The following comment was emailed by Melvin Woodhouse, David Phillips and Mark Zeitoun in response to an FYI from David JH Blake. This comment was posted in a Yahoo discussion group TransboundarywaterDG:
The ‘Scalar Disconnect’ paper, together with the commentary via Terry Clayton’s blog are of very great interest to all concerned with developments on the Mekong, and more generally with hydropolitics elsewhere. In our experience analogous scenarios are emerging in the present generation of RBOs being supported with external aid, particularly those in Africa. Certainly there is important merit and urgency to exploring the accountability and roles of these RBOs.
We also note Susanne Schmeier’s work “Opening the black box of River Basin Organizations” https://www.globalwaterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Opening-the-b...
In our view, three important sets of questions need to be answered, each of which are relevant to the Mekong in isolation but also to many other trans-boundary basins.,
Firstly, should there be enhanced accountability of RBOs that are supported through external aid? We are not aware of a level of monitoring of RBOs which would be in keeping with similar high levels (and long periods) of investment in other spheres. We are aware of basic financial and “project level intervention” audits – but what about accountability against the overall object and purpose of a trans-boundary organisation? Why do the donors not trigger broader-based reviews of financing outcomes, especially in basins that have received external support for several decades? Are the donors (and their interventions) part of the solution, or part of the problem?
Secondly, it is surely a concern when an RBO evolves into a role of [only] doing the same thing which national governments can and should be doing. Are RBOs actually achieving things which its riparian members are not able to achieve by acting independently? Why, then, should riparian tax payers and donors agencies finance duplication, and isn’t there a risk that this alternative “project” agenda removes the impetus to achieve the more important – if not more difficult – real trans-boundary objectives and purpose? Which RBOs can claim to truly address trans-boundary issues – such as [transboundary management, or peaceful relations, or shared economic development?] If some riparians fail to engage – as in the Mekong, for example – how robust is the process they are actually involved in? Where the RBOs fail to adequately address trans-boundary issues per se, does this reflect their limited power due to difficulties created by sovereignty concerns of the co-riparians? Doesn’t this imply that in some cases, RBOs are paper tigers at best, fig-leafs for uncoordinated ‘development’ in the interests of the powerful, at worst?
Thirdly, further comparative analysis of RBOs instigated by aid and those which were home-grown would be very illuminating. Suhardiman et al’s Scalar Disconnect manuscript portrays a difficult truth by considering the 55 year history of a single RBO – can we expect RBOs to evolve into a properly trans-boundary role, or must they have a properly trans-boundary role from the outset? This is a very loaded question, and speaks to the need for more tightly framed and audited donor financing, at least, and preferably transparency about objectives and activities.
We believe that improved scrutiny of RBOs is of importance: [a] as a means to enable national governments to fully realise and achieve what are domestic responsibilities; [b] as a means to properly manage the huge investments RBOs receive; and also [c] as a means to ensure that RBOs perform a useful function that can continue to justify their position.
That the academic community has had to lift the lid on RBO accountability is a credible achievement – that there is no adequate accountability in place is surely unacceptable. We therefore believe that in the absence of such accountability, the investigation and analysis of RBOs should be a matter for further research. However, it would be an enlightened donor that would favour supporting this work, and we would also encourage more independent work of the Scalar Disconnect variety.
The following comment was emailed by Melvin Woodhouse, David Phillips and Mark Zeitoun in response to an FYI from David JH Blake. This comment was posted in a Yahoo discussion group TransboundarywaterDG:
The ‘Scalar Disconnect’ paper, together with the commentary via Terry Clayton’s blog are of very great interest to all concerned with developments on the Mekong, and more generally with hydropolitics elsewhere. In our experience analogous scenarios are emerging in the present generation of RBOs being supported with external aid, particularly those in Africa. Certainly there is important merit and urgency to exploring the accountability and roles of these RBOs.
We also note Susanne Schmeier’s work “Opening the black box of River Basin Organizations”
https://www.globalwaterforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Opening-the-b...
In our view, three important sets of questions need to be answered, each of which are relevant to the Mekong in isolation but also to many other trans-boundary basins.,
Firstly, should there be enhanced accountability of RBOs that are supported through external aid? We are not aware of a level of monitoring of RBOs which would be in keeping with similar high levels (and long periods) of investment in other spheres. We are aware of basic financial and “project level intervention” audits – but what about accountability against the overall object and purpose of a trans-boundary organisation? Why do the donors not trigger broader-based reviews of financing outcomes, especially in basins that have received external support for several decades? Are the donors (and their interventions) part of the solution, or part of the problem?
Secondly, it is surely a concern when an RBO evolves into a role of [only] doing the same thing which national governments can and should be doing. Are RBOs actually achieving things which its riparian members are not able to achieve by acting independently? Why, then, should riparian tax payers and donors agencies finance duplication, and isn’t there a risk that this alternative “project” agenda removes the impetus to achieve the more important – if not more difficult – real trans-boundary objectives and purpose? Which RBOs can claim to truly address trans-boundary issues – such as [transboundary management, or peaceful relations, or shared economic development?] If some riparians fail to engage – as in the Mekong, for example – how robust is the process they are actually involved in? Where the RBOs fail to adequately address trans-boundary issues per se, does this reflect their limited power due to difficulties created by sovereignty concerns of the co-riparians? Doesn’t this imply that in some cases, RBOs are paper tigers at best, fig-leafs for uncoordinated ‘development’ in the interests of the powerful, at worst?
Thirdly, further comparative analysis of RBOs instigated by aid and those which were home-grown would be very illuminating. Suhardiman et al’s Scalar Disconnect manuscript portrays a difficult truth by considering the 55 year history of a single RBO – can we expect RBOs to evolve into a properly trans-boundary role, or must they have a properly trans-boundary role from the outset? This is a very loaded question, and speaks to the need for more tightly framed and audited donor financing, at least, and preferably transparency about objectives and activities.
We believe that improved scrutiny of RBOs is of importance: [a] as a means to enable national governments to fully realise and achieve what are domestic responsibilities; [b] as a means to properly manage the huge investments RBOs receive; and also [c] as a means to ensure that RBOs perform a useful function that can continue to justify their position.
That the academic community has had to lift the lid on RBO accountability is a credible achievement – that there is no adequate accountability in place is surely unacceptable. We therefore believe that in the absence of such accountability, the investigation and analysis of RBOs should be a matter for further research. However, it would be an enlightened donor that would favour supporting this work, and we would also encourage more independent work of the Scalar Disconnect variety.
Melvin Woodhouse
David Phillips
Mark Zeitoun