Building Voice, Improving Best Practice The announcement earlier this year that the People’s Republic of China would begin to share hydrological data with other Mekong states was a welcome development in terms of both transparency and building cooperation in the region towards ensuring the long-term sustainability of a river that supports the livelihoods of 70 million people. The proposed establishment of the MLC Water Resources Sharing Platform has been met with both great enthusiasm in some quarters as well as deep skepticism in others. In that Oxfam and the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace (CICP) share a mutual goal in working to ensure the protection of the river and the individuals who rely upon it and following two consultative meetings between staff of both institutions, Oxfam (Cambodia) proposed to contract CICP to engage in a research project to more deeply explore how to support and positively impact the development of this new platform such that the outcomes thereof are both directly beneficial to local, riparian communities as well as to facilitate increased “voice” on the part of those communities as the development and implementation of the platform moves forward.

CICP has a long-standing history working with all partners interested in the sustainability of the Mekong, including the MLC. CICP has served and continues to serve as Cambodia’s designated national center for the MLC’s subregional think tank network, the Global Center for MekongStudies and has regularly submitted research and policy recommendations through this forum to ameliorate MLC programming in terms of pro-poor developmental outcomes, sustainability, and consistency with ASEAN developmental goals (e.g., the Master Plan for Connectivity); Cambodia’s own national development strategy; and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Noting this context, CICP proposes the completion of an in-depth, comparative study of the proposed platform which will be conducted beginning in November 2020 and completed in June 2021. The research framework for this study is designed around the following set of inter-related questions:

    • Who are the key, local stakeholders in this arena? What are their interests and capabilities? And which impacts are most salient for them in terms of data utilization (e.g., irrigation, flood control, etc) and data provision?
    • In the area ofgovernance, how can hydrological data be decentralized in order to ensure access and utilization by local communities most affectedby changing water levels, fish stocks, and sediment flow rates along the river? This question is consistent with both the decentralized approach to disaster management taken by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and recognizes the realities and challenges of particular aspects of MLC and Cambodian governance, i.e., the traditional focus on state-to-state and ministry-to-ministry dialogue that often impedes voice on the part of local stakeholders. Moreover, this question is central to ensuring that the development of the new platform is as transparent as possible.

   • How can this data best contribute to an “early warning system” for local communitiessuch that these individuals are able to have sufficient time to prepare for potential “shocks” stemming from changes to water flow along the Mekong?
   • How can the platform be developed via a bottom-up, community-based approach – avoiding the mistakes of prior,top-down policy frameworks that have left those for whom developmental programming has been designed to support without voice and influence in the creation of those frameworks?
   • What lessons can be drawn for the platform from global best practice? More frankly, is current global best practice fit for purpose? How might it be improved? Multi-state governance of water resources is not a newissue, rather it is a long-standing source of dispute and mis-management. From the Nile in Africa to the Rio Paraguay in South America to the Great Lakes in North America, water governance has a lengthy history and a diversity of policy frameworks have been developed in this area. What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of these governance models?

  • Finally, how can MLCbest engage with and complement the work of the MRC? Institutional fragmentation in water governance – exacerbated by great power competition in the region and a surfeit of subregional cooperation region mechanisms – is now the main and unfortunate hallmark of Mekong governance. How can such fragmentation be avoided in the context of the sharing of hydrological data and what positive externalities could stem from such a process in terms of both developmental outcome as well as confidence-building measures to lessen the possibility of conflict in the region?

By the completion of a thorough study examining each of these inter-related question, a genuine picture of the challenges and opportunities presented by MLC’s new platform can be fully grasped, providing a basis for the strengthening of voice in the future development of Mekong management and governance and positively impacting local communities on severaldifferent levels.

Noting this context, CICP proposes the completion of an in-depth, comparative study of the proposed platform which will be conducted beginning in November 2020 and completed in June 2021. The research framework for this study is designed aroundthe following set of inter-related questions:

    • Who are the key, local stakeholders in this arena? What are their interests and capabilities? And which impacts are most salient for them in terms of data utilization (e.g., irrigation, flood control, etc) and data provision?
    • In the area of governance, how can hydrological data be decentralized in order to ensure access and utilization by local communities most affected by changing water levels, fish stocks, and sediment flow rates along the river? This question is consistent with both the decentralized approach to disaster management taken by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) and recognizes the realities and challenges of particular aspects of MLC and Cambodian governance, i.e., the traditional focus on state-to-state andministry-to-ministry dialogue that often impedes voice on the part of local stakeholders. Moreover, this question is central to ensuring that the development of the new platform is as transparent as possible.

   • How can this data best contribute to an “early warning system” for local communities such that these individuals are able to have sufficient time to prepare for potential “shocks” stemmingfrom changes to water flow along the Mekong?
   • How can the platform be developed via a bottom-up, community-based approach – avoiding the mistakes of prior, top-down policy frameworks that have left those for whom developmental programming has been designed to support without voice and influence in the creation of those frameworks?
   • What lessons can be drawn for the platform from global best practice? More frankly, is current global best practice fit for purpose? How might it be improved? Multi-state governance of water resources is not a new issue, rather it is a long-standing source of dispute and mis-management. From the Nile in Africa to the Rio Paraguay in South America to the Great Lakes in North America, water governance has a lengthy history and a diversity of policy frameworks have been developed in this area. What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of these governance models?

    • Finally, how can MLC best engage with and complement the work of the MRC? Institutional fragmentation in water governance – exacerbated by great power competition in the region and a surfeit of subregional cooperation region mechanisms – is now the main and unfortunate hallmark of Mekong governance. How can such fragmentation be avoidedin the context of the sharing of hydrological data and what positive externalities could stem from such a process in terms of both developmental outcome as well as confidence-building measures to lessen the possibility of conflict in the region?

By thecompletion of a thorough study examining each of these inter-related question, a genuine picture of the challenges and opportunities presented by MLC’s new platform can be fully grasped, providing a basis for the strengthening of voice in the future development of Mekong management and governance and positively impacting local communities on several different levels.