitat for migratory species and to maintain the viability of gene-pools.

 Cultural services: non-material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems such as spiritual enrichment, intellectual development, recreation and aesthetic values.

“STRATEGIC WATERSHEDS” AND “BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM”

Due to the substantial number of watersheds that all together constitute a river basin, it is not possible to address comprehensively each of them, except regarding general topics developed by national policies within the legal and institutional frameworks related to land and water resources management. Such frameworks help setting global goals, but do not address all local specificities and needs for tailoring local management. A watershed in a plain will not have the same management set up than a watershed in a mountainous area. Stakeholders mapping is different (more densely populated areas versus rural areas) and potential Leaderships and Partnerships are different.

Additional efforts should also focus to promote restoration and maintenance of those critical watersheds or clusters of watersheds that may be recognised of strategic interest. There is therefore a need to classify the watersheds in order to set up right priorities at right locations according to sound criteria.

The concept of „Strategic Watersheds“ is actually a typical area where it is better to develop a regional perspective covering large river basins (e.g. the LMB) than focusing on national boundaries. Multiple examples shows this regional or international approach aiming at improving our knowledge to help to orientate the decision makers in their decisions to consider the comparative values of the watersheds when trade off must be made between economic development and maintaining the integrity of the services provided by these watersheds.

One of the most advanced examples that illustrates this concept is the “Biodiversity Information System for Europe”17. It demonstrates the feasibility and the usefulness to transcend the countries boundaries in an area which does not recognise the limit of the states set by the human being. Another interesting work is the inventory of freshwater ecosystems carried out recently in South Africa and covering all watersheds in the country18.

Map of European Ecosystems developed in the framework of the EU Biodiversity Information System 19

„NATURA 2000“ : A STEP FORWARD IN RECOGNIZING THE TRANS-BOUNDARY VALUE OF THE ECOSYTEM SERVICES…

In May 1992, the governments of the European Communities adopted legislation designed to protect the most seriously threatened habitats and species across Europe in what became area classified as “Natura

17 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/

18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQHeIsZcL4

19 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/mapping-ecosystems/map-of-european-ecosystem-types

2000”. As prerequisite for becoming EU Member, accession states have to submit proposals for Natura 2000 sites meeting the same criteria as EU Member States.

The Natura 2000 sites are selected by Member States and the European Commission following strictly scientific criteria according to the two directives mentioned above. Selected sites represent species and habitat types under similar natural conditions across a suite of countries. Natura 2000 protects around 18 percent of land in the EU countries (787,767 km squared in 2013), and is considered almost complete in the EU terrestrial environment. Natura 2000 sites can vary considerably in character. Many sites are farmed, forested and some are even in urban areas. Other areas are much wilder.

Natura 2000 : Communication Tools20

The Natura 2000 project is estimated having an annual cost of a minimum of 5.8 billion EUR to manage and restore the sites in the network21 . However, the EU estimates that these costs are greatly outweighed by the benefits provided by the Natura 2000 network. In addition to playing a crucial role in protecting Europe’s biodiversity, Natura 2000 sites provide indeed a wide range of other ecosystem benefits and services to society.

20 http://www.natura.org/nnp_leaflet.pdf

21 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm

A recent study provides a methodological framework for assessing the overall economic value of the Natura 2000 benefits and offers a first broad assessment of what the value could be. It puts the figure in the region of 200-300 billion EUR per year for the whole network22.

This study analyses different type of ecosystem services and the corresponding benefits for different sector of activities. The agriculture by the end is widely beneficiary of the protection and restoration of critical areas for example by decreasing loss of soils and by better pollination.

Eventually, it brings serious evidence that thinking only “economic development” is a wrong approach even in terms of economical global benefits. The next figure shows some example of calculation of benefits for ecosystem services provided by Natura 2000 (extract from the document “The Economic benefits of the Environment Natura 2000 Network”)

It is likely that Natura 2000 could not have been implemented without a strong political commitment of the EU countries that decided to manage their ecosystems jointly. This started from a clear recognition that mis-management of the natural resources in one country deeply affect the other ones. It was also an opportunity to create a strong political framework and a substantial financial tool to achieve this goal. It

22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf

35 brings documented and quantitative evidence that investing in ecosystems and watersheds management restoration and conservation may be significantly profitable.

GRASS-ROOTS INITIATIVES

The emergence of grass-roots initiatives for promoting better management of watersheds may be point out as a big move in boosting the local communities into the IWRM process. Numerous of local watersheds organizations are now well structured, with well-defined shared vision. They provide information and data, education and awareness.

They often focus on specific topics, which generally is representative of the most important watershed assets in terms of ecosystems and natural resources in general. These organizations have developed their own fund raising through public and private contribution. Most of them have developed widely their visibility on the net and utilize intensively social media tools (facebook, twitter) to build a community spirit

Example of grass-roots initiatives dedicated to watersheds management

We are a charity working to restore and protect the rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal areas for the benefit of people, wildlife and the local economy. (http://wrt.org.uk/)

St. Croix River Association’s (SCRA) mission is to protect, restore and celebrate the St. Croix River and its watershed. With an approach based on partnerships, SCRA is working to realize a vision for the St. Croix as a place where rivers run free and clean (https://www.stcroixriverassociation.org/)

The Gills Creek Watershed Association is dedicated to restoring the watershed through education, grass roots action, public and private partnerships, remediation projects, and controlled development. (http://www.gillscreekwatershed.org/)

Ya'axché Conservation Trust is a Belizean organisation which aims to maintain a healthy environment with empowered communities by fostering sustainable livelihoods, protected area management, biodiversity conservation and environmental education within the Maya Golden Landscape. (http://www.yaaxche.org/)

An interesting finding is that these organizations generally start from informal individual initiative e.g. scientists, nature advocates, teachers and students, and in case these individuals succeed to gain leadership, it comes to more formal organization, generally an NGO.

Partnership between official institutions and private watershed organizations pave the way for developing watershed conservation road map. It works harmoniously when embedded in the wider river basin perspective. In this context, the efforts of the local communities are now focusing on rivers and wetlands

36 conservation and recovering. Partnership with official institutions makes that such recovery projects are listed in official basin action plans and may be financially supported by public-private funds. Many examples are shown as “case studies” in the Restoring Europe’s River Wiki23.

Restoration of rivers aims at recovering natural embankments, removing useless dams and cleaning river sediments. Watersheds conservation include a various set of possible activities such as soil conservation, forest protection, eco-tourism areas, walking paths, wetland restoration (removing drainage, removing invasive species), floodplain upgrade in a perspective24 of “living room for rivers”.

Developing lobbying to “counter-power” the investors (e.g. mining, urban promotors,..) in view of guarantying balanced decision supported by sound environmental assessment and sound mitigation plan, is part of the water dialogue with the official institutions.

NETWORKING WATERSHED COMMUNITIES

The possibilities of networking offered by the web and the social media made possible simple way of networking the watershed communities. An example is the “Rivers Trust” that networks the watershed communities (generally called “watershed trust”) in the United Kingdom 25 . Another example is the waterkeepers alliance that networks the water keepers around the world26. Some networks are more dedicated to specific topics. A typical example is the ECCR27 (European Centre for River Restoration) which is a European network consisting of national centres and individual members bound by their mission to encourage and support ecological river restoration throughout greater Europe.

23 https://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

24 https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/

25 http://www.theriverstrust.org/

26 http://waterkeeper.org/

27 http://www.ecrr.org/

An interesting example is also the support of ADB in the „Youth Initiative – Empowering Young Partners for Development“28. Water management is a major topic covered by this initiative. Building leadership capabilities is a boosting factor for developing local and fresh perspectives for watershed management.

LAND USE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Numerous grass-roots associations develop the concept of watershed management by working on landscape, better managing grasslands and wetlands and keeping rooms for forest conservation. They have a deep understanding of the tied link and interaction between water resources management and land resources management. Wetlands have become one of the key focuses, as the ecosystem services provided by wetlands are huge. In addition, wetlands are at risks in most part of the earth as they are often suitable places for extending urban areas and providing new farming lands.

When referring to the link between land use and water resources, the hydrological definition of watershed is less relevant than the definition based on common resources shared by group of people. It is why many non-governmental or governmental organisations are not necessary focused on hydrological boundaries but also on cluster of landscapes where appropriate balance of land use must be sought, which is all benefits for the water resources. The management of wetlands witch is one of the most critical components of the management of water resources is one of key examples.

The Mississippi Valley Conservancy focused on land and water management

Mississippi Valley Conservancy is a regional, non-profit land trust based in La Crosse that has permanently conserved more than 16,200 acres of blufflands, prairies, wetlands, and streams in southwestern Wisconsin (http://mississippivalleyconservancy.org/)

28 https://adbyouthinitiative.wordpress.com/

DATA AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR ALL

GOVERNEMENTAL ORGANIZATION ARE OFFERING FREE ACCESS TO HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL DATA ON LINE

Offering free and transparent access to the information to all is a great step forward in terms of water resources management. Many countries have got a clear understanding that, if no reliable and transparent data and information can be provided, all decisions will remain to be taken on theoretical basis and vague approximation and that may jeopardise all efforts to build IWRM strategies. The next figure shows a typical example of data sharing in Belgium. All the data from the national hydro-met network are online without needing any password29. The service provide real time data, flood forecast and archives of data can be downloaded for free by just indicating online the purpose of the download and by electronically signing a clause of confidentiality.

Most of the European countries, the United States, Australia and New Zealand provide similar services. This is less frequent in Asia and very little has been done in this respect in the LMB countries where the access to data is generally possible only against payment and following a bureaucratic procedure.

EDUCATION AND AWARENESS

NON GOVERNEMENTAL ORGANIZATION ARE KEEN TO RAISE AWARENESS AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

The trend is for the local watershed organizations to act on a full transparent base. There is an increasing trend for the local community to develop their own monitoring means, especially regarding the water quality in the rivers. Embedding these local information on watersheds into the wider river basin monitoring systems transparently managed by the governmental institutions, upgrade considerably the quality of decision tools that may be used for both basins and watersheds management and for estimate of the value of the ecosystem services. The data and information collected at local level are also widely utilized for providing awareness message and developing tailored education tools.

29 http://voies-hydrauliques.wallonie.be/opencms/opencms/fr/hydro/index.html

Ontario Streams is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the conservation and rehabilitation of streams and wetlands, through education and community involvement, working closely with numerous communities, landowners, and school groups to develop lasting partnerships in education and environmental stewardship.(http://ontariostreams.on.ca/organization.html/)

Kentucky River Watershed Watch is part of a statewide organization, Watershed Watch in Kentucky, which is a citizens monitoring effort to improve and protect water quality by raising community awareness and supporting implementation of the goals of the Clean Water Act.The organization hopes to encourage people to venture out into the Kentucky River Basin to see, first-hand, the condition of their local streams and rivers. (http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/KRWW/)

Our goal is to demonstrate, using the Quaggy, that rivers can be major assets to an urban environment – bringing natural beauty, educational facilities and wildlife value into urban landscapes and urban lives. By demonstrating what can be done, we hope to inspire further river restoration work in other urban areas. To achieve this, we must win the hearts and minds of planners, politicians and landowners. (http://qwag.org.uk/about-us/)

The River Tyne and its tributaries have shaped the landscape and communities within our region, forming a unique heritage. Tyne Rivers Trust will work with people and communities to foster stewardship of the River Tyne and its tributaries. We will promote sustainable management and improvement, so that our rivers are healthy and biodiverse and an asset for present and future generations. (http://tyneriverstrust.org/about-us-2/)

EACH WATERSHED IS UNIQUE AND NEEDS UNIQUE CONSIDERATION…

Even if the concepts that are formulated behind IWRM, Water Governance and Watershed Management, each watershed is unique and its management will depend from a large number of factors: natural value, urban or rural, existing leadership and advocates, institutional and legal framework, economic opportunities, economic treats, pressure from outsiders for appropriating the resources, etc… This is now a new era in which watersheds is no more the sole responsibility of the official institutions, funding agencies or projects, but also the responsibility of emerging groups concerned by their living environment. It seems that globally, the services that watersheds may provide are often better understood by people living in the reality of their watershed than by technicians and planners. Sharing the experience and lessons learn and exploring new ideas is now unavoidable to overcome the huge challenges of deterioration of the climate, the water resources and the ecosystems.

Some testimonies presenting vision of local stakeholders Balkash Lake – The pearl of Semirechye •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzynVePXz6I

Agusan Marsh Diaries •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CX9aZ_Ltcw

Bad River (Tribal) Perspective on Mining •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hGAISQHu4w

The Great River (Orange-Senqu) •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MReSanXwZ0I

FUNDING WATERSHEDS INITIATIVES…

The non-governmental watershed organizations use to develop their own strategies of fund raising. The sources of funds for these non-governmental watershed organizations may come from the members, but also from the local private sector that is keen to contribute to develop their local image. When partnership is built with official institutions, specific activities may be co-financed. This is often the case for river restoration and wetlands conservation works. Fishing and tourism are also potential sources of substantial revenues.

Example of found raising

Your donation is greatly appreciated! With the community’s support on local environmental projects, the Foundation will undoubtedly demonstrate its value and potential. The conservation of the Crowe River Watershed relies on the generosity of concerned citizens such as you. •http://www.crowevalley.com/crowe-valley-foundation/

MAINTAINING AND RESTORING SUSTAINABILITY OR BUILDING RESILIENCE?...

PROJECTS SEEM NOW MORE ORIENTED ON BUILDING RESILIENCE THAN RESTORING SUSTAINABILITY....

It seems now easier to develop projects and programmes that aim at building resilience to the adverse effects of poorly sustainable development than to explore and exploit the remaining opportunities that good management of watersheds and their related ecosystems may offer. Building resilience to flood and drought disaster becomes an emergency, but as part of the tools for tackling these serious issues, restoring sustainability by good management and restoration of the ecosystem services provided at watersheds level must be at the core of the debates.

AN EXEMPLE: FLOOD MANAGEMENT…A NEW APPROACH

Flood risk management is one of the most important aspects of disaster management world-wide. EU just launched a new Directive and actions programme on flood risk management. Environmental options and “natural flood management” are the core strategic options of the Directive and its related actions30. The next frame reproduced the text that introduces this new EU Directive.

TOWARDS BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

30 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/better_options.htm

Reducing human casualties and damage to economic activity and the environment are key objectives shared by all EU countries and implementation of the 2007 Floods Directive has an important role in making this happen. Traditional measures to reduce negative impacts of floods include constructing new or reinforcing existing flood defence infrastructure such as dykes and dams. There are, however, other and potentially very cost-effective ways of achieving flood protection which profit from nature's own capacity to absorb excess waters. Such green infrastructure measures can play a major role in sustainable flood risk management in Europe. Win-win solutions need to be the focus of flood risk management.

Floods are the most common and most costly natural disasters in Europe which has severe floods with devastating effects happen every year, and such flood events are likely to become more frequent with climate change. In parallel, Europe's biodiversity is under severe pressure from many forms of human activities while other issues such as water scarcity and droughts are becoming more pronounced. Integrated flood risk management must focus on sustainable water management and measures which work with nature are becoming more important, as they contribute to the strengthening of the resilience of nature and society to extreme weather events.

WHY DO WE NEED BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL OPTIONS?

EU environmental legislation asks for the evaluation of better, feasible environmental options to the proposed structural changes to rivers, lakes and coasts, if these changes could lead to a deterioration of the status of these waters. The Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive set out such requirements, and strive to balance maintaining human needs whilst protecting the environment with the ultimate goal of achieving a sustainable approach to water management.

WHY DO WE NEED NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT?

As our understanding of the interplay between rivers and the landscape has grown, effective solutions which work with nature, rather than against it, are becoming more important than ever. Flood risk management can go hand in hand with nature protection and restoration, and deliver benefits for both people and nature. Some traditional flood risk management measures have a negative impact on the quality and quantity of waters, or on biodiversity-rich areas. Examples can be the building of new dams or dikes which change the river flow, by reducing water for related ecosystems in the area or which accentuate problems in dry seasons by altering the natural flow of the river. Measures which improve the storage capacities of flood water temporarily during flood events, can be effective in protecting against flooding, as well as also provide other benefits deriving from ecosystem services, such as for leisure activities and nature protection.

WHAT IS NATURAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT?

Natural flood management considers the hydrological processes across the whole catchment of a river or along a stretch of coast to identify where measures can best be applied, with a focus on increasing water retention capacities. Examples of such measures are:

 restoring natural flows by realignment of coastal areas, or re-connection of rivers with their floodplain.

 restoration of wetlands which can store flood water and help “slow the flow” of flood waters.

 reservoirs in agricultural areas which can store flood water during flood events, and otherwise be high nature value areas.

 urban Green Infrastructure such as green spaces, sustainable urban drainage and green roofs.

WHAT ARE THE MULTIPLE BENEFITS OF SUCH MEASURES?

Flood prevention measures entailing a more natural flood management approach achieve typical benefits such as avoided costs of damage to society, human health, economic activities, infrastructure, cultural heritage and the environment. However,

42 this approach often allows the same piece of land to deliver multiple benefits and measures typically have additional benefits, such as:

 maintaining and restoring biodiversity, by strengthening the functionality of ecosystems.

 provision of nature protection areas which can also be valuable for recreation and increasing life quality.

 improving water quality and restoring water resources.

 contributing to the development of a green economy by providing jobs and business opportunities in addition to environmental advantages.

Although such additional benefits may not always be quantified or monetised, their advantages are important and compare favourably against traditional measures.

SECTION 3 : MRC AND WATERSHEDS MANAGEMENT…

THE LOWER MEKONG BASIN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY AND THE MRC STRATEGIC PLAN (2016-2020)

The IWRM-based Basin Development Strategy (the BDS)31 is a statement of the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam) setting out how they will share, utilise, manage and conserve the water and related resources of the Mekong in line with the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin (the 1995 Mekong Agreement). Consistent with the 1995 Mekong Agreement, the scope of the Basin Development Strategy embraces all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin including, but not limited to irrigation, hydro-power, navigation, flood control, fisheries, recreation and tourism.

The first Basin Development Strategy (BDS 2011-2015), approved by the MRC Council of ministers on 26 January 2011, was an important milestone for the cooperation of MRC Member Countries. It demonstrated for the first time the shared understandings of the opportunities and risks inherent in the national plans for water resources development in the LMB. These understandings aligned fully with the Declaration of the First MRC Summit of Heads of Governments held on 5 April 2010 in Hua Hin, Thailand. The Declaration acknowledges that accelerating the development of water and related resources would make a significant contribution to the socio-economic development of the region. Concurrently the Declaration recognises the need to address any negative impacts on the basin’s environment and peoples that may occur.

The Declaration of the Second Summit Ho Chi Minh April 2014 includes 6 priority areas32 of actions. Two of these areas have a major importance when considering watersheds management as it will be developed later in this note:

 To protect or mitigate adverse impacts on the river ecology, food security, livelihoods, and water quality.

 To address risks of floods, droughts and sea level rise and maintain good water quality in the Mekong

The updated Basin Development Strategy (2016-2020) is guided by the Declaration of the Second MRC Summit held on 5 April 2014 in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, in which the Heads of Governments of the Member Countries reaffirmed their commitment to implement the 1995 Mekong Agreement and consolidate the spirit of Mekong cooperation, and in which priority areas for action for the MRC was set.

31http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/strategies-workprog/BDP-Strategic-Plan-2011.pdf

32Update of the Basin Development Strategy 2016-2020, page 3

Based on the last version of the draft BDS (2016-2020)33, 7 strategic priorities have been drafted taking into account:

 The two major roles of the MRC mandated by the 1995 Mekong Agreement: to promote sustainable development of the Mekong water and related resources and to coordinate the management of the river;

 The core functions of the MRC, including core river basin management functions at the regional and national levels (see the Roadmap for Decentralization)

The Strategic Priority 5 is: „Improve national water resources development“. Watershed Management is clearly marked up under that Strategic Priority in one of the related actions: „Consolidate and support the implementation of guidelines for improvement of watershed management practices“34..

The MRC Strategic Plan (SP) establishes the manner by which Strategic Priorities and Strategic Actions of the BDS will be implemented over a five year period by the MRC, consistent with the requirements of the MRC Roadmap. The MRC SP establishes a results chain with outcomes and outputs for the MRC as a whole to achieve during this period, together with budgets and an M&E framework. In addition the MRC SP establishes the activities required to achieve the agreed outputs and, by reference to the MRC Roadmap, determines which of these activities should be undertaken at regional level and which at national level. MRC SP is built considering a chain of results based on two goals, seven Outcomes and 36 Outputs. Watershed Management is clearly marked up in the following framework.

Output 3.6 : The implementation of the guidelines Output 3.8 : Sustainable Management of for improvement of watershed management Watersheds in the Lower Mekong Basin Project practices supported supported

THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND THE NEEDS TO HARMONIZE THROUGHOUT LMB

River Basin and Watershed management are different but affect each other. The preliminary requisite for supporting good practices in watershed/tributary basins management throughout the LMB and consequently to be in line with the Basin Development Strategy, is to recognize the importance of the services that the watersheds may provide in keeping healthy environment and ecosystems. A second step is to agree that the IWRM approach that gives a large room to local good governance, transparent stakeholder’s dialogue and coordination is an appropriate tool to support watershed management,

33Version 4 – 29 Dec 2014

34Updated Basin Development Strategy – version 4, Chapter 4.2.5

45 although it must be kept as an overall framework that needs to be tailored to adapt smoothly to the real world.

At the exception of the trans-boundary watersheds, watershed management is generally the sole responsibility of the national authorities (centralized and decentralized). Nevertheless, the national actions cumulatively contribute to the good health (or the bad health) of the Mekong River. It makes thus great sense for MRC to support National Government efforts in the implementation of appropriate legal and institutional frameworks for water and water related resources conservation and good practices for watershed management.

Addressing Watersheds/Tributary Basins management in the context of ”IWRM - Watersheds Services oriented” needs appropriate set up at national level in terms of policy, legal and institutional frameworks. In order to meet the global objective of keeping the water resources in the LMB globally sustainable and to create a transparent framework for the trans boundary dialogue, there is a need, in addition, for specific guidelines setting goals, methodologies and monitoring that should be ideally harmonized and endorsed throughout the LMB countries.

THE “LOCAL” APPROACH

IWRM principles are a particularly well adapted tool for supporting the protection of vital water resources and related ecosystems as it is for river basin management in general. This means that it is necessary to promote communities and multi-stakeholders water dialogue to identify the services that the watershed may provide. It is also important to identify the issues (where are the black point that makes that the watershed is not in a position to provide the expected services?), trying to sort out a common vision and quantified goals (where we want to go?) and mutually agree on a road map and related action plans (how do we get there?).

In the context of watersheds, the ”IWRM - Watersheds Services oriented” approach presents some specificities, the likely most relevant being:

 The central government and decentralized agencies have an important role to play for providing guidance, assistance and safeguards. Nevertheless, the key stakeholders and the guarantors of the good health of the ecosystems and environment are the people living in the area. Therefore, positioning the local institutions &organisations, and the inhabitants at the centre of the IWRM dialogue and coordination and recognizing the importance of good local governance in each step of the process is a pre-requisite.

 It is important to get a good knowledge of the ecosystems and natural resources to be protected in order to propose adequate road map and actions. These ecosystems should be also inserted into the context of the services they may provide for contributing to the sustainability of vital ecosystems and the environment at river basin level. A good knowledge on the impacts of human activities on these eco-systems is also essential for supporting the decision process.

 It is also important to provide specific approach according to the features of the watersheds. A watershed in a plain will not have the same standard management set up than a watershed in a mountainous area. Stakeholders mapping is different (more densely populated areas versus rural areas), services to be provided are different and potential leadership and partnership are different (e.g. rural leadership or urban leadership).

Apprehending the value of the services provided by the vital ecosystems may then help establishing mechanisms for ensuring the long term sustainability of the actions taken. This may even lead to explore the potential of “Payment for Ecosystem Services” that may be a morale recognition of the essential role of the local communities, a good incentive for the stakeholders and a tool for sustainability of the activities planned within the framework of the watershed management process.

WHAT WOULD BE THE PRIORITY IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE SHORT AND MIDDLE TERM

MAPPING ECO-SYSTEMS - CLASSIFICATION OF WATERSHEDS AND/OR CLUSTERS OF WATERSHEDS BASED ON THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES THEY MAY PROVIDE

The first level of classification in the Mekong river basin is a division between the “Upper-Mekong” river and the “Lower Mekong” river. This classification actually corresponds mainly to the limits of the countries belonging to the Mekong River Commission (Lao PDR, Thailand, Cambodia and Viet Nam) which covers the Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) while the Upper-Mekong River Basin is located in China and Myanmar. In this Technical Paper, we address only the LMB.

A second level of classification was carried out by the MRCS, dividing the LMB into so-called Mekong Sub- Catchments. There are 112 sub-catchments according to this classification.

Another classification carried out by MRCS is the so-called “local catchments” (1,000 km2 upstream areas) for the whole Mekong Basin. It is derived by burning the classified river dataset into the existing DEM data to update DEM reflecting the patterns of water flow across the landscape and enable upstream area to be

47 calculated to delineate boundary of sub-catchment over the upper part of Vietnam Mekong delta, then combined with projected water resource management area of Vietnam Mekong Delta35.

The Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Berne (Switzerland) carried out a GIS based LMB Watersheds Classification in 2001 within the framework of cooperation between MRCS and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)36. This watershed classification aimed at giving an indication of the sensitivity of watersheds with regard to water resources degradation mainly by soil erosion. On the basis of the topography of the landscape (parameters: slope, elevation, landform), 5 watershed classes were calculated by means of a watershed equation and depicted on watershed classification maps at the scale of 1:250,000. This is not actually a “watershed classification” but more a “sub-classification” of featured areas within a watershed. This work may be nevertheless useful when applied to the watersheds that would be selected as “vital ecosystems” to support watershed management plans.

The two basic levels of classification, based on delineation of the hydrologic units, carried out by MRCS in the LMB are generally named “Sub-Basins” (104 units) and “Watersheds” (447). The “Watersheds” classification is more homogeneous when considering the size of the hydrologic units. Both classifications do not tell us about the “common settlement perspective”.

Sub-Basins (104 units with very different sizes) Watersheds (447 units with more homogenous sizes)

If we consider the general definition of a watershed as being „a common settlement perspective“, it opens the door to other ways of classifying watersheds. The classification may then be envisaged according to

35 http://portal.mrcmekong.org/master-catalogue/search?giai=9506000003818_catmb_1kE0100jxi

36 www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002065-inland-waters-gis-based-watershed-classification-in-the-lower-mekong- basin.pdf

48 an easier agreed „common vision «that may lead to get easier consensus on watershed management objectives, road maps and action plans. For examples:

 If the objective is to restore biodiversity and ecosystems, watersheds may be classified according to their conditions of degradation37. Classification may be done in function of physical parameters (size, topography, soils, geology), which may be useful for applying a typology for statistical or modelling purpose.

 If the objective is to assess the risks of degradation, other factors like pressures on the environmental resources (e.g. biophysical features, climatic conditions, demographic features, socio-economic factors) must be considered, leading to the concept of critical watersheds38.

 If the objective is to promote the environmental services a watershed may bring, the classification will be related to the different potential services the watershed may offer (e.g. a watershed must give “room for the river” to contribute to flood risks mitigation, ecosystems are carefully protected benefiting to educational and eco-tourism activities, wetlands are maintained to sustain groundwater)

In such approach, the question of “What is a watershed?” or “What is a Tributary Basin?” is no more related to the size of the hydrologic unit. It may be small units (catchment, watershed) but it may be also a cluster of small units (watershed, tributary basin). According to the objectives that we would like to promote when supporting watershed management, there is definitively a need to develop specific criteria and guidelines for classifying these “watersheds” and “tributary basins” accordingly.

Priority would be given to these watersheds considered as “vital ecosystems” for the services they can provide. They substantially contribute to the environmental sustainability of water and water related natural resources by mitigating the pressure and impacts of the socio-economic development. Watershed management would then particularly focus on these watersheds with specific actions of protection or restoration with particular attention to land use impacts, according to the services they may provide.

To set up priorities, there is a need to classify the watersheds. To be consistent with the Basin Development Strategy, the key proposed criteria is then the ecosystems services they can provide, which is directly related to the pressure of the socio-economic development of the infrastructures and human activities.

For example, hydropower development needs to be balance by healthy watersheds upstream in order to mitigate the transport of sediment and potential eutrophication. Urban areas need healthy watersheds

37An example : United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service : http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/watershed_classification_guide.pdf

38 http://www.dofps.gov.bt/wmd/attachments/GuidelinesforWatershedClassification.pdf

49 nearby to guarantee the quality of water (surface and groundwater) but also, in some case wetlands conservation in such watersheds may contribute as natural water treatment plant. A watershed located in a flood plain and recognized for its capacity to buffer flood must be manage to fulfill this function on a sustainable way.

A secondary criterion could be identifying the watersheds at risks, needing restoration or targeted actions/investments to increase its capacity to provide the expected services. Watersheds classification is not necessarily stand-alone watersheds; it may be useful to consider “clusters of watersheds” which provide cumulative services with enough critical size to generate the expected impacts. In addition, trans- boundary watersheds need to be identified as such.

In this context, proposed MRC contribution would be the elaboration of a methodology to carry out an „ecosystem services” based watershed classification and afterwards, together with the relevant line agencies, support the development of such a classification. This would provide a first level of harmonized guidelines aiming at supporting the National Water Resources Agencies when establishing their priorities in terms of targets for watershed management of the LMB watersheds39.

CONTRIBUTE TO HARMONIZE WATERSHED GUIDELINES AND “RESULTS-ORIENTED” WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

A substantial work was already done in such perspective in the past years, mainly with the support of the MRC-GIZ WSMP. The watershed management resource kit, the methodologies developed in the pilot watersheds during the first phase of the WSMP and the watershed conference in Chiang Mai constitute a batch of useful materials. These materials provide by the end methodological guidelines for implementation of watershed management process.

In a wider perspective, the role of MRC could be more focused on promoting quantitative objectives and standards for tributary basins and watersheds management, in the context of a global basin vision (e.g. water quality at the outlet of the watersheds, minimum flow, biodiversity, etc...). This would help developing “results-oriented” watershed management. Such strategy, from a consolidated prospective, would be highly profitable for the basin and the trans-boundary dialogues in general. If endorsed by the member countries, this could be a big step forward for establishing a global legal framework in the long term.

NETWORKING WATERSHEDS: SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND INCREASING AWARENESS

39 A similar exercise have been carried out in South Africa (Fresh Water Priorities for South Africa) : http://www.riversnetwork.org/rbo/index.php/hot-topics/ecosystems-services/item/4147-freshwater-priorities-for- south-africa

Although basic principles are similar, Watershed Management is eventually very specific and tailored made. Basically, the legal and institutional framework is different from a country to another. But, even within one country, watershed management is highly dependent from the dynamic of the local communities and stakeholders and the level of leadership that they may have for mobilizing partnership, and human and financial resources for getting “their” vision realized. It is therefore likely very profitable to collect success stories (and failure stories) and to create room for exchange of experiences and knowledge. This may be done at national level, but it would likely be boosted if brought to the wider picture of the Mekong Basin and the context of the BDS.

The concept of networking still needs to be developed, which is expected to be part of this SUMALOM Nam Ton Project Part II. One tool for networking would be a website in which knowledge could be shared and awareness campaigns could be developed. It may be an opportunity to start some dialogue and “think tank” between the various actors working in LMB watersheds, official stakeholders, private sectors and communities. Another way of networking is to support twinning of watersheds creating friendship links between communities and exchange of experience by mutual visits.

A particular attention should be brought to the „Trans boundary watersheds“. The network should help facilitating local trans-boundary dialogue (at community’s levels, at district levels...)

ESTABLISH A GLOBAL LMB OR REGIONAL FRAMEWORK TO PROTECT CLEAN WATER AND ENSURE ITS SUSTAINABLE USE. COULD IT BE THE LONG TERM OBJECTIVE?

It is generally well recognized that the good or bad health of the watersheds/tributary basins of the Mekong impact the mainstream both in terms of water quantity and water quality and consequently may be considered as a trans-boundary concern. The issue is that, apart from the impact of large infrastructures like hydro-power dams, there is little shared knowledge of the cumulative impacts of the numerous changes in the watersheds/tributary basins in terms of smaller infrastructures, urbanization process and land use change.

Although the management of the watershed/tributary basins remains a national prerogative, it should be the responsibility of the member countries to ensure that water released into the mainstream fulfill adequate standards in terms of quantity and quality. This will be likely one of the great challenge for MRC and/or regional institutions to establish a mutually agreed framework to protect clean water across the LMB and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The EU Water Framework Directive is likely an interesting reference that could help establishing such standards40.

40 The EU Water Framework Directive is likely the most comprehensive example of quantitative oriented management. This has been a huge driving factor for improving globally the deteriorated ecosystems in Europe : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

This is actually a long-term perspective that would need strong political commitment and support to develop the different steps to get there, such as reinforcing knowledge acquisition and sharing, monitoring tools and harmonized guidelines for tributary basins/watersheds management.

SECTION 4 : THE WATERSHED WEBSITE AS SUPPORT TO THE NEW PERSPECTIVE

Within the framework of this SUMALOM Nam Ton Project Part II, a website named “Mekong Watershed Information has been developed. The features of the website are:

 Provide a structured repository of the reports, documents and training materials that were developed during the Watershed Management Project since the early starting (2002). The structure is presented according to a Project TimeLine;

 Provide a repository of the documents and media produced during conference and workshops (mainly Chiang Mai Conference);

 Provide the full set of Watershed guidelines developed by the Watershed Management Project;

 Provide interactively online the Watershed Management Resource Kit that was developed by the MRC-GIZ project. These are actually the Watershed Guidelines that may be disseminated to the countries for supporting watershed management;

 Provide specific links to key resources: MRCS and repository of case studies of www.riversnetwork.org

 Building webpages referring to each of the Mekong tributaries. Each webpage includes an interactive web-map of the sub-basin. It is the entry point for watershed stakeholders for disseminating what is going on in their respective sub-basins (e.g. reference to a watershed committee, rivers advocates, projects, research works,...). Each of these items is located on a google map of the sub-basins. A global map is automatically updated that shows all projects and activities regarding watersheds in the LMB;

 A form in which the stakeholders can use to introduce their project or activity. From these forms, and after moderation and crosscheck, the webmaster may publish the corresponding item in the related web page.

This website actually complements MekongInfo. It is very focused on watersheds rather than providing an extent overview about IWRM in general which is actually the core development of MekongInfo. It also provides a geographical structure for networking the LMB watersheds and therefore a room for exchanging knowledge, experiences and lessons learnt.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT TIMELINE

This section of the website provides a focused library gathering the documents and training material related to the MRC-GIZ Watershed Management Project. Most of these documents were drafted during the period of support of GIZ and KfW and are actually listed in the first section of this paper.

The website includes as well training resources, the watershed management resource kit and the entire data sheets related to the different topics related watershed management. 54

THE “WATERSHED BLOGS” – NETWORKING THE STAKEHOLDERS

Another section named “watersheds blogs” aims at providing case studies and networking the governmental and non-governmental institutions and projects. It is structured geographically by sub-basin with interactive maps provided by sub-basins. Case studies are geographically localised. Forms to be filled by stakeholders allow introducing the projects and institutions into this network.

Annex 1. Bibliography

1. MRCS. Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002726-society-mekong-river-commission-agriculture-irrigation-and- forestry-programme-aifp-for-2001-2005.pdf, 2001.

2. Oberndorf, Robert B. Review and Analysis of Existing Documentation on Policies, Rules and Regulations Related to Watershed Management within the four Member Countries of the Mekong River. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001498-inland-waters-review-and-analysis-of-existing- documentation-on-policies-rules-and-regulations-related-to-watershed-management.pdf, 2003.

3. Min Bunnara (Cambodia), Sengkham Inthiravongsy (Lao PDR),Vanchai Viranan (Thailand),Pham Thi Thuy Co (Vietnam). Inland waters : Country status report on watershed management in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002075-inland-waters-country-status-report-on- watershed-management-in-cambodia-lao-pdr-thailand-and-vietnam.pdf, 2004.

4. MRC-GiZ. Proceedings : 1st Policy Dialogue - Watershed Management Project. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/conference/1st-policy-dialogue-WSM.pdf, 2004.

5. —. The 2nd Policy Dialogue on Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/conference/2nd-policy-dialogue-WSM.pdf.

6. MRCS-GiZ. Regional Consultation Meeting on Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Temp/3rd-policy-dialogue-WSM.pdf, 2007.

7. Fuchs, Dr Hans-Jörg. Data Availability for Studies on Effects of Land-Cover Changes on Water Yield, Sediment and Nutrient Load at Catchments of the Lower Mekong Basin. s.l. : http://www.tnmckc.org/upload/document/aifpws/2/2.3%20FuchsH%20WSM%20Data%20Availability%20WP%209 %20041102.pdf.

8. Oberndorf, Robert B. Comparative Study on Practices and Lessons in Land Use Planning and Land Allocation in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0003033-inland- waters-comparative-study-on-practices-and-lessons-in-land-use-planning-and-land-allocation-in-cambodia-lao-pdr- thailand-and-viet-nam.pdf, 2004.

9. Veer, Cor. Best Practices and Knowledge Sharing in Watershed Management in the Lower mekong Basin. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001978-inland-waters-best-practices-and-knowledge-sharing-in- watershed-management-in-the-lower-mekong-basin-lessons-prospects-and-a-way-forward-working-paper-14.pdf.

10. Braeutigam, Dietmar. Community Based Forest Management in Cambodia and Laos - Frame Conditions, Selected Examples and Implications. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0003745-inland-waters- community-based-forest-management-in-cambodia-and-laos.pdf.

11. Oberndorf, Robert B. Comparative Analysis of Policy and Legislation related to Watershed Management in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. s.l. : http://www.tnmckc.org/upload/document/aifpws/2/2.4%20ObernR%20Policy%20+%20Legislation%20WSM%20W P%207%20041012.pdf, 2004. 56

12. Kalyan Hou, Ken Serey Rotha, Luyna Ung, Socheat Mao. Management of Pilot Watershed Areas in Cambodia - Baseline survey. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002484-inland-waters-management-of-pilot- watershed-areas-in-cambodia-and-lao-pdr-baseline-survey-working-paper-12-13.pdf, 2004.

13. Kamphay Manivong, Lamphoune Xayvongsa, Oulaphone Ongkeo, Sounthone. Management of Pilot Watershed Areas in Lao PDR - Baseline survey. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002484-inland- waters-management-of-pilot-watershed-areas-in-cambodia-and-lao-pdr-baseline-survey-working-paper-12-13.pdf, 2004.

14. Vo Hung, Tuyet Hoa Niekdam, Nguyen Tien,. The Southern Krong Ana Watershed, Dak Lak Province, Vietnam - a baseline survey. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0001940-inland-waters-the-southern-krong- ana-watershed-dak-lak-province-vietnama-baseline-survey.pdf.

15. MRC-GTZ. Nam Ton Watershed - Profile. s.l. : http://www.riversweb.org/mrcs/index.php/watershed- blogs/item/71-nam-ton-watershed-profile-2008, 2008.

16. Jeremy Ferguson (team leader), Dr. Ekkehard Kürschner (team leader), David Bühlmeier, Niklas Cramer, Alexes Flevotomas,. What has remained? - An ex post Evaluation of Watershed Management in the Mekong Region. s.l. : http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/series/sle/254/PDF/254.pdf, 2014.

17. Chiang Mai Conference. International Conference on Watershed Management : Topic 1 : Good Practice. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Events/Watershed-man-2011/T1-Concept-Note1Mar11.pdf, 2011.

18. —. International Conference on Watershed Management - Topic 2:Governance Summary. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Events/Watershed-man-2011/topic2-Governance-report-back-n- summary.pdf, 2011.

19. —. International Conference on Watershed Management - Topic 3 Economics and Finance. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Events/Watershed-man-2011/topic3-economics-n-finance- report-back-n-summary.pdf, 2011.

20. —. 4 videos : Debate on Governance (1&2) - Watershed Management: Technology Focus -Watershed Management: Reflections. s.l. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4V5LgY0wdM&list=PLB01799A2EE8B49D7&index=4, 2011.

21. Hanne Bach; Torkil Jønch Clausen; Dang Thuy Trang;Lucy Emerton; Thierry Facon; Thomas Hofer;Kate Lazarus; Christoph Muziol; Andrew Noble;Petra Schill; Amphavanh Sisouvanh; Christopher Wensley; Louise Whiting. From Watershed Management to Integrated River Basin Management. s.l. : http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Reports/Watershed-Management-report2011.pdf, 2011.

22. MRC-GTZ. Watershed Management in the Lower Mekong Basin - Appraisal report. s.l. : http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002942-inland-waters-watershed-management-in-the-lower- mekong-basin.pdf, 2002.