Davison Saruchera, Wits University, South Africa and Dr. Jonathan Lautze, International Water Management Institute, South Africa

Transcription

1 Davison Saruchera, Wits University, South Africa and Dr. Jonathan Lautze, International Water Management Institute, South Africa Secretariats for transboundary river basin organisations (RBOs) have proliferated in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. The Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM), the Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission (OKACOM), the Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM) and the Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM), for example, all established secretariats after the year Plans to introduce secretariats in existing RBOs in the region s smaller basins like the Inkomati, Pungwe and Ruvuma have been developed. Nonetheless, RBOs without secretariats also exist and have met with some success. For example, cooperation in the Inkomati Basin has led to the implementation of important projects, including a basin study and the comprehensive Progressive Realisation of the Inco- Maputo Agreement (PRIMA), which aims to secure funding for basin infrastructure projects, among other objectives. Similarly, in the Kunene Basin, a USD$32 million transboundary water supply project initiated by the riparians with financial support from Germany, is nearing completion. The rationale for building secretariats is open to debate. One argument points to the increased efficiency that secretariats bring to programme coordination in RBOs. 1,2 Another argument is that the secretariat format has been promoted from the global North, as a best practise recommendation in water cooperation. 3 As the focus on transboundary water resources increases due to growing water security concerns globally, determining the most suitable institutional form for cooperation is becoming more critical, especially in Africa. As such, this is an opportune time to clarify whether secretariats add value to RBOs, and unpack the nature of any value-add. Objectives and Methods Global Water Forum 1

2 We set out to assess the value of secretariats to RBOs, and their cost effectiveness, compared with RBOs without secretariats in Africa. This was done by undertaking two sets of analyses that compared RBOs that have secretariats with RBOs without secretariats, in Africa. For the first set of analyses, treaties that created RBOs were examined to determine the inclusion of five governance mechanisms (decision making, dispute resolution, information sharing, monitoring and stakeholder involvement) that have been deduced from literature, as identified by Schmeier, to facilitate transboundary water cooperation; the proportion of RBOs with secretariats containing such mechanisms was then compared with the proportion of RBOs without secretariats containing such mechanisms. 1 For the second set of analyses, a survey of three purposively selected RBOs with secretariats and three without was undertaken to estimate their annual operating costs, total value of projects, and number of projects; averaged figures for RBOs with versus without secretariats were then compared to reveal difference in operating costs, and number and value of projects. Results Based on the treaty analysis, treaties that create RBOs with secretariats generally contained the five governance instruments identified as important in the literature, and thereby manifest more robust governance. In RBOs without secretariats, the governance instruments were found to a lesser extent. RBOs with secretariats implement more projects, and the projects are normally of a higher value, compared with RBOs without secretariats. The average value of projects is $3.3 million a year in RBOs with secretariats, and only $0.7 million a year for RBOs without secretariats. Results also showed that the cost of running a secretariat is much lower than the value of investment they attract. Global Water Forum 2

3 Table depicting the value comparison of the RBOs The study therefore suggests that secretariats add value to RBOs. Secretariats indeed appear to attract investment that justifies their cost. Nevertheless, there are nuances that merit deeper examination. The decision on whether an RBO should have a secretariat is no doubt at least partially a function of context; preferences of riparians and the function of the RBO, for example, should play a role in choice of RBO format. When projects need to be implemented at basin level, a secretariat may be valuable in coordinating such activities. Conversely, when the form of transboundary water cooperation more closely resembles a framework of rules within which different riparians undertake their own national projects, the benefits of a secretariat are more debatable. Conclusions Somewhat surprisingly, no previous study was known to have applied an analytical framework to assess the added net benefits associated with secretariat formation in RBOs. This paper is therefore believed to have taken important initial steps to produce an evidence based indication of the performance of alternate RBO models in Africa. The paper determined that RBOs with secretariats facilitate stronger governance and secure more investments compared with RBOs without secretariats. It is hoped that future studies and associated policy recommendations strive to draw from evidence such as this, refining and Global Water Forum 3

4 strengthening approaches which will invariably contain some imperfections. Ultimately, the study offers two recommendations to those engaged in transboundary water management in Africa s basins regional economic communities, riparian governments, donors and others: Building secretariats can bring value, especially in Africa where basin investment is much needed. Riparians should therefore consider establishing or maintaining one. Recognition of such context can enhance selection of optimal and cost-effective RBO models. It therefore behoves riparians to understand the context of RBO creation or strengthening, to inform selection of RBO format. Based on goals and focus of cooperation, RBO performance can benefit from continuous assessment, using methods similar to those utilized in this paper that contributes to understanding suitability of existing institutional formats in particular transboundary watercourses. Such analyses can help to reveal if the type of RBO is insufficient, excessive, or appropriate. References: 1. Schmeier, S. (2015). The institutional design of river basin organizations empirical findings from around the world. International Journal of River Basin Management 13(1), Wingqvist, G. O. & Nilsson, A. (2015). Effectiveness of River Basin Organisations an Institutional Review of three African RBOs. Sida s Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change. 5 February Available at: effectiveness-of-river-basin-organisations-an-institutional-review-of-three-african-rbos/ (Accessed April ). 3. Merrey, D. J. (2009). African models for transnational river basin organisations in Africa: an unexplored dimension. Water Alternatives 2(2), Global Water Forum 4

5 Davison Saruchera is a PhD Fellow with the School of Governance at Wits University in Johannesburg, and Jonathan Lautze is a Senior Researcher with the International Water Management Institute s southern Africa Office in Pretoria. The full article can be found in the Water Policy Vol 18 (2016) pages DOI: /wp The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here. Global Water Forum 5